As many of you may know WICFA has taken a position against the Raw Milk bill now gaining strength in the Wisconsin legislature. I take WICFA to task in this series of emails exchanged this weekend. In the first exchange here my writing is in black and WICFA's response is in red. If you are a member of WICFA I strongly urge you to pull your support from that organization.
It is my personal opinion that they do not have any real interest in the consumers. In the mean time I await to hear from the author who remains unknown at thi
I understand your concerns about SB 434 and AB 628. I as a consumer do not understand why WICFA will not support their fellow raw milk producers when collectively there would be more power and an united people that all desire the same thing, Raw Milk Freedom. We were excluded from the beginning. You make your case sound like bickering school yard children. From a consumers point of view the bills are a stepping stone to Raw Milk Freedom. If we do not unite and start somewhere we will never get anywhere. My discussion with Garthwaite's staffer indicated revisiting legislation for updates and changes is unheard of. We need to get it right the first time.There will never be a victory for Raw Milk in this state if you continue to create chaos among like minded people. Just this division that you promote is a huge victory for DATCP. United we stand and divided we fall. Our rights are garanteed as individuals, not as a group. We as consumers have to start somewhere and the bills are moving forward and garnering support from legislators. If this first campaign in the war for Raw Milk Freedom becomes successful, then our collective powers may win us more Raw Milk Freedom in the future. Please reconsider your position and realize that your opposition is a feather in DATCP's hat and will not make future attempts in legalizing Raw Milk any easier. We are not opposed to raw milk sales, only the narrow scope of the bill, statute allows incedental sales. Our points are valid concerns expressed by a Grade B producer, and no effort was made to adress people with one or two cows. A bill that is inclusive of all producers would be supported, however the narrow scope of this one along with problems relating to context of other administrative provisions leaves it unworkable for the average small producer. DATCP is not the enemy, however the people there in authority are acting on behalf of corporate interests, the solution is to replace them. The group promoting the bill is made up of corporate LLC's as well. You act as if our concerns are secondary to achieving any measure of sucess, they are not, if it is worth doing it is worth doing right the first time. Paul M. Griepentrog VP WICFA
My response
Hi Paul, You are incorrect about adding changes at a later date. If you notice in the Washington State article, their bill was amended [later] to include micro dairies.
Although small producers need to considered, we have farms that have been seriously hurt financially and need a solution—so they are not driven out-of-business. Respectfully, Andrew Mastrocola
From the Eat Wild News Archive:
http://www.eatwild.com/newsarchivesfolder/Newsarchives.html
Micro-Dairy Advocates in Washington State Protect Right to Sell Raw Milk Rules for selling raw milk for human consumption vary from state to state; some states ban it outright. One way that health-conscious consumers obtain raw milk is through "cow shares"—an arrangement in which "one or more individuals purchase one or more shares in a milk-producing animal in return for a portion of the milk that is produced." A bill proposed to the Washington State legislature in January 2006 specifically includde cow shares in the definition of a "sale," and required that all such distributors to become licensed Class A dairies or face class C felony charges.
Eatwild supplier Kelsey Kozak, the teenage operator of a one-cow dairy in Vashon, Washington, testified against the bill. While Kelsey welcomes more oversight and testing to insure that milk is safe, she felt that the bill didn't recognize the special circumstances of small producers and that the cost of meeting Class A dairy requirements was prohibitive for those who are not trying to make a living as a dairy. In her case, she would need to provide a separate room for processing—pouring the milk from a stainless steel pail through a filter and stainless steel funnel into a half gallon jar—for the 4 1/2 gallons of milk a day that her cow produces. According to a survey she conducted of the state's licensed raw milk dairies, it cost them from $6,000 – $60,000 to become licensed.
A coalition of individuals opposed to this bill lobbied heavily with their legislators over the last two months. The result is an amended bill that will help to ensure the survival of raw milk micro-dairies in Washington state and increase the safety of all raw milk produced in the state. That bill was passed on March 6, 2006. Follow the links to see the bill's history and the final version.
WICFA's response
I made reference to a statement from Garthwaite's staffer. The farming sectors financial problems are rooted in 80 years of federal and state legislation and will not be remedied by this bill.
My response
Paul, I am asking you to reconsider all that I have presented to you, I did not state that this was a remedy for the last 80 years of federal and state tyranny over farmers. It is a start and as I have shown you previously there is a possibility to include all with an amendment. You seem to evade an answer to my previous email. Why? Are you using the public forum because you have a personal axe to grind with someone for not being included? I too would have liked to have been included because I feel there is a need for the consumers voice in the matter and not just the farmers here. But I can see that this is a way to start and work toward a common goal, Raw Milk Freedom.
WICFA's response
What occurs in other states has no bearing or relevance here. The existing statute is different as well as the political climate. Which question are you referring to? There are no axes to grind as our statement, which I did not write, is consistent with WICFA's mission statement
My response
What occurs in other states is a lesson for us, and in some cases a model to follow or not follow depending on the case. You are evading the possibility of an amendment from my previous email. Are you open to the possibility of an amendment? It has worked for Washington and that should be a lesson for us.
WICFA's response
We were told weeks ago that an amendment would be generated in committee to address our concerns. At this point we can safely assume that it was a diversion to gain complacency since it was never realized.
My response in blue and red, WICFA's response in green
From where or whom did you get a promise of amendment in committee? Those who forwarded the bill as per Dan Seigman. Could not the amendment be done at even a later date such as next year for example? No. Getting one piece of legislation passed is key. Supporting that group would give you the ability to amend easier in the future, one would assume they would in like turn support your effort at that time also. Doudtful once they get what they want. Unity is the answer to gaining the power that is needed to win a decisive victory. There is a starting point and without that there will be no victory in the long run. If the colonies had not united and put aside their petty differences to create this great Republic, we most likely would still be ruled by the Crown of England. Those founding father's pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor just as these farmers and consumers of raw milk are doing today. Also you are making a statement of fact as WICFA, based entirely upon your own assumptions. I did not write the piece, but it was approved by the board. I am starting to get the feeling that you do not have a true interest in Raw Milk Freedom for the farmers and consumers in Wisconsin, but perhaps an ulterior motive somehow for your own personal gain or agenda and not the welfare of people that want real food and food choice. Those forwarding the bill are LLC corporations. We have Raw Milk Freedom under existing statute. This bill subjigates our freedom to the whims of DATCP. Liscensing requires premises registration voiding property rights. See State of Wisconsin v. Miller. You seem ignorant of the overall consequences and are to willing to sell out our freedoms for a quick fix in the form of this bill. I sir do not make assumptions, as I stand at law and truth. The gentleman that wrote the piece is a grade B producer and fully aprised of the overall history, he too has customers who will be present at the hearings. This is one skirmish in a larger fight, even now the same committee forwards a bill requiring anyone claiming honey to meet Codex requirements. This bill will not make any gain except to further DATCP's power and authority and having power to remove liscence at whim. You have yet to adress a single point raised in the article. I will contact the writer with your concerns.
My response in red and their statement in blue.
WICFA STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO SB 434 & AB 628
The proposed legislation is inadequate in addressing the concerns of fresh milk producers throughout the state, and does not satisfy the mission of this organization.
The shortcomings of the proposed legislation are as follows.
1. The bill would be in addition to current statue; however, it would be expected that anyone selling milk under the current exemptions to the prohibition of raw milk sales would very likely be prosecuted for not having a raw milk permit. How would it make 97.24 null and void?
2. Current statue allows the sale of milk meeting grade A standards, the bill requires a grade A permit thereby preventing the sale of perfectly good milk by person not having a grade A market. Incidental sales would still be allowed.
3. The statement "the department (DATCP) may not specify additional requirements for a permit under this paragraph" does nothing to prohibit the department from enforcing the other requirements of Wis. Statue 97 such as those in Chapter 80 of the Wis. Administrative Code regarding the processing and packaging of dairy products as such matters are not specifically addressed by holding a raw milk permit or by this bill. This could create new economic industry for Wisconsin.
4. The bills requirement that "a sanitary container for the product that has been prepared in a sanitary manner and the container is filled in a sanitary manner." in effect requires a mechanical bottle filler and capper as Chapter 80 states "no hand capping allowed" as open air processing and packaging is not considered sanitary in the dairy industry. Cleanliness is next to Godliness. And an added cost of doing business unless there is an amendment later on. Remember when safety seals became required on small packaging. The cost always gets passed on to the end user i.e. the consumer. We have proven that we are willing to pay for good quality milk, we will alsogladly pay for clean raw healthy quality milk.
5. The signage requirement is inane as decades of propaganda have made the public aware of dangers real and perceived regarding raw milk, other products presenting greater safety concerns require no signage, such as cold cuts, deli foods, and salad fixings. it does make one feel that milk is being equated to the ranks of cigarettes and alcohol. Maybe we will see the BMATFE
6. The signage requirement does not prohibit placement of a large sign at the farm entrance from the public road thereby enticing the public to buy a product without the referral and guidance of a satisfied customer thereby allowing less than desirable dairies to profit from first time customers. Caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware. Most educated buyers know their farmer.
7. Absolving the farm from product liability is very likely unconstitutional under Section 9 and 21 of the Wis. Constitution, product liability is an insurable risk for any legal product if the farm wishes to protect itself. It does sound like the Christian thing to do.
Other Considerations
The development of administrative rules regarding the enforcement of the statue would be the responsibility of the DATCP and it is long established that certain employees and board members have friends to protect from competition, and will lie and use deceptive means to assume more authority than the legislature intended, which has resulted in the perverted and extreme interpretation of the current statue regarding farm sales of raw milk. Examples include the voluntary NAIS which will now result in the non-renewal of permits and licenses issued by the DATCP. The convoluted calculation used to justify the milk volume premium rather than requiring milk buyers to use the generally accepted principles of accounting, resulting in the loss of a considerable amount of competition in the procurement of milk from the farm. These people are our public servants. We tell them what to do, and do not ask them for anything, nor request anything of them. DATCP has no control over any farmer without their consent, nor does any government official have any power over anyone without consent. The best thing that dairy farmers can do is to collectively ignore DATCP. Learn to say, "No, I do not consent!" And, "i do not agree to this". The minions don't understand this, but the lawyers who have studied contract law do, as do judges.
If someone doesn't want to drink raw milk, then they don't have to. There is no controversy and there is no dispute when one realizes this. No one should make any one do anything they don't want to do, nor should there be any restrictions on anyone to control the actions of another. This doesn't mean anarchy. If someone injures another, then seek retribution. There is too pervasive an idea that we need to be taken care of by government, when we, in the private sector, are capable of taking care of ourselves.
Also, unfortunately, people have the idea that they are US Citizens who are residents of WI. If people woke up and realized the soveriegn state nationals that they are, we would not be in this mess.
Any expectation that the DATCP is able to promulgate rules to enforce the bill as it is currently written and still be an asset to the Wisconsin dairy farmer and consumer is laughable It is time for smaller government not only on the Federal level but on the State level as well. No doubt DATCP is on a vendetta right now but if we show solidarity from the begining maybe we will see the ultimate goal shared by all, Liberty.
It is my personal opinion that they do not have any real interest in the consumers. In the mean time I await to hear from the author who remains unknown at thi
I understand your concerns about SB 434 and AB 628. I as a consumer do not understand why WICFA will not support their fellow raw milk producers when collectively there would be more power and an united people that all desire the same thing, Raw Milk Freedom. We were excluded from the beginning. You make your case sound like bickering school yard children. From a consumers point of view the bills are a stepping stone to Raw Milk Freedom. If we do not unite and start somewhere we will never get anywhere. My discussion with Garthwaite's staffer indicated revisiting legislation for updates and changes is unheard of. We need to get it right the first time.There will never be a victory for Raw Milk in this state if you continue to create chaos among like minded people. Just this division that you promote is a huge victory for DATCP. United we stand and divided we fall. Our rights are garanteed as individuals, not as a group. We as consumers have to start somewhere and the bills are moving forward and garnering support from legislators. If this first campaign in the war for Raw Milk Freedom becomes successful, then our collective powers may win us more Raw Milk Freedom in the future. Please reconsider your position and realize that your opposition is a feather in DATCP's hat and will not make future attempts in legalizing Raw Milk any easier. We are not opposed to raw milk sales, only the narrow scope of the bill, statute allows incedental sales. Our points are valid concerns expressed by a Grade B producer, and no effort was made to adress people with one or two cows. A bill that is inclusive of all producers would be supported, however the narrow scope of this one along with problems relating to context of other administrative provisions leaves it unworkable for the average small producer. DATCP is not the enemy, however the people there in authority are acting on behalf of corporate interests, the solution is to replace them. The group promoting the bill is made up of corporate LLC's as well. You act as if our concerns are secondary to achieving any measure of sucess, they are not, if it is worth doing it is worth doing right the first time. Paul M. Griepentrog VP WICFA
My response
Hi Paul, You are incorrect about adding changes at a later date. If you notice in the Washington State article, their bill was amended [later] to include micro dairies.
Although small producers need to considered, we have farms that have been seriously hurt financially and need a solution—so they are not driven out-of-business. Respectfully, Andrew Mastrocola
From the Eat Wild News Archive:
http://www.eatwild.com/newsarchivesfolder/Newsarchives.html
Micro-Dairy Advocates in Washington State Protect Right to Sell Raw Milk Rules for selling raw milk for human consumption vary from state to state; some states ban it outright. One way that health-conscious consumers obtain raw milk is through "cow shares"—an arrangement in which "one or more individuals purchase one or more shares in a milk-producing animal in return for a portion of the milk that is produced." A bill proposed to the Washington State legislature in January 2006 specifically includde cow shares in the definition of a "sale," and required that all such distributors to become licensed Class A dairies or face class C felony charges.
Eatwild supplier Kelsey Kozak, the teenage operator of a one-cow dairy in Vashon, Washington, testified against the bill. While Kelsey welcomes more oversight and testing to insure that milk is safe, she felt that the bill didn't recognize the special circumstances of small producers and that the cost of meeting Class A dairy requirements was prohibitive for those who are not trying to make a living as a dairy. In her case, she would need to provide a separate room for processing—pouring the milk from a stainless steel pail through a filter and stainless steel funnel into a half gallon jar—for the 4 1/2 gallons of milk a day that her cow produces. According to a survey she conducted of the state's licensed raw milk dairies, it cost them from $6,000 – $60,000 to become licensed.
A coalition of individuals opposed to this bill lobbied heavily with their legislators over the last two months. The result is an amended bill that will help to ensure the survival of raw milk micro-dairies in Washington state and increase the safety of all raw milk produced in the state. That bill was passed on March 6, 2006. Follow the links to see the bill's history and the final version.
WICFA's response
I made reference to a statement from Garthwaite's staffer. The farming sectors financial problems are rooted in 80 years of federal and state legislation and will not be remedied by this bill.
My response
Paul, I am asking you to reconsider all that I have presented to you, I did not state that this was a remedy for the last 80 years of federal and state tyranny over farmers. It is a start and as I have shown you previously there is a possibility to include all with an amendment. You seem to evade an answer to my previous email. Why? Are you using the public forum because you have a personal axe to grind with someone for not being included? I too would have liked to have been included because I feel there is a need for the consumers voice in the matter and not just the farmers here. But I can see that this is a way to start and work toward a common goal, Raw Milk Freedom.
WICFA's response
What occurs in other states has no bearing or relevance here. The existing statute is different as well as the political climate. Which question are you referring to? There are no axes to grind as our statement, which I did not write, is consistent with WICFA's mission statement
My response
What occurs in other states is a lesson for us, and in some cases a model to follow or not follow depending on the case. You are evading the possibility of an amendment from my previous email. Are you open to the possibility of an amendment? It has worked for Washington and that should be a lesson for us.
WICFA's response
We were told weeks ago that an amendment would be generated in committee to address our concerns. At this point we can safely assume that it was a diversion to gain complacency since it was never realized.
My response in blue and red, WICFA's response in green
From where or whom did you get a promise of amendment in committee? Those who forwarded the bill as per Dan Seigman. Could not the amendment be done at even a later date such as next year for example? No. Getting one piece of legislation passed is key. Supporting that group would give you the ability to amend easier in the future, one would assume they would in like turn support your effort at that time also. Doudtful once they get what they want. Unity is the answer to gaining the power that is needed to win a decisive victory. There is a starting point and without that there will be no victory in the long run. If the colonies had not united and put aside their petty differences to create this great Republic, we most likely would still be ruled by the Crown of England. Those founding father's pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor just as these farmers and consumers of raw milk are doing today. Also you are making a statement of fact as WICFA, based entirely upon your own assumptions. I did not write the piece, but it was approved by the board. I am starting to get the feeling that you do not have a true interest in Raw Milk Freedom for the farmers and consumers in Wisconsin, but perhaps an ulterior motive somehow for your own personal gain or agenda and not the welfare of people that want real food and food choice. Those forwarding the bill are LLC corporations. We have Raw Milk Freedom under existing statute. This bill subjigates our freedom to the whims of DATCP. Liscensing requires premises registration voiding property rights. See State of Wisconsin v. Miller. You seem ignorant of the overall consequences and are to willing to sell out our freedoms for a quick fix in the form of this bill. I sir do not make assumptions, as I stand at law and truth. The gentleman that wrote the piece is a grade B producer and fully aprised of the overall history, he too has customers who will be present at the hearings. This is one skirmish in a larger fight, even now the same committee forwards a bill requiring anyone claiming honey to meet Codex requirements. This bill will not make any gain except to further DATCP's power and authority and having power to remove liscence at whim. You have yet to adress a single point raised in the article. I will contact the writer with your concerns.
My response in red and their statement in blue.
WICFA STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO SB 434 & AB 628
The proposed legislation is inadequate in addressing the concerns of fresh milk producers throughout the state, and does not satisfy the mission of this organization.
The shortcomings of the proposed legislation are as follows.
1. The bill would be in addition to current statue; however, it would be expected that anyone selling milk under the current exemptions to the prohibition of raw milk sales would very likely be prosecuted for not having a raw milk permit. How would it make 97.24 null and void?
2. Current statue allows the sale of milk meeting grade A standards, the bill requires a grade A permit thereby preventing the sale of perfectly good milk by person not having a grade A market. Incidental sales would still be allowed.
3. The statement "the department (DATCP) may not specify additional requirements for a permit under this paragraph" does nothing to prohibit the department from enforcing the other requirements of Wis. Statue 97 such as those in Chapter 80 of the Wis. Administrative Code regarding the processing and packaging of dairy products as such matters are not specifically addressed by holding a raw milk permit or by this bill. This could create new economic industry for Wisconsin.
4. The bills requirement that "a sanitary container for the product that has been prepared in a sanitary manner and the container is filled in a sanitary manner." in effect requires a mechanical bottle filler and capper as Chapter 80 states "no hand capping allowed" as open air processing and packaging is not considered sanitary in the dairy industry. Cleanliness is next to Godliness. And an added cost of doing business unless there is an amendment later on. Remember when safety seals became required on small packaging. The cost always gets passed on to the end user i.e. the consumer. We have proven that we are willing to pay for good quality milk, we will alsogladly pay for clean raw healthy quality milk.
5. The signage requirement is inane as decades of propaganda have made the public aware of dangers real and perceived regarding raw milk, other products presenting greater safety concerns require no signage, such as cold cuts, deli foods, and salad fixings. it does make one feel that milk is being equated to the ranks of cigarettes and alcohol. Maybe we will see the BMATFE
6. The signage requirement does not prohibit placement of a large sign at the farm entrance from the public road thereby enticing the public to buy a product without the referral and guidance of a satisfied customer thereby allowing less than desirable dairies to profit from first time customers. Caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware. Most educated buyers know their farmer.
7. Absolving the farm from product liability is very likely unconstitutional under Section 9 and 21 of the Wis. Constitution, product liability is an insurable risk for any legal product if the farm wishes to protect itself. It does sound like the Christian thing to do.
Other Considerations
The development of administrative rules regarding the enforcement of the statue would be the responsibility of the DATCP and it is long established that certain employees and board members have friends to protect from competition, and will lie and use deceptive means to assume more authority than the legislature intended, which has resulted in the perverted and extreme interpretation of the current statue regarding farm sales of raw milk. Examples include the voluntary NAIS which will now result in the non-renewal of permits and licenses issued by the DATCP. The convoluted calculation used to justify the milk volume premium rather than requiring milk buyers to use the generally accepted principles of accounting, resulting in the loss of a considerable amount of competition in the procurement of milk from the farm. These people are our public servants. We tell them what to do, and do not ask them for anything, nor request anything of them. DATCP has no control over any farmer without their consent, nor does any government official have any power over anyone without consent. The best thing that dairy farmers can do is to collectively ignore DATCP. Learn to say, "No, I do not consent!" And, "i do not agree to this". The minions don't understand this, but the lawyers who have studied contract law do, as do judges.
If someone doesn't want to drink raw milk, then they don't have to. There is no controversy and there is no dispute when one realizes this. No one should make any one do anything they don't want to do, nor should there be any restrictions on anyone to control the actions of another. This doesn't mean anarchy. If someone injures another, then seek retribution. There is too pervasive an idea that we need to be taken care of by government, when we, in the private sector, are capable of taking care of ourselves.
Also, unfortunately, people have the idea that they are US Citizens who are residents of WI. If people woke up and realized the soveriegn state nationals that they are, we would not be in this mess.
Any expectation that the DATCP is able to promulgate rules to enforce the bill as it is currently written and still be an asset to the Wisconsin dairy farmer and consumer is laughable It is time for smaller government not only on the Federal level but on the State level as well. No doubt DATCP is on a vendetta right now but if we show solidarity from the begining maybe we will see the ultimate goal shared by all, Liberty.
RSS Feed