Hey Mark, You're Aggravating Our Raw Milk Mood Swings! A New Move to Sabotage AB 1604

Six days ago, Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures proclaimed after the well-attended Sacramento hearing on AB 1604, “We all won!… Thanks to last minute 'hallway negotiations,' Assembly Bill AB 1604 passed with unanimous consent during Ag Assembly hearings held on Wednesday. This will ensure, for now, the continued flow of raw milk in California."

Major blogs like The Ethicurean hailed the news, complete with victory photos of Mark and supporters. For good reason.

Now the latest word from the Left Coast is that we’re about to lose. In an email today to media and supporters, Mark states: “Our AB 1604 raw milk bill will die tomorrow in the Assembly Appropriations Committee… we need to call them and raise holy hell!! The other day was just all grand theater. Big dairy and CDFA pulled off some slimy dirty tricks in their death march to deny us raw milk!! Let’s see if we can appeal to the committee members and get their votes anyway!! We might as well go down trying as hard as we can. We still have a great lawsuit pending!!”

This whole thing is beginning to remind me of what it felt like to be a Boston Red Sox fan for 87 years before late October 2004.

But it’s also a vivid demonstration about why the struggle over raw milk could actually be different this time around. I harken back to my interview with Ron Schmid, author of “The Untold Story of Milk”, posted a few days ago. His assessment about the raw milk situation was pretty grim. He’s seen all this before.

There was, however, one factor that I didn’t discuss in the posting, but which Don Neeper perceptively pointed out in his comments following the posting: the impact of the Internet.

I did raise this with Ron, and he acknowledged that it definitely is a wild card. I think it’s difficult for the historians in this struggle, like Aajonus Vonderplanitz and Ron Schmid, to imagine that things could be different this time around. And the apparent sabotage of AB 1604 in California--by sending it to the Appropriations Committee, especially unfriendly territory for raw milk--seems to confirm their argument.

But in the old days, news about hearings and abuse of farmers didn’t always get around. There was no way to get it around, since the mass media didn’t cover it appropriately then (and still doesn’t). So when a seemingly done deal, like the passage of AB 1604 by the Assembly Agriculture Committee, unraveled only days later, it was very difficult to re-mobilize the troops.

Today it is possible to at least alert the troops. But can they stay mobilized and enthusiastic in such an up-and-down atmosphere? That is the big question to be determined.

This latest twist in a seemingly endless series of twists and turns conveys a truly important lesson: in this struggle for nutritional freedom, we are up against very tough professionals. These people from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, along with their legislative and industry cronies, know the system backwards and forwards. They know moves we can’t imagine.

Most significant, they are reaching ever deeper into their bag of tricks, for one significant reason: they want to end the struggle HERE AND NOW. They want desperately to stop it in its tracks because demand for raw milk is growing so strongly. If they can’t stop it now, then they may lose to the unstoppable force of market demand. A number of the comments following the interview with Ron Schmid--by Lori McGrath, Barb Smith, and Pete--described the changing nature of the struggle.

So my advice is not to let the mood swings here become too discouraging. As Gary Cox, lawyer for the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, has said a number of times, we are fighting the good fight.

Comments

[Steve Bemis]

Suggestion - as we now focus on the Appropriations Committee (as always): be courteous and professional. Speak to their issues - how can the ELIMINATION of state inspections, etc. by backing off the 10 cfu limit to 50 cfu, possibly result in increased costs to the government, which presumably is what the Appropriations Committee oversees? If anything, AB 1604 should be seen as a cost savings measure and fly through (setting aside of course, the fact that AB1735 which would have increased costs, apparently did not go to Appropriations, altho I don't know this for sure). Furthermore, local businesses such as OP and Claravale are much better situated to keep money in their communities, and in the state of California, than are the larger corporate-owned enterprises.

These arguments aside, I revoke anything nice which I previously said about the Ag Committee and its Chair until proven otherwise. Before too long, we will find out who engineered this maneuver, and they will pay the price of being exposed in the bright light of sunshine, whether they be legislative, agency, corporate or otherwise. Such is the power of this communication device, operating nearly in real time.

[Bob Hayles]

Do y'all understand yet that this is a WAR? Do you understand that it must be fought like a WAR...no holds barred, schorched earth destruction of the opposition?

These people have absolutely no desire to compromise at all...none...and as they demonstrated on 1735 they don't even care if they go beyond unethical to illegal to take care of their corporate masters.

Gary, Steve, and Pete...line out for us just what laws were broken, and by whom, in the passage of 1735. After that, you California citizens...go to your local district attorneys all over the state, in every location that has a local district attorney, and demand...DEMAND...that warrants be issued for those criminal acts...that indictments be sought for criminal acts.

Folks, either this country belongs to the bureaucrats and corporations, or it belongs to "we the people". The bureaucrats and corporations are willing to fight hard...to fight with everything they have, legal and illegal...to make this country theirs. We MUST be willing to fight just as hard, but with ethics, to keep it the people's.

Folks, we better get REALLY angry and active, and we better do it right now, or very simply WE WILL LOSE.

Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA

Thornberry Village Homestead...a small goat dairy owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.

[Anna]

I just got off the phone after calling all of the committee members' offices. For the most part, they recorded my position on AB 1604 and city of residence; in some cases they asked my name. Apparently the phones have been ringing off the hooks since 8:30 am.

[meg]

One thing to remember about the CDFA, unlike the politicians of the Assembly, is that their mandate is very clear. It is at the bottom of every press release they send out:

"The California Department of Food and Agriculture protects and promotes California's $31.8 billion agricultural industry. California's farmers and ranchers produce a safe, secure supply of food, fiber and shelter; marketed fairly for all Californians; and produced with responsible environmental stewardship."

Their top priority, which they make no bones about, is to protect and promote Big Agriculture, meaning Big Dairy in this case. They do not promote Little Agriculture at the expense of Big Agriculture, and their top priority is not to protect citizens. It is to protect a multi-billion dollar industry.

The other thing to remember is that except at the very top, they are on salary and invulnerable to any pressure except internal pressure - ie from their bosses. The only people vulnerable to public pressure are at the top, so if you want to exert any pressure, that's where it has to be. That's why I think it is important to say every time you discuss this issue, that "CDFA, headed by Secretary A. G. Kawamura, moved to ban raw milk."

Or "the CDFA, headed by Secretary A. G. Kawamura, tried to push a bill through the Assembly without a vote" -- or whatever it is they do.

Someone's name has to be attached to it - and whether or not Kawamura even knew about it, he is ultimately responsible, especially if the real trolls are going to be allowed to keep hiding under the bridge.

And in a possibly irrelevant aside, Kawamura has a ponytail and a literature degree from Berkeley. That's cool and everything, but come on, dude, do the right thing!

[AuLait]

For ease of reference, I am posting an email I got this morning, which includes contact info for all the committee members.
----------------------------------------
Date: January 23, 2008 11:08:46 PM PST
Subject: Emergency Action Alert for Raw Milk - Wed and Thursday Jan
23 and 24

Dear Friends,

I just talked to Organic Pastures at 10:40 pm tonight (Wed Jan 23)

I was told that CDFA had a secret meeting this week, and apparently did more illegal things

AD1604 is going into the Appropriations Committee tomorrow morning between 11 am and 11:30 am. CDFA has vowed to kill the new Raw Milk bill AB 1604 that we support at the Appropriations Committee hearing.

Please respond to the Appropriations Committee as soon as possible:

1- we want them to pass AB1604
2- that we have been treated unfairly by AB1735 being passed and AB1604 rights that injustice.
3- they are being watched

One of the key issues here is that natural unheated raw milk has been accused of causing illness, when in fact it was milk and cheese that were heated to 150 degrees (10 degrees below pasteurization) and therefore could still be called "raw." We
prefer raw unheated healthful dairy that has been never been heated.

Thanks you,
Cathe'

California State Assembly
Committee on Appropriations

Committee Jurisdiction
Primary jurisdiction is fiscal bills, including bonds and alternative public financing.

Committee Members

Committee Members District Phone E-mail
Mark Leno - Chair
Dem-13 (916) 319-2013 Assemblymember.leno@assembly.ca.gov
Mimi Walters - Vice Chair
Rep-73 916) 319-2073 Assemblymember.walters@assembly.ca.gov
Anna M. Caballero
Dem-28 (916) 319-2028 Assemblymember.Caballero@assembly.ca.gov
Mike Davis
Dem-48 (916) 319-2048 Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov
Mark DeSaulnier
Dem-11 (916) 319-2011 Assemblymember.DeSaulnier@assembly.ca.gov
Bill Emmerson
Rep-63 (916) 319-2063 Assemblymember.emmerson@assembly.ca.gov
Jared Huffman
Dem-6 (916) 319-2006 Assemblymember.Huffman@assembly.ca.gov
Betty Karnette
Dem-54 (916) 319-2054 Assemblymember.Karnette@assembly.ca.gov
Paul Krekorian
Dem-43 (916) 319-2043 Assemblymember.Krekorian@assembly.ca.gov
Doug La Malfa
Rep-2 (916) 319-2002 Assemblymember.lamalfa@assembly.ca.gov
Ted W. Lieu
Dem-53 (916) 319-2053 Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov
Fiona Ma
Dem-12 (916) 319-2012 Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov
Alan Nakanishi
Rep-10 (916) 319-2010 Assemblymember.nakanishi@assembly.ca.gov
Pedro Nava
Dem-35 (916) 319-2035 Assemblymember.nava@assembly.ca.gov
Sharon Runner
Rep-36 (916) 319-2036 Assemblywoman.Runner@assembly.ca.gov
Jose Solorio
Dem-69 (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov

[Bob Hayles]

Au Lait said:

"I was told that CDFA had a secret meeting this week, and apparently did more illegal things..."

Please be specific. What, specifically, was done illegally, what specific laws were broken, and, specifically, by whom...name names. Give those California residents who are willing to engage in the war on our side something to work with.

Going to a district attorney and saying, "the CDFA did something illegal." accomplishes NOTHING. On the other hand, going to a district attorney and being able to say, "Joe Smith, the area poo-bah over area three with the CDFA, on said date at such and such location, committed an illegal act that hurts Californians, specifically by breaking X law by comitting the following acts...1, 2, 3...and as a citizen I want charges brought and indictments sought for said illegal acts."...now THAT, combined with press coverage of same, CAN have an effect...especially if LOTS of people do the same.

Folks, any way you cut it, it's a war. Do you bhelieve in our cause enough to fight it?

Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
706.692.7004

Thornberry Village Homestead...a small goat dairy owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.

[Anna]

I just finished a interesting long talk with someone named Kristen in the Dairy/Milk dept of the CDFA (sorry, I didn't catch her last name or title, but she definitely wasn't a mail clerk :-) ). My call was passed around from Kawamura's office to Public Relations, to another office, eventually leading to Kristen (I had noise going on in the background I had to tune out). Nor did it occur to me that we would have such a lengthy conversation, so I apologize for lack of specifics. Her CDFA dept is the one that came up with the coliform standard recommendation last year, at the request of "up above". She clearly resented the implication that CDFA was "hostile to the raw milk industry in CA" and asserted that the CDFA is "supportive of consumer choice in CA dairy options", whatever that means.

We then talked at length about the coliform standard that has been in place for pasteurized milk for many years and how there has been no coliform standard for raw milk (that is intended to be consumed raw). She seemed to be up on her history of raw milk regulations in CA back as far as the 1920s. She stated several times that coliform counts are an indication of sanitation of the dairy and processing/bottling facility and that any facility that is clean and properly sanitized should have no problem meeting the regulation because the milk is sterile in the udder and the "fecal" coliform bacteria are picked up during or after milking. She said she didn't think CA dairy consumers, raw or not, want fecal bacteria in their dairy products as there is no benefit to humans from coliform microbes to her knowledge. She did allow that lactic bacteria are very beneficial to humans, etc., etc.

We also talked a bit about healthy gut flora, individual health susceptibility, etc. So while she is clearly a "keep all microbes in our food to a minimum to prevent pathogen contamination" type of person, she had a high degree of appreciation for the role of healthy and benign bacteria in health.

She also said that when her dept wrote the initial recommendation for a coliform standard last year a legislation impact report (as is typically done) was included that indicated there would certainly be opposition from the two CA commercial raw dairies. So she said that she thinks Nicole Parra absolutely should have known about all of this (implying that Parra has said she wasn't?). I am not up on all of those issues, though.

Near the end of our conversation, which also dealt with other issues about industrial food, food supply safety in general, CA agriculture, and my issue with the "anonymity of Trader Joe's private label milk sources" (she helpfully told me how to decode the bottle plant code on the milk cartons), she stated that she didn't know why there was such fuss coming about a regulation that assures clean processing practices and facilities. She stated over and over that any producer should be able to easily meet these regulations, at the bulk tank or the bottle. She also told me about her experience working with a small herd (35 head) dairyman and how clean and pristine his operation was (she didn't say that she drank that milk, though - I should have asked). Near the end of our conversation she hinted that perhaps a frenzy of hysteria was being whipped up not over the actual regulation, but as a way to generate publicity and increased sales.

So while I have a dog in this fight (being primarily raw milk consumer simply because I choose it), I'm left still in the middle, unsure of how much this new coliform regulation is a "real issue" and how much is an exaggeration. I certainly do see that there is a lot of institutionalized and large industry opposition to availability to raw dairy, even if well regulated, both on the national and local level. And I do see that there are many threats to small producers of many foods, not just dairy, on many fronts. But I'm not a dairy or even a farm expert, nor am I a microbiologist, so I am having hard time figuring out exactly what the significance of this coliform standard really means to raw milk. Is it so hard to meet or is the very passionate opposition to it as much a principle about avoiding the "slippery slope". Or is it taking advantage of a regulation change to increase awareness of raw milk (I'm not necessarily implying that that is a bad thing). I'm not a "movement" leader, or perhaps even a movement member. But I sort of feel stuck in the middle, a bit put off by the "passion" and constant urgency of the raw milk movement leaders that email me with updates and urgings to contact the CA got officials, yet I'm not quite convinced that the government isn't hostile to raw milk either.

I do appreciate the reasoned and informed comments on this blog from the wide range of people with an interest in raw milk, as well as David's excellent reports (it's clear I would make a lousy journalist - I can't even decent source info).

[Bob Hayles]

Anna, she ied to you, typical of the CDFA...and your post proves her lie.

You said that she told you that milk was "sterile in the udder", yet she then allowed that there are beneficial flora...the "good for your gut" microorganisms...in milk.

She cannot have it both ways. Is it sterile, devoid of bacteria, or does it have beneficial bacteria? It cannot be both ways.

The bottom line really isn't about what is or is not in milk, and where does whatever is in milk come from anyway.

The bottom line is do we, as citizens of supposedly the freest country on earth, have the right to make our own nutritional choices, or should those choices be made by a nanny state?

The constitution that I read gives the government no such power to decide for us what we consume.

So...this whole war is less about what is or is not "safe", it is more about freedom of choice.

Completely doing away with all REQUIRED food standards leaves the folks who want to be protected by the state free to choose foods from producers who produce government sanctioned food products. Why cannot the rest of us have the same freedom to choose?

Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA

Thornberry Village Homestead...a small goat dairy, owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.

[AuLait]

With regard to Bob's comment above -- Hi, Bob, and I'm with you on a lot of stuff. But the words you quoted weren't mine, they were Cathe's, the author of the email. I just wanted to post the contact info for the committee, but thought I might as well include the whole email just for context. I didn't suggest that anyone contact officials using the words in the email, and I don't think Cathe did either -- it was sent to supporters who were on the Weston Price mailing list, for SF Bay Area, I think. I don't think anyone would contact officials using those words and expect anything to get done, but maybe I am too naive! :-) Anyway, sorry if that was the impression, it wasn't intended.

Also, re Steve's comment, I checked the legislative history of AB1735 and it appears that it did go through to Appropriations in July. Anyone can go to leginfo.ca.gov and look up bills there, I've found it very useful.

That would suggest that MAYBE sending 1604 to Appropriations was just normal procedure and not in itself bias -- if that's true, then we as a community failed to anticipate something that was in the normal course of business for this bill. More disturbingly, if it's true, then our professional consultants (lawyers, lobbyists) also failed to anticipate it -- or did so but failed to notify us. Clearly we are learning about the need to avoid the Mission Accomplished thing. It ain't over 'til the beefy guy signs.

Finally, I think I have figured out something about the coliform count -- and again, I want those with technical background to check me out on this and tell me if I'm wrong. The coliform count was limited to 50 (bulk) at the hearing for health reasons, i.e., there are 3 pathogenic coliform species. However, all 3 of those species are included in specific pathogen testing that is routinely done on raw milk. I'm getting the idea from people that, if you're not worried about pathogens, the count can easily be much, much higher, because it's only at higher levels that it affects taste and smell (but still not health issue). Like, maybe something in the thousands. So, if pathogens are eliminated as an issue by the specific testing, there's no reason to have an overall coliform count that low.

Do I have that right? I'm thinking Meg and Steve, but anyone who knows. I'd appreciate hearing assessments of this. Apparently Ron G. mentioned the pathogen testing at the hearing and members still insisted that the count be 50, which does seem maybe fishy.

And Anna, thank you very much for your report. I might just suggest that Kristen's experience is probably all with industrial dairies for whom "sanitation" means pasteurization. She's not a raw milk specialist. Also, coliforms are not "fecal" bacteria -- they are found there, but they are also found on "surfaces" -- all surfaces, including processing plant equipment -- and vegation (Wikipedia), which cows eat. I just wiped my tabletop with my hand and picked up a lot of coliforms. It's a very large group of bacteria, many of which are probiotic, 3 species pathogenic. But if we're covered on those 3 by specific tests, the count is not being kept this low to keep us "safe." I think I've heard it could be in the 1000's -- 3000? 5000? Right?

Feedback? From people who know? Would appreciate it. One producer did speculate to me that a 50 count would make it hard for any new raw dairies to start up, small farms would have trouble meeting it.

Of course, if 1604 dies in committee, we're back to 1735 and an impossible standard, and this discussion is moot.
To be continued.
Thank you everyone...

[Bob Hayles]

Au Lait, if 1604 dies in committee, or if it doesn't pass the assembly or if the governor doesn't sign it, there is always the lawsuit...which I think will be lost at the state level, but won in federal court on constitutional grounds.

But then...what do I know? I'm just a dumb farmer...LOL.

Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead...owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.

[Steve Bemis]

My own notes to the Appropriation Committee simply said "Do The Right Thing" and urged them to consider the fact that presumably 50 cfu is less expensive for the state to inspect, and therefore should pass them easily as a cost-reducer (or at least, not a cost impact for the State). Given California's budget problems, we can't really complain that they may be careful about potential cost impacts of legislation. I may be naive. We'll see. I do think it's dangerous always to assume that every legislator out there has it "in" for our interests, because manytimes harsh words can backfire and turn off someone who might otherwise speak on our behalf.

As noted earlier, standard plate counts for all bacteria have to be less than 20,000 under the PMO (federal model pasteurizing law) after pasteurizing. I think in California the limit is 15,000, for both raw and pasteurized. Coliform bacteria, a subset of all bacteria, are essentially early-warning indicators of dirty equipment where, for example, air is being pulled into suction lines (suction being how the cow is milked with modern milkers). As pointed out, air and all surfaces around us have coliform (with minimal amounts, we hope, of fecal coliform), so the 10 cfu limit simply boils down to something unnecessarily strict. The limit of 50 cfu, within the same order of magnitude, is not qualitatively different for the purposes intended (e.g., early warning of processing and equipment problems), but it is quantitatively different insofar as 50 is less likely to shut dairies down every other month. All of this assumes that pathogenic bacteria are separately and specifically tested-for, about which both of these dairies are quite careful. If your initial coliform counts are several orders of magnitude higher than 10/50, the issue boils down to shortened shelf life - and the need to track down leaks in the milking system, or poor hygiene in the daily wash-up of equipment.

[Anna]

In several of my very brief calls to the Appropriations committee members' offices and my discussion with "Kirsten" of CDFA this morning, I was told that a bill going to the Appropriations committee is routine and that AB 1604 going there is not "back parlor politics".

If that is the case, then the email I received from the WAPF had a bit of hysterical "Chicken Little" tone, which may in fact be counter-productive.

I expect straight, accurate information from WAPF, too.

AuLait and Steve, thanks for your descriptions of the coliform issues. That is pretty much how I understood it, but I guess when I finally "caught a CFDA lion by the tail" on the phone this morning, my fairly newly acquired knowledge of the coliform details fled my mind. I can make my friends' eyes glaze over with details about food production, but I am no match for people who deal with this on a day in-day out basis, no matter which side of the issue.

[Elizabeth McInerney]

Steve,I have been wondering about the difference between plate count and coliform count. I gather from your post that the coliform count is measuring a subset of bacteria which are also measured in the plate count, correct?

What is the value of doing the plate count, if a coliform count gives you the potentially more useful information (zeroing in on a subset of bacteria that contains the pathogens)? Is the plate count easier to do, or cheaper? I have often heard of dairy farmers talk about plate count, but until this California issue, had never heard of the coliform count.

Perhaps because more bacteria are measured, plate count is more useful for issues affecting shelf life or flavor.

[milk truck driver]

Milk truck drivers take samples from the bulk tank every time they pick up a load of milk from a dairy farm. The dairy gets a report back from the lab giving them the standard plate counts and coliform counts. I have seen many of these reports and the coliform counts are usually below 10 even on very large dairies. By the way, I drank raw milk from many different dairies and have never gotten sick.

[Amanda Rose]

"Form a committee," says Nicole Parra.

http://www.ethicurean.com/2008/01/24/california-raw-milk/

[Lisa Imerman]

As milk truck driver points out and it has been said many time before, a coliform count of 10 would not be that big a deal if from the bulk tank, however, the CA AB1735 Standard was from the bottle. As the milk is transferred from tank to bottle it is natural for the coliform count to go up, it will go up each time the milk is subjected to new pipes, new equipment, etc.

So, I think that is a difference by which they are planning on hurting raw milk in CA, because the PMO is written for milk that is not destined to be raw in final form. Supposedly, AB1735 was to mirror the new PMO standards.

Correct me if I misspoke on this, but I think this is what I remember.

[Dave Hopton]

The bottom line from today’s Raw Milk Red Alert in California is that the Assembly Appropriations Committee did not even vote on AB 1604.

1. According to a representative in the office of Mark Leno (Chair of the Appropriations Committee), the passage of AB 1604 from the Agricultural Committee to the Appropriations Committee represented standard procedure. All bills and amendments, even if they save the state money, go through the Appropriations Committee as a matter of course.

How did it come to be, then, that today’s “vote” was the culmination of a dirty tricks campaign perpetrated by Big Dairy and the CDFA? Do the parties pursuing remedies to the iniquities of AB 1735 not fully understand the legislative process? Was the lady I spoke to lying?

2. Furthermore, according to the person I spoke to in Mark Leno’s office, AB 1604 was not voted on because it was taken off the agenda by the author (Nicole Parra).

3. The person that I next spoke to, in the office of Doug La Malfa (member of both the Appropriations Committee and the Agriculture Committee), confirmed that the Assembly Appropriations Committee did not vote on AB 1604 and the reason was that the author of the bill had taken it off the agenda last night (i.e., the evening of Wednesday, January 23, 2008) presumably before the e-mails from Organic Pastures and WAPF were sent out.

4. Both people I spoke to (above) told me that I could only get more information about where we stand with AB1604 by calling Nicole Parra’s office. So I did.

5. The person I first spoke to in Parra’s office told me that AB 1604 was never on the agenda for the Appropriations Committee in the first place and was surprised when I told him that Leno’s office were telling a different story. He then told me that the person we should address our questions to regarding AB1604 was Derek Chernow (sp?) who was handling the matter for Nicole Parra. I left a voicemail message for Derek asking where we stood today with the progress of AB 1604 and asking him to get back to me to let me know what the next step is, when that next step takes place and who is involved.

When I have not received a response by tomorrow I will call again to try to get the answers to these questions. You can also have a chat with Derek by calling (916) 319-2030.

[Amanda Rose]

Dave,

I think there was just confusion on the part of who did what and when. Your information is probably accurate but apparently Mark was under the impression that it was going to a hearing today. The email blast went out this morning and a list to media went out late last night (that David posted here).

For the Ethicurean article above, I talked to Mark and confirmed that it got yanked by Parra.

The Blue Ribbon Commission should be interesting.

Amanda

[Anna]

I just looked up the CDFA Employee directory. I believe the person I spoke to at length was Kristen Dahl, Dairy Program Coordinator of the
Animal - Milk & Dairy Food Safety dept at CDFA.

[Steve Bemis]

IF a committee/commission has been established that is fairly representative, and iF they can actually talk with each other, and IF the agreements reached in the Committee don't get ambushed by legislative trickery, what Ms. Parra has done might be a good thing. After our settlement last April with the Michigan Department on behalf of Richard Hebron, a committee was established here in Michigan with all stakeholders, and the ensuing dialogue has been open and helpful, definitely a maturing from the cat-and-mouse games that preceded. Let's hope that these two major milk-producing states can become leaders in this improved kind of exchange. Again, I'm a bloody optimist, but getting the right legislation in place is worlds better than having to pick up the cudgel and sue at every drop of the hat. That said, the credibility of being able to sue often helps get the mature conversations started. Join the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund!! (www.farmtoconsumer.org).