More States Allowing Farmers to Sell Raw Pet Milk
January 19, 2023A Campaign for Real Milk Brochure
June 13, 2023In 2016 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) began investigating Lancaster County dairy farmer Amos Miller for alleged violations of federal meat and poultry inspection laws. The civil court action the USDA subsequently launched against Miller1 and his business, Miller’s Organic Farm, is closer to a final resolution. The latest development in the case opens the way for the farmer and the department to resolve the case.
On December 9, Miller and the United States government entered into a settlement (“Consent Decree”) over fines and reimbursement to the USDA for expenses incurred related to Miller being in civil contempt of a 2019 injunction the court entered against Miller prohibiting the farmer “from committing continued violations of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. . . . And the Poultry Products Inspection Act. . . .”2 In a prior court action, Judge Edward G. Smith had levied a $250,000 fine against Miller and awarded USDA reimbursement of over $55,000 in the case.
Under the December 9 agreement, Miller will reimburse USDA its expenses and pay $30,000 of the assessed fine to the court with the remainder of the fine being “held in abeyance.” The consent decree leaves open the possibility that the court could rescind the remainder of the fine if Miller complies with the terms of the agreement. Miller currently has thousands of dollars of meat and poultry products in inventory that USDA orders prohibit him from selling or releasing in any way. The consent agreement provides that he could sell some of the inventory to members of his buyers club by December 31. As for the remainder of the product in inventory under the agreement, Miller has the options of either separating some of it for his personal use, selling it to a licensed pet food manufacturer or voluntarily destroying it. After December 31, 2022, all product still in Miller’s inventory will be subject to immediate denaturing and destruction. Under the agreement, once the product is denatured “acceptable destruction methods and means include (a) deposit in a landfill, (b) deposit in compost, (c) rendering and (d) diverting the product to pet food.”2
Once Miller carries out the terms of the consent decree, the path should be clear for him to reach agreement with the USDA on a custom slaughter plan that will allow him to slaughter and process animals on his farm without inspectors being present. The custom slaughter plan could set a favorable precedent for farmers and custom slaughter operators around the country. With the widespread publicity the Miller case has received, the USDA and the court know that many are watching what they do, something that bodes well for Miller to be able to continue making a living producing healthy food for his grateful patrons.
1. United States of America v. Miller’s Organic Farm and Amos Miller. The case is in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
2. “Second Consent Decree,” United States of America v. Miller’s Organic Farm and Amos Miller, Civil Action No. 19-cv-1435.
