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.