SB 201 requires all of the pre January 2008 standards to apply including a low SPC.

Under SB 201 all raw milk must have a lower SPC than the maximum allowed after proper pasteurization.

In your critique you are mistaken. SPC is still a requirement and the state can and will degrade raw milk that is found to be out of compliance for SPC of more than 15000. This has been the law for years and years.

When statign facts please be very careful to be accurate.

Current law also allows milk intended to be used for pasteurization to be sold to a dairy that bottles raw milk and that raw milk can be sold as raw. This comingling is illegal under SB 201.

SB 201 is good law, is needed to protect food safety, our raw milk consumers and the producers themselves.

Mark McAfee

You mentioned to me a number of times in person that it is illegal to outsource raw milk under the Food and Ag Code (contrary to your posting here). My reading of the code seems to support your past statements, though I am not a legal expert. I assume this is why you have stated publicly (Apr 15) that outsourcing the cream in Sep 2007 was "illegal" and you made a mistake. Cream falls under the same code as raw milk in this regard.

Butter does not appear to have the same restrictions which is why you continued to buy product for butter and bring it to your farm in the bulk tanks I saw last fall.

Colostrum does not have the same restrictions because it is not even a dairy product.

SB 201 addresses nothing but "raw milk," just like current Food and Ag Code. There is no new protection in this bill against outsourcing for consumers.

In any case, your bill has a lot of support and if it does pass, you can use this Marler letter as your cheat sheet for ideas to avoid regulation. If your milk gets degraded in the meantime, you could always add 5% colostrum to it and sell it as "super leche" for $2 more a gallon wholesale. Not bad.

Amanda

By way of background: Salmonella dublin is a host-adapted strain of the species which can be excreted directly in the milk with no apparent illness in the cow. In this respect AltaDena cows were similar to Mary Mallon (aka Typhoid Mary) the first person in the United States to be identified as a healthy carrier of typhoid fever (Salmonella enterica ). Over the course of her career Mary infected 47 people, three of whom died.
If you compare the letters and testimony from the AltaDena era with the blogs of today, it's like watching a play you saw years ago, with the same parts, the same lines, on the same stage.

Mark McAffee is playing Stouvie's role and FDA, CDC, raw milk consumers and the State Department of Ag are all reprising their roles.

Unless you want to have this argument all over again two years from now it would be best to settle this now.

Certainly your 10 coliform limit does offer some protection for susceptible population, but there remain loopholes in the proposed legislation that the state's Governor could drive a Humvee through - which would keep raw milk a very, very dangerous product.

There might be some willingness to compromise on the 10-coliform limit IF an adequate sanitation program (including verification testing) was approved in a true HACCP plan.

It would, however, be the responsibility of the HACCP plan author to prove to the state regulatory agencies that whatever sanitation standards they are proposing are supported by science and industry experience in other food commodities.

But based on the philosophical position exhibited by some raw milk producers throughout the country, I suspect it will take months or years before a raw dairy HACCP plan gets approved anywhere.

Until that time California's current sanitation standards are really the only thing you have protecting children.

He interviews people who in the face of an outbreak, continue to support consumption of raw milk for "health benefits." The dairy voluntarily shut down a "cow share" program upon learning of the outbreak. An intriguing quote from his article: "She [raw milk consumer] is just one of many people in Del Norte County who are seeking alternative sources of raw, unpasteurized milk since the dairy voluntarily shut down its program due to an outbreak of the bacteria Campylobacter that may have infecting up to 15 people who drank the milk.

Bill, what's up? You cited a compelling report out of Stanford about risks to the milk supply (http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/08/articles/lawyer-oped/who-poisoned-our-peppers/) if a terrorist used botulinum toxin as a weapon in a recent twist on the "tainted pepper" story.

Most agree that "poisoned milk" would cause great "terror," and create havoc for public health officials, law enforcement, etc. Although botulism is considered a "class A" agent, the assumption is that even Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli O157, or other more prevalent disease causing agents would result potentially in huge panic by the public if intentionally introduced into our food supply.

So...million dollar question...any ideas why individuals and communities in this growing movement to shun safeguards like pasteurization would intentionally seek out raw milk for themselves and their children that is known to be risky?
.

Raw milk, fruits, sprouts and vegetables are important sources of ENZYMES that naturally aid digestion and metabolism. The process of pasteurization kills those beneficial enzymes. It's not the same as beneficial bacteria, such as yogurt contains.

All I needed to cure acidity was to limit the amount of cooked food in my diet. A glass of raw milk cures heartburn on the spot as well as IBS and obesity over time. When milk is heated the fat molecule breaks down differently in the body than raw milk fat does.

I'd rather remove the true cause than treat the known results of an acidic, always cooked, diet with antacids.

Nescience, not science is fueling the raw milk scare. We simply have to be as careful as we are supposed to be with fresh eggs, raw fish, etc, etc.

It is already safe to buy, sell and drink raw milk. The intent of SB 201 is to increase that safety even more.