Legal Maneuvering in Hershberger Case Is Mind Numbing, And Here’s Why It Makes Me Nervous
What to make of the latest legal twists in the Vernon Hershberger raw milk saga? I thought about trying to doctor a photo of Hershberger to put on the site so it would look like a human pretzel, because that's what he seems to have become--a legal pretzel.
Yesterday there was a hearing about whether Hershberger should have filed an administrative appeal with the WI Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) shortly after the state attempted to shut down his farm store serving a food club, in 2010, via a holding order.
The good news is that more than 100 people braved blizzard conditions to attend the hearing in the Sauk County Courthouse in Baraboo.
The bad news? Most of those attending the hearing probably couldn’t tell you what the hell the hearing was really about. The whole thing, as I understand it, is about whether Hershberger’s lawyers can call witnesses to testify about the benefits of raw milk. The state is arguing he can’t, since he didn’t exercise his right to appeal the holding order back in 2010. Hershberger says his religious beliefs prohibited him initiating a legal action against the state in the form of the appeal. But don’t hold me to what I’ve just said.
There was all kinds of maneuvering yesterday by the state prosecutors, the defense lawyers, and the judge...about Biblical statements prohibiting covering legal activities, which Hershberger gives precedence over bureaucratic rules, and which he is arguing is part of his religious freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. There was arguing as well about whether Hershberger did indeed appeal a second holding order placed on his farm, and whether that showed he wasn't as wedded to his principles as he now claims.
But the real decision making is likely to come down to much the same considerations that drove WI Judge Patrick Fiedler to rule a year-and-a-half ago that, under Wisconsin law, we don’t have the right to the food of our choosing...hell, we don’t even have the right to the milk of our own cow.
The judge in the Hershberger case, Guy Reynolds, concluded yesterday’s hearing with an order to both sides--he wants the prosecution and defense to file briefs on whether the initial holding order filed by the state against Hershberger in 2010 was subject to appeal according to Wisconsin statutes. That says to me that Judge Reynolds is looking for specific provisions in Wisconsin law to hang his hat on that Hershberger should have filed an appeal...much like Judge Fiedler hung his hat on Wisconsin law to conclude that the state’s laws about dairy permits reign supreme, even overrule any fundamental right we may have to feed ourselves and our families the foods of our choosing.
I find myself thinking back to the earlier days of this case, when Hershberger sat in court at the defense table holding a Bible, saying he was defending himself and the Bible was his law. Part of his reasoning was he didn’t want to be drawn into the convoluted legal process, "not to join in their game...Once they get you in their game, they'll suck you dry.” Boy, did Hershberger understand well how thoroughly convoluted and distorted our legal system is.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t have engaged lawyers to represent him--he really had no choice if he wanted to avoid being railroaded into a guilty verdict. But he understood early on that the case was about something very straightforward: his right to sell food directly to a private group of individuals, under contract.
I guess I worry about whether that basic question will ever make it out from under from the morass of legalities now being argued about, to be judged by a jury.
Then again, there is a lot to be said for the argument that, regardless of how the case turns out, Hershberger and his lawyers are making the state sweat through what has to be a terribly uncomfortable process. The longer the case goes on, and the more people brave blizzards to be in the courtroom, the more people will be asking themselves: Now, why is the state going to such great lengths to penalize a humble dairy farmer who has never made anyone sick, and every day makes lots of people more healthy?
In the meantime, though, DATCP appears to be trying to consolidate its authority under Judge Fiedler's decision that essentially gave the agency carte blanche over dairy farms. One farmer told me recently that the agency is issuing a "Notice" to dairy farmers holding Grade A dairy licenses who are found to be selling raw milk. The "Notice" forbids any raw milk sales for three years. If the farmer is caught selling raw milk within the three years, the license is revoked, essentially putting the farmer out of business, since most Wisconsin dairy farmers who sell raw milk also have Grade A dairy licenses.
These "Notices," which are understood to have been issued to at least a couple of farmers, provide for no negotiation or appeal. And there appears to be no acknowledgment that Wisconsin law allows "incidental" sales of raw milk by holders of Grade A licenses. If the state wins its case against Hershberger, look for DATCP to consolidate its authority over dairies so it is complete. That helps explain further why the stakes are so high, and the legal path so frustratingly meandering. Every legal point is being fought tooth and nail for advantage.
(Additions have been made to this post since it was first published.)
This site's mission is to provide news and analysis about food rights and raw milk. Increasingly, our access to privately available food is under attack by government and industry forces that seek to impose their choices on us. The Complete Patient seeks to provide up-to-date information and encourage the development of community to maintain traditional food acquisition options.
straight out of "Alice Through the Looking Glass" the classic old crazy-making = "jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today" ... . the longer you wallow in that swamp, the worse it gets
For those interested in the big frame of reference = addressing ‘whence cometh this illogical opposition to normalization of the market for raw milk?’, I highly recommend the article ‘The Disruptor’ in March 2013 Wired magazine. Clayton Christensen says “Smart companies fail because they do everything right. They cater to high-profit –margin customers and ignore the low end of the market, where disruptive innovations emerge from.” His theory applies perfectly to the decline of the dairy industry. The article has a cute quote : “I wasn’t going to be suckered into telling Andy Grove what he should do with Intel. I knew nothing about semi-conductors. Instead of telling him what to think, I told him how to think”.
Last week our private dairy purchased a couple of new cows, sight unseen. When they showed up, the herdsman told the delivery guy : “the managers aren’t going to like those cows. Better load them right back up and take them back.” Which he did. Reason being ; they had come from a commercial dairy, where their tails had been cut off. We never told our shareholders “what to think” … they come to us already thinking for themselves. We then tell them how we think about farming … dairying in particular. Consumers demanding humane treatment of the cows will soon reach a tipping point in public opinion. Well before it does, the Stalin-ist model, predicated as it is upon confined animal feeding operations, will fail for the reasons explained in Christensen’s book ‘The Innovator’s Dilemma’.
"Boy, did Hershberger understand well how thoroughly convoluted and distorted our legal system is."
How awful that he is subjected to the tortures of the system he pegged correctly.
"The longer the case goes on, and the more people brave blizzards to be in the courtroom......."
Keeping the whole ordeal in the public's eye will keep tptb under a microscope. The feed lot dairies can never produce safe raw milk, and the movement for healthier foods, including raw dairy is only growing. TPTB can never compete with the healthy foods. Why would the gmo people spend so much money on the labeling issues if it were safe? People don't want it in their foods and if it is on the label chances are, less people would buy it.
OT: 1 in 50 kids have autism, seems since it is increasing in the population there'd be a rush to find the cause. Changing the definition to mask the increase is BS. "There is no Asperger's anymore. it's "Autism Spectrum Disorder" according to the newest DSM. (per comments)." "It's identified by making judgments about a child's behavior." OMG Isn't that a scientific way to diagnose! More reason to push drugs on kids.
http://news.yahoo.com/health-officials-1-50-school-kids-autism-040223285...
I would bet that arthretic pain is grossly misdiagnosed and a bucket DX when they don't research what the true cause is. With the forced contamination of our water; skeletal fluorosis is probably more prevailant than stated here in the US. Since the woman drank a "pitcher" of tea, I would assume she used grocery store tea bags and it was iced tea, as hot tea isn't put in a pitcher. I really can't see someone using 100 teabags a day, that would be awfully expensive. Lipton 100bags is @$4.90.... $5 per day for 17 yrs? Yeah right....
I would doubt the tea was much of a contributing cause. It was the water. Did they test that theory? Doubtful. Also processed foods contain tap water...as does sodas, etc. So fluoride is obtained from numerous sources not just the home faucet. Fluoride also becomes more concentrated when you boil your water. Duh. It takes a long time for the bones to completely remodel themselves.
http://news.yahoo.com/too-much-tea-causes-unusual-bone-disease-222359924...
And to further confuse the numbers they now pay schools for every Autism diagnosis. And the vaccinations continue. Does anyone know if doctors are proscribing a healthy diet as treatment for Autism yet?
rawmilkmike
It appears that the scientific community accepts anecdotal evidence for them diagnosing autism, yet they don't for improved health from raw dairy--follow the money. Screening seems to be asking questions from a check list; as if every kid is the same! I think it has been the parents that figured out that diet affects the autistic child and they have worked towards minimizing gut issues.
Doubtful they will admit the cause. Again follow the money. If genetics are a factor, it probably is linked to the huge amount of toxic vaccinations injected into kids. There was a court case a few years age, one or both parents were doctors, they sued, their child apparently did have a gene that was affected by vaccines and became autistic.....Does the health community check this before poking any kids? NO, they do not, so you don't know what reaction your kids will have.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/a-parents-guide-to-autism-sp...
http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2011/02/22/supreme-court-vaccine-ruling/1...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread918559/pg1
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gayle <gayleloiselle@gmail.com>
Date: March 20, 2013, 11:22:14 PM CDT
To: Gayle Loiselle <gayleloiselle@gmail.com>
Subject: Vernon's Hearing
Proving Wisconsinites are a hardy lot, I joined over 100 other folks who drove through a major snow storm to show support for Vernon Hershberger and attend his pre trial hearing. What stood out for me is that as people lined the hall they were smiling, inspired by the strength and conviction of Vernon and his family, and feeling good about taking a stand for food freedom. Here's my version of what happened.
As the proceedings started, defense argued that Vernon had a right to an evidentiary hearing. That he had the right to tell his story to the jury, not the states version of the " facts" but the actual truth. That they needed to hear whole story; Including the health benefits of this food, how DATCP destroyed 2000 pounds of milk claiming it was adulterated, the fact that this food belonged to his members, and that Vernon believed it to be a sin to let all that good nutritious food rot.
The State argued that Vernon violated a hold order placed on the food. They said his religious beliefs were irrelevant because an order is an order, that Vernon's religious beliefs were insincere and inconsistent and did not prevent him from filing an appeal to the hold order. Defense argued there are many references in the bible that speak to the principles by which Vernon lives and made that decision. Having seen Vernon represent himself with bible in hand several times, the Judge called a brief recess giving the defense the opportunity to confer with several people who pulled out bibles. They found several specific scriptures to prove the point.
After that, there was a lot of back and forth about issues the Judge eventually claimed didn't technically pertain to the reason for the hearing. It took a long time to sort out that the DATCP issued 3 separate hold orders, and the argument then became about whether the hold orders were in fact appealable. What came out was that the first hold order issued on June 2, did not state that the order was appealable. And that the 2nd and 3rd hold orders did. It was violation of the first hold order that was at issue.
Defense claimed the statute says the 1st hold order was not appealable, that it was an injunction giving the state 14 days to determine if the food was adulterated...which would make it an unappealable hold order.
The State argues Vernon had the right and chose not to appeal the hold order and then later insincerely claimed religious beliefs prevented him in doing so.
The judge told both sides to file briefs on what the statute means; was the first hold order that Vernon violated subject to appeal? Then of course they get to file responses to each others briefs and the Judge will make his ruling in a phone hearing on April 22. The trial is still scheduled for May 20-24.
In the end it was not about Vernon's 1st amendment rights, but rather about what the statue governing hold orders really means. Because if the hold order was not appealable then Vernon not appealing because of his religious beliefs is irrelevant. Which is what the hearing was suppose to be about. And what baring his ruling will have on the trial nobody seems to know, not even the judge. Follow that? Keep in mind this hearing came about because the State did not want evidence on the health benefits of raw milk to be presented to the jury.
What I want to know is how was Vernon suppose to know what his rights were if it takes 9 or 10 lawyers and a judge to interpret the law?
"What I want to know is how was Vernon suppose to know what his rights were if it takes 9 or 10 lawyers and a judge to interpret the law?"
I get it! They make up the rules as they go! There is a long history of biased cases that favor whomever makes the rules (and it isn't average farmer Joe/Jane).
Gayle,
Thanks so much for your cogent description of what went on at the Hershberger hearing last week. In its crispness, your account makes clearer than any legal or political argument ever could how depressingly sidetracked we all have become from the real issues at hand. It's perfectly understandable if the judge feels tangled in his own underwear. Everyone around him is as well. Everyone obviously needs to step back and figure out how to return to the issues at hand. But, then, I doubt the state wants to do that, for obvious reasons.
The amount of state resources devoted to this one case is mind-boggling. What a waste.
I'm so sorry Mr. Hershberger has to go through this. It must be agonizing for him. I'm grateful for his bravery, though. The pushing back from him and his supporters will only help the broader cause.
They also change the rules as they go. I sat there in the court room looking at Cheryl Daniels, Assistant Attorney for DATCP, knowing that about 12 years ago as an administrative Law Judge she ruled herd-shares to be legal in WI. There was also a time about 4 years ago that DATCP actually encouraged raw milk sale as a way for farmers to improve their income. The problem is most small organic farmers are busy growing food and raising animals, and most consumers are addicted to cheap convenient food stuff (and following rules) so what we are left with is the fox making the rules about access to the hen house.
if what you say about existence of a prior ruling on the issue of legality of a herdshare, then go find the paperwork from that case, and get it in as part of the set of facts. I strongly urge all-concerned to figure out the protocol for requesting leave from the Honourable Court, for status as an Intervenor. A good candidate would be some one who had contracted with Vernon Hershberger for a supply of milk, and had payed in advance. Logically, each and every single member of the "club", ought to have status BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR PROPERTY that was interferred-with, was it not?
Assertion of property rights is the anti-dote to what's going on here = red fascism
George Gordon went through all this, over the last 30 years. His opinions about how to deal with the govt. in a "takings action", are on his website audio archive
We went down that path with the Zinniker Farm back in 2009, we started with 49 interveners and ended with the the now infamous "Fiedler Ruling", you know the complete and utter crap that says there is no fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of our choice. This is the same judge who 3 weeks later quits to work for a law firm representing no other than Monsanto. Then just for fun he ran for president of the state bar. Seems there is flaw within the judicial system in WI that allows judges to back up the emboldened bureaucrats who are appointed by the politicians who are in bed with the mighty Monsanto who buys regulations on the open market. If DATCP, or FDA or CDC or some weak judge says fresh clear air causes asthma suddenly its a fact. And millions of over stressed, insecure, sick, compliant individuals who want the government to take care of things for them just believe it. We saw this when California residents fell prey to Monsanto's marketing campaign and voted down labeling of GMO's. So, set of facts you say...seems the truth no longer has anything to to with it.
The state is supposed to represent the 49 interveners. And again the contradiction "produce and consume". Which is it? Are they producers or consumers?
the State does not represent the Intervenors. The test for being an Intervenor, is : he or she will be affected by the potential ruling, and has something to contribute to the matter that is other-than the interests of other parties.
I think that's what makes food rights cases different. It's the district attorneys job to represent a state agency versus an individual not a state agency versus the people.
.....................................
Definition of State: "The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a case, "The State v. A. B.""
Gayle, I may have lost my right to comment. In all my ramblings on this website, I totally lost track of time and missed the March 18 hearing. Unbelievable.
…...................................
I was reading the Grassway motion for summary judgment from August 2011, which by the way is written very badly, sounds like it was written by the prosecution, and noticed an inconsistency.
…...................................
It says a 2004 order states; “Because the purpose of a milk producer license is to produce milk for the public, human food chain, “the license (and therefore, any ownership interest) may not be used solely for the purpose of allowing purchase of non-pasteurized milk and/or milk products.””
1. The state already said they consider the share owners, members of the general public because, for some reason, they don't recognize their cow share contract.
2. They are saying that the members are purchasing without selling. How is that even possible?
3. They are admitting that they are attempting to prevent consumers from buying raw milk when the law only addresses the sale of raw milk and assumes consumers don't want to purchase raw milk.
4. I assume they are saying raw milk is not milk otherwise the statement makes no since. When milk regulation first started pasteurized milk was not milk. We are allowing producers to redefine milk in their own image. I wonder where they obtained their creative license.
Mike, you can make up for it by coming out for the trial, May 20-24:)
The Fiedler ruling is further convoluted because the Grassway suit and the Zinniner/Nourished by Nature/private individuals suit are actually seperate lawsuits that were combined because DATCP claimed that they were dealing with the same issues, so to save the state money and resources we should combine them in court. Either way it appears to be a non-issue for the state...this case has been in the appeal process for over a year. We the people aren't letting it go though, Fiedler crossed a line when he said there is no right to produce and consume the foods of ones choice. In my opinion, that did more to fire up both activists and every day people in the food freedom movement than wining the case would have. Onward!
Is it really true that you can't tamper with a jury but it's ok to have the judge in your pocket?
I'll be there.
David
A legal pretzel is a very good way of describing the scenario.
This is not so much a struggle between Vernon and the state, as it is a struggle between our innate God given free will, and those who wish to subjugate us to their self-serving authority.
Vernon’s reverent faith in Gods authority has created a conundrum for the court. I think Vernon clearly understands that his dilemma is indicative of an ongoing millennial struggle with the “principalities and powers” or if you will “forces and authorities” that are maliciously at war with the natural order of God’s creation.
Ken
the threshold question being: "which god are we talking about, here?" the gods with whomMister Herberger is contending, are quite different than most presume. Get "Rulers of Evil" by Tupper F Saussy. Until you've read that book, you're ignorant of who created the Republic, and who really rules Ham-merica today ... I certainly was.
AHEM...
http://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/08147...
How is a cow share different that the multiple owners of a race horse? Race horses may have numerous owners, the trainers are the ones who train them, usually not the owners, just as the stable person cares for the horses, not the owner, and the jockey rides the horse. Some of those fancy dogs and dog shows are similar. Are there multiple owners of race cars? Breeding stock?
There is no doubt, tptb will attempt to make some kind of example of Mr. Hershberger, so they can discourage others. I hope that this whole ordeal is kept in the public's face, transparency. I do share what I learn with others.
I was really amazed that California voted down the gmo labeling.
Sylvia, the difference is cows are food animals. Interestingly though, the herd share contract "approved" by Cheryl Danials was modeled after a contract used by kraft. Seems kraft didn't "own" the cows or the farms the cows were kept on. Yet to destroy the herd share as a legal option DATCP reinterperted the statutes to mean people getting raw milk had to have what they call a "bobified interest in the farm". Its that pretzel logic David was talking about that changes to suit the political/corporate agenda ofthe day.
Your right about making an example of Vernon, DATCP with FDA support/mandate are spending many thousands of tax payers dollars to convict him, thereby criminalizing raw milk distribution - which is the goal. This is not just a directive of DATCP or local government, this attack on raw milk in WI was initiated by the conventional dairy industry and their bought and paid for FDA. I have emails from 2009 between the FDA and DATCP talking about infiltrating milk buying clubs to find the suspected Amish source of raw milk. They name names of people who have become my friends through this fight. We're just mons and dads trying to feed our kids healthy food, or we're sick, trying to find strength and health. Its so ironic that they use public health concern as their battle cry.
So, yes, there are lots of folks from WI and around the country who have been and continue to work very hard to keep Vernon's case in the public eye. And its working...there is a good amount of awareness here. Our biggest limiting factor is money. The opposition has deep pockets and professional marketing teams like what we saw in the CA GMO labeling fight. There is raw milk legislation being introduced in WI right now and the lobbying efforts against it have managed to turn the states biggest newspaper into their personal mouth piece.
But we are right. People are stepping up, professionals skilled in writing and PR, and artistic ability are joining the fight with everyday people who are volunteering countless hours on grass roots efforts. This is why over 100 people, many driving hours through a snow storm, came to show there support for Vernon AND their own right to choose what they eat. Thank you Sylvia, for your voice on this blog, and for spreading the word. Local level up is how we will win this fight!! Just look at the success in Maine!!
As said, the courts have shown biased results numerous times and they get away with it.
It is still amazing that so many still fall for the deep pocket/marketing ploys. There have been so many incidences, that has affected the public, yet they still follow like blind sheep. I think this is one aspect that may need to be looked into (the reasons may already be known by others)
This may be one small key, among many, that helps people to open their eyes and minds and make true informed choices. The scenario I usually see is: pink slime- the public finds out about it (never mind it came to light years before), now they say they don't want it, and some stores say they aren't selling it in their ground beef...yet it is still being sold in their stores in many forms..also people know about the nasty conditions at factory farms yet they say nothing (or maybe squeak an out-rage) and still buy the tainted foods... That makes no sense to me. Are they so drugged up they can't think for themselves?
Hi Gayle,
I think when referring to the Cheryl Daniels decision, you meant to say "bona fide interest in the farm."
I'm certainly not a lawyer, but based on my understanding of the law, the question of whether the club members ownership interest is bona fide or is merely perfunctory is an important distinction, and is probably one of the weak links in the raw milk side's case (the other being food safety, as I elaborate on below).
I'm not taking the state's side here, just offering my strategic analysis of the situation.
My first thought was that the judge was stymied by the states absurd request and the deferences strange response. Maybe you have to be a lawyer to be so ridiculous.
defences strange response
A question I will ask, though I don't expect a straightforward answer to this question from many in the raw milk movement:
What has Hershberger done to demonstrate his committment to food safety? Has he done anything? Any laboratory tests? A food safety plan, or just some basic documentation of what he does to ensure milk safety and quality?
You know that if FTCLDF manages to get Ted Beals to the stand, the state is going to start raising questions of the safety of Hershberger's milk, including his bacterial tests from the time when he used to ship milk commercially to a local cheese factory.
Is there any kind of contigency strategy here, or is Hershberger just going on his blind faith in God to try to win this case? I hate to break it to you folks, but God probably doesn't care whether Vernon goes to jail or not. If he was wise, he would start working on his food safety plan today.
Bill, it is completely disingenuous for an agency pushing pasteurised milk to say it is concerned for public safety. Pasteurisation does not improve any milk no matter how bad it is. It is DATCP's job to protect us from misbranding, adulteration, and unfair business practices. It is not their job to protect us from ourselves. The safety of milk is clearly not DATCP's responsibility. DATCP is one of the few government agencies that is actually required by law to have a conflict of interest.
...........
Like I said before the cheese industry is raw milks biggest competitor, so theirs no reason to take anything you say at face value. It is clear by your comments that you have no respect for your own customers when you call them bougie.
I do not see fluid raw milk as my competitor, Mike. As far as I am concerned, my competitors are the huge cheese processors who make who make large quantities of relatively flavorless commodity cheese varieties (cheddar, mozzerela, etc).
In fact, I have parterned with one farm that is involved in the fluid raw milk market, and am making raw milk cheese with their milk.
Can someone please try to answer my question: What is Vernon doing to demonstrate his commitment to food safety?
The problem is Bill, you won't accept a "straightforward answer".
.........................
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
Upton Sinclair
US novelist & socialist politician (1878 - 1968)
.........................
When a farmer sells his milk for $4.00 a gal. it drives up the price of milk, which certainly affects all cheese makers, not just the big ones.
........................
Vernon's transparency and the fact that his milk is raw demonstrates his commitment to food safety and the state has chosen not to know anything about food safety so they would not understand the answer if the question were asked.
Funny you mention this, Mike. I actually pay my farmers about twice the going rate of conventional commodity milk. But in return, I expect higher quality milk than conventional commodity milk, and food safety is a major part of this.
I'm glad you quoted Upton Sinclair, who as you point out was a socialist. But I don't think its applicable in my case. Unlike John Umhoefer and the "good old boys" at the Wisconsin Cheese Maker's Association, I actually support raw milk legalization. I just think it needs to meet higher quality and safety standards than raw milk for pastuerization.
The closest I have gotten to a straightforward answer to my question so far is actually from Gayle, when she suggested that I ask Vernon himself. She's right.
$2.00 a gallon bill.
Bill, a friend posted this on FB last night or yesterday; if perfectly describes a lot of people like you.
"Can I kill my baby?" "Of course." "Can I drink raw milk from the farmer of my choice raised to the standards of my choosing?" "Absolutely not... you are too stupid to make such decisions. Leave it to us 'experts'."
One could easily add a caption, "Drink raw milk from the farmer of my choice?" "No."
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=599815130047708&set=a.4295000937...
Like I said, John, I didn't expect a straightforward answer to my question from many in the raw milk movement. You have confirmed my expectations. And for the record, I drink raw milk, so your above point is moot. As for killing babies... that is certainly something that E. Coli O157:H7 and Listeria Monocytogenes can do.
Perhaps someone else can take a shot at answering my question. What is Vernon doing to demonstrate his commitment to food safety?
As a point of reference... When Michael Schmidt was tried in Ontario, he made his committment to food safety very clear, and it certainly was an important factor in the initial ruling acquiting him of the charges. Is Vernon making a similair effort to demonstrate his commitment to food safety? If so, I'd be curious to learn about what steps he has taken.
Vernon has demonstrated his commitment to food safety by providing a clean wholesome product to his members for many years now. Actions speak louder than words. I don't believe the state has made any accusations about the safety of his milk--you know if they had evidence they would have gone after him. For Vernon to talk about his safety practices in a vacuum would be suicidal--FDA/DATCP (and apologists like yourself)--would inevitably find "holes" in his plan. Kind of like when they say there is no evidence about the health benefits of raw milk. You show them the European studies and they say, "Well, you know the studies didn't define raw milk the way we do" or "The studies didn't filter for two variables we would have covered."
No, best for Vernon to save his safety data--if and when it comes up at the trial, he can answer the questions in front of an unbiased jury, and not the sharks out there to do him in.
Your assesment of Vernon's history of a "clean wholesome product" has been contradicted by some of his club members with whom I've spoken, David. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply about me with your "shark" comment, but I most certainly do not think that Vernon should be going to jail over this and I hope that he is acquited.
The reason I raise the point about food safety is because it is something that he and his defense team need to think very seriously about, especially if they are fighting the state to be able to call Ted Beals to the stand to discuss the safety of raw milk. The questions will inevitably arise about the cleanliness of Vernon's milk, and he ought to have independent laboratory tests to demonstrate his committment to producing clean milk.
I certainly hope you are right that he has "safety data" waiting in the wings. But then one has to wonder if any of his club members have access to this data, much less the ability to understand and interpret it.
Bill
Who’s food safety standards are you referring to?
The best answer I can give you is that no one has become ill after consuming Vernon’s milk, so I suspect his raw milk safety protocol if there is any is A-Okay. On the other hand consider Edwin Shank and Organic Pastures who regularly test their milk and run impeccable operations yet they have made people sick.
The man who voyages strange seas must of necessity be a little unsure of himself. It is the man with the flashy air of knowing everything, who is always with it, that we should beware of.
Fred Hoyle
Ken
I wasn't talking about standards, Ken.
And as a matter of fact, I have talked to several of Vernon's ex-club members who have reported occassional G.I. distress from his milk, which they haven't experienced with milk from other farms. Some of these other farmers have also reported similair stories from their customers who have switched farms. (I'm not naming names)
Bill
Your query with respect to Vernon Hershberger’s “commitment to food safety” based on “laboratory tests”, “documentation” and “the adoption of a plan” begs the need to follow a set of standards.
Your discussion with some of Vernon’s customer’s and their GI distress is little more then anecdotal scuttlebutt.
Ken
You are right that it is anecdotal, Ken. But so is the evidence of the safety of Vernon's milk unless he is doing the things you just mentioned.
Ken, Bill is obviously a competitor. Is Mark McAfee also a competitor. I realise Mark does advocate for raw milk and he, unlike Bill, doesn't call his customers bougie, but he is trying to sell his milk outside of California. Isn't RAWMI kind of like the missionaries sent out before colonisation. RAWMI may be well intentioned but it lays the groundwork for costly California style raw milk legislation. There's a reason Mark is the only organic raw milk distributor in California. Can working class people afford to pay over $14.00 a gal. For milk.
Mike, you obviously don't know me very well.
A more appropriate question would be: can working class people afford to pay potentially over a million dollars in hospital bills because their child comes down with HUS from an E. Coli O157:H7 infection? Remember, we don't have universal healthcare in America (so-called "Obamacare" is really just a giveaway to the private insurance industry, and is no where close to true universal single-payer healthcare) so... whose going to pay the hospital bill if the farmer doesn't have liability insurance? Its funny how the raw milk libertarians constantly avoid answering this question.
The reason Mark is the only organic raw milk distributor in California is because California has literally less than one fifth of the number of dairy farms than Wisconsin has. California's dairy farming is highly consolidated into a few large operations when compared to our dairy industry in the upper Midwest. Yet, Wisconsin's dairy industry produces the most value in dairy products, because 90% of our milk goes into butter and cheese which have a higher market value than fluid milk products.
Right now, the biggest factor that is going to increase the price of raw milk in the upper midwest is the skyrocketing cost of farmland. IMO, Scott Walker's proposal to liberalize Wisconsin's farmland ownership laws (laws which date back to the birth of our dairy industry in the 1880s) is a FAR bigger threat to the future of affordable raw milk in Wisconsin than any RawMI-style food safety program.
http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/budget-provision-to...
"Mike, you obviously don't know me very well. A more appropriate question would be: can working class people afford to pay potentially over a million dollars in hospital bills because their child comes down with HUS from an E. Coli" Bill, this statement shows who you are. I'm not even going to read the rest. No one that knows anything about milk and only someone with a major conflict of interest would say something like this. I might as well be talking to Fred Pritzker or Bill Marler. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Raw milk prevents diarrhoea it doesn't cause it. HUS is not normally dangerous to children and is caused by medical malpractice. E. Coli has not been proven to cause diarrhoea.
Correction.....Organic Pastures is NOT the only raw milk producer here in California, we happen to have Claravale Farms who also provides raw milk to our health food stores as well. There's also a number of other farms where raw milk can be purchased, although they do not provide production to the stores. And of an interesting note, according to various sources, California is still the top producer in milk with Wisconsin being second. Now that may soon change as more & more dairy farms continue to shut down in California as Mark MacAfee has mentioned before on this site.
Just to clarify, Claravale is not certified "organic" yet they follow an organic regime and their herd is jerseys.
http://claravaledairy.com/faq.html
Correct, Sylvia, I just don't understand why Bill and Rawmilkmike keep saying we only have one raw milk producer here in California which is completely incorrect. As far as farms that provide to our health food stores go, there are these two raw milk producers that do so. Yes, Organic Pastures is by far larger than Claravale, but at least I can have access to either of these farms products at my local health food stores any time that I want. We are very fortunate here in California to benefit from these two raw milk farms.
Maybe people don't think about Claravale because they are not vocal like Mark at OP?
That may be so, Sylvia, I do know that they are definitely more private.
Deb, I'm from Wisconsin and I'd like to know more about California raw milk. I said California has only one organic raw milk dairy for two reasons. First because that's what Mark McAfee said and second to make a point about Wisconsin raw milk legislation. Right now in Wisconsin the state says raw milk is illegal even though the laws doesn't say that. The farm to consumer legal defense fund says we could probably win a challenge to the states policy but recommends changing the law instead. That sounds great except for two problems. Number one; my kids need their milk today, changing the law is going to take forever and maybe longer than that. Our last governor vetoed the bill even though he had promised to support it. The new governor basically says he will not support it if it ever makes it out of committee. Number two; our raw milk bills only pertain to direct farm sales which like I said are already legal without any costly and useless additional testing. This is why I'm trying to understand what's going on in California where raw milk is said to be legal. According to that CDC foodnet survey there are just as many raw milk drinkers in Wisconsin where raw milk is supposedly illegal as there are in California where raw milk is said to be legal and to make things even more bizarre that California raw milk raid was even worse than the Wisconsin raid. I don't understand what's going on here? Granny McAfee what big teeth you have? Don't get me wrong I love McAfee but I'm just sayn.
rawmilkmike,
I think Mark McAffee is "certified" organic, where Claravale is not "certified, yet Claravale appears to be running his dairy just as if it was certified without paying any fancy fees. Those are the only 2 raw milk dairies that I know of that sell in stores, and Mark also sells at some farmers markets. California supposedly has strict rules for selling anything in stores.
I haven't heard any up dates on the harassment california was doing to the herd-shares..so I don't know what's become of that. The sheriff in El Dorado county had said he wasn't going to harass the small farmers as the state had requested (bravo to him). One small farm in particular is owned and run by a retired firefighter, a retired deputy and a soon to be retired nurse practitioner- 3 upstanding citizens who have followed the law. As a matter of fact, this particular farm has been working with UC Davis and testing her milk all along and Davis had also been monitoring her cows, as the ladies want to produce the healthiest milk possible. It was California's dept of health that was skewing the law and harassing farmers. That's it in a nutshell.
You know, this subject is so frustrating because every time I try to find information about the laws in any state all I ever get are articles and blogs which were written back in 2007 and 2008. Rarely do I find anything really current. I even have trouble finding stuff on the 'net about my own state, but I do try to stay in the loop at least here where I live. Is this information hard to find because TPTB don't want current info on the web? I could go to the dot gov web sites but I try to avoid those for obvious reasons.
Anyway, I found a very interesting letter from Dr. Ronald L. Garthwaite, BA, MA, PhD who is the owner of Claravale Dairy - but again, very frustrating, because it's not dated so I have NO idea when this was written. Nevertheless, his information on bacteria is worth knowing if you don't already have a grip on how it works.
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/rawmilk/raw-milk/
*My biggest complaint with the site on which this letter is posted ( www.thedoctorwithin ) is that nothing ever has a date on it. Some of the articles have references at the bottom and you can sorta tell from the most recent dates you find within those, but that's a pretty iffy way to do things. I've tried to contact Dr. O'Shea about this issue but he's very busy and I would imagine this web site is the last thing he worries about, but if that's so then he should take it down or update it, IMPHO.
Here's a letter written to Arnie when he was still the gov of CA and it's dated 2007, but still the information about coliforms is interesting. I can't imagine information like this would change no matter how many years have passed. And if it has changed, shouldn't it be made more public?
http://wewantorganicfood.com/2007/11/07/dear-arnold-about-ab-1735-and-th...
Maybe the bigger message here should be to all the folks who have web sites - - make sure your articles are dated. I found two about the AB 1735 issue at OP, one at FTCLDF, even one at the CDFA - not dated. Sometimes within the article there will be a date, but that doesn't always mean much. I now know this bill was circa 2008, but nevertheless, for those of us who don't live in California and weren't following this at the time, how are we supposed to know if the information we find is current or old hat? Please include dates on anything you write for the 'net.
What got me started down this track is the mention, in David's article here, about the ND law. The last I knew, ND could only sell raw milk if it was designated as pet food.
It is very difficult to find information about laws, even on the govt sites. Some of the govt sites aren't updated either, the information can be years old and out-dated. It's very frustrating, makes one wonder what they're hiding.
Yes, indeedy.
The other day I was researching something where I had to use the words pasteurized milk in the search title. Amazingly, a whole bunch of stuff about raw milk popped up! It's usually very hard to find information on raw milk unless you're looking for something bad (like the encomium writing lawyers).
:o)
Mike - I do know you are from Wisconsin (as I used to be, as well), remember you & I have discussed this previously. I grew up on a dairy farm in Wisconsin & then left that area about 1 1/2 yrs after high school to go out west. That was over 40yrs ago. Wisconsin has changed so much since that time & if my family who had had their dairy farms back then were alive today, they would be appalled by what has happened in Wis. I do know that for the past 10 yrs, every time that I have to come to Milwaukee (when it is my turn to teach at our Corporate Headquarters) I cannot buy ANY raw milk for my consumption when I am there. With regards to this post of yours, I am sorry but I truly do not understand what you are tying to say here, perhaps you can elaborate a bit more. Yes, Organic Pastures does carry 'Organic Certification', Claravale does follow all organic certification requirements, but they do not carry the certification for a variety of reasons. In fact, there are many farmers in California that have dropped 'Organic Certification' because they feel that the certification process is too expensive, that the organic certification also allows some questionable items to be included, etc, yet these farmers do indeed follow all the organic processes. This is where it is valuable to know your farmer and their practices. If I know that that farm does follow all the organic processes, then I don't have a problem that they do not have the 'Organic Certificate'. I do buy and consume both Organic Pastures and Claravale products, but I do buy more of the Organic Pastures products. Also, Organic Pastures produces raw milk butter (major yumo factor here!), raw milk cream and raw milk cheese, where as Claravale only produces raw milk. We are very fortunate to have both of these farms producing and distributing raw milk and raw milk products to a number of our natural food stores through out California. Their work and contributions is what makes raw milk consumption in California possible. Mark does a phenomenal job in promoting, educating and sharing of valuable information to everyone. I'm not sure about your snide comment of " Granny McAfee what big teeth you have?" is supposed to mean nor what you are trying to infer with that comment. I'm also not sure what you mean by your statement of "This is why I'm trying to understand what's going on in California where raw milk is said to be legal", raw milk production and consumption is indeed legal in California, not just 'said' to be legal. Another one of your comments is also very confusing, you state "to make things even more bizarre that California raw milk raid" what raw milk raid are you referring to? Are you referring to the Rawesome Food Club raid? The Rawesome raid was much more than the fact that they had raw goat's milk and raw goat's milk products, which was from a herd-share that the club members owned (they did not provide raw cow's milk). Yes, the media billed the raid as being solely about raw goat's milk, but the raid was much much more than just that. So in the last part of your post you state "Don't get me wrong I love McAfee but I'm just sayn.", I truly do not know what you are 'sayn' by that comment. So perhaps you can elaborate a little more on what you are trying to ask and perhaps I can better answer you.
I'm not sure how to explain. Lets see. Why is raw milk so expensive in California? At $14+ per gal. it may as well be illegal. Why doesn't everyone just buy Organic Pastures raw milk? Is the milk cheaper or better from the cow shares? In California is raw milk illegal to sell in supermarkets? Is it illegal for the small dairy s to sell their milk raw? It's confusing because raw milk consumption seems to be more or less the same in all 50 states whether it's "legal" or not. Given Wisconsin's incidental sales exemption and the number of small dairy s you could say raw milk is more legal in Wisconsin than it is in California. My remarks about Mr. McAfee come from my possibly over active imagination. My last name is actually Grimm.
You're missing the point Bill. An exchange of food directly between a farmer and a patron is outside the states police power. There is a segment of the population that believes they require government intervention to ensure their "safety"; cthat government regulations = food saftey. Thats fine, let them eat food coming from that system if it makes them feel safe. However, what you can't seem to wrap your head around is that there is also a segment of the population who not only prefer to, but are quite capable of, making food saftey decisions for themselves. Regardless of the legal wrangling and twisting of the spirit of the constitution we do infact have the right to "opt out" of the industrial food system. I don't have to eat at McDonalds, and you don't have to join Vernon Hershberger's food club. Point being I don't trust McDolalds to provide healthy food and you don't trust Vernon to provide safe milk...it's our choice to make.
The case against Vernon is not about food safety, but I'm pretty sure you already know that. Vernon is a very honest, straight forward enthusiastic farmer who is happy to share his knowledge with anyone who is genuinely interested in what he has to say. So if you really want to know how Vernon manages food safety on his farm I suggest you ask him. That is of course if you are genuine.
Gayle, Bill's comment above shows and his comments elsewhere, he doesn't think very many of us are able to make our own decisions, especially regarding raw milk. I believe he once said, "better to leave it to us experts."
Like Bloomberg in NY, we either lack the ability or opportunity or education or intellect, and thus, are in need of parenting by others.
That is the real divide, those who think they have the right, nay, even the duty to nanny others. The Dolores Umbridge's of the world.
John, I have no problem if an informed adult consents to consume raw milk of questionable safety or quality. I DO, however, have a problem when that milk is fed to young children, who are one of the most vulnerable populations to listeria and E. Coli infections. HUS, for example, can cause permenant kidney damage. Again, I must ask, who is going to be stuck with the hospital bill if such an incident occurs and the farmer has no liability insurance?
As a raw milk cheese maker, I certainly believe I have a duty to produce safe food. Food safety is not optional. It is not merely a "target." It is an obligation.
John, I agree, that is the divide. Ironically, those who feel so compelled to nanny are the worst type of elitists out there, creating a dumber and dumber society with each passing generation. They honestly believe the general public is too stupid to make such important decisions as what to eat for dinner. I guess the question then is, what do we do to close the divide? How do we empower people to think for themselves, confront corrupt systems, reject the relative comforte that lies within the myth of safety through government intervention?
Well, based on my past coversations with him, John seems to believe that people are too dumb and/or evil to behave ethically without a belief in God and a belief in eternal damnation if they behave immorally.
Its ironic because his own actions seem to suggest quite the contrary -- that a belief in god can justify the worst kinds of ignorance, negligence, and blind nationalism.
The "divide" is not about nannying. Quite the contrary -- the divide is between those who have power and those who do not. And of course, America being a thoroughly capitalist nation, power flows from the ownership of private property. So the real divide is between those who own property and those who do not. Its a story as old as civilization itself -- the story of class struggle. The "nanny state" nonsense is just a distraction.
Clarification:
The "nanny state" drivel is just a *petit bourgeois* distraction from the real issues of systemic state oppression that our society faces.
I also believe the "nanny state" talk is drivel but only because it suggest that the states disingenuous statements on food safety are true.
Gayle,
years ago I worked as a travel RN (contracted for X period of time at various places) One of the places I worked at was a doctors office. There were 3 MDs and other health care personnel. This office was in a large city and about 3/4s of the patients were on numerous psych drugs. These were the police, city officials, health care people, firefighters,etc. I think the drugs make it so they just don't care, or just don't have the energy to take action.
1. if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth to many-this is what tptb have done
2. I know I sound like a broken record; short bullet statement facts, followed by countering whatever lies have been told, pictures both good and bad helps; many are visual. People will have information over-load if they are bombarded with too much and not retain it and/or ignore it.
3. word of mouth, the internet, local flyers,etc (be sure to find out local laws on flyer handout)
Bill often doesn't have a point, but he loves to meander around a given point from someone else. He is obviously not in favor of raw milk the way those of us who grew up drinking it are, nor those who make that choice today. He is only in favor of raw milk because raw milk cheeses sell for a higher price. He is a businessman not a raw milk drinker, apparently, but he's perfectly willing to make a buck off artisnal cheese because it's more profitable. What a hypocrite.
If I was just in it for the money, D. Smith, I would not have gone into artisan cheese making. My brother makes far more than I do by working in the corporate world, and he actually has healthcare coverage (I do not currently).
I chose the path less travelled, and it sure as heck wasn't for the money.
I am in favor of raw milk because I believe that small dairy farmers should be paid a fair price for their milk. It also tastes better, and makes better cheese. If Dean Foods, Land O' Lakes, Foremost Farms, and Dairy Farmers of America paid their farmers what I pay mine, we wouldn't have the dearth of small dairy farms that we have today.
As for cheese prices, I charge what I have to in order to make ends meet, and my business is still not yet profitable (hopefully it will be by this summer). If I could sell my cheese for the same cheapo prices as the big processors, to increase its availability to lower income people, I would do it in a heartbeat. At the very minimum, people on Food Stamps should still be able to get good quality raw milk artisan cheese. And they will be able to get mine soon, because it will be in my local natural foods co-op, which accepts food stamps and even gives those folks a 10% discount.
That's a low shot, D. Smith. Really low. I can't believe you would suggest that. Have I ever suggested that a single one of these raw milk farmers is just in it for the money? (And I could easily make that argument, because they get far more money selling directly to consumers than they do to the processors). No, I have not. I have never suggested that.
You disgust me.
Oh waaaah waaaah.
waaaaah waaaaah the big bad regulators are coming to "nanny state" us.
D, next to the definition of Internet Troll is a picture of Bill Anderson.
You are constructing a straw man, Gayle.
Firstly, please show me where in the Constitution it says anything about a right to "opt out" of the industrial food system or a right to consume raw milk? It doesn't. In fact, the constitution very clearly gives the government the power to regulate commerce, in the commerce clause.
Secondly, I have never said I do not trust Vernon to provide safe milk. I'm simply asking what steps he is taking to demonstrate his comittment to food safety. I suppose you are right about one thing -- if I really wanted an answer to my question I should ask him.
Speaking of straw men Bill, you have been accused a few times on here by others. Good example, I'm pretty sure you understood my last post comment regarding the apple sauce analogy, yet you resorted to deflecting and redirecting the conversation. And yes Salatin may not be a raw milk producer but he is an expert in his field and doesn't come on here claiming to be one as it pertains to raw milk, unlike some other people we know. I'm pretty sure there are many parallels between beef production and milk production as well as dealing with government regulatory entities, which is an entirely different ball game from cooking, packaging and reselling/serving foods made from the raw products.
Here's some good reading for you:
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/08/04/how-to-spot-a-narcissist/
To address your applesauce analogy, Ora, there's a very good reason why a professional applesauce maker would be concerned about the quality and safety of the apples that s/he is using, and would have specialized knowledge about the various indicators of apple quality and safety. And this would be especially true if the applesauce maker was making raw applesauce (although, I'm not sure why anyone would do that, but for the sake of this analogy...)
As for Salatin, there are many important differences between the beef and dairy industry. Dairy is regulated by FDA, beef by USDA. Dairy cows must be milked twice a day every day, and milk is highly perishible so it must be turned into something less perishible (i.e. CHEESE) in very short order. In the case of a beef industry, on the other hand, if the abattoirs are full this week, you can always wait until next week or next month to slaughter the animals and have the meat frozen. In the dairy industry, we do not have that kind of flexibility. Milk that is more than 3 or 4 days old begins to degrade enzymatically (although it may not be noticable immediately to the senses) and will produce inferior quality cheese (or other value-added dairy products).
I think that the beef/dairying divide may help to explain alot about Salatin's lackadaisical attidue about food safety. As I've learned through my years in the dairy industry, it requires considerable discipline and rigor to be involved in dairy production, probably much moreso than the beef industry.
Bill, can you produce actual evidence that Salatin has a "lackadaisical attitude about food safety," in a book, in actual live footage, an article, or some other place... or is this your usual tar and feather without evidence approach to things? Or is it just because he doesn't agree with YOU and a particular (and probably wrong, based on information I have shared here in terms of how much of modern "science" is incorrect, up to 80% or more) paradigm that he gets such a label?
I think you need the nickname "the tolerant totalitarian."
I can think of dozens of examples where Joel has invited testing of his chickens and other products by the state. They would not take him up on it I believe.
So, Bill thinks we should have nanny state laws. The rest of us do not. Which way do you think this is going to go? Nanny staters, eventually, get what they ask for - over-regulation. And that's what we're gonna end up with (all the way around, not just with raw milk and 16 oz drinks) just as sure as you're reading this. Just look at the track that tobacco laws have taken in the past 15-20 years. Slowly but surely the rights of smokers have been reduced and are dwindling to the point now where they aren't going to be able to smoke in their own homes. And that's just one example of how it works - - and has worked since about the mid 1800's.
If we have nanny state laws soon he'll get his wish about parents not being able to feed their children what they want to feed them. I wonder how well that will go over? No single agency will be able to monitor what parents do, so that leaves the food market wide open for complete overhaul by the phake phood producers/criminals - which they will do by eliminating organic foods and making GMO foods the only thing available. I don't see how this can go any other way is nanny state laws are implemented.
Its amazing how you raw milk libertarians can construct straw men, D Smith. You infer positions and beliefs which I have never stated, and ascribe those positions/beliefs to me so that you can demonize me as the "enemy" because of my athiesm and socialism.
For the record, D Smith, I do not support "nanny state" laws. I support raw milk producers taking responsibility for food safety as a basic act of solidarity with each other and with the consuming public.
I do not think that God is going to ensure the safety of the milk. Nor do I think that merely "being inspected by your consumers" is going to ensure safety. Laboratory testing can detect things which you can't tell simply by looking around the milking parlor and judging whether things look clean. And it can sure as hell tell you things about the milk which God won't.
Let me know the next time God tells you that your milk has high coliform counts.
You cannot make even one post without bringing politics into it, can you? You are blindly stupid if you think for one minute that what you suggested about people feeding their children whatever they wish being controlled by "someone" not being a nanny state issue. You are absurdly NOT making a case for yourself when you state you aren't in favor of nanny state laws. You most certainly are and you can also leave God out of it since you do not believe in such an entity. I never mentioned God at all. Take your straw man theories and go home.
D Smith,
I was trying to be ironic by introducing God into it, since I know you have never brought God up. I guess my ironic humor was lost on you. Sorry.
Please point to one example of me advocating for nanny state laws. I have not. I have advocated for food safety. I have polemized against libertarianism. On one occassion I even defended the right of a municipal government to enact regulations limiting soft drink size (though I did not defend these regulations on their own merits). But I have never advocating for "nanny state" laws, and even if I did, so what? The biggest infringements on civil liberties do not come from "nanny state" types of regulations, they come from the military-industrial complex and the police.
typo:
I have *polemicized* against libertarianism.
"Its amazing how you raw milk libertarians" Makes you sound like an Internet Troll Bill.
So Bill, I assume that your source of raw milk for cheese making is a certified member of RAWMI. However, if I go to the RAWMI website there are only two farms listed, both on the west coast. Please describe the standards used by the farm that you purchase raw milk for cheese production and why they are not RAWMI listed??
Also, I would recommend leaving the legal strategy for Vernon to the lawyers. DATCP has shown little interest in whether raw milk is safe or not, they just want it banned to please their handlers.
Not yet, Wayne. RawMI will hopefully be coming to Wisconsin soon. There are limited resources available to RawMI as a young organization, and it has to focus those resources where they are most needed. You'll have to talk to Mark McAfee about the timeline for RawMI making inroads in Wisconsin. I'm hoping it will be within the next year.
For farms that I source raw milk for cheese making, the main indicators I look at are Standard Plate Counts, PI Counts, Somatic Cell Counts, Coliform/E. Coli counts, and Staph. Aureus. I also test every single batch of cheese twice -- once when it is fresh out of the vat, and again after it is 60 days old. I test for Coliforms/E. Coli, Listeria Monocytogenes, Staph Aureus, and Salmonella, as well as pH and moisture content as an indicator of how hospitable the cheese is to pathogen growth and where the risk factors are.
Of course, for the farms, I also look for things which are not quantifiable by a laboratory, such as feeding practices (primarily pasture-based during the grazing season), organic cerficiation (not required, but helpful), milking practices, and the overall competency of the farmer.
Wayne, this is all BS. RAWMI isn't coming to Wisconsin because no farmer in his right mind would allow itself to be publicly approved by RAWMI--DATCP would shut the farm down. That's why Bill wouldn't even name the farmer who supplies the raw milk for his cheese, and the farmer wouldn't post any test results (which may or may not exist).
On top of all that, he feels okay smearing Vernon Hershberger with a phony whisper campaign that some of Vernon's members are concerned about the safety of his milk.
I have no problem naming the farm where I get the raw milk for my cheese making from, David. In fact, if you were to look at my website, its listed right there:
http://www.cremedelacoulee.com/our-cheeses
If anyone is curious to see the laboratory tests for my cheese, I have no problem sharing them. Just shoot me an email -- wicheesemaker@gmail.com
Also, David, raw milk cheese is still perfectly legal in Wisconsin, so I think there is a strong incentive for RawMI to get involved here. I'm not the only cheese maker in this state looking for quality sources of raw milk for making artisan cheeses.
But as I said, this is a question for Mark McAfee. I can't tell you when RawMI is planning on getting involved in Wisconsin. Its a young organization with limited resources.
David, just skimming the web about Mr. Hershberger, shows many are in support of him and his availability of raw dairy. I would consume products from his farm without hesitation.
"The Dairy Association and Wisconsin Cheesemakers are against the bill. They urged lawmakers not to sign on or support raw milk legislation"
Imagine that! rawmilkmike you were spot on!
http://www.fox47.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/the-raw-milk-debate-con...
http://www.farmersontrial.com/category/farmer-profiles/vernon-hershberger/
http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/jessica_vanegeren/raw-milk-de...
"Grothman, R-West Bend, has been an advocate of legalizing raw milk for years, including speaking out against Doyle after he abruptly vetoed its sale despite earlier signals that he would approve it."
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/01/trial-postponed-for-farmer-...
http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/wisconsin-senator-dale-schultz-holds-up...
http://realfoodlaw.com/2013/03/19/update-on-vernon-hershbergers-wisconsi...
Mike, I think you really believe that STEC (shiga toxin e.coli) does not cause diarrhea and HUS is not dangerous to children. Where do you get this misinformation?
The Germans are somewhat ahead of the americans on this issue and it's treatment.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/on-the-fly-german-doctors-...
Then there's this from american doctors: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1106483#t=articleTop
Mega uber paragraphs to say what was summed up in the last three. Doctors and scientists love words, don't they?
a quick Internet search like usual. Mary, it sounds like you get yours from your doctor and your lawyer, 2 people with major conflicts of interest. how sure are you that I'm wrong?