There have been raw milk bills before the legislature in ten different states so far this current session. A bill has made it to the governor’s desk in Utah and there is legislation in at least a couple of other states that has a realistic chance of passing, including Louisiana which is one of seven states left where any raw milk sales or distribution is illegal. Bills before the legislatures include:

IOWA House File 2055 (HF 2055) would allow the unregulated sale of raw milk and raw milk products on-farm and through delivery. There is a labeling requirement that there be a statement on the container notifying consumers that the product has not been inspected and is not subject to public health regulations. Bills have also been introduced in the Iowa legislature that would legalize raw pet milk sales (HF 2057) and the distribution of raw milk through herdshares (HF 2056) but HF 2055 is the only raw milk bill the legislature has considered so far. On January 30 a subcommittee of the House Committee on Local Government recommended passage by a 2-1 vote; the bill is now before the full committee. Iowa is one of the remaining states that prohibits any raw milk distribution.

LOUISIANA companion bills, Senate Bill 188 (SB 188) and House Bill 437 (HB 437), have been introduced that would allow the on-farm sale of either cow milk or goat milk of an average of 500 gallons per month. No permit is required but producers are subject to inspection and must comply with milk testing, herd health, and sanitary standards as well as a labeling requirement that there be a warning that the raw milk may contain harmful bacteria. The bills are a reintroduction of Senate Bill 29 (SB 29) that nearly passed in 2016. SB 29 passed out of the Senate and was defeated in the House committee by one vote.

MASSACHUSETTS Senate Bill 442 (S.442) and House Bill 2938 (H.2938) are companion agricultural omnibus bills that include provisions which would officially legalize herdshare agreements and would allow the off-farm delivery of raw milk by licensed dairies. Under the bill, farmers with no more than twelve lactating cows, goats or combination of cows and goats can enter into herdshare agreements with those wanting to obtain raw milk. There must be a written contract that includes a statement that the raw milk is not pasteurized nor subject to inspection by the state Department of Health nor the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR). MDAR has power to issue rules on testing but cannot require testing more frequently than once every two months. The bills allow from a licensed raw milk farmer to deliver raw milk to a consumer with whom the farmer has a contractual relationship, including through the farmer’s agent and through a community supported agriculture (CSA) delivery system. The bill gives MDAR power to issue regulations governing delivery; the regulations must allow for non-mechanical refrigeration. The bills have passed out of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture and will likely next be assigned to the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

NEW JERSEY Assembly Bill 502 (A502) is the same bill that has been introduced the prior three legislative sessions, A502 allows for the on-farm sale of raw milk and raw milk products by a licensed dairy. Producers must comply with labeling, signage, herd health, and milk testing requirements. The bill also legalizes herdshare agreements and states that no permit is required for the distribution of milk through a herdshare contract. New Jersey is one of the remaining seven states that prohibits any raw milk distribution. A502 has been referred to the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

TENNESSEE House Bill 2229 (HB 2229) and Senate Bill 2104 (SB 2104) would have allowed the unregulated direct sale from producer to consumers of all foods except meat, on the farm, at farmers markets and other venues. There were labeling and signage requirements but no licensing or inspection under the bills. The bills were both defeated in committee; under current law, the distribution of raw milk and raw milk products is legal through herdshare agreements. Herdshare programs have been thriving in the state.

UTAH Senate Bill 108 (SB 108) has passed through both the Senate and House and are on the desk of Governor Gary Herbet. SB 108 allows the delivery and sale of raw milk through a mechanically refrigerated mobile unit by licensed dairies. Currently only the on-farm sale of raw milk by license holders is legal unless the producer has a majority ownership interest in a retail store (only one of the state’s ten licensed dairies meets this qualification). SB 108 also allows for the unlicensed on-farm sale of up to 120 gallons per month by unlicensed dairies if the producer is in compliance with labeling, recordkeeping, milk testing, and milk cooling requirements. Producers wanting to sell under this exemption must notify the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) that they are doing so. UDAF has power under the bill to order a producer to stop selling raw milk if the producer’s dairy is linked to a foodborne illness. The department has the power to levy administrative fines against producers who have been linked to a foodborne illness outbreak.

VIRGINIA Senate Bill 962 (SB 962) and House Bill 825 (HB 825) would have officially legalized and regulated herdshare operations. State policy in Virginia has long been to leave the many herdshare programs existing in the state alone. The original versions of both bills would have criminalized the refusal of either farmers or consumers to turn over copies of their contracts to government agencies. Both bills stated it was illegal for anyone besides the party to the contract to receive raw milk; in other words, giving raw milk to family or guests would have been a crime. Criminal penalties for violations of the bill’s requirements were up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine; every day the violation continued would be a separate offense. The bills also required that the herdshare contracts contain a clause that shareholders assumed joint liability if the herd or any milk produced by the heard was responsible for any injury or illness. SB 962 was in Senate committee and shortly afterwards was stricken in the House committee.

For further updates on the progress of raw milk legislation, go to the bill tracking page at

FDA Bootstrapping Its Power under FSMA

Recently the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYDAM) sent what it called a “Milk Control Facility FSMA Survey” to a number of licensed dairy producers in the state, including raw cheesemakers. The survey was mainly concerned with whether the producers were complying with various requirements related to the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) but there was one requirement the survey asked about that was never brought up at all when Congress was deliberating over FSMA–current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs), which FDA could try to use for regulating all commerce other than most meat and poultry that are under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This could include all intrastate commerce; under FDA’s interpretation of the law, any local producer– whether a raw milk dairy with a couple of cows or a private homemaking cottage foods operation–would be subject to the cGMP requirement and FDA jurisdiction.

The agency is claiming that authority given it by the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to regulate communicable diseases gives it the power to impose cGMP requirements. The PHSA provides that “[t]he Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary [of Health and Human Services], is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. For the purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.”1

A common sense reading of this power would be that FDA could get involved if there was a foodborne illness outbreak confined to one state or if a producer solely in intrastate commerce was found to be manufacturing food under unsanitary conditions but, according to the agency, its power to regulate communicable disease gives it the authority to impose cGMP requirements on all food manufacturers (other than those in the meat and poultry business) for the following: “plants and grounds; sanitary facilities, controls, and operations; equipment and utensils; processes and controls; warehousing and distribution; and natural or avoidable defect levels.”2

The cGMPs are part of a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme; unlike some of the more onerous FSMA provisions such as the national produce safety standards and the food safety standards (HAPRPC – Hazard Analysis Risk-Based Preventive Controls) in which many smaller producers are exempt from those mandates, there are no exemptions from the cGMP requirements.

FDA has long held that cGMPs apply to food manufacturers in intrastate commerce but the agency’s position fell on deaf ears until after the passage of FSMA. The cGMPs used to have their own section in the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR part 110) but, when FDA issued regulations governing the HARPC requirement (21 CFR part 117), it moved the cGMP regulations over to that section as well. FDA wants to make it seem like cGMPs are part of FSMA even though they were never brought up when Congress was considering the food safety legislation in 2009 and 2010.

At this time FDA doesn’t have nearly the resources to enforce the cGMP requirements across the board but that doesn’t have to happen for the agency to create a chilling effect among local food producers; an occasional inspection of or enforcement action against a raw milk producer or cottage food operation will do the trick. The cGMPs potentially threaten to roll back some of the progress made in recent years through legislative and policy changes in the areas of consumer access to raw dairy and cottage foods.

There are ways to protect against the cGMP threat to intrastate business. One way would be for state legislatures to more closely monitor FDA cooperative agreements between state departments of health and agriculture to make sure the state agencies don’t impose these requirements on food producers operating only in intrastate commerce; with FSMA, states will be counted on to carry out much of its enforcement. Another way would be to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to make it clear that the cGMP requirements only apply to firms operating in interstate commerce. As it is FSMA is possibly the most draconian piece of food legislation ever passed; FDA needs to be stopped from expanding its power beyond what Congress ever intended.

1 United States Code of Laws, 42 USC 264(a). Accessed 2/28/2018 at

2 Federal Register, 78 FR 3651. Section II.B.1 accessed 2/28/2018 at

Farmers & Consumers Challenge Raw Milk Ban

In a last ditch attempt to save the raw dairy operation at Glencolton Farm, 21 Ontario farmers and consumers filed a constitutional challenge on February 8 in a Toronto Superior Court to the province’s ban on raw milk sales and distribution. One of the parties to the lawsuit is Elise Vander Hout, a WAPF chapter leader whose husband Michael Schmidt has been fighting for legalization of raw milk sales in Ontario for the last 24 years.

The petitioners (the term used in Canada is applicants) are asking for exemptions to the Ontario Milk Act, the Health Protection and Promotion Act, and the Food and Drug Regulations with the sum of the exemptions sought being “to allow the processing, sale and distribution of raw milk and/or raw milk products (raw milk) in containers having a detailed warning label advising of the risks of consuming raw milk directly to persons who wish to purchase and consume raw milk and/or raw milk products . . . .”

The 21 individuals filed the challenge in response to a January 5 decision by Judge P.W. Sutherland of the Superior Court of Justice in Newmarket who issued an order prohibiting all raw milk producers in Ontario from operating a raw milk plant without a license and from any distribution of raw milk by an unlicensed plant; under provincial law any raw milk produced by a licensed dairy plant must be pasteurized. See the “Quiet Dictatorship Strikes Again” for more background.

The main parties in the Newmarket case beside Schmidt and Vander Hout were the Agri-Cultural Renewal Cooperative Inc. (ACR) and Our Farm Our Food Cooperative Inc. (OFOF). In 2010 ARC purchased Glencolton Farm in its entirety, owning all the land, buildings, equipment and animals; former owner Schmidt still works on the farm but owns nothing of it. OFOF later purchased 100% ownership of the cows and hired ARC to care for the cows and manage the dairy operations at Glencolton Farm. The 143 members of OFOF invested $2,000 to join the co-op and have access to raw milk and raw milk products. Schmidt, Vander Hout, ARC, OFOF and the other defendants in the case have appealed Judge Sutherland’s ruling to the Court of Appeals for Ontario requesting that the judge’s orders and the appeal itself be stayed until the Toronto Superior Court of Justice has issued a decision on the constitutional challenge. Failure to obtain a stay would mean the end of Glencolton Farm’s dairy operation.

In an affidavit filed for the appeal Vander Hout describes the consequences of the Court of Appeal not staying Judge Sutherland’s orders:

    “To date (February 12) I have complied with the orders of Sutherland, J. However, we are struggling to maintain the closed herd of thirty-two cows which we will soon be unable to afford. We are faced with the horrifying prospect of taking the entire herd to the butcher. Already it has been necessary to butcher three cows named Alera, Vanessa and Lana, whom we said goodbye to on January 18, 2018. This is a big loss to our herd and we are devastated at having to take this measure. If the whole herd is butchered, it would be impossible to rebuild in our lifetime . . . . As a result of the Sutherland J.’s orders, we have also had to stop milking one-third of our cows.”

Vander Hout goes on to state that the end of the dairy operation would mean a loss of $175,000 annually for Glencolton Farm, income amounting to one-half of the farm’s total revenue. Also lost would be the genetics of the rare heritage breed “Canadienne” cows that Schmidt has bred for over the past 30 years.

Petitioners are basing the constitutional challenge mainly on two clauses of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of the clauses states, in part, “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression….”

The other clause provides, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

In her affidavit Vander Hout states, “Many consumers, friends and members of my community have had extremely positive health improvements due to consumption of raw milk. I cannot, in good conscience, enjoy consuming health-giving raw milk on my farm with my family (under the Ontario Milk Act only dairy farmers and their families have legal access to raw milk), while others are left to suffer their ailments which led them to seek out access to raw milk in the first place.”

The petition describes the consumer parties to the challenge as “individuals who for many years have purchased raw milk, consumed it themselves and provided it to members of their families for the health benefits they believe it affords. Each holds, as a matter of conscience or religion, that she or he should have the right to obtain raw milk from farmers in Ontario for that reason . . . . Contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, the prohibitions against the sale of and distribution of raw milk have deprived the applicant consumers of its health benefits which are fundamental to their lives and security of person.”

Documents submitted as part of the appeal show the detailed health, sanitation and food safety protocols the farm meticulously employs and further illustrate how the Ontario laws have nothing to do with protecting the public health but rather only have the intent to prohibit competition to the Ontario dairy industry. The petition notes that there is no law prohibiting the consumption of raw milk which wouldn’t be the case if the product was truly regarded as a health hazard. The only threat to health is the senseless loss of a great source of nutrient-dense food if the Toronto Superior Court rejects the constitutional challenge.

The petition states, “The values that underlie Canada’s political and moral traditions demand that the Applicants should be free to hold and manifest whatever beliefs and opinions their conscience dictates so long as such displays do not injure their neighbors or their neighbors’ parallel rights to hold and manifest beliefs and opinions of their own.”

The Toronto court has the opportunity to uphold freedom of choice something that the corporate/bureaucratic dictatorship wants to crush. For 26 years Michael Schmidt has provided raw milk to Ontario families; whether he will provide any more will likely come down to the ruling in this case.

Those supporting freedom of choice in Canada are encouraged to make a donation at

Top graphic snipped from “Food Rights” video, published 19 Oct. 2015 on YouTube at

Updated 3/14/18 – title revised from “Farmers and Consumers File Constitutional Challenge to Ontario Raw Milk Ban”

Victory in Virginia – Bills Threatening Herd Shares Now Dead

Joel Salatin said, “If this is not reminiscent of David and Goliath, I don’t know what is”, referring to the defeat of two bills posing a major threat to the future of herdshare programs in Virginia. Virginia Farm Bureau, Virginia Agribusiness Council, and the Virginia State Dairymen’s Association all supported the legislation but grassroots mobilization against the bills lead by the Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (VICFA) won out with an assist from members of the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) and other food freedom advocates.

Herdshare agreements are private contractual arrangements in which someone purchases an ownership interest in a dairy animal (or herd of dairy animals) and pays a fee to a farmer for boarding, caring for and milking the animal(s). The owner has the property right to obtain raw milk from the animal(s). It’s legal to purchase ownership in a dairy animal and it’s legal to obtain milk from a dairy animal you co-own. Herdshare programs have been flourishing in Virginia for many years.

Last month legislators carrying out the agenda of industrial agriculture introduced House Bill 825 and Senate Bill 962 in the Virginia legislature. While the bills officially legalized herdshares [currently there is nothing in the Virginia Code on herdshares], they were an attempt to intimidate both consumers and farmers from either entering into or continuing on with herdshare agreements. Each bill provided that violating any of its requirements would be first degree misdemeanors with criminal penalties of up to one year in jail and $2,500 in fines; every day the violation continued would be a separate offense. Both farmers and consumers could have been found guilty of a crime for not turning over copies of their contracts to government agencies. Both bills stated it was illegal for anyone besides the party to the heredshare contract to receive raw milk; in other words, giving raw milk to family or guests would be a crime according to the wording in the bills.

To scare consumers away from signing contracts, there was a requirement in both bills that the herdshare agreements contain a clause stating that shareholders assumed joint liability if the herd or any milk produced by the herd was responsible for any injury or illness. HB 825 and SB 962 each required there be a label on all raw milk containers with a consumer advisory warning about the dangers of consuming raw animal foods. Why would shareholders need a label on their own property? Why should they be forced to trash their own property with an advisory?

Reaction to the bills’ filings was swift. Farmers and consumers bombarded legislators with phone calls, emails and in-person visits to the capitol. VICFA kept people apprised of the bills’ status and mobilized the local food community to attend the hearings on the bills. Herdshare farmers like Dwayne McIntyre of Goshen Homestead, Jacques and Kim Fuhrmann of Our Fathers Farm, the Wilkes family of Honey Brook Farm, Tim and Joy Alexander of Avery’s Branch Farm, and Scott Wilson of Full Quiver Farm all made a difference in building opposition to the legislation.

On February 1 the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources held a hearing on SB 962; around 100 opponents of the bill packed the hearing room. Senator Mark Obenshain, seeing the writing on the wall with the opposition to the bill, took out a number of SB 962’s more onerous provisions but opponents weren’t buying the revised version of the bill. Their message throughout the testimony opposing SB 962 was clear: no regulation, period!

VICFA member and herdshare pioneer, Christine Solem, began the opponents’ testimony by angrily warning the committee that she would “fight this all the way.” Twice, Solem took herdshare lawsuits to the Virginia Supreme Court in the 1980s with the court implicitly recognizing that herdshare agreements were legal.

Mark Wilkes of Honey Brook Farm commented in his testimony that the bill “was a solution in search of a problem.” VICFA president Anne Buteau backed up that statement in her testimony by pointing out to the committee that, in the 30 years of herdshares operating in Virginia, government officials investigating the one foodborne illness outbreak attributed to raw milk distributed through a herdshare did not go public with the information because, as they stated, “the nature of the herd-share programs are such that we were confident that we would effectively reach those who were truly at risk for illness.”

Herdshares are closed-loop arrangements with a high level of traceability. Virginia government officials have all the authority they need under existing law to conduct an effective investigation if there is a suspicion of foodborne illness.

Senator Richard Black agreed with Wilkes and Buteau, firing up the crowd when he remarked, “I don’t know what problem it’s addressing. People life a free life in rural areas and don’t want government peeking over their back and telling them what to do.”

Once the testimony was over, the committee voted 8 to 7 not to report the bill out of committee. Delegate Barry Knight, the sponsor of HB 825, knowing how difficult it was going to be to pass a more burdensome bill than SB 962 (HB 825, unlike the Senate bill, gave government broad rule-making power) moved to withdraw his bill; on February 5, a House Agriculture subcommittee struck the bill by an 8-0 vote.

VICFA’s mission “is to promote and preserve unregulated direct farmer-to-consumer trade that fosters availability of locally grown or home-produced food products.” VICFA co-founder Salatin, Solem and other VICFA members such as the late Katherine Russell, helped create a “don’t tread on me” culture that is present throughout Virginia when it comes to farmer-to-consumer unregulated commerce, particularly with herdshares. Those in the local food movement there don’t ask the government for permission to exercise their rights and they want the government to leave them alone.

VICFA operates on a shoe-string budget but members, like Buteau, Solem, past president Lois Smith, and Suzi Croes, will spend the time it takes to protect herdshares–the crown jewel of the local food system in Virginia. They continue to be effective in keeping herdshares away from any regulation; in 2017 VICFA helped kill an attempt by Farm Bureau to ban herdshares. When it comes to establishing and protecting unregulated direct farmer-to-consumer commerce, it is a model organization for those in other states to follow.

Click image below to watch the video from the 2/1/18 Senate committee hearing on SB 962 starting at time marker 0:45:40 (Note: Christine Solem stands to the right, behind Senator Obenshain)

Raw Milk Legalization — What Is New Jersey Waiting For?

The New Jersey Department of Health (NJDH) has been busy recently on the raw milk front. In one investigation NJDH sent cease and desist letters to various dropsites at private residences. The dropsites were allegedly distributing raw milk and raw milk products to customers of an out-of-state dairy. In another action NJDH was investigating a New Jersey based food buyers co-op sourcing raw milk from multiple out-of-state producers. The department was trying to determine which of the producers was responsible for an illness caused by the consumption of raw milk. The two cases represent an opportunity for the state to evaluate its law prohibiting the sale and distribution of raw milk and acknowledge that the law needs changing.

The cease and desist letters threatened the families operating the dropsites with fines for distributing raw milk. This isn’t the first time NJDH took this kind of action. In 2007 NJDH also sent cease and desist letters to individuals having dropsites at their residences. The difference from the investigation eleven years ago is that NJDH sent letters to considerably more dropsites this time around; not surprising since demand for raw milk has been consistently increasing for years. Otherwise law-abiding citizens will do what they have to in order to obtain raw milk in states like New Jersey where the sale is banned; whether NJDH will admit that or not, it’s the reality.

In the case of the food buyers co-op, NJDH was having a difficult time trying to determine which dairy was responsible for making a member of the club ill with brucellosis. There were media reports discussing the NJDH investigation but none reporting that the department had identified the producer responsible for the illness; it is clear that NJDH was having problems with traceability.

If you combine the growing demand for raw milk among New Jersey residents along with the traceability issue NJDH has been having with out-of-state dairies it would be a good move for the state to consider legalization. A good first move for the state would be to allow by policy the distribution of raw milk through herdshare agreements; under herdshare contracts raw milk consumers obtain an ownership interest in the dairy animal(s) enabling them to obtain raw milk and hire the farmer to board, care for and milk those animals. Herdshare programs are closed-loop arrangements in which there is a high level of traceability if there is a suspected illness; something NJDH should appreciate after what it has been through.

New Jersey dairy farmers have lost millions of dollars in potential revenues to Pennsylvania raw milk producers (there are less than 70 Grade A dairies left in the state) but that never moved the state government to end the prohibition on raw milk sales and distribution. What could change the state’s position though is the difficulty its health department had in conducting an investigation of foodborne illness combined with the fact that demand for raw milk among New Jersey residents will only continue to further increase. Allowing the distribution of raw milk through an arrangement outside the stream of public commerce would be a good first step for the state.

They are Rounding Up the Raw Milk Drinkers

Republished by permission from Bernadette Barber, originally posted 25 January 2018 at Virginia Food Freedom.

Twin bills in the Virginia legislature, SB 962 by Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-26) and HB 825 by Del. Barry Knight (R-81) are the first steps in destroying the very farm operations that allow people to access cream line raw milk (farm fresh, unpasteurized, unhomogenized).

In the 1950’s it was common to purchase raw milk in VA. Over the course of time, industrialization forced smaller dairies out of the countryside. By the 70’s and 80’s people were missing that good old real milk. They sought it out and by default, since by then outright purchase was illegal, they found that it was not illegal to drink milk from your own cow. So it began, cow shares and herd shares sprang up in Virginia.

People chose raw milk for a myriad of reasons, taste, healthfulness and ability to know the farmer who milks the cow are three major ones.

To understand the gravity of the situation, one must understand the power hungry milk processors at the state level and the national level. They have well paid lobbyists. The lowly dairy farmer him or herself does not make a fortune on milking cows. They might make a dollar a gallon (it is measured by weight not volume). On the other hand the processors, who manufacture the creams, yogurts, butters, flavored milks, cheeses and more are making a fortune. Sometimes the margins are so slim on items they constantly must create new items to appeal to the masses. Over the course of time competing industries have interfered with profit margins. Enter protein and power beverages, designer teas, gatorade, coconut milk, almond milk, designer juices and more. They all command attention at the grocery store and the dairy industry is losing the customer base it once had.

Citing USDA Agricultural Marketing Service Data from 2012 to 2016, annual conventional milk sales declined by 8%, (that’s 4 billion pounds) and organic milk sales increased by 20%. The decrease in fluid milk sales transfers to an annual decline of $1.7 billion dollars as reported by the American Farm Bureau Federation.

So there it is, the bottom line. Fluid milk sales is a mult-billion dollar trade. And they don’t want to share. So in come the RINO republicans and industry advocates, Barry Knight and Mark Obenshain to kill off a small thriving community of cow-sharing- organic-raw-milk drinkers and farmers.

Do yourself a lovely favor this day, consider acquiring some raw cream for your coffee. And do some online research. In one search use the word CAFO and in another use the words cow share. See which model you would like to use for your personal food consumption. And ask yourself why Knight and Obenshain want to destroy small farm operations.

If you have more time, please call Del. Knight 804-698-1081 and Sen. Obenshain 804-698-7526 and ask them to withdraw the bills. Because they are both on the Agriculture Committees, they do represent ALL Virginians in that aspect, please don’t let the gatekeeper deny your voice. It will help some small farmers.

For more information on the issue and to get involved, please view and join 

Thanks for all your help,

Bernadette Barber

The Quiet Dictatorship Strikes Again

Canada has been referred to as a quiet dictatorship, a country that denies your rights in a civil way. If you defy the state by exercising your freedoms, the government will imprison you but will do so in a kindly manner. A great example of the lack of freedom in Canada and the suffocating control that the corporate state has over the individual is a recent court decision in Ontario affecting 143 families whose members want to consume raw milk and raw milk products.

On January 5 Justice P.W. Sutherland of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted a permanent injunction to Gavin Dowing (referred to as “the Director”–the opinion never explains what he is the director of?) and the Regional Municipality of York, Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit and the Regional Municipality of Peel that prevents 143 individuals and their families that are members of the Our Farm Our Food Cooperative (OFOF) from being able to consume raw milk produced by a herd of dairy cows in which OFOF has 100% ownership–the co-op members have invested $2,000 each to join.

OFOF purchased the cows from the Agri-Cultural Renewal Cooperative (ARC) and hired ARC to care for the cows and manage the dairy operations. In 2010 ARC purchased Glencolton Farm in its entirety, owning all the land, buildings, equipment and animals. Former owner Michael Schmidt stills works on the farm but owns nothing of it. Schmidt, his wife Elisa Vander hout and several officers and directors of ARC were defendants in the case as was ARC itself.

The injunction prevents, among other things, defendants and anyone with knowledge of the judge’s order “from operating a plant without a license” and “from selling, offering for sale, delivering or distributing milk or cream or products processed or derived from milk that has not been pasteurized or sterilized in a plant that is not licensed under the Milk Act…” In other words, those individuals who paid $2,000 so that they and their families could obtain raw milk are out of luck.

In his opinion, Judge Sutherland made the ominous statement that “[a] court should not grant such an order unless the court is prepared if necessary to commit a violator of the order into prison.” Schmidt has already been sentenced to 60 days in jail for obstructing a peace officer trying to leave Glencolton Farm with dairy products and milking equipment.

The most remarkable part of Judge Sutherland’s opinion is that it contains a complete chronology of the 24-year battle Schmidt has been through with the government in trying to legalize raw milk distribution in Ontario and other places in Canada. Time and again Schmidt has tried to adjust the raw milk operation on his farm to comply with a prior court ruling only for a court to rule in the next proceeding that there is no difference between public and private distribution of raw milk and that only those living on a farm [the family farm exemption] can legally obtain raw milk–all other milk must be pasteurized and under state control.

In his opinion, the Judge rejected defendants’ contention that the private nature of the ARC-OFOF operation made it not subject to Ontario milk laws noting that “[t]his court has resisted schemes that purport to create ‘private’ enclaves immune to the reach of public health legislation.”

It is uncertain at this time whether Schmidt will continue his fight to legalize raw milk in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada. If this is it, his courage and persistence have left a lasting legacy with the tremendous increase in the demand for and supply of raw milk throughout Canada. The many Canadian raw milk producers that have started up in recent years would rather stay underground than work for legalization like Schmidt did, seeing the courts repeatedly favor the dairy industry monopoly over freedom of choice and private property rights. They want to stay as far away as possible from the Canadian system of fascist governance.

UPDATE – The defendants filed an appeal of Justice Sutherland’s opinion in February 2018.

Top graphic snipped from “Food Rights” video, published 19 Oct. 2015 on YouTube at

For information on donating to the Canada effort, visit

Ontario court sign graphic snipped from CTV Barrie video published 29 May 2017 for “Injunction Could Decide Future of Unpasteurized Milk” at

Michael Schmidt on Glencolton Farm graphic snipped from “Food Rights” video, published 19 Oct. 2015 on YouTube at

A Wishlist of Just Laws for Those Who Feed Our Families

At the end of 2017 there were several enforcement actions and investigations underway against raw milk distributors. In a Kansas City district court the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was seeking an order allowing it to seize and destroy $70,000 of camel milk and camel milk products, most of it unpasteurized. Government agencies in four different states were investigating a New Jersey food buyers club in connection with an illness attributed to raw milk consumption. In a separate investigation the New Jersey Department of Health sent cease and desist letters to a number of private residences in that state that were allegedly serving as dropsites for the distribution of raw milk and other nutrient-dense foods.

Out of the three cases, the only illness involved was traced to the administration of a brucellosis vaccine to a cow that resulted in active brucella showing up in the raw milk. In the FDA and New Jersey Department of Health investigations there were no allegations of adulterated raw dairy or other foods being distributed. Still, distributors in all three cases could be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties for distributing food their customers believed best for their health and well-being. As the new year gets underway what laws could be passed to better protect producers and distributors of nutrient-dense foods and improve the chances of those individuals getting justice if the government brings a formal administrative or judicial action against them. Here are some suggestions towards making this happen.

    Jury Nullification
    Jury nullification is the legal concept where the jury has the right to acquit the defendant even if the law points toward guilt if the jury believes that it would be unjust to apply the law given the facts of the case. Jury nullification can take place in either criminal or civil trials. The Alvin Schlangen and Vernon Hershberger trials, respectively in Wisconsin and Minnesota, were jury nullification cases where the juries refused to convict the two for violations of the food and dairy laws even though under the letter of the law either could have been found guilty.

    The U.S Supreme Court has recognized the right of a jury to acquit a defendant when it believes that the application of the law to the facts of the case would be unjust.1 The trouble with jury nullification at the federal level and in nearly all states is that even though the jury has the right to judge the law as well as the facts in a case, judges and defense attorneys are prohibited from informing juries that this right exists. States need to pass laws lifting this prohibition.

    In 2012 the New Hampshire legislature passed a law stating, “In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defendant to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to those facts.” In a 2014 case, State v. Paul2 the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that this law did not impose any obligation on the court to “instruct the jury as to jury nullification.”2,3

      In response to the supreme court’s ruling a bill (HB 133) was introduced in the 2017 New Hampshire legislative session that read: In all criminal proceedings the court shall inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy. At the request of the defendant or the defendant’s attorney, the court shall instruct the jury as follows: “If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the state has proved any one or more of the elements of the crime charged, you must find the defendant not guilty. However if you find that the state has proved all the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. Even if you find that the state has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find that based upon the facts of this case a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result, and you may find the defendant not guilty.”

    The 2017 New Hampshire bill is the type of legislation that needs to pass to strengthen the juror’s right of nullification. At a minimum it makes no sense that a defense attorney cannot even inform the jury of this right. Jurors should not have to work in the blind as to their nullifying rights as they did in the Hershberger and Schlangen cases where the law prohibited the judge and the defense attorneys from telling the jury directly about jury nullification. Jury nullification is a bedrock of our justice system; jurors should be educated about it.

    Jury Trials in Food Condemnation Cases
    Government agencies generally have to petition courts to destroy food the agencies have seized. The government usually does this on the grounds of protecting the public health but in nearly all cases there is no evidence that the food from the same production batch under seizure has made anyone sick. For some producers or distributors a single court order to destroy food can put them out of business. In cases like the Kansas raw camel milk seizure the government hasn’t even alleged that the milk is adulterated or a threat to human health.

    In one Missouri case, a court ordered the destruction of over 30,000 pounds of raw cheese even though the cheese manufacturer, Morningland Dairy, had never been accused of making anyone sick in 30 years of doing business and neither FDA nor the Missouri Milk Board had tested any of the cheese subject to the destruction order. FDA had taken 100 environmental swabs at the facility all of which were negative for the pathogen. Judges who rule against destroying food are in a no-win situation even if the facts of the case favor the food producer or distributor; they are under tremendous pressure to err on the side of protecting the public health even if there is no real health threat at all. A jury would better take into consideration the evidence on the side of producers and distributors in these cases.

    Jury Trial for Cases Where the Government Seeks a Permanent Injunction Against Food Producers and Distributors
    An injunction is a court order prohibiting someone from doing some specified act or commanding someone to undo some wrong or injury. A permanent injunction is a final court order that is permanently in effect unless the court lifts the order. Those who violate the injunction can face contempt charges with the possibility of fines and/or jail time.

    In Michigan the past couple of years the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) has brought court actions for injunction against two different raw milk producers, Hill High Dairy and Dairy Delight Cow Boarding, for matters that should not have been any of MDARD’s business. In the Hill High Dairy case the department tried to stop individuals leasing cows from having the leaseholders hire someone to process their own raw milk into other dairy products; in the Dairy Delight case the department tried to stop those in a herdshare program from selling, among other foods, oatmeal cookies and apple muffins to other shareholders without proper labeling. Both cases involved private, closed-loop transactions far outside the stream of public commerce; in the Hill High Dairy case, MDARD not only obtained an injunction against the dairy prohibiting it from violating state food and dairy laws but brought contempt charges against the dairy when its leaseholders continued to have their raw milk processed into other dairy products. Thankfully, the judge hearing the case brought some common sense to the matter when he ruled the dairy was not in contempt.

    Agencies like MDARD would be less likely to bring actions for an injunction and contempt suits for violation of an injunction in these type of cases if they knew that food producers and distributors would be entitled to a trial by a jury of their peers.

    Right to Jury Trial for Appeals of Administrative Rulings
    Government agencies seeking to punish food producers with penalties such as license revocation or fines can resort to administrative hearings where the odds of success are not as great for producers as they would be in a judicial court. Several raw milk producers have found out firsthand that administrative hearings are often one-sided proceedings in which those the agency is trying to punish are afforded little due process.

    One Ohio farmer had his dairy license revoked at an administrative hearing for taking a $2.00 donation for a gallon of raw milk he gave to an undercover officer from the Ohio Department of Agriculture. Raw dairy producers have been through administrative hearings where, even if the person presiding over the hearing ruled against the government agency, the agency had the power legally to ignore the ruling and issue the order it wanted to anyway.

    Parties can appeal the ruling to a judicial trial court; the courts sits as an appellate court for the appeal but is limited to reviewing just the record from the administrative proceeding. The system needs to change so that the trial court would sit as a trial court trying the matter from the beginning as if it had never been heard in the administrative proceeding (the legal term is de novo trial) to give the individual the agency seeks to punish a fresh start in a less biased proceeding. To further discourage government harassment there should be a right to a jury trial in the appeal of an administrative proceeding to a judicial court.

Even if a state currently has a favorable regulatory climate for the production and distribution of nutrient-dense food, it is still the right move to pass the laws suggested above in case the enforcement policy of the agencies ever change.

Producers and distributors of raw milk and other nutritious foods who take the risks they do to make those foods available deserve to get justice and not just law if a court action is brought against them. Greater protection is needed for those who provide for our sustenance.

[1] Spanf v. United States 156 U.S. 51 (1895)
[2] State v. Paul 167 N.H. 39,42
[3] The jury instruction the trial court judge gave in the Paul case was: “You should follow the law as I explain it regardless of any opinion you may have as to what the law ought to be. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the State has proved any one or more of the elements of the crime charged, you must find the defendant not guilty. However, if you find that the state has proved all elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.” Paul, p. 41.

FDA Antibiotic Test Requirement Threatens to Cut Raw Milk Supply in Pennsylvania

Controversial antibiotic test requirements imposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be going into effect next month in Pennsylvania. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA), Pennsylvania will be the last state to implement the testing requirements; FDA initially issued them in 2011.1 The requirements will especially impact raw milk farmers who sell part of their production to dairy cooperatives for pasteurization as well as selling raw milk direct to the consumer or through retail stores. The main reason that the FDA testing mandate has received much more attention than in any other state is that there are more producers in Pennsylvania than any other state whose raw milk goes for both pasteurization and for direct consumption. Thanks to laws in neighboring states that either restrict or prohibit raw milk sales or distribution to consumers in both the northeastern and mid-Atlantic regions rely on Pennsylvania raw milk producers for their sustenance.

The antibiotic testing requirements are that farmers producing either raw milk for pasteurization or raw milk to be manufactured into other dairy products (such as raw or pasteurized cheese) must test every batch of raw milk produced for antibiotic residue even if the producer’s dairy operation is certified organic. Producers who only produce raw milk for human consumption are not subject to the FDA testing requirement. Producers subject to the testing mandate will either have to do their own testing on equipment that could cost thousands of dollars to purchase, pay thousands each year for testing by a state-approved lab or, in the case of producers selling to a co-op, wait to get test results (milk haulers transporting milk for co-ops collect samples for testing of each batch of raw milk they pick up from a farm belonging to the co-op). Producers cannot commingle any milk from a subsequent batch until they get test results back from the co-op; further complicating matters is the fact that co-ops typically do not report test results to member farmers at all, much less on a timely basis. PDA has gotten reports of producers working with co-ops to create a process for timely reporting of test results but it remains to be seen how these efforts pan out.

Dairy Farmers of America, a co-op with a history of strong opposition to legalizing raw milk sales for human consumption, controls a substantial percentage of raw milk produced for pasteurization in Pennsylvania, possibly over one-half of the total. Trickling Springs Creamery, a well-known Pennsylvania co-op, has already notified its members that one hundred percent of their production must go to the co-op; members will not be able to retain any raw milk for retail sales or for manufacturing into any other dairy product. If a farmer selling raw milk to a co-op for pasteurization is found to violate the antibiotic testing requirements, FDA can not only stop the farmer’s shipments to the co-op, it can shut down the co-op from making any shipments in interstate commerce.

To its credit, PDA (with FDA’s approval) has established a variance process, where those dairies it grants a variance will be exempt from the antibiotic testing requirements.2 Forty farmers have applied for the variance so far; out of the sixteen applications PDA has reviewed, it has approved seven for a variance. Those eligible for the variance include those farmers that pasteurize and bottle all the raw milk they produce and those manufacturing other dairy products only from raw milk produced on their farm. Producers selling any of their raw milk production to a co-op are not eligible for a variance per order of FDA; the nine applications PDA rejected were all from those selling part of their production to a co-op.

A PDA official estimated that as many as one-half of the 68 Pennsylvania dairies permitted to produce and sell raw milk for human consumption are Grade A dairies that sell some of their milk production to a co-op. If these dairies aren’t able to make a workable arrangement with their co-ops on reporting test results, the cost of antibiotic testing could drive many to drop their permits and get out of the raw milk business when antibiotic residues in the milk was never a problem for any of them to begin with. The FDA testing requirement, in their cases, has nothing to do with protecting the public health.

[1] Public Health Service/FDA, Appendix N Drug Residue Testing and Farm Surveillance, “Grade A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance 2015 Revision; pp. 374-379. Note: the PMO is a document governing the production distribution, and transportation of raw milk intended for pasteurization; Pennsylvania and nearly all other states have adopted the PMO and the other states must have standards at least as strict. Accessed 12/20/2017 at
[2] PDA Commissioner Russell Redding, Letter to Pennsylvania Milk Permitholder, 4 October 2017. Subject: Update on Implementation of Drug Residue Testing Requirements of FDA’s Appendix N of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance”

Pride & Joy Creamery Closes Down Raw Milk Operation

For the past 10 years Allen and Cheryl Voortman of Pride and Joy Creamery in Granger, Washington, have produced high quality raw milk that has benefited the health of thousands of their customers. At the beginning of 2017 Pride and Joy Creamery was one of the largest raw milk dairies in Washington, distributing their nutrient-dense product throughout the state. Long certified as a 100% grassfed organic dairy, Pride and Joy received the highest rating given by the nonprofit organic industry watchdog Cornucopia Institute to organic milk producers–a rating given only to ten other dairies in the country.

Sadly, today, Pride and Joy Creamery is out of the retail raw milk business and only produces raw milk for pasteurization. The Voortmans no longer have the herd that produced raw milk for direct consumption. Two shutdowns of the dairy engineered by the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) led the Voortmans to make the decision to end their raw milk operation.

In February 2017, WSDA and the Washington Department of Public Health accused the dairy’s raw milk of making two people ill with salmonella poisoning. It is not known whether public health officials tried to find any other foods the two sick individuals might have consumed in common once it was discovered that each drank the dairy’s raw milk. WSDA sent samples of the dairy’s raw milk to the state lab; while the samples were negative for salmonella, two samples were positive for shiga-toxin producing e-coli (STEC), a result the department used to pressure the Voortmans into conducting a voluntary recall of the dairy’s raw milk which ultimately resulted in the dairy being shut down for over two months. WSDA produced no evidence that the STEC it found in the milk samples was capable of making anyone sick.

In September, milk samples taken by WSDA tested positive for salmonella, eventually leading the department to suspend the dairy’s license to produce raw milk. When samples WSDA took in October were also positive for salmonella, the Voortmans shut down their raw milk operation for good rather than incur the tremendous expense it would have taken to get WSDA’s approval to start up again. Samples from the same batch of milk that the Voortmans sent to an accredited laboratory in Idaho were all negative for salmonella. During this time, there were no reports of illness caused by the consumption of raw milk. A November post on the Pride and Joy Facebook page announcing the end of the dairy’s retail raw milk business noted, “the bureaucracy, financial burden and uncertainty of this business is now too much for us.”

There is something wrong with the Washington regulatory system when one of the state’s most popular dairy is forced out of business even though its raw milk has arguably made no one sick. Pride and Joy is not the only Washington raw milk dairy to go out of business in recent months; since around the middle of the year three other dairies have turned in their permits. The four farms account for about ten percent of the total number of licensed Washington raw milk dairies.

Photo below by Yevgeniy Novozhilov posted November 13, 2017, on the Facebook page for Pride and Joy Creamery with the comment: “Thank you Pride and Joy, for the best-tasting raw milk. My family really enjoyed it for the past several years. Will miss your products very much!”