FDA Files Lawsuit to Seize Healthy Food

On October 19, 2017, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) filed a complaint with a federal district court in Kansas to seize and condemn around $70,000 of raw camel milk, pasteurized camel milk, raw camel milk colostrum, and raw camel milk kefir.[1] The camel milk products are currently being held at a frozen food warehouse, My Magic Kitchen, located in Kansas City. The Kansas Department of has placed all the products under embargo, prohibiting their movement from the warehouse.

All labels on the frozen products FDA wants to seize bear the name Desert Farms; the Santa Monica, California based company is the largest raw milk distributor in the U.S. According to the complaint, Hump-Back Dairys of Miller, Missouri produced nearly all of the product being held at the warehouse; the dairy is, by far, the largest camel milk producer in the country.

There has been a thirty-year ban on raw dairy products (other than aged raw cheese) in interstate commerce; FDA interprets the ban to extend to raw milk camel products. In December 2016 Samuel Hostetler, the owner of Hump-Back Dairys, received a warning letter from FDA.[2] The letter to Hostetler warned that he was violating the interstate ban by shipping both raw camel milk and raw camel milk products in interstate commerce; Hostetler responded to the warning letter by informing the agency that he would be complying with the federal regulation establishing the ban.

Walid Abdul-Wahab, the president of Desert Farms, also received a warning letter from FDA in September 2016 but the letter did not mention the interstate raw dairy ban; instead the letter accused Desert Farms of violating the law by shipping “new drugs” that were not approved by FDA in interstate commerce.[3] The letter noted that Desert Farms was making health claims on its website and facebook page about how camel milk was being successfully used to treat various diseases, especially autism. The letter warned that the camel milk products were drugs because “they are intended for use in the care, mitigation and treatment of disease”. As such they were “new drugs” that needed approval from FDA before they could be marketed. The FDA approval for new drugs processing can cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The FDA suit filed for the seizure and destruction of the camel milk products alleges that Desert Farms’ social media pages (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram) linked to the company’s website contain claims that “demonstrate that the camel milk products are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, including autism, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, viral infections such as hepatitis, the genetic disorder Machado-Joseph, depression, gastrointestinal disease, heart problems, attention deficit disorder, autoimmune diseases, Hashimoto’s disease and cancer.”[4]

What neither the warning letters nor FDA’s complaint for seizure allege is that the camel milk products are adulterated or a threat to human health. As far as is known there has never been a case of foodborne illness in this country attributed to consumption of camel milk. Destruction of the camel milk products at the warehouse would be an absolute waste of healthy food.

It is estimated there are over 10,000 families with autistic children in the U.S. that purchase raw camel milk; many of these families pay $18 a pint or more for the product. There is a reason for that; parents of autistic children have found that raw camel milk and camel milk products can alleviate the symptoms of the condition known as autism spectrum disorder. The science backs them up [5]; pasteurized camel milk can be effective in alleviating the symptoms of autism as well though not to the same degree.

Earlier this year FDA released an article on its Consumer Updates page titled, “Autism: Beware of Potentially Dangerous Therapies and Products.”[6] In the article FDA warns about taking camel milk as a treatment for autism and autism-related symptoms. When FDA warns about taking a product for a disease, it is often because the product is a threat to the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

FDA is seeking a court order to destroy over 4,300 8- and 16-ounce bottles of camel milk products; product that can help autistic children cope with their condition. The judge hearing the case has the discretion to release the product to Desert Farms.[7] If Walid Abdul-Wahab shows the court that any health claims are no longer on the Desert Farms website and social media and that he is willing to pasteurize the camel milk (with the interstate ban, he would have no choice if he wants the product released) and label the milk containers accordingly the judge could release the product to Desert Farms. Healthy food like this should not wind up in a landfill.

A court date for a hearing on the seizure petition has not been set yet.

—————-
[1] United States of America v. Camel milk products, et al, Kansas Civil Action No. 17-2609 (2017). Access docket files via Pacer.gov for Case #: 2:17-cv-02609-CM-KGS. Retrieved 11/18/2017 from Justia.com at https://dockets.justia.com/docket/kansas/ksdce/2:2017cv02609/118800

[2] FDA warning letter to Samuel P. Hostetler (DBA) Hump-Back Dairys, dated 12/19/16. Retrieved 11/18/2017 at https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2016/ucm534108.htm

[3] FDA warning letter to Desert Farms, dated 9/15/16. Retrieved 11/19/2017 at https://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/2016/ucm524663.htm

[4] United States of America v. Camel milk products, et al

[5] “Casualties of the Raw Milk Ban”, January 17, 2017, Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund website. Retrieved 11/18/2017 at https://www.farmtoconsumer.org/blog/2017/01/17/casualties-raw-milk-ban/

[6] FDA, “Autism: Beware of Potentially Dangerous Therapies and Products”, www.fda.gov updated April 12, 2017; originally published April 25, 2014 (see https://www.actcommunity.ca/resource/3565/). Retrieved 11/18/2017 at https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm394757.htm

[7] United States Code, 21 USC 334(d). Accessible at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/334

Share

Michigan Raw Dairy – How One Consumer Made an Impact


Michigan raw dairy consumers and producers owe Mike Lobsinger a debt of gratitude. Lobsinger, a retired businessman and leaseholder in a herd lease arrangement, along with farmers Joe and Brenda Golimbieski are the ones most responsible for a favorable court ruling establishing that consumers can obtain raw dairy products other than milk under a herdshare or herd lease agreement. 1 Thanks mainly to Lobsinger and his attorneys, John Stiers and Elise Arsenault, legal action taken by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) to stop the distribution of cream, butter and other raw dairy products to leaseholders at the Golimbieski farm was not successful, establishing a case law precedent. The case shows the power to make an impact that consumers have.

Lobsinger believes it is the consumer’s right to select the farmer from whom they get their food but also that it should be the consumers’ responsibility to do what they can to back up their farmer when the farmer is facing an enforcement action from a government agency. Lobsinger, who is a member of both the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), went far beyond what consumers would typically do to protect their farmer in supporting the Golimbieskis.

In March 2013, MDARD issued a written policy, Policy 1.40 which legalized the distribution of raw milk through a written herdshare or herd lease agreement. Policy 1.40 stated that herdshare programs were to include distribution of only raw whole milk and that products such as butter, yogurt and cheese, etc., could only be sold or distributed by licensed producers. The “catch 22” is that Michigan law prohibits even licensed producers from selling products such as raw butter, cream and yogurt.

The Golimbieskis, who have a Grade A dairy operation, Hill High Dairy, were distributing raw butter and cream under their herd lease program to consumers who had signed a herd lease contract. Lobsinger, who obtains raw cream to put in his coffee was one of them.

Whenever the MDARD inspector was conducting her semi-annual inspections of Hill High Dairy, she would seize raw dairy products she found in a refrigerator located in a utility room, on the farm. In 2015 MDARD filed a court action against each of the Golimbieskis, Hill High Dairy and B.J.’s Boarding, an entity that was formed to lease cows to those wanting to get raw milk. The department petitioned the court to issue an injunction prohibiting the four parties from among other things, distributing raw dairy products other than milk to leaseholders.

Lobsinger entered the fray by successfully intervening as a third-party defendant in the case, claiming that MDARD was interfering with his property right to have milk produced by his cow separated into cream. Despite the successful intervention into the case, Judge James Jamo issued an order enjoining the Golimbieskis, Hill High Dairy and B.J.’s Boarding from violating any applicable Michigan food and dairy laws. The Judge did state in the opinion granting the injunction that there was no proof the defendants had violated any laws.

During a June 2016 inspection of Hill High Dairy, inspectors again seized and confiscated raw dairy products, including Lobsinger’s cream; subsequently, MDARD petitioned Judge Jamo to find the four defendants in contempt of court for violating the injunction. Lobsinger successfully intervened in the case again as a third-party defendant in the contempt petition and also filed a separate action against MDARD in the Michigan Court of Claims, suing the agency on the grounds that seizure of his cream violated his due process rights. The relief Lobsinger sought included a ruling that “another individual or agent may separate Lobsinger’s cream and skim milk on Lobsinger’s behalf without MDARD licensure or oversight and may deliver Lobsinger’s cream and skim milk to Lobsinger as long as the milk and cream are used exclusively for the personal consumption of Lobsinger and his family.”

In December 2016 Judge Jamo ruled that the defendants were not in contempt, establishing a legal precedent that raw dairy products other than milk can be distributed under a herd lease or herdshare arrangement without violating Michigan law. Ironically, at the time the Golimbieskis received word about the ruling on MDARD’s inspection, MDARD inspectors were once again seizing raw dairy products at the farm as they conducted an inspection.

When the inspectors finished their next scheduled inspection in June 2017 without seizing Lobsinger’s cream (or any other raw dairy products), Lobsinger withdrew his lawsuit figuring that he already had a favorable ruling in the contempt case that he didn’t want to jeopardize and seeing that MDARD was no longer confiscating products it once saw as contraband during its inspections of the Golimbieski farm. Lobsinger made it clear that if MDARD tampered with his cream in the future, he wouldn’t hesitate to sue the department again for its violation of his rights.

Lobsinger hired attorneys to fight MDARD because he wanted the public to know that the department was going after individual property rights in seizing dairy products from the Golimbieski farm. A look at the transcripts in the Golimbieski court case shows the contempt MDARD had for the leaseholders’ property rights. MDARD’s attorneys characterized Lobsinger retaining another leaseholder to separate Lobsinger’s own milk into cream as an illegal activity. The attorneys claimed the case was about a Grade A dairy violation and had nothing to do with property and contract rights. MDARD’s position was that there was no difference between sales of cream to the general public and distribution of cream to the owner of the milk from which the cream was processed. The department was in effect claiming that if someone went to Lobsinger’s house to separate milk into cream that it would have jurisdiction and could stop this “illegal transaction.”

Fortunately, Judge Jamo wasn’t buying into what Lobsinger called MDARD’s “jibberish”. He asked MDARD attorney Danielle Allison-Yokum if there was any case law to back up this assertion; the attorney admitted there was not.

Lobsinger’s intervention changed the dynamic in the Golimbieski case. Instead of the focus of the case being on a Grade A dairy violation, it was on property rights. Lobsinger’s willingness to hire attorneys to protect those rights made that happen. It shows the impact one individual can make.

1 A herdshare agreement involves someone purchasing an ownership interest in a dairy animal or animals and hiring the farmer to board, care for, and milk the animal(s); the difference in a herd lease agreement is that someone leases the dairy animal(s) and has ownership rights in the animal(s) for the term of the lease.

Share

Montana Becomes 43rd State to Legalize Raw Milk Distribution

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FALLS CHURCH, VA—August 1, 2017—Montana has become the 43rd state to legalize raw milk distribution, doing so through a method that no other state has adopted. Montana residents can now get legal access to raw milk through purchasing securities, giving them ownership interest in a dairy animal or dairy animals. Dairy farmers wanting to sell stock in their animals need to obtain an exemption from the state securities registration requirement; the farmers fill out an application for the exemption with the Office of the Commissioner of Securities and Insurance (OCSI). Please do not contact OCSI.

OCSI has granted exemptions for stock offerings of dairy animals in the past including one in 2016 for an FTCLDF member selling ownership interests in dairy goats, but the Montana Department of Livestock (DOL), which has jurisdiction over dairy production and sales, had left open the possibility of taking enforcement action against producers under the exemption. During recent communications with OCSI officials, DOL leadership indicated it would honor the exemptions, changing its prior policy. DOL would still have oversight over raw milk producers operating under the exemption. FTCLDF member Chris Rosenau was instrumental in forging the breakthrough on the DOL policy. Rosenau has led the effort to pass a raw milk bill the last three legislative sessions in Montana. OCSI limits stock offerings to ownership in four cows with 25 solicitations (meaning a maximum of 25 stockholders) per offering. It is not clear at this point how many goats could be included in an offering, but the number is probably around the same as for cows.

DOL will likely continue to regard the typical herd share arrangements existing in Montana (and many other states) as illegal even though Montana law provides a strong argument for their legality.

Rosenau, who has spent thousands of uncompensated hours working for a change in the state raw milk laws, regards the new DOL policy as a foot in the door and a step towards expanding raw milk access in the state. She plans on working with legislators to introduce another raw milk bill in the next legislative session.

FTCLDF drafted documents for the farmer member mentioned earlier who successfully obtained the exemption in 2016. Montana dairy farmers interested in applying for the exemption can contact FTCLDFAgain, please do not contact OCSI.

Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, Rhode Island—seven states to go.

Attorneys for FTCLDF have spent a substantial amount of time working to legalize raw milk distribution in Montana. The goal of legal raw milk in all 50 states is in sight. Please help us continue our push towards making this happen by attending our fundraiser or by making a donation.

Media Contact:
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
703-208-3276, info@farmtoconsumer.org

Share

FDA Boxed in on Interstate Ban

For some time now, enforcement on the interstate ban of raw milk and raw milk products by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has looked to be an exercise in futility (only raw cheese aged 60 days or more is legal in interstate commerce). Thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens violate the ban in this country on a regular basis. FDA has stated that it will not enforce the ban against individuals transporting raw milk across state lines for their own consumption; to the FDA, it is dangerous when someone is transporting raw milk for consumption by a group of people but is somehow safe when it is only for an individual.

FDA’s last enforcement action against a raw milk producer, concluded over five years ago, has not deterred demand; more consumers want raw dairy products than ever. FDA has never publicly acknowledged that the ban has been a failure but once again it has the opportunity to do so and respect consumer freedom of choice. There are currently two petitions before FDA on the regulation (21 CFR 1240.61) establishing the interstate ban—one filed by Organic Pastures Dairy Company (OPDC) and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) and the other filed by the Real Food Consumer Coalition (RFCC). Repeal of the interstate ban is long overdue; granting of the two petitions would be a significant step toward making that a reality. No matter what FDA decides, it is going to have to answer once again why it has not repealed a law that does not work.

On June 22, 2016, FDA received a petition from OPDC and FTCLDF requesting that FDA lift the interstate ban on raw butter. FDA’s only response to date has been a December 13, 2016 letter stating it needed more time to reach a decision on the petition. Federal law requires that FDA respond to a citizen petition within six months of its filing; unfortunately, the courts regard a statement from the agency that it needs more time as a satisfactory response.

More than anything the raw butter petition is a request to FDA that the agency obey the law; in establishing the raw butter ban, FDA violated and continues to violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The FFDCA contains a statute governing standards of identity for foods. Standards of identity are requirements prescribing what a food product must contain to be marketed under a certain name in interstate commerce. For instance, the standard of identity for milk in final packaged form requires that it be pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized and that it contain not less than 8.25% non-fat milk solids and not less than 3.25% milkfat.1 FDA’s long held position is that the pasteurization requirement can be part of the standard of identity. Standards of identity are intended to promote honesty and fair dealing for the benefit of consumers.

Congress has given FDA power to issue regulations establishing standards of identity for most foods, but there are exceptions and one of those is butter. The FFDCA specifically prohibits FDA from establishing a standard of identity for butter; Congress has passed a law defining butter that serves as a standard of identity for the product. That definition does not require butter to be pasteurized. The petition asks FDA to abide by the statutory standard of identity and to stop breaking the law in the name of the law.2

FDA justifies the ban on the grounds that it has the power to regulate communicable disease, a claim the federal government’s own statistics show has no foundation. If raw butter can be banned under this power, just about any other food could be, as well. The citizen petition notes that since the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) created the Foodborne Outbreak Online Database in 1998, not even one foodborne illness outbreak has been attributed to the consumption of commercially produced raw butter.3 There is one 2007 outbreak in Utah where homemade butter was listed as a possible cause for an outbreak as were raw milk and homemade soft raw cheese; given butter’s food safety history, it is likely that the milk or cheese was the cause.

The irony is that possibly more than any other raw dairy product, consumers purchase raw butter for its health benefits. FDA can do better than violate the law by banning a product that doesn’t make people sick.

The RFCC petition, sent to FDA on April 26, 2017, requests that:

“FDA exercise its enforcement discretion to avoid taking, and to cease taking, enforcement action against those who distribute unpasteurized milk and milk products in interstate commerce when the milk products bear labels that include in conspicuous bold face type prominently displayed on the statement of identity for the product: (1) a warning regarding the health risks of unpasteurized milk and milk products; and, when applicable, (2) instructions for safe handling, including self-pasteurization.”4

There is a precedent for the warning label requirement; another regulation, 21 CFR 101.17(g) requires that there be a warning label with a specific statement for juice that has not been pasteurized. The warning label and safe handling statements are intended to provide information and education to the consumer to address FDA’s concern that the agency needs to protect people from themselves.

The petition notes that the request it is making is in line with presidential executive orders issued earlier this year to reduce the regulatory burden on a Regulatory Reform Task Force that is required “at a minimum” to identify regulations that “eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation; are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; impose costs that exceed benefits; create a serious inconsistency. . .”5 The quote is a good description of the interstate raw milk ban.

The RFCC consists of members of some of the bigger food buyers clubs around the country obtaining raw milk, including many mothers who will do whatever it takes to access the foods they believe best for their children’s health, even if that means violating ill-conceived regulations banning foods they have a legal right to consume.

The two petitions are pushing FDA to reevaluate the ban and do the right thing by repealing it. It is time for the FDA to honor freedom of choice and get rid of a regulation a federal judge once described as being in a state of “desuetude,”6 a word meaning “not being used.” A law not worth enforcing is not worth having on the books.

FTCLDF Code of Regulations states that a goal of the organization is “overturning the federal regulation banning the interstate shipment of raw milk (and raw milk products) for human consumption.” That day is getting closer. Thanks to  your support, FTCLDF and other raw milk advocates are winning this battle. Help us continue our push towards ending the ban by attending our fundraiser or by making a donation.

Footnotes:
1 Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. Raw Butter Is a Communicable Disease. June 23, 2016. Posted online at https://www.farmtoconsumer.org/blog/2016/06/23/raw-butter-communicable-disease/
2 Mark McAfee and Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. Citizen Petition to Lift Interstate Ban on Raw Butter. p. 5 Posted online at
https://www.farmtoconsumer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/1-CitPetFDA-Butter-062216-1.pdf
3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Foodborne Outbreak Online Database. Posted online at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/
4 Emord & Associates. Citizen Petition to Exempt from 21 C.F.R. § 1240.61(a) Certain Unpasteurized Milk and Milk Products if Properly Labeled. Posted online at http://hartkepr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017-4-26-RFCC-Petition-GoFundMe.pdf
5 Ibid.
6 Judge Mark Bennett. Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Judgment. May 1, 2012. [PDF]

Share

Canadian Dairy Farmers See Support from Community

 

Canadian dairy farmers get support from comunity

Canadian dairy farmers get support from comunity Photo: David Pickett

This past week saw a notable celebration in Canada for Canadian dairy farmers in support of raw milk and food rights.

Hundreds of people gathered at the courthouse prior to a hearing on March 16 in support of Canadian dairy farmers. The rally and celebration of food rights was about an application for injunction that would ban Canadian dairy farmers or anyone else from distributing raw milk.

Several national media attended the event. Reported on “The Bovine” blog:

“The record turnout of raw milk consumers and supporters at today’s rally — an estimated 250-300 men, women and children — underlines just how unpopular such a move would be with the constituency that would be most affected by the proposed injunctions. The courthouse security police, who know Michael Schmidt from the many times he’s come to this courthouse before, told him that “every time you come here, there are more people”.

Durham-area farmer Michael Schmidt has been a lightning rod for raw milk issues in this province since 1994, largely because he has been very open in the way he operated.

On many occasions over the years Michael has sought various avenues to legalize the much-in-demand product, whose production and sale in the province remains largely underground. But the response to Michael’s overtures has not yet led to any improvement in raw milk’s legal status.

In his talk, Michael praised other raw milk farmers for also “coming out of the closet”. For instance, Michael was not the farmer who brought a cow to today’s event and milked it in front of the crowd. But even this could be just a tip of the black market iceberg.”

The article, “Massive Raw Milk Rally in Newmartket” continues on The Bovine site, describing other speakers at the fun event.

David Gumpert covers the event supporting Canadian dairy farmers in a similar vein. The “Big Demonstration” that David refers to alludes to the hundreds of people there. David goes on to explain the intricate and somewhat complicated court matters involved in the case.

“On this particular day, Schmidt brought about 300 people with him, the largest demonstration ever on his behalf. They were in good spirits, much more animated and outspoken in demand of their food rights than I’d ever seen before—radicalized might be the description that is beginning to apply.

It was a testimony to Schmidt and his cause that such a turnout materialized on a frigid and damp morning, since the actual court case is only in its infancy. The proceedings on Wednesday, which took about an hour, were devoted to scheduling future hearings and determining technical issues, like whether to combine two complaints against Schmidt—one from the York Region and another from the Ontario dairy director.

Or possibly people are simply becoming ever more outraged that the legal beat against Schmidt refuses to end, and has been renewed on entirely new grounds….after 22 years of farm raids and trials. I recalled in my talk to the crowd how the last time I was in Newmarket in January 2010, the legal assault against Schmidt was already 16 years old, and how that January day, he was acquitted by Judge Paul Kowarski. But because Canada doesn’t prohibit double jeopardy, like the U.S., Michael’s acquittal could be appealed and in effect, he was re-tried. The Ontario government jumped on the opportunity to keep the case alive, and found judges to overturn the acquittal.

Schmidt has ignored that conviction, and the fine that came with it, insisting he has done nothing wrong in providing milk to members of his herdshare. His persistence, together with his ongoing resistance, appears to have enraged Ontario officials and the dairy cartel they support, and so this latest legal case represents a new wrinkle in the seemingly endless legal entanglements thrust upon him.”

For the rest of the article, see David’s blog post on “Big Demonstration Buoys Michael Schmidt in Ontario’s Latest Raw Milk Case

For additional pictures of the event, attendee Dave Pickett shared his wonderful photos of the event.

To learn more about raw milk and other nutrient dense foods, visit westonaprice.org

Share

Raw Milk In West Virginia Now Legal

After a seven-year battle, the Governor signs bill to make raw milk in West Virginia legal through cow shares

Raw milk in West Virginia is now legal and available through cow share arrangements. The news spread quickly on Facebook after the governor signed the bill into law.

Lead advocate for the legislation, Tinia Creamer stated,

“It has been really amazing to watch the positive change in West Virginia on the issue of raw milk rights and food freedom. We’ve taken Food Freedom from a place of silence to a hot button issue that whole state has now talked about,” Says Creamer.

“Regaining the ability to operate herdshares was certainly not an overnight occurrence here, and the general thought for a long time was that West Virginia would never allow co-ownership agreements to exist again. In the end, I believe it was worth the 7-year fight. Well worth it. Persistence and growing a strong statewide support base through social media made SB387, the Raw Milk Herdshare bill, law. We overcame corporate Lobby groups, Lobbyists hired by statewide Health Departments and involvement from the FDA.”

The fact that raw milk in West Virginia is now available through cow shares is phenomenal. This opening for co-ownership of animals through cow share arrangements speaks to the ongoing shift from complete prohibition to acceptance of people’s rights to obtain the foods of their choice from the producer of their choice.

It is refreshing to see this shift continuing to occur, especially as enforcement increases against raw milk in Canada. If raw milk in West Virginia can be legal and available, perhaps it won’t be much longer for the other states and Canada that are holding out.

After the West Virginia bill was vetoed in 2015, Tinia persisted in bringing the issue before the General Assembly in 2016. Her hard work has paid off with farmers rights now reinstated.

“It is a relief, really,” says Creamer. “I know that raw milk in West Virginia through herdshares will help small farmers thrive; they will be a much needed way to bolster our economy. I am thankful that farmers will be able to offer, through co-ownership, a local food to their communities. This will, in turn, offer education to families about where their food comes from, how it is produced and really connect farmers to the people, as well.”

As the tide continues to shift towards raw milk availability, it is the advocates like Tinia we can thank for their tireless, unpaid work that keeps legislation and possibility alive.

To learn more about raw milk and other nutrient dense foods, visit westonaprice.org

Share

Kojo Nnamdi Show Covers Raw Milk

Sally Fallon Morrell Rejoins Kojo Nnamdi to Discuss Raw Milk 

The Kojo Nnamdi show, a popular daytime radio talk show in the DC area, recently had Sally Fallon Morrell on to discuss the benefits of fresh milk. You can listen to the full audio on the Kojo Nnamdi site.

During the episode, Sally points out that raw milk is a healthy food and that even the old, young and immune compromised can all benefit from drinking raw milk. She says that raw milk can be produced in a way that minimizes any safety risks.

She goes on to point out the richness and health benefits of the cream in raw milk. That it is what nature makes for growth and for protection against pathogens and it is healthy for digestion and the gut.

The fact that Kojo Nnamdi is covering this topic (and recently raw milk cheeses was covered in Vogue) Link here reveals the growing demand of fresh, raw milk and raw milk products from local farms.

The CDC estimates that about 3% of Americans consumer raw milk. Whether you are a proponent of raw milk for human consumption, or not, the fact that it is gaining mainstream media coverage indicates a general warming to the idea.

While no one expects raw milk consumption to overtake pasteurized milk consumption in the next few years, the fact that mainstream news is covering is with a balanced approach shows that perhaps those of us who relish the beverage will not be sidelined as much for consuming it. As raw milk gains normalcy status, we can hope to see some of the prevailing ridicule and criticism tempered with a more reasonable acceptance of raw milk as an suitable beverage for those who choose it for health reasons or otherwise.

Attitudes from those opposed to raw milk consumption, whether for personal or political reasons, are not likely to change soon, but are no longer being considered as the only voices on the issue. All in all, the shift in the media is not likely to create an overnight change in policy or public sentiment, but it begins to change the basic public acceptance of the wholesome food that has helped so many people regain their health.

To learn more about raw milk and other nutrient dense foods, visit westonaprice.org

Share

Farming Class Highlights Raw Milk Safety

The annual raw milk Symposium teaches, among other things, raw milk safety and how producers can create higher quality raw milk from grassfed cows. The Weston A. Price Foundation, in conjunction with their annual Wise Traditions conference, puts on the class. This year, the entire class was live streamed so that viewers around the county who could not attend the conference could still benefit from the valuable information.

The raw milk symposium features lectures and practical tips on productions from farmers, nutritionists and marketing experts. The classes include a pivotal class called “Building, Managing, Marketing & Sustaining a Raw Milk Micro-Dairy” presented by expert Charlotte Smith from Oregon.

Other classes include a presentation by Sally Fallon Morrell titled “Why Raw Milk?” that delves into the nutritional benefits of raw milk. The talk focuses on “the benefits to bones, teeth, immunity, respiratory health, growth, detoxification and even mental health conferred by whole unpasteurized milk, citing studies going back one hundred years and up to the present day.”

Mark McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures in California, has a talk titled “Behind the Scenes: What’s Really Happening with Raw Milk in the USA?” Mark is known for being involved in the legal sales of raw milk in California.

Peg Coleman helps us understand the importance of data and what it does say and what it doesn’t say in her talk “Risk Beyond the Numbers: Understanding Data, Gaps, and Assumptions Bridging Them.”

This symposium provides a platform for experts, farmers, consumers and anyone seeking additional information on raw milk from regulations to production to the nutrition of it. As an overview, this class will give anyone an idea of where to locate resources and information to further their studies on the topic. The class also helps to dispel misinformation about raw milk.

Each class is available individually, as presented.

To learn more about raw milk and other nutrient dense foods, visit westonaprice.org

Share

Michael Schmidt Arrested for Removing Surveillance Equipment from His Farm

Michael Schmidt was arrested on October 19, 2015 on charges of criminal theft for allegedly removing surveillance equipment he found on his farm in August. After discovering the cameras, which had no identification on them, Schmidt removed them and contacted police to report their discovery and ask who they belong to.

Schmidt believes the cameras belong to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and were put there to spy on the happenings and visitors of his farm. He refused to turn them over to the police and, several weeks later, a summons was issued for his arrest. Schmidt was arrested and held overnight in jail on October 29th.

His arrest came on the heels of two back-to-back raids of his farm, which took place during the week of September 29th and ultimately ended in a tense standoff between local authorities and Schmidt supporters, who prevented authorities from leaving the farm with farm equipment and dairy products.

“I am convinced that these charges about the cameras are some sort of revenge,” Schmidt says. “After the investigator and the agents had to leave the farm without the equipment they seized on the October 2, 2015 raid, they want something to show for it.”

For now, the tension between Schmidt and authorities continues to build as his farm has pledged to continue to peacefully grow and produce food as it has always done.

Support the Campaign for Real Milk, join the Weston A. Price Foundation, today!

Share

Australians Want Raw Milk to be Less Controversial Than Climate Change

According to Dr. Christopher Degeling of the University of Sydney’s School of Public Health, the discussion of fresh milk in Australia and New Zealand is “almost as contentious as climate change science.”

Earlier this year, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) reviewed Australia’s milk regulations and the released report legalized the production and importation of some raw milk cheeses. Unfortunately, the commercial sale of raw milk is still illegal (though drinking it is not).

Some believe that the reluctance to legalize raw milk sales stems from “laziness on health authorities’ part.” Australian microbiologist Dr. Ron Hull says, “They think it’s too hard to regulate raw milk, which is not true. Raw milk is regulated in most parts of the world and is just as safe as any other food.”

Read more via the The Sydney Morning Herald.

Support the Campaign for Real Milk, join the Weston A. Price Foundation, today!

Share