Raw Milk Legislation

I attended a meeting of the State Assembly Committee on Agriculture at the State Capitol. This is a glimpse of what happened, what was at stake, and a little background information. I’ll try to sum it up briefly.

Raw milk, usually assumed to be cow’s milk, is milk that is unpasteurized, not homogenized, and not standardized (more on what these terms mean below). There are two raw milk dairies in California: Claravale Farms in Watsonville and Organic PasturesDairy in Fresno.

Raw milk can be legally sold in stores in California, Pennsylvaina, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, and New Mexico. Many states – like Washington, New York, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky – offer “cow-shares” or “goat shares” that provide milk to buyers in the form of dividends from their share in a cow or goat (like a CSA).

Both of these methods of sale have been under attack from the USDA and state departments of agriculture, who consider raw milk to be potentially hazardous because it is unpasteurized. Milk pasteurization is the process of heating milk to 161 degrees for 30 seconds, and milk is often subjected to UHT ultra high-temperature pasteurization in excess of 250 degrees. Many components of milk are heat-intolerant and are destroyed in this process, including the pathogenic bacteria E. Coli 0157:H7, Salmonella, and Listeria.

Proponents of raw milk – which include members of the Weston A. Price, Traditional Foodists, followers of Sally Fallon, some Slow Foodies, consumers and supporters of Organic Pastures Dairy and Claravale Farms, proponents of living foods and alternative medicine, among many others – levy many a detailed argument in favor of raw milk. I will try to summarize a few:

Raw milk is a traditional, living food that has been consumed for thousands of years. Pasteurization of milk is a recent phenomenon, which began in the late 1800s when cities became concentrated, cows became confined, and dairies began feeding the cows the spent grains from breweries – a set of colluding conditions that produced unhealthy cows and very unsanitary milk that caused illness in the people that drank it. Pasteurization, however, in addition to destroying any pathogenic bacteria, also destroys: heat-sensitive enzymes like lipase and lactase, which allow us to digest milk fats and the milk sugar lactose; amino acids and protein structures; much of Vitamins A, C, D, E, and F; virtually all of Vitamins B6 and B12; much of calcium; and virtually all beneficial bacteria. ‘Beneficial bacteria’ is a broad characterization that includes bacteria that perform a number of beneficial biological functions, including acid-forming bacteria that retard the spoilage of raw milk: raw milk does not spoil like pasteurized milk, it safely sours. Most of the world’s population historically and presently drinks ‘clabbered milk,’ raw milk that has been left at ambient temperature to sour. Beneficial bacteria also help to enhance our immune system through a number of processes. People who are lactose intolerant (approximately 35% of North Americans) can drink raw milk, because it still contains the enzyme lactase which breaks down lactose.

In addition to pasteurization, processed milk (not raw milk) is also homogenized, in which the fat molecules are broken down so that the cream does not rise to the top while sitting on a shelf in the bottle. This exposes the fats to oxidation and some studies cited by raw milk proponents have linked homogenization to cancer and atherosclerosis. Processed milk is also standardized, where the cow’s milk is separated and reconstituted to form the final product. Additives are used in this process (which processors are not required to list or report to consumers), including powdered skim milk, vegetable oils, synthetic Vitamin D, gums, and bioengineered enzymes, all in an attempt to approximate the original product. Raw milk does not undergo any of these processes.

Raw milk enthusiasts are very impassioned, and the list of purported benefits goes on and on and on. As always, take this information with a grain of salt.

So, here was the legal issue that sparked the controversy: California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) proposed a bill (AB 1735) that included a clause mandating a coliform count of 10 per milliliter for raw milk, which would have effectively banned raw milk in California. Raw milk proponents say that a coliform count is arbitrary, as it does not account for the difference between pathogenic and beneficial bacteria. Moreover, coliform act as a natural immune system for raw milk: these plethora of bacteria crowd out any possible pathogenic bacteria, whereas pasteurized milk is a blank slate for possible infection. For us farmers’ market people, think of an analogy to a biodiverse farm which has a balance of ‘pests’ and ‘beneficals’ that keep any one particular bug from dominating, versus a monoculture that has no defense and is ripe for infestation. In this analogy, pesticides are analogous to pasteurization – they prevent the possible infestation of one organism by destroying all of them (which we know leads to a weakened and feeble ecology).

The 10 coliform per milliliter count is arbitrary and has no scientific basis. For comparison, milk at commercial dairies is allowed a limit of 750 per milliliter at the holding tank. The milk then passes to a huge transportation tanker truck and more holding tanks at the processing facility, during which the coliform count increases. Organic Pastures milk has consistently tested at the amazing level of 14 per milliliter, due to their careful milking process that includes a mobile milking barn right in the pasture. Proponents of raw milk thought it absurd to even have a coliform count, as every batch raw milk is already tested for E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella, unlike large dairies which test only a fraction of their milk production.

The problem raised in yesterday’s hearing wasn’t the coliform count, however. It was the way in which CDFA conducted their business. The original bill (AB 1735) with the coliform limit was presented to committee members as a ‘consent item,’ which means that would be no controversy, and committees pass consent items without consideration or debate. Besides, it is politically unsavory to oppose a bill in the name of food safety.

(See an article published in the SF Chronicle that sums up the day’s activities.)

Nicole Parra, as the chair of the Committee on Agriculture, was the one who originally encouraged the passage of AB 1735, as it was a consent item. She was also the person to propose AB 1604 yesterday, which proposed to amend or re-refer to committee the original bill AB 1735. After passing the original bill, she and her colleagues received tens of thousands of letters and phone calls from people that support raw milk. She then learned that CDFA deliberately removed a statement that considered the coliform limit controversial, and, did not consult either of the states’ two dairies before proposing this limit. Nicole Parra did something I have rarely seen a politician do: she stood up and said “I was wrong. We were wrong” to pass the bill without discussion when it would affect more than 40,000 consumers in California. It was undemocratic to not have a discussion on the issue, she said. The skinny: the bill was re-referred to committee. The outcome is still uncertain, however, due to the wonderful workings of the legislative process.

While the legislative process was daunting and laborious, I was inspired by the solidarity and passion of people that can from all over the state to stand in front of the committee in support of raw milk. I met people from Elk, Shasta, Auburn, Fresno, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles who came to the capitol to testify in support, signs in hand. About 350 of us crammed into the hallways of the Capitol building. Two hundred and fifty were allowed to take a seat in the Committee hearing, and the rest of us listened to an audio feed outside in the hallway (the upbeat supporters all urged mothers, children, doctors, and those with organizational backing to take the seats first.) We were shuffled in to give our very brief testimony in front of the microphone, then shuffled back out into the hallway. The meeting lasted over 5 hours.

My two biased cents: people can argue until they are blue in the face about the potential benefits and harms of raw versus processed foods, but there is a more fundamental principle at stake: freedom of choice. In a purportedly democratic, free market society, consumers should have the ability to choose which businesses and practices they support. Many controversial food practices and businesses are already allowed – say McDonald’s or the tobacco industry. Raw milk should also be allowed. The government can slap all of the labels they deem necessary on the bottle, but they shouldn’t be able to stop people from getting access to fresh, whole, unadulterated food products.

Eat Your Greens, While You Can

Take a minute to check-out CAFF's Food Safety page. It has links to an article by Judith Redmond of Full Belly Farm, in which she outlines how this "Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement" could have unintended negative consequences and put an end to leafy greens grown by small, family farmers here in California. Also, take a minute to sign letters to the USDA, urging them not to adopt these potentially detrimental regulations nationwide. This legislation is a misguided quick-fix attempt to address what is really only the toenail of the 800-pound gorilla: industrial agriculture.

Eating, Organically

When I commented last week about the shortcomings of the industrial organic movement, I must have been prodded by an invisible email from the collective unconscious. Unbeknown to me, on Halloween, some blogs lit up their pumpkins with news of a 4-year study conducted at Newcastle University in the UK that reported on the health benefits of organically-grown foods over conventionally-grown foods. Specifically, the study found that, on average, organic fruits and vegetables contain up to 40% more antioxidants than their conventional counterparts. While there have been several studies completed on this topic, many of the results were considered to be suspect or inconclusive. The importance of this study was that the trials for the organic and non-organic foods were completed on adjacent fields under as-identical-as-possible environmental conditions. And the results were in favor of organics.

The last thing I want to do is discourage people from eating healthier foods; if my previous article seemed to be knocking organics, my apologies. I try to operate on the principle of harm reduction: if you are not eating vegetables, then eating vegetables of any kind is a step in the right direction. If you eat mostly frozen vegetables, then eating fresh vegetables is a good move. If you eat mostly fresh vegetables, then you will taste the difference with organic vegetables. If you eat only organic vegetables - well, then you are who my article was aimed at. Many people have blindly thrown their hopes for a sustainable world into the organic egg basket. Organic is better, but it is not the best possible. So, eat your organic vegetables and be healthier.

What I was attempting to elucidate in my last post is that, if 'organic' is your sole criterion for selecting foods in a sustainable fashion, then you need to keep looking further down the rabbit hole. Organic is better for your health than conventional foods. But organic food production is not necessarily better for our soils, air, and water supplies. Like those organic bananas? They're better for you than the conventional ones, but they both make the same journey from the global South to the global North using the same fossil fuels for ship fuel and refrigeration. They're both picked green and held at low temperatures for 3-4 weeks during shipping, so they lack the same flavor and nutritional potential that locally-grown foods can achieve.

Where our food comes from is just as important as how it is produced.

Nourishment is not about convenience. Eating is not a chore. Our bodies are not calorie machines.

We need to take part in our food preparation. Alice Waters is often chastised for being pretentious and unrealistic. I worked for her on-and-off for four years, and while it is true that passion for connecting with food can be taken to a level of snobbery, especially when you charge the prices that she does, it is also true that this is something we can all do. I work, I have (several) projects, I am busy - yet I cook 95% of our meals from scratch using organic/sustainably-grown produce purchased from people that I have a relationship with - and cheaply! My girlfriend and I have been on a tight budget, but we've been eating great off of $40/week for the both of us (granted, we have a stocked pantry of dry goods like rice, lentils, oils, spices, etc. to fall back on in tight times like these - but supplement that with two smart $20 trips to the farmers' market twice a week and you'll be eating more than well.)

We need to get back to the table. We need to give ourselves the skills to take care of ourselves and each other. Learning how to cook will not only make you more independent, but it will also make you a more critical eater, which will make going out to eat (when you do it) a more engaging and enjoyable experience. There is no short-cut to learning how to cook; just do it, and often. The more you do it, the better you get.

Here's my cooking tip for the day, as it is beginning to feel like Fall outside (finally!): Making Your Own Vegetable Stock. Fall and Winter is an ideal time for rich, hearty vegetable soups and stews using nearly any and all root vegetables and greens. The key to making them super-flavorful is (no, not to use nasty-processed-chicken broth with tons of sodium) to make your own vegetable stock. This is a great way to get all of the mileage and nutritional benefit out of your vegetables and to add flavor to your dishes. Just be sure to know where you're getting your vegetables from, as any residue on the vegetable skins will end up in the stock (use a ladle to remove the layer of 'scum' that forms on top when you make any kind of stock). This is one of seven TV commercials I shot for the local PBS-affiliate about farmers' markets and fresh foods. (Disregard the cheez-factor, it's for television.)

Eat well. And please, share your comments. Got a recipe for a killer winter soup?




Here's the easiest soup in (my) book. It takes 30 minutes, start to finish, and can be made with as little as two ingredients (onions and squash):

Simple Squash Soup

1 winter squash: butternut, kabocha, or delicata
1 onion
4 cloves garlic
Local olive oil
Salt & Pepper
Water
Additions: 1 bunch cilantro, fresh ginger (if available locally), lentils

Sauté the chopped onion on medium-high heat in a small amount of olive oil. Meanwhile, chop the garlic and peel the squash (not necessary, but makes a nice puree if you do). Once the onions have browned, add the garlic (and ginger if using) and stir for one or two minutes. Add the cubed and peeled squash (and lentils if using) and sauté for one minute more. Cover with water, add salt, bring to a low boil and cover for 20-30 minutes. Once the squash is soft, blend using an immersion blender or small batches in a countertop blender. Blend the cilantro into the soup, if using.

To control the thickness of this soup (since it doesn't use a heavy cream like most butternut bisques), adjust the water level (more for thinner soup, less for thicker). Also, the stems from the cilantro bunch act as a thickener if blended into the soup.

This makes a great complete meal if lentils are used in the soup and a pile of steamed kale or chard is placed in the bowl upon serving. A warm piece of whole grain bread goes well, too.

Be sure to save the squash seeds when hollowing out the cavity. Toss in a little oil and roast in the oven for a few minutes. They're not only delicious by themselves or on top of the soup, but they are also beneficial for men in protecting against prostate cancer.

Give That Man a Bottle of Vodka, Some Brown Sugar, and Milk - He's Gonna Save the World

Popular opinion says that organic agriculture is better than current conventional agriculture. That is, organic agriculture is better than a system of large farms that use generous amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides/fungicides on a monocultured crop - a system with detrimental consequences for the environment and our species. But, is organic really better?

The term 'organic' used to be much broader than its current usage denotes. It was part of a vision for a sustainable method of agriculture that was in stark contrast to the petro-chemical laden industries of the present. Yet, as that vision has taken shape over the years, much of the heart of what was considered 'organic' fell to the wayside: small farms, ecological stewardship, biodiversity, local communities. With the adoption of federal regulations governing organic standards - (first the Organic Food Production Act of 1990, then the National Organic Program (NOP) in 2000) - today the term organic basically means that the product was not produced using genetically-modified organisms and that it was not treated with organophosphates. Now, we have dairies, large farms, and international companies who are cashing-in on the public's (mis)perception of how our food is produced.

When I'm working out at the farmers' market, or talking food anywhere, I cringe every time I hear: "I buy organic because there's no pesticides," or, "It says no sprays; so it's organic." Organic farmers use pesticides. Organic farmers use fertilizers. The only difference between an organic and non-organic fertilizer or pesticide is that the latter is a synthetic organophosophate, whereas organic fertilizers and pesticides are most often produced from animal or mineral sources. Both serve the same function; that is, both fit as interchangable cogs in the same machinery or system. It is true that many organic fertilizers and pesticides are less toxic and less persistant in our bodies and environment. However, it is also true that these ingredients for organic products are mined or harvested elsewhere, refined, packaged, and shipped all around the world. Gypsum, for example, is mined in huge quantities not only for drywall, but also for a soil ammendment, as it makes calcium readily available. How sustainable is this? Gypsum is a finite resource, and it will dry up - not to mention the fossil fuels used to mine, refine, package and ship gypsum. I can only wonder how or where bat guano is harvested for fertilizers?

Another aspect of sustainability that was lost in the translation of 'organic' into federal standards, integrally tied-in with the pesticide/fertilizer issue, is biodiversity. Biodiversity is key to the health of any ecosystem. The reason farmers need to use pesticides is because we have imbalanced an ecosystem: by concentrating on one or few crops, with no 'weeds' or other foliage, the insects that prey upon these crops will be invited to feast on cloud nine - just imagine what several acres of only tomato plants looks like to an aphid! Insects and mircoorganisms exist in a delicate balance that is dependent upon diversity, and competition among these insects and mircoorganisms keeps any one of them from dominating. By growing only one or a few crops in a large area, and without any 'weeds' or habitat for predatory insects, a farmer is only asking for trouble.

But can we blame the farmer? About as much as we can blame 'poor people' for being financially poor; there is a larger systemic problem at play. The current federal regulations set by the Farm Bill favor large farms (Take action!). During industrialization, as people began to concentrate in cities for industrial/office jobs, their food source had to be grown by fewer and fewer people, farther and farther away, and in greater and greater quantities. The figures show that more than 4.7 million farms have been lost in the U.S. in the last 75 years and that less than 1 million Americans work as farmers today (See FoodRoutes). In a race to catch up with population growth and food demand, the technologies and resources of the so-called Green Revolution were employed to produce food in enormous quantities. And it worked, for a while. But at what cost to our health? At what cost to our environment? We need a new Revolution, one that doesn't simply substitute one cog for another, but one that builds a new system in the face of our current challenge - sustainability.

Farmers are in a pickle, so to speak. Despite their natural inclination for stewarding the land, farmers are stuck in a system that demands consistently high-output at a low cost. A farmer, no matter how strong her or his convictions about our health and the environment, often faces a difficult situation by having to choose: spray this pesticide or lose my livelihood. Combine this with the fact that we rely on the chemical industries to provide information/research and fund agricultural programs at universities, and the fact that we as conusmers expect foods out-of-season, and you can begin to see why the system has gone so awry. Many organic farmers' are making a valiant effort to do the least harm possible within a inherently harmful system - substituting one cog that leaves a less harmful impact than another. There are also those who are attempting to change the system altogether. Many of these farmers are 'beyond organic' or choose not to certify their products as organic, as a way of biting their thumb at the current system. But these farmers are far and few between. It takes not only an impressive amount of knowledge and skill to produce crops in a sustainable manner given our current situation, but also an incredible amount of perseverence and dedication in the face of adversity. These farmers must do the impossible: be managers of an ecological system, simultaneously encouraging diversity while selecting for consistency. This is ancient knowledge that has been lost in a modern world: the ability to plan, observe, and respond appropriately to the situation.

Yet, there are heroes of sustainable agriculture who pass on the torch of knowledge just like the heirloom seeds they grow, despite the wanderings of the organic industry. Their methods do not cost any money and require the farmer to look no further than the farm.

Hence, my Hero of the Day: Gil Carandang

Simplicity is key.

Let's get this straight: Organic agriculture is somewhat better for us and our environment than the current 'conventional' practices. But organic agriculture is not necessarily sustainable agriculture. Certifications like organic exist because we as consumers are disconnected from the source of production, so we need a third-party to certify that the good was produced as represented. Don't rely on labels, find out for yourself - go to a reputable farmers' market and ask questions. Let's put less trust in third-parties and more faith in the first-person. You can't ask a shelf where its' product came from, and if you could, you wouldn't want to know the answer (on a broad average, our produce travels over 1500 miles before making it onto our plate - argh!). When I can't buy something produced sustainably and locally, I'll buy organic. I'll save my rant about the importance of locatlity for another rainy day... Digest this first.

We need to do our part to facilitate these changes as consumers. In addition to educating farmers about ecological methods, we need to educate ourselves and each other about our food and its importance. While it is true that a significant portion of the population cannot afford even cheaply-produced food, it is also true than the vast majority of us who live in the wealthiest empire on the planet could spend much more of our budget on quality nourishment. We need to readjust our priorities: rather than spending money on Comcast Triple Play or a $3 latte per day, spend that money on nourishing your body with quality food grown with care and use your dollars to vote for a change - a sustainable food system.

Go to a farmers' market, join a CSA, plant a garden, start cooking - whatever it is, make a step to give food the central priority it deserves in our lives.

Inspiring photo of a sustainable farm fromTana Butler's blog:

The UCSC Farm.

And, one more. Gil Carandang's farm in the Phillipines:


Send your comments. Share your thoughts. Commune.

Bitter Old Oakland

I stopped by the Old Oakland Farmers' Market at half past noon on Friday. Located at Broadway and Ninth in so-called Old Oakland - between downtown financial/government buildings and chinatown - this farmers market focuses on low prices and asian produce, but also has a few bakeries and hot food producers. It was a warm and breezy October day and people were out on their lunch break, enjoying the music at the market.

<
One of my favorite market musicians with a beautiful voice and great personality was there today:Suzanne. She sings songs from the likes of Leonard Cohen on her twelve string guitar (that's a picture of her with Mr. Cohen taped to the front of her table).

A fascinating 'asian produce' item is Bitter Melon (although I think the term 'asian produce' is really broad and too general, it is often used, so I'll use it with some qualification and reservation). Bitter Melon is unpalatable to most Americans. That's because we don't really have many bitter flavors in our diets - except for chicories, and I would wager that most people don't eat many, if any, chicories. I am a huge fan of arugula and escarole, especially in fall. But, Bitter Melon takes bitter to an extreme, and it adds an astringent-sourness to a dish. In many parts of Asia and the rest of the world, bitter would be one of many flavor components in a meal, along with savory, spicy, sour, sweet, and 'earthy'. We're just not accustomed to bitterness.

Bitter flavors are often thought to have a cleansing, warming, and detoxifying effect on the body. In fact, Bitter Melon is and has been used medicinally all around the world for centuries. In the Amazon, Africa, India, and Asia, Bitter Melon has been used to treat diabetes (it has a powerful blood-sugar-lowering effect), hepatitis, fevers, hemorrhoids, sores and wounds, infections and parasites, scabies and skin diseases. In addition to gastrointestinal problems, it is also used to treat menstrual and pulmonary issues.




Bitter Melon looks like a cucumber with bumps or indentations all over, although it is actually a member of the gourd family. There are Phillipino, Thai, and Indian varieties at most market, and be sure to check which one you're getting. The Phillipino variety is the most mild, with indentations all around. Thai and Indian varieties have spikes all around and are much more pungently bitter; work your way up to that one. The best way to prepare them is to either concentrate it into a shot of juice if you have a juicer, boil the whole plant (often for sale on the side of the table) to make a tea, or prepare the fruit/gourd in a vegetable dish. You can eat the skin, but scoop out the serrated seeds inside (like any gourd). The bitterness is more pronounced at first, but your tastebuds quickly adjust if you can stick with it for a few bites; it's definitely an acquired taste. Here's a simple recipe from Michael Murray's, N.D., Encyclopedia of Healing Foods (where I learned most of the nutritional information about Bitter Melon). Use it as an appetizer or side dish.

Bitter Melon and Eggplant Curry

1 bitter melon, cut into 1/4-inch discs
1 eggplant, cubed
Chili, Cumin, Turmeric Powders
Canola Oil (expeller-pressed)

Heat a saute pot (with a lid) over medium-high heat. Add a generous amount of canola oil and liberal amounts of chili, cumin, and turmeric powders in equal proportions. Stir through. Add the bitter melon and eggplant and saute for several minutes. Add water whenever necessary. Add salt and cover with lid. Simmer for a several minutes more or until cooked through. Served with rice.

Got a bitter melon recipe? Email me.

Bitter happiness. Happy bitterness.

The World Goes (Kinda) Vegan

Do it! And nobody gets hurt...
Really, veganism is just as much about focusing on whole, fresh, seasonal vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, seeds, and legumes as it is foregoing animal products. To me, the important point is to develop a lifestyle of self-ownership - that means feeling the responsibility of our choices and understanding their impact on the world. Our food choices have far-reaching impacts whether or not we choose to acknowledge them. If we do not take ownership of our own chosen actions, we tacitly give our energy and resources to those who are willing to exploit our dependence for a buck. And when people are primarily concerned with making a buck, they often provide the lowest-cost commodity by lowering the potential quality and externalizing production costs, causing environmental, social, and political problems like pollution, low-paying jobs, and misdirected government subsidies. When that commodity is food, you sacrifice nourishment (aka your life) for convenience of habit.
Self-ownership can begin with diet, and luckily we have 3 chances a day to practice. Go to a farmers' market. Pick up a knife. Cooking is a skill that anyone can learn; just like any skill, you learn by doing it and you get better with practice. Not everyone should be vegetarian or vegan. If you feel a sense of connection by reverently killing an animal and then eating him or her, then that is your path. But take ownership! Get to know what you are putting in your body; engage your food at its source. The best way to do that is to grow it yourself. And when you can't do that, buy it from a farmer you know and cook it yourself. While veganism is not for everyone, I will say this is true: we all could benefit from eating more fresh, whole, seasonal fruits and vegetables every day. (And if that even partly vegan, then go vegan!)