United States

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• District of Columbia
• Florida
• Georgia

• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland

• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey

• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina

• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Washington
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

Update Spring 07
Arizona is one of eight states where consumers can purchase raw milk in stores and at distribution points, and raw milk is now widely available in the state. However, the United Dairymen of Arizona had legislation introduced—SB 1367—that would have restricted the sale of raw milk to the farm. Fortunately, the bill was defeated. We’ll keep a close watch to see whether the bill is reintroduced next year.

Update 22 April 06
Crème de la Moo is again state permitted and certified organic with new organic dairy, Save Your Dairy LLC. Retail sales began at the Farm Shoppe 20 December 2005 and to select retail stores 20 March 2006 on finding an affordable state-approved refrigerated van.

Update 17 April 06
On the 15th of December 2005 Creme de la Moo was state permitted and certified organic to bottle raw milk with new organic dairy, Save Your Dairy LLC. A single impassioned investor made the new dairy possible. Creme de la Moo owners have worked tirelessly to make it happen and exceed all state and organic requirements. Arizona once again has organic raw milk.

Update 24 AUG 05
In March, raw milk became available in Tucson stores, thanks to the efforts of Judi Dawn and her company Crème de la Moo. A contract had been worked out with a local organic dairy, Mombe Dairy, to purchase their raw milk for bottling. However, no sooner had her products appeared in stores than the United Dairy folks of Arizona met in secret and then reneged on her contract with the dairy, in violation of previous agreements. They are now looking into options to get the business going again.

Update Spring 07
CBS Evening News featured Organic Pastures Dairy in a February
20 segment on probiotics. The piece contained extremely positive reporting
on the benefits of raw milk, and no detractors.

Update 24 AUG 05
Organic Pastures now has a new distributor which is putting their raw milk in 500 stores up from 225. Demand is so great that they are selling all of their milk from about 330 cows, which graze on pasture and are even milked in the pasture via a portable milking parlor.

Read more updates from Organic Pastures of Kerman, CA.

Details
Guidestone Farm was given clearance to operate a cow-share program by the Colorado health department in 1994. For eight years, they have operated quietly, without any problems, providing raw milk to more than 150 families. Now other farmers are becoming interested in doing cow-share programs—more and more people want access to raw milk—so naturally the state is trying to shut the program down. In a letter dated February 27, 2003, Dan Trimberger of the Consumer Protection Division announced proposed regulatory changes that would make cow-share programs illegal.

State officials recently met with consumers to discuss the proposed changes—and were unprepared for the quality of the testimony they heard. Consumers argued for their right to freedom of choice, health professionals delineated the health benefits of raw milk, and two lawyers—one for Guidestone and one for the Colorado Farmers' Union—pointed out that legislation against cow share programs would be unconstitutional. Officials left the meeting with their tails between their legs, stating that the current law would stand until further deliberations.

Update 24 AUG 05
Raw milk lovers are celebrating the passage of a bill to legitimize cow-share programs in the state, signed into law by the governor on April 22. Says James Dean, the lawyer who guided this bill through many hurdles: “What a marvelous effort this was on the part of hundreds of people. It literally took the organized effort of hundreds. Without each of them, we might not have made
it. . . . I often think that people do not realize the degree of effort it takes to turn government around. People often do not recognize the various ties to different interest groups which must be built and the compromises that must be reached for this kind of effort to be successful.”

Update, Fall 2009: The Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) has begun the process of updating its rules on the retail sale of raw milk, holding an initial meeting August 10 in Boise to discuss proposed changes to the regulations. Currently, there are two dairies in the state licensed to sell raw milk. The proposed regulations would cover cow share programs. The proposed regulation governing inspection of raw milk producers states: “COW SHARE type programs are legal provided the RAW MILK and the RAW MILK PRODUCTS are produced and processed in facilities with RAW MILK and RAW MILK PLANT permits.” Cow share programs would be exempt from the ‘sanitary construction and operation’ standards (e.g., mechanical bottling) provided the following conditions are met:

a. The RAW MILK quality complies with the testing frequency and quality standards established by these rules.
b. The number of animals in lactation does not exceed 3 cows or 7 goats or sheep.
c. The COW SHARE owners are registered with the DEPARTMENT. The registration shall indicate where the COW SHARE herd is physically located and the mailing address of the PERSON in charge of the care of the herd and a copy of a written contractual arrangement including a legal bill of sale of the consumer(s) that have ownership in the animals producing RAW MILK for human consumption.
d. Milk quality tests shall be provided to all COW SHARE participants.
e. COW SHARE consumers shall not resell RAW MILK for human consumption obtained under a COW SHARE program.”

One positive aspect of the proposed revisions to the regulation is that the sale of all raw dairy products by licensees would become legal. Under current law, licensees can sell only raw milk and cream. According to an article by Carol Ryan Dumas for Capital Press, ISDA hopes to have final regulations published before November 13 which would enable them to be reviewed by the legislature in 2010.

Update, Summer 2006:
Steve Campbell and Peter Dill are working with Mary Patton, the Idaho state agricultural representative to come up with rules, regulations and testing protocols for micro-dairy on-farm sales of raw milk. Steve can be contacted at trinityc3@frontiernet.net.

Update, 18 NOV 2004
An employee in the Illinois Department of Health told me of two additional conditions farms selling raw milk must comply with:

1. No advertising the sale of raw milk.
2. Customers must bring their own individual containers.
3. The customer MUST put the milk from your container into their container.

You can NOT sell or give away the milk in the containers you store it in because then you would be considered a bottling facility and subject to state regulations.

The state official also said that if the farmer has just a few cows and sells raw milk only on the farm not to pasteurization plants, not subject to inspection, etc., it is not necessary to comply with state regulations on the production of milk.

Details
A group of farmers and consumers is working on the liberalization of raw milk sales in Indiana and several active cow-share programs are underway, with state approval. If you would like to help, contact Steve Bonney at or (765) 463-9366.

Update, August 2007
Indiana: Richard Hebron and the other members of Family Farms Cooperative (FFC) have a lease agreement with David Hochstetler, the owner of Forest Grove Dairy in Middlebury, Indiana, pursuant to which they obtain raw milk and raw milk products. When Michigan Department of Agriculture executed the search warrant on the Hebron’s farm, they found copies of the lease contract about which they alerted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Shortly afterwards, FDA sent an inspector to the Forest Grove Dairy, and several months later (February 8, 2007) issued a warning letter to Hochstetler. The letter alleged that Hochstetler had violated the federal regulation (21 CFR 1240.61) prohibiting the delivery into interstate commerce of raw milk and raw milk products in final package form for human consumption. After meeting with FDA officials March 6, Hochstetler sent a written response to the agency on March 20 denying he had violated the federal regulation. Hochstetler claimed that the regulation only prohibited the sale of raw milk in interstate commerce and that his lease contract with FFC did not constitute a sale. He also stated that enforcing the regulation against him would be discriminatory since the raw milk produced at his farm consistently tested well below the bacteriological standards required by the federal government for pasteurized milk to be shipped in interstate commerce. At this time, FDA has yet to respond to Hochstetler’s letter. If FDA does take enforcement action against Hochstetler, they will stop the distribution of raw milk products across state lines to members of FFC. While MDA has acknowledged that herd lease agreements are not against the law in Michigan, it has indicated that if requested by FDA it will assist in stopping the distribution of raw dairy to FFC due to a cooperative agreement it has with the federal government.

Update, Spring 07
In what may turn out to be the most important test case yet for
the raw milk movement, the United States Food and Drug Administration has recently sent a “Warning Letter” to Indiana farmer David Hochstetler of Forest Grove Dairy, informing him that the agency has determined David distributed unpasteurized milk and cream for human consumption in interstate commerce, violating the regulation codified in Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations, section 1240.61(a) [21 CFR 1240.61]. David has entered into herd lease agreements with consumer cooperatives in Michigan and Illinois under the terms of which he provides raw dairy products to the cooperatives’ members. David has indicated that he will contest FDA’s finding of a violation on the grounds that the lease agreements are private contracts not subject to the agency’s jurisdiction. Many consumers are currently able to obtain raw dairy products from out-of-state sources only. FDA enforcement action against David Hochstetler could make suppliers of raw dairy products more reluctant to ship interstate, effectively denying to many the freedom to consume foods of their choice. Conversely, an FDA decision not to enforce the regulation against David would make producers more willing to ship raw dairy products interstate and would increase their chances of being able to opt out of the dairy cooperative system and the poverty-level prices paid its members. 21 CFR 1240.61 is an oppressive regulation which makes no distinction between milk from confinement cows and milk from cows on pasture. It particularly penalizes farmers like David Hochstetler who have an exemplary track record for producing clean, safe milk. For many years David held a Grade A license from the state of Indiana; during that time, tests for bacteria in the milk he produced consistently showed levels well below the limit required for pasteurized milk under the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), the governing document for interstate shipments of milk to be sold at retail. Overturning the regulation in court would be costly and take years to accomplish. A more realistic goal would be to put enough public pressure on FDA so that they don’t enforce the regulation. We have sent out an Action Alert asking our members nationwide to contact FDA officials.

Update, Winter 2006
In a related incident, on October 20, agents from the Indiana Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) visited the farm of an Amish dairy farmer and member of the Family Farms Coop in Middlebury, Indiana. Agents gained permission for an inspection of the dairy by threatening to return with a search warrant and the state police if refused. Agents returned on Monday, October 23 with an affidavit of the inspection and interview details for the farmer to sign, which he refused. Milk deliveries are continuing as before and no charges have been filed against the farmer.

Update, Spring 07
Kentuckians for Raw Milk, led by WAPF member Ray Kruse, is mounting a well-orchestrated campaign for passage of HB 298, which would legalize raw milk sales in Kentucky. Their efforts
include press releases, public service announcements and contacts with legislators and government officials. Unfortunately, the bill has been sent to the Health and Welfare Committee for review, rather than to the Agriculture and Small Business Committee, where they have more support. Still, there are members of Health and Welfare who support the bill.

Update, Winter 2006
Gary Oaks--who was so rudely treated by state and federal agents during a drop off in Ohio for his cow share owners (see Wise Traditions, Summer 2006)--has moved to a new farm, where he expects less harassment from his hostile neighbor. He continues to operate his cow share program, but only in the state of Kentucky. Meanwhile, raw milk supporters are cautiously optimistic about passage of legislation allowing on-farm sales of raw milk next year.

Update, Winter 2006
Double O Farms, which provides milk through a cow share program, has enjoyed outstanding support from its shareholders since a harassment incident against owner Gary Oakes last March, which occured while he was delivering milk in Ohio. Shareholders have helped with milking, bottling, dispensing . . . and all the bills, to help the farm get back on track. (See the wonderful article by David E. Gumpert posted at www.businessweek.com/smallbiz.) Meanwhile, a bill to legalize the sale of raw milk in Kentucky has sponsors in both the House and the Senate, thanks to efforts by the Kentucky Campaign for Real Milk, headed by Ray Kruse. Hearings will take place in early 2007.

Update, Fall 2006:
There is a new website created by producers in Kentucky. Kentuckians for Real Raw Milk.

Update, Summer 2006:
KENTUCKY: The House Agriculture Committee narrowly defeated a bill to legalize raw milk sales. Advocates are not giving up and plan to re-introduce the bill next year.

Update, Winter 2009: On October 13, attorneys for Buckeystown Dairy farmer Kevin Oyarzo filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeals asking the court to review an adverse ruling by the State Court of Special Appeals. On August 26, that court had affirmed a lower court ruling that rejected Oyarzo’s challenge to the state regulatory ban on herd/cow-share arrangements [Kevin Oyarzo v. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, et al. (See Wise Traditions Fall 2009 for background on the case.) Despite ruling against Oyarzo, the Court of Special Appeals did acknowledge that cow-share and herd-share arrangments can be valid under the law, stating that “(a) it is not illegal in Maryland for the owner of a dairy cow to drink the raw milk which that cow produces; (b) it is not illegal in Maryland to sell a fractional interest in a herd of dairy cattle; and (c) it is not illegal in Maryland for an agister to provide agistment services by boarding and caring for dairy cows owned by others.”

A major contention of Oyarzo in his petition to the Maryland high court is that, in effect, the Court of Special Ap¬peals made these types of conduct illegal by upholding the regulation banning herdshares. The petition also claims that the Court of Special Appeals has improperly held that MDHMH can regulate any transaction involving the distribution of milk instead of only transactions concerning sales. Unfortunately, Court of Appeals decided not to hear the case. Pro-raw milk legislation will be needed to open Maryland up to raw milk.

Update, Winter 2006
New regulations in Maryland define cow-share agreements as constituting a "sale" of raw milk, and therefore illegal--regulations adopted by the Department of Health without any hearing, in spite of numerous requests. But we have not given up. Maryland activists are planning to request a summary judgement against a change of regulations by an agency rather than the legislature, as required by Maryland law. Plans for legislation allowing on-farm sales of raw milk are also in the works.

Update, Winter 2006
A Maryland farmer has filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Maryland against the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Division of Milk Control for injunctive relieve and a declaratory judgement, arguing that recent changes in the dairy regulations to prohibit cow share programs exceeded the statutory authority of these agencies. The suit asks for a permanent injunction restraining and prohibiting the enforcement of the recently imposed sanction against cow share programs.

Update, Summer 2006:
The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has proposed a change to the Maryland Administrative Code Section 10.15.06, which would define cow share agreements as a sale and thereby prohibit them as a way for consumers to obtain raw milk in the state of Maryland. The state received almost 100 letters opposing these regulations, which contradict Title 16, Section 401 of Maryland law, which recognizes the right of an owner of dairy livestock to contract with another for the boarding and care of livestock. Those who wrote letters received a form letter from Ted Elkins, Deputy Director, Office of Food Protection and Consumer Health Services, filled with unsupported claims and inaccuracies regarding raw milk. (A reply to Mr. Elkins is posted at realmilk.com.) Our efforts are now focused on persuading a Maryland senator or representative to request a hearing on this important issue—it only takes one to request such a hearing. Should the state of Maryland be successful in outlawing cow share programs through an administrative process, this would set a dangerous precedent in other states. We ask all our members to respond to the Action Alerts that we are sending out on this situation.

Read updates from MA farms that are licensed to sell raw milk.

Update, August 2007
Michigan: Richard Hebron, the owner of Hebron Family Farms and manager of Family Farms Cooperative (FFC), reached a settlement agreement with Cass County’ s Prosecutor’s Office, the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s Office and the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) on April 20. Last fall MDA agents stopped Hebron on his way to a Co-op distribution site in Ann Arbor (Washtenaw County) and served him a search warrant for the contents of his truck. At the same time other MDA agents descended on Hebron’s farm in Vandalia (Cass County) with a second search warrant. In executing the two warrants the Department placed under seizure order thousands of dollars of raw dairy and other food products, his computer and cell phone as well as records pertaining to FFC’s operations. MDA turned these records along with the results of their investigation over to the Cass County Prosecutor last fall. The Cass County Prosecutor, Victor Fitz, indicated that he was prepared to bring charges against Richard Hebron, but urged the farmer and MDA to work out a settlement. Under the terms of the agreement, Hebron will be able to continue distributing the same products as before to FFC members. FFC has a herd lease contract with another farm and the settlement agreement specifically recognizes that Richard may distribute raw milk to the co-op members pursuant to the contract. Hebron and MDA agreed to submit to the Michigan Department of Attorney General for an advisory opinion the question of whether the farmer can distribute other raw dairy products to the co-op as well. The Attorney General’s opinion on this matter is not binding on either party. Hebron was not charged with a crime nor assessed any criminal penalty. He did agree to pay MDA an administrative fine and to destroy the remaining dairy products MDA had placed under seizure. The Department has returned to Hebron food containers, cell phone, computer and records taken under the warrant. There is one unsettled aspect to Hebron’s agreement with MDA which will be covered next.

Update, March 2007
Click here to read about what the power of testimonials has done for MI.

Click here to read Michigan raw milk testimonials.

Update, Spring 07
Raw milk supporters are still waiting to hear whether the Cass
County prosecutor will file charges against Richard Hebron after the
Michigan Department of Agriculture’s (MDA) cops-and-robbers sting
operation against his Family Farms Coop in October. Supporters have
collected over 220 raw milk testimonials. One MDA official divulged the state attorney general’s statement that MDA had no jurisdiction over cow share programs, leading to talk of a settlement. Related developments in Indiana (see above) complicate matters.

Update, Winter 2006
On October 13, 2006, the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) executed a sting operation against Richard Hebron and the Family Farms Coop (FFC), a private membership farm cooperative with about 1,000 members in Michigan and Illinois. Michigan state police and MDA agents pulled Hebron over on his way to his weekly Ann Arbor distribution site, served him a search warrant for the contents of his truck and seized all the products he was delivering. At the same time Hebron was stopped on the road, officers served Hebron's wife Annette with a search warrant on their farm and seized their computer, all cow share records, cow herd release agreements, rolodex, invoices, current order sheets, product sheets, delivery schedules, and all raw dairy products in storage. In an affidavit left with Annette Hebron, an instance of illness among children of one of the member families was documented as impetus for the investigation. The illness had occurred in April, six months earlier, but did not actually involve consumption of raw milk at all. The family had missed the previous week's milk delivery and had purchased commercial milk from a grocery store. Three days later all children had become violently ill with gastrointestinal symptoms. The mother's casual remark to their doctor about the family also drinking raw milk led to the notification of the county health department, and then the department of agriculture. No investigation into the actual cause of the children's illness has ever been made. MDA planted a "mole" in the group last May, who signed a lease agreement after being refused purchases of milk and who subsequently obtained various products through the lease agreement between May and October 2006. It was noted in the warrant that the milk was tested by the Michigan Department of Agriculture on more than one occasion. The tests confirmed that the milk was raw and of very high quality. At this date, no charges have been made against the Hebrons and milk deliveries are continuing as before.

Update, Winter 2009: Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster has filed a petition for both a preliminary and permanent injunction against Armand and Teddi Bechard, seeking an order from the Greene County Circuit Court enjoining Bechard Family Farm from delivering raw milk and cream to its customers at a central distribution point. Under state law, “an individual may purchase and have delivered to him for his own use raw milk or cream from a farm.” The state’s position is that any delivery of raw milk must be direct to the customer’s home. The petition alleges that two separate purchases of raw milk from Bechard Family Farm were made by undercover agents working for the Springfield-Greene County Health Department. The purchases took place in April, 2009 at the parking lot of Mama Jean’s Natural Food Market in Springfield. According to the complaint, undercover agents “never ordered milk from Mr. and Mrs. Bechard or any representative of the Bechard Family Farm and therefore never requested that the milk be personally delivered to [them] from the farm,” as permitted by state law. The Bechards’ contention is that the law does not limit delivery of raw milk and cream to the consumer’s residence. All of the Bechards’ customers want delivery to take place at a central distribution point. The case has attracted widespread attention throughout Missouri, with many wondering why the state can’t find a better use for its resources.

Update, DEC 2008
FDA Action Stops Legal Sale of Raw Colostrum in Nevada

Tragically, the week of December 7-12th 2008 will be the last week that OPDC will be able to deliver raw products to Reno Nevada. The FDA has brought legal enforcement action to stop OPDC deliveries of raw colostrum to Reno Nevada.

In late 2007, with out notifying OPDC, the FDA changed the regulations pertaining to raw Colostrum and now mandates that colostrum must be pasteurized if transported across state lines. OPDC had no idea that these laws had changed until discovered last week.

This came as a quite a shock to Organic Pastures Dairy and our family of closely connected consumers. OPDC had worked for three years to gain permission from the Nevada State dairy commission for the retail sale of raw colostrum. After much debate, the Nevada State Dairy Commission graciously gave its permission after hearing the facts about DSHEA and raw colostrum. This has all come to an end. Nevada is not at fault, this is an FDA action.

We at OPDC are sickened by this stealth FDA rule change. This FDA change does not serve to increase food safety but instead forces raw products underground where it is not tested or inspected. There have been zero reported illnesses associated with raw colostrum…ever!!!

If you want raw milk or raw colostrum to once again to be found on Nevada retail shelves you will need to fight the powers in our government which do not seek to increase immune strength but do all that they can to weaken it by mandating the processing of your foods and consumption of drugs.

Please join the Dr. Kelly buyers club. She takes delivery of fresh OPDC products in Tahoe where it is legal to purchase and consume. She will do all she can to assure that all of you will continue to have access to whole unprocessed foods. Dr. Kelly is not an employee of OPDC and she does not represent OPDC. She runs a buyers club in Tahoe and can serve you on an individual by individual basis at excellent prices.

Update, Fall 2007
Read about the harassment Of Raw Milk Farmers In Pennsylvania And New York

UPDATE 17 AUG 2007
Read Worcester Dairy Resumes Raw Milk Sales

Check out this Action Alert:
Harassment of Raw Milk Farmers in Pennsylvania and New York

Update, Spring 07
Another indication that cow share programs are getting under the
skin of dairy department bureaucrats comes from this state, where an
inspector told a farmer that the state had “taken cow shares to court and won.” Not true! There has been no court case involving cow shares in New York.

UPDATE 24 AUG 2005
The Cheesemakers Guild, a New York based organization, sponsors many workshops on artisan cheesemaking. See www.nycheese.org. The group is also keeping a close eye on the State as it revises its dairy processing regulations.

UPDATE 21 JAN 2004
Good news! Hawthorne Valley has resolved the difficulty and is selling raw milk again.

UPDATE 27 APRIL 2003
We have a late-breaking report from Hawthorne Valley Dairy in the Hudson Valley, which sells raw milk through their farm store. State officials have shut down raw milk sales over the issue of Staphylococcus aureus, a potentially pathogenic organism, in the milk. Although no one has gotten sick and no one has complained, officials want to set the accepted level at zero. The dairy will be arguing for a count of 500, which is the European standard for on-farm sales. This is clearly an attempt by the state to shut down raw milk sales in New York. Hawthorne Valley and other raw milk sellers will need dedicated consumer support to force the state to set a reasonable standard.

Update, August 2007
The state Senate passed SB948, a bill that would repeal the state’s ban on cow shares for those farmers owning ten cows or less. The bill will next go to the House of Representatives for consideration. Currently, the only access to raw milk is by buying pet milk. In an effort to eliminate this, the state department of agriculture has proposed an administrative regulation requiring that all raw pet milk contain a charcoal dye.

Update, Spring 07
Senator Kay Hagan is sponsoring the bill to reverse the
ban on cow shares. The bill is being drafted and will be introduced during the present legislative session. At the appropriate time, we will send out an Action Alert to North Carolina members. Steve Troxler, the state commissioner of agriculture, is adamantly opposed to the bill and stated that his agency plans to introduce legislation to require green dye in pet milk, so we have an uphill battle ahead. Ruth Ann Foster is spearheading our efforts in North Carolina. She can be contacted at (336) 286-3088, EatReal@gmail.com

Update 24 AUG 2005
Oregon officials have requested a small change on the label to Organic Pastures milk, putting it on the front of the bottle and not on the cap. Raw milk as pet food is now available in about 40 stores.

Update 02 FEB 05
News from Southern Oregon. On Sunday, January 16, 2005, the Southern Oregon Chapter held a conference entitled Milk: Raw or Cooked; Farm Fresh or Pasteurized Pathogens. Your Choice. John Scileppi, L.Ac. , was host, and featured speaker was Mark McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures Company, Fresno, California. Organic Pastures distributes raw milk products— milk, cheese, butter, cream, and colostrum—throughout California. In Oregon, Organic Pastures raw milk products are labeled and sold as pet food.

Attendance at our Lake Creek Center, located about 30 minutes out of Medford, was excellent, with an enthusiastic audience of about 55. The conference included a sampling break to enjoy Mark McAfee’s generous supply of Organic Pastures product. At the meeting was Dr. Franklin Ross, who has the largest holistic healthcare practice in Southern Oregon. Dr. Ross was so impressed by Mark McAfee’s power point presentation and knowledgeable discussion that arrangements were made for Ken Anderson, Dr. Ross’s co-host, to interview Mark McAfee on their Friday morning radio show dealing with health care and airing weekly on 880 AM. The radio interview generated many, many phone calls, and both the interview and the conference brought Organic Pastures an overwhelming number of orders. Dr. Ross also arranged for his patients and colleagues to hear Mark McAfee speak that Friday evening in Ashland. Earlier, Kim Scileppi, Head of Southern Oregon Chapter, had informed the Portland and Eugene Chapters that Mark McAfee would be in Oregon, and both chapters arranged for Mark to speak, raising interest and raw milk education in these areas of Oregon as well.

In Southern Oregon, since Mark’s visit, it is becoming more difficult to buy raw milk (or rather pet foot) because so many are now asking for it.

Update, Fall 2009: The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) has proposed new regulations to revise its Milk Sanitation code. Of interest to the state’s licensed raw milk farmers is a provision that requires testing at least twice a year for the presence of pathogenic bacteria including salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, campylobacter, and E. coli O157:H7. Under the proposed regulation, “there may be no pathogenic bacteria present.” If there is any pathogenic bacteria present in the tested milk, the permit holder must immediately stop selling raw milk for human consumption and must not resume selling until there have been two consecutive subsequent tests showing that the raw milk is free from “disease-producing organisms.” The trouble with the proposed regulation is that not all pathogenic bacteria cause illness in humans. A number of Pennsylvania farmers have had their sales suspended in the past few years for a positive pathogen test when there has been no incidence of illness from the consumption of the suspended farm’s milk. There are hundreds, even thousands, of subtypes of a pathogen like Listeria monocytogenes; and many, if not most, of these subtypes are benign. An effort will be made to change the language in the provision to read: “There shall be no positive test for the presence of pathogenic bacteria known to cause illness in humans.” In addition to this revision, an effort could be undertaken to amend the proposed regulations to provide for an exception to raw milk permit requirements for those selling direct to the consumer. The comment period for the proposed regulation was set to expire on September 30.

Update, Fall 2007
Read about the harassment Of Raw Milk Farmers In Pennsylvania And New York

Update, August 2007
Tensions are increasing between the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture (PDA) and those farmers selling raw milk without a license
exclusively to members of CARE (Communities Alliance for Responsible Eco-Farming). PDA contends that anyone selling raw milk in the state is required to obtain a permit. The farmers argue that CARE is a private buyers club not subject to the state’s police power jurisdiction. The farmers also refuse to get a permit because they believe that PDA will transfer any information from their license application into USDA’s NAIS database. Recently, the PDA has stepped up action against unlicensed farmers; the Department has sent eight of the farmers warning letters informing them that selling raw milk without a permit is a violation of the law. PDA has brought charges against two of the farmers for selling raw milk without a permit, with one farmer being found guilty by a county magistrate and the other farmer scheduled to go to court at the end of May. Representatives from CARE and PDA have met to try to resolve their dispute but to this point have not reached an agreement.

Check out this Action Alert:
Harassment of Raw Milk Farmers in Pennsylvania and New York

Update, Summer 2006
Raw milk dairy farmers and their customers have formed a private unincorporated association called Communities Alliance for Responsible Eco-Farming (CARE) whose members, while recognizing the government’s right to protect the public, exercise their right to disagree and waive their right to the government’s protection in the areas of food production. CARE is designed to provide protection to farmers and consumers from both pasteurization regulations and the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The organization hopes to open up other CARE chapters in other states. For further information contact CARE at (717) 768-7848.

Update, Summer 2003
We received the following letter from Bobby McLean, in response to concerns regarding the sale of raw milk in Pennsylvania:

July 7, 2003

This letter is written in response to your concerns regarding the sale of raw milk in Pennsylvania.

Based on correspondence received, there appears to be considerable misinformation and concern over the raw milk issue. I will attempt to address these concerns in this letter. It is important to note there are no current or planned actions by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture that will remove a dairy farmer's right to sell raw milk or a consumer's right to buy raw milk. However, all producers must have a permit from the Department and must follow the requirements of the permit. Further, the Department has no knowledge of any pending legislation to eliminate the sale of raw milk in Pennsylvania.

The sale of raw milk in Pennsylvania is permitted under the Pennsylvania Milk Sanitation Law (31 P.S. Sec. 645 et. seq) ("Act"). This law is intended to safeguard human health and safety by providing for the issuance of permits to, and regulation of persons and entities selling milk and milk products. The Act (at 31 P.S. Sec. 646) states: "no person shall sell milk, milk product or manufactured dairy products within this Commonwealth without first having obtained a permit from the Secretary".

Another issue that many have raised relates to the sale of raw milk products. The law prohibits the sale of raw milk products except aged hard cheese which is cured at temperatures of not less that 35 degrees Fahrenheit for at least 60 days.

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jim Dell, Chief, Division of Milk Sanitation, at 717-787-4316. Your concerns are understood and we want to work together to help insure that milk and milk products sold in Pennsylvania are safe and wholesome.

Sincerely,
Bobby McLean

Details
At the present time, there are nine licensed raw milk producers in the state, five producing cow milk and four producing goat milk.

In 2003, there were four licensed producers, and raw goat milk was available in a number of health food stores.

Update, Winter 2008
The DHEC (Dept of Health and Environmental Control) just approved sale of raw milk at retail establishments. It requires a warning label on the milk and a poster at the point of sale. Also, it must be sold away from pasteurized milk (in a separate section or another refrigerator).

Update, Winter 2009: The South Dakota Department of Agriculture (SDDA) has issued proposed raw milk regulations. Even though the stated purpose for the proposed rules is to protect public health, the rules are an attempt by SDDA to ensure that no raw milk is sold legally in South Dakota. Under current law, the general prohibition on the sale of raw milk does “not apply to milk, cream, skim milk or goat milk occasionally secured or purchased for his personal use by any consumer at the place or farm where the milk is produced;” neither does it “apply to any active farm producer of milk, selling and delivering his own production direct to consumers only.” There is no requirement that a farm be a licensed Grade A dairy under these exceptions. The only requirement for those selling under the exceptions is that any unpasteurized milk sold be “clearly labeled by the producer as ‘raw milk.’”

The proposed rules, in effect, take away rights given by the legislature by imposing expensive requirements that those dairies wanting to sell raw milk would not be able to afford. The proposed rules are typical barriers-to-entry regulations that will create a de facto ban on the sale of raw milk. The proposed regulations would change the current statutory ex¬ception by requiring that the producer must have both a milk plant permit (which requires a bottling machine) and a milk producer’s license.

Permits would not be issued unless standards in the proposed regulations are met. These standards include a me¬chanical bottling machine (handcapping would be prohibited) and a separate facility for bottling; for Grade A licensed dairies, a building separate from the milk parlor would be required for bottling. One licensed Grade A dairy farmer cur¬rently selling raw milk estimated that if the proposed rules became law, he would have to spend a minimum of $76,000 to be in compliance after figuring the cost of a separate building for bottling, a storage tank for the bottling facility, pumps to move the milk from the parlor to the bottling facility, a mechanical bottling machine and the installation costs. Aside from equipment and construction requirements, there are other onerous provisions in the proposed rules. Raw milk producers would have to test twice yearly for bovine tuberculosis (TB) and brucellosis; no other State requires testing more than once a year. Raw milk would be tested in the final container (i.e., bottle) for coliform with the maximum per¬missible level being ten per millimeter (10/ml). This standard has proven difficult for California raw milk licensed dairies to meet. Those producers selling raw milk would be required to maintain customer lists to be provided to SDDA upon request. Moreover, “[t]he list must be continually updated and include the data for at least 60 days. This customer list shall include customer names, addresses, phone numbers and quantities of raw milk sold for human consumption.”

A hearing was held on the proposed rules on November 17; almost thirty people spoke in opposition to the proposed rules while the only ones speaking in favor of the rules were South Dakota government employees. After the hearing, the South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture Bill Even indicated that he would probably modify the proposed rules but that opponents of the rules should not expect to get everything they want. The next hearing on the rules took place onDecember 21 before state Representatives and Senators who serve on the six-member South Dakota Legislature’s Rules Review Committee. If the proposed rules are not adopted by January 12, 2010, they will expire and SDDA would have to initiate the rulemaking process again with the earliest the agency would be able to do so being April 2010.

Update, Winter 2008
The DHEC (Dept of Health and Environmental Control) just approved sale of raw milk at retail establishments. It requires a warning label on the milk and a poster at the point of sale. Also, it must be sold away from pasteurized milk (in a separate section or another refrigerator).

Update, Summer 09
VICTORY IN TENNESSEE
A bill formally legalizing cow shares has been passed by both the State House of Representatives and the Senate and signed into law by Governor Phil Bredesen on May 21. The bill simply states that nothing in the law “shall be construed as prohibiting the independent or partial owner of any hoofed mammal from using the milk from such animal for the owner’s personal consumption or other use.” The House sponsor of the bill was
Frank Nicely (R-Knoxville, District 17); the Senate sponsor was Mike Faulk (R-Kingsport, District 4). Congratulations to Brentwood WAPF Chapter Leader Shawn Dady and Tennesseans for Raw Milk (www.tennesseansforrawmilk.com) for their persistent efforts—-spanning several years-—in getting this legislation passed.

Details
Raw milk sales are illegal except as pet food. For a period, state authorities harassed dairy farmers selling raw milk and milk products labeled as pet food but this seems to have died down. There are a number of cow share programs in the state and a committee working on changing the law to allow on-farm sales.

Read updates from Jenny Drake of Peaceful Pastures and more about the effort to legalize raw milk sales in Tennessee.

Find out more at www.tennesseansforrawmilk.com.

Update 04 APR 07--Please see the following: Tracking the Trojan Cow--A Rotten Milk Bill in Utah (Redmond Salt CEO Creates Cow-Share Ban in Utah Bill)

Update, Spring 07
Sales of raw milk at the farm are legal in Utah and several dairies now sell raw milk to satisfy increasing consumer demand. A recent bill allowing the sale of raw milk at an off-site retail store passed both the Utah House and Senate in February. Unfortunately, this bill will not necessarily make raw milk more available to consumers, as it favors only one large dairy, belonging to a corporation that owns an off-site store. (The bill requires 51 percent ownership of the store, something most small dairies can’t afford.) In addition, the bill outlaws cow-share programs—an ominous trend. We will be watching this situation closely to see whether the new legislation will adversely impact raw milk availability in Utah.

Update 28 OCT 04 from Winford J. Barlow of Finney Farm Home Dairy
We have been the only certified dairy, to my knowledge, in Utah, for the last two years and we have received nothing but support from the health department. The dairy inspectors have been very workable and knowledgeable. Thorough and strict, yes, but it has only helped us provide a better product. I believe the dairy referred to was in Fairview, Utah, and was out of business before we got our certification. We pride ourselves on the quality of our products and want only the best for our customers. Please correct this error so the people of Utah won't be misinformed.

Tyler Carver is working on setting up a "farm share" program in Utah. He has located a willing farmer and tapped into plenty of interest. For more information, or to lend him a helping hand, contact Tyler at or (801) 366-0472.

Update 24 AUG 2005
It was Lt. Governor Kaine who broke the tie on legislation that would have allowed fresh goat cheese to be sold on farms in Virginia, voting against and killing the legislation for this year. Justifying his actions through the buzz words “public safety,” Kaine said that public safety concerns “outweighed the need for the state to create an atmosphere in which small businesses and family farms can thrive.” With reactionary anti-raw milk legislation now on the books, Virginia bureaucrats are going after independent dairy farms (those that do not sell in bulk to processors), harassing Bergey’s Dairy—which has been in business for 70 years—with unreasonable misdemeanor charges. The small independent dairy provides free home delivery for pasteurized milk in glass bottles and is one of only two dairies left in Virginia that own and operate a milk-processing plant.

Update, February 2007

Update, Winter 2006
Things are at a standstill regarding the situation with Dee Creek Farm (see Wise Traditions, Spring, 2006). The state is threatening an administrative fine, but the Pucketts are continuing to farm and are in the process of obtaining their Grade A license. All of the children afflicted with E. coli O157H7 are back to normal. Meanwhile, the number of dairies licensed to sell raw milk has skyrocketed, from 15 to 60 in the last eight months. Raw milk is widely available throughout the state, and sold in many retail stores. Check the listings for Washington at realmilk.com.

Update, Summer 2006
The status of the working group for micro-dairies—promised during recent negotiations that resulted in licensing for cow share arrangements—is unclear. Predictably, dairy officials have avoided taking any initiative while activists remain in the dark. However, the good news is that raw milk is becoming more and more available in Washington State, even in stores, through licensed dairies, big and small, with much thanks to Emmy McAllister and other local chapter leaders for organizing pick-up locations and persuading retail outlets to carry it. Check the recently revised listing for Washington at realmilk.com for a source near you.