babusyatanya (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
babusyatanya) wrote2010-01-07 07:09 pm
babusyatanya) wrote2010-01-07 07:09 pm
Entry tags:
raw milk war
или государственное рейдерство по-канадски: не смотря на сильный прессинг и попытки демонизировать вопрос употребления настоящего коровьего молока (не прошедшего промышленную пастеризацию, гомогенизацию и другие процессы изменяющие молоко до бесвкусной белой жижы - часто вредной для употребления тк. содержит гормональные и до. добавки), ни один из держателей акций на данный момент не вышел из группы владельцев. доставка молока осложнена, но не прекратилась, ура!
December 24th 2009
Last week, the depots where we were picking up our milk were ordered by the Fraser Health Authority to Cease and Desist ‘distributing raw milk’, or, to not have food on the premises if it was ‘not from an approved source’
FHA Inspectors supervised as your milk was dumped down the drain and your butter put in the garbage. In some cases, Inspectors took samples of the milk.
An FHA inspector came to the farm on Thursday morning, December 17th, took photos of the milk room, then left without leaving any document.
The depot on private property in Vancouver has not been visited. In Hixon, near Prince George, Inspectors from Northern Health Authority served an Order yesterday on the cowshare there, concerning only the Agister’s sale of butter made from raw milk. They told her they ‘didn’t want to touch the cowshare issue until after the Schmidt decision in Ontario’.
On premises where the province has jurisdiction to regulate commerce, they acted according to the power of Public Health Act, but raw milk on private residences is being left alone. I believe that this is tacit admission the government lawyers know that milk from such dairies is not caught by the Milk Industry Act.
On Wednesday December 16th, as soon as I heard about it, I went to the Burnaby depot to get a copy of the Cease + Desist Order. Since Inspector Asplin had written on it that returning the raw milk to Bert Jongerden was one of the options for compliance, I was hoping I could negotiate with FHA to at least recover our property. I then went and met with the Inspector who’d issued it, and his manager at the Burnaby FHA office. I left the meeting with the understanding that I had an appointment with the Inspector at the depot the next day at noon at which time we could take away our milk. Bert and I were there at noon Thursday, as arranged. We were literally about to start loading the milk out the back door of the depot, on to his truck, when Inspector Asplin took a phone call from his manager. A minute later, he told us that the agreement had been revoked. That milk sat there for a week until December 23, when the Inspector found time to supervise it being dumped down the drain.
Lacking any evidence of harm from that batch, the government of British Columbia deemed hundreds of gallons of pure whole fresh raw milk to be a biohazard, and sent it down the sewer, rather than to its owners.
Back in June 2008, the FHA slapped a Cease + Desist Order on our Agister at the farm. I immediately began an appeal in the Supreme Court of BC. Afterwards - for over a year and a half - they knew full well that the REAL MILK continued to flow because I took pains to notify them of that fact. So what moved them lately? At the meeting at the FHA office when I pointed out that ‘we’ve been going for 2 ½ years and no-one’s gotten sick from our milk.’ manager Gordon Stewart shook his head and said “we’ve had allegations” When I asked for facts along that line, he said “our investigation is ongoing. We don’t have to give you any information until it’s concluded”.
On Monday Dec 21, I spoke with Ron Asplin, who had issued the Order in Burnaby, demanding to know who the “allegations” had come from. Una Tyson of Fraser Health called me back to answer for him. She refused to give me any information, instead, telling me that I must go through the Freedom of Information process. That’s laughable. I am well experienced at the FoI game, having been one of the first ones to use it in order to supremely embarrass the govt. on other issues. In 1993, and for the first few years, the FoI&Protection of Privacy Act did work to make the apparatchiks cough up important info. But these days, it’s become just another tactic used for delay delay delay. Nevertheless, I shall put in a Freedom of Information demand.
It is utterly illogical for Fraser Health on the one hand to pretend that people have been sickened by our milk, yet refuse to divulge such information to the very people who can do something about it … me and the Agister for the Home on the Range herd.
As of this writing, the allegation that someone got sick from milk from our herd, is not only unsubstantiated, it is highly suspect in light of the FHA‘s misconduct in the spring of 2008. In that round, after they’d slapped the Order on us, I obtained records of emails behind the scenes in which officials acknowledged to each other that they needed a complainant to proceed properly, yet did not have one. A full year after demanding contact information for that supposed complainant, the FHA lawyer still refuses to co-operate. I am sure there was no complainant in 2008. Knowing so, yet issuing the Order they did, the Fraser Health Authority committed malfeasance of public office. An Order issued by a Health Authority is the bottom rung of the judicial system. Thus, deliberate mis-use of that power is the crime of obstruct / pervert / defeat of Justice.
This episode is shaping up much the same as happens time and again in other instances in North America : govt. officials get heavy-handed enforcing the letter of the law on speculation but without evidence of harm. Fraser Health has again acted outside the powers - certainly the ethical boundaries - of their office because they are not concerned with being held accountable. Unfortunately our little private-subscription dairy is caught up in one of the biggest issues of the day : bureaucrats abusing the powers of the government, demanding ordinary people comply with illogical regulations (better suited to a collectivist society) yet refusing to obey the laws we the people put in place to keep them as our civil servants, rather than petty tyrants.
The Campaign for REAL MILK is not going to go away. We’re in disarray here for the moment, but I’m arranging to set up a mobile depot on private property so it keeps flowing, legally. The plan is that I will be at a certain location in a different part of the City each day of the week. If your place would be suitable, please let Alice Jongerden know via email.
Any shareholder who can make it out at the farm at the afternoon milking can get your milk. The address is 49211 Prairie Central Road, just a few miles East of Chilliwack. Take the Prest Road exit off the freeway. Go right at the top of the off-ramp, which is south, to the first 4-way stop, then turn left. A couple of miles along, just past Gibson Road, look for the farm on the left side of the road. Proceed through the gate to the barn. It is about two hours’ driving time from Vancouver to the farm. So it will take about half a day there and back … not something you’d be doing regularly, but it’s fun as an adventure. And you get to pet your cows
The Pen is mightier than the Sword
As a shareholder, you always had the option to pick up your milk at the farm, or at any of the depots. Thus, each of you is someone affected by each and every one of the Orders made last week by the Fraser Health Authority or the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. Under section 43* of the Public Health Act British Columbia, you have the right to ask the Inspectors who made them, to reconsider their Orders. There is a form available from the Inspectors to do so, but you don’t need to use it. If you state in a letter that it’s a Request for Reconsideration of a particular Order, that will do. For our purposes, the beauty of the Act is that those Inspectors are obliged to answer each of you, in writing.
This turn of events is an opportunity to tell the government of British Columbia that the present policy to do with raw milk is so illogical as to be ridiculous. Especially intriguing is section of the Act which provides for someone affected to ask for reconsideration on the ground that, when he made the Order, the Inspector did not take in to account certain material. Lots of scope there to have your say! Whether they harken to us, or not, all the done by shareholders asking for Reconsideration, will not be lost. Every letter will be very valuable if and when this thing ever does wind up in Court.
The Orders at issue are :
Upon Rockwell Farms in Abbotsford, by Inspector Dan Dhillon
Direct a Request for Reconsideration to Inspector Dhillon at
Abbotsford Public Health Unit 34194 Marshall Road Abbotsford BC V2S 5E4 phone 604 864 3400 fax 604 864 3410
-----------------------------
Upon Anita’s Pharmacy in Burnaby by Inspector Rod Asplin
Direct a Request for Reconsideration to Inspector Asplin at
#300 - 4946 Canada Way Burnaby British Columbia V5G 4H7
Telephone 604 918 7523 fax 604 918 7520
------------------
Upon Ayurveda by Inspector Jas Sajan
Direct a Request for Reconsideration to Inspector Sajan at
Vancouver Coastal Health
1200 - 601 West Broadway Vancouver British Columbia V5Z 4C2
Phone 604 675 3800 fax 604 736 8651
------------------
details for the Orders upon the Ethical Kitchen in North Vancouver and the Controversial Kitchen on Commercial Drive in Vancouverwill be in my comment to follow, shortly
Gordon S Watson email < Walterson@shaw.ca >
604 526 5064
www.freewebs.com/bovinity
section 43 of the Public Health Act Revised Statutes of British Columbia is at the very bottom of this comment, below the Province news story
Raw-milk operation faces heat
Fraser Health Authority again tries to shut down farm
A small, shareholder-held Fraser Valley dairy that produces and distributes raw, unpasteurized milk products solely for its members has run afoul of the Fraser Health Authority's bureaucracy.
For the second time in less than three years, Fraser Health is trying to close down the little dairy on the pretense that drinking raw milk is a health hazard because it's not treated by high-temperature pasteurization, which zaps nasty little bugs that may make us sick.
Advocates say pasteurization also kills many health-giving qualities in raw milk — especially all-important enzymes — and is safe, as long as it's processed in clean facilities.
While it's not my intention today to argue the merits of raw versus pasteurized milk, there are many baby-boomers (me included) and older Canadians in good health who drank raw cow's milk as kids on the farm.
More to the point, this issue centres on whether or not Canadians who believe in raw milk's health benefits also have the right to produce, distribute and consume it.
That's the way the Chilliwack-based Home On The Range dairy and syndicate sees it.
Alice Jongerden, her husband and five children oversee the small farm's operations, where 20 grass-fed cows produce enough milk to supply about 365 Lower Mainland households. For a small fee, these consumers buy shares in the dairy and take their dividends through raw-milk products.
They have to do it this way because Canada is the only country in the G-8 that does not allow public raw-milk sales.
Fraser Health inspectors tried unsuccessfully to close this dairy early in 2008 and, last week, they tried again.
Working under the provincial Public Health Act, they shut down several of Home On The Range's distribution depots in Greater Vancouver and entered the Jongerden's farm — without a search warrant — to take photos of the milking facilities.
Tim Shum, Fraser Health's regional director of health protection, says the Public Health Act states that raw milk is a health hazard.
"That's how we're able to issue an order to anyone who is distributing raw milk to stop it," he adds. "Unpasteurized milk can transmit disease-causing bacteria."
Shum also says Fraser Health will take legal action against the dairy.
"Our mandate is to enforce public-health legislation, so we will exercise all possible legal remedies to make sure this activity stops," he added.
But that may not be so simple.
Both sides in a well-publicized raw-milk case in Ontario expect a court decision next month involving a dairy farmer who sells his milk to the public.
Now, the Canadian Constitution Foundation is supporting farmer Michael Schmidt and says that, if the decision goes against him, it's prepared to take his case to the Supreme Court of Canada on constitutional grounds.
Here at home, you have to wonder where Fraser Health could better spend its scarce health dollars to keep us healthy rather than using them to stomp like Big Brother on a few people who prefer raw milk.
Widespread tobacco and alcohol abuse come to mind.
By Brian Lewis, The Province December 22 2009
blewis@theprovince.com
===============
Reconsideration of orders
43
(1) A person affected by an order, or the variance of an order, may request the health officer who issued the order or made the variance to reconsider the order or variance if the person
(a) has additional relevant information that was not reasonably available to the health officer when the order was issued or varied,
(b) has a proposal that was not presented to the health officer when the order was issued or varied but, if implemented, would
(i) meet the objective of the order, and
(ii) be suitable as the basis of a written agreement under section 38 [may make written agreements], or
(c) requires more time to comply with the order.
(2) A request for reconsideration must be made in the form required by the health officer.
(3) After considering a request for reconsideration, a health officer may do one or more of the following:
(a) reject the request on the basis that the information submitted in support of the request
(i) is not relevant, or
(ii) was reasonably available at the time the order was issued;
(b) delay the date the order is to take effect or suspend the order, if satisfied that doing so would not be detrimental to public health;
(c) confirm, rescind or vary the order.
(4) A health officer must provide written reasons for a decision to reject the request under subsection (3) (a) or to confirm or vary the order under subsection (3) (c).
(5) Following a decision made under subsection (3) (a) or (c), no further request for reconsideration may be made.
(6) An order is not suspended during the period of reconsideration unless the health officer agrees, in writing, to suspend it.
(7) For the purposes of this section,
(a) if an order is made that affects a class of persons, a request for reconsideration may be made by one person on behalf of the class, and
(b) if multiple orders are made that affect a class of persons, or address related matters or issues, a health officer may reconsider the orders separately or together.
Ready for raw milk battle
Fraser Health steps up its efforts to stop distribution of local raw milk product
Paul J. Henderson, The Times
Published: Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Thorpe said Fraser Health is seeking a court injunction to stop the distribution, since the cease and desist order has already been given.
But the whole issue could hinge upon what happens in Ontario with dairy farmer Michael Schmidt and his fight for the right to sell his milk to the public. Schmidt is backed by the Canadian Constitution Foundation that is willing to take the issue to the Supreme Court of Canada if it comes to that.
As for Jongerden, she isn't at all surprised at Fraser Health's zeal, as she is now used to it.
Email to a friend
Printer friendly
Font:
"There are a lot of things they could be doing better with their time," she said. "The question is: why are they doing it? A lot of people interested in our health and we want to have access to what is rightfully ours."
Jongerden has support from raw milk advocates and as for Fraser Health's threat of legal action, she is ready.
"I say bring it on. Let's get to court and let a judge decide if we can't even drink our own milk from our own cow."
phenderson@chilliwacktimes.com
© Chilliwack Times 2009
In Brian Lewis' item from today's Province newspaper, he quotes a govt. official saying they are going to "exercise all possible legal remedies" to shut us down". This is very good news ; now we get to have a judge consider the validity of the law itself. And while the wheels of the Justice system grind on, REAL MILK continues to flow in British Columbia
===============================
Raw-milk operation faces heat; Fraser Health Authority again tries to shut down farm
A small, shareholder-held Fraser Valley dairy that produces and distributes raw, unpasteurized milk products solely for its members has run afoul of the Fraser Health Authority's bureaucracy.
For the second time in less than three years, Fraser Health is trying to close down the little dairy on the pretence that drinking raw milk is a health hazard because it's not treated by high-temperature pasteurization, which zaps nasty little bugs that may make us sick.
Advocates say pasteurization also kills many health-giving qualities in raw milk — especially all-important enzymes — and is safe, as long as it's processed in clean facilities.
While it's not my intension today to argue the merits of raw versus pasteurized milk, there are many baby-boomers (me included) and older Canadians in good health who drank raw cow's milk as kids on the farm.
More to the point, this issue centres on whether or not Canadians who believe in raw milk's health benefits also have the right to produce, distribute and consume it.
That's the way the Chilliwack-based Home On The Range dairy and syndicate sees it.
Alice Jongerden, her husband and five children oversee the small farm's operations, where 20 grass-fed cows produce enough milk to supply about 365 Lower Mainland households. For a small fee, these consumers buy shares in the dairy and take their dividends through raw-milk products.
They have to do it this way because Canada is the only country in the G-8 that does not allow public raw-milk sales.
Fraser Health inspectors tried unsuccessfully to close this dairy early in 2008 and, last week, they tried again.
Working under the provincial Public Health Act, they shut down several of Home On The Range's distribution depots in Greater Vancouver and entered the Jongerden's farm– without a search warrant — to take photos of the milking facilities.
Tim Shum, Fraser Health's regional director of health protection, says the Public Health Act states that raw milk is a health hazard.
"That's how we're able to issue an order to anyone who is distributing raw milk to stop it," he adds. "Unpasteurized milk can transmit disease-causing bacteria."
Shum also says Fraser Health will take legal action against the dairy.
"Our mandate is to enforce public-health legislation, so we will exercise all possible legal remedies to make sure this activity stops," he added.
But that may not be so simple.
Both sides in a well-publicized raw-milk case in Ontario expect a court decision next month involving a dairy farmer who sells his milk to the public.
Now, the Canadian Constitution Foundation is supporting farmer Michael Schmidt and says that, if the decision goes against him, it's prepared to take his case to the Supreme Court of Canada on constitutional grounds.
Here at home, you have to wonder where Fraser Health could better spend its scarce health dollars to keep us healthy rather than using them to stomp like Big Brother on a few people who prefer raw milk.
Widespread tobacco and alcohol abuse come to mind.
blewis@theprovince.com
Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009 | 4:00 am
Canwest News Service
Hi All Members
I have just been notified by a reporter from the Globe and Mail that Fraser Health is issuing a warning to all Sharemembers to destroy the milk on hand. They have said that they tested milk at the depots which they shut down, Ayurveda, Ethical Kitchen and Controversial Kitchen. They said their tests showed fecal contamination in 5 instances about 2-3 weeks ago.
This corresponds to the email we sent previously notifying all members when we had a complaint that the milk was off, that if they noticed anything to discard the milk. Our test which was done before any notification from Fraser Health showed 3 cows with high somatic cell count, at which time only 1 of the cows milk was sent out. We cultured the cows, and upon receiving results, had that cow removed from the premise. This morning we did cultures on all of the cows again, to ensure that there are no issues with any milk that is sent out. We are still waiting for the results.
I am confident with all the milk that is going to you at this time. Any cows that we consider a threat have had their milk set aside for the calves. For those that have come to the farm, you have seen the shape of the barn, and the cows and can eliminate this as an issue.
However, we do have another issue that we have been dealing with. And that is the flavour of the milk after a few days. We have had a couple of people mention a subtle off flavour, and have noticed ourself. We are confident that we have come to the bottom of this, but will only know after 1 weeks testing. The hose which travels from the transfer pump to the filling machine has been cleaned with bleach, and would have bleach residue sitting in it during the day and night when not in use. Even after rinsing, the flavour of bleach would remain in the line, and when the warm milk would sit in if for a few minutes, it would disflavour the milk. We have replaced the hose, and have a new system for disinfecting, so we are sure that problem is eliminated....
I would suggest that if you suspect your milk in anyway, that you send it back to us, rather than discard it, so we can test it at 2 different labs to compare results.
At this time we have no one ill from the milk that we are aware of.
If you have any questions or concerns, please let us know, or come to the farm and see for yourself :)
Alice
...
the media release from the BC Centre for Disease Control bodes to be a textbook example of how the smear campaign is carried out against REAL MILK
what's going on is that about the middle of November, one of our shareholders took his child to the hospital complaining of intestinal distress. The doctor asked for a list of what the child had been eating. When they got to "raw milk", the doctor stopped asking. That child is soon recovered and is perfectly OK now
On December 16th when they slapped the first Order on us, I met with Gordon Stewart, a manager at Fraser Health, to negotiate getting our milk back. He said they had had "allegations" that someone had been ill from our milk. Yet he point-blank refused to give me any information.
Yesterday, I was standing in the office of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, serving them legal documents to begin a Judicial Review of the various Public Health Act Orders against our depots. Is it not telling that the top guy - Dominic Losito - didn't think it worth mentioning that - ostensibly - someone has been made ill by our milk?
Is it not telling that the so-called "Health Authorities" alerted media reporters, but didn't tell us, at source?
No, from the perspective of the relentless campaign of the dairy cartel to destroy every source which embarrasses it by proving what milk really is, versus the dreck they put on retail shelves ... it all does make sense. As Michael Schmidt says "it's not about health. It's about control"
Last time 'round, I shoved the idiots back by obtaining internal correspondence which proved they had committed malfeasance of public office ... knowingly abusing the powers at their disposal to slander us. They left us alone for a year and a half because they knew our milk was perfectly OK. This time 'round, the bad faith is even more obvious. In the meeting with Gordon Stewart, I demanded our property back. At first, he agreed. I said I wanted it in order to get independent lab tests done. Overnight they changed their mind so that when I went to pick up our milk the next day, the Inspector refused. Later, all that wonderful good food was poured down the sewer with bleach.
An Order under the Public Health Act is quasi-judicial in nature. As they destroyed the evidence I needed in order to get a genuinely -independent analysis, so as to put it in to the Supreme court of BC for a Judicial Review of their Orders, Fraser Health and Vancouver coastal Health obstructed Justice.
Let's have the actual lab results
Gordon S Watson
To shareholders in our herd of dairy cows
Today, Fraser Health served an Order under the Public Health Act, upon each of our depots in Langley, Burnaby and Abbotsford. By these Orders, all the REAL MILK and raw milk products, including eggs and other things which are not properly under that Act, were seized at Anita‘s Pharmacy / LadyBug Organics and Rockwell Farms.
Apparently, Fraser Health was told that someone had become ill after drinking raw milk from our herd, about a month ago. I met with the manager of the Burnaby office, on Wednesday afternoon but he refused to give me any more information than that.
Officials in Fraser Health are very well aware of the argument in my appeals of previous Orders upon our Agister : the Milk Industry Act pertains to milk which is sold. Our milk is never sold. Thus our milk does not fall under that Act since our group of shareholders is not a “producer-vendor” as defined in it. I say that the orders are null and void from the start because Fraser Health has no jurisdiction over raw milk produced by our private dairy for our own consumption, since it never enters-in to commerce.
Last time they slapped Orders on us, May 2008, Fraser Health was so severely embarrassed by me putting in to Court some of their own e-mails that they backed off. The emails, which I’d obtained via Freedom of Information requests, showed behind-the-scenes discussion in which they acknowledged they knew they needed a complaint about us, in order to act legally, but they didn’t have one. Yet they had lowered the boom anyway!
On Wednesday Dec 16 2009, I made a formal Freedom of Information request orally, right there in the manager’s office, for all records to do with the rationale for these recent Orders. His response was that they don’t have to comply with the FoI & Protection of Privacy Act while an investigation is underway. They have something to hide, alright. And it will come out eventually
Meanwhile, I am determined to keep the REAL MILK flowing to the more than 400 households who hold shares in the herd.
The plan is that I’ll be going out to the farm and getting our property - that would be, our milk - and deliver it to shareholders’ homes, the way I did when our cowshare started, and for the first 6 months. Yeah, it’s a lot more time / work / expense, but it must be done while I wrangle with these idiots who want me to obey their interpretation of the law of the land, yet won’t abide by it themselves.
From the very start of our enterprise, I told Alice Jongerden that I was only interested in getting a supply of raw milk going in BC legally. We succeeded at that for two and a half years. Having put in a couple of decades in Her Majesty’s Courts, so as to know what really goes on there, I had no desire whatsoever, to take the raw milk issue into that venue. But since the bureaucrats at Fraser Health quit using common sense … instead, taking some very bad advice from their lawyer, namely Guy McDannold in Victoria … then I guess we’ll be airing it out before a Justice in the Supreme Court.
On the REPORT which was given to our Burnaby depot, it says
Failure to comply with a Public Health Act Order can result in further enforcement action ( violation ticket, long form prosecution, or court injunction)
If the bureaucrats have a grain of sense, they won’t interfere with my home deliveries. After the way we were treated today … when they would not abide by the terms written on their own Order!! …. I’m not counting on reasonableness. I’m readying for more trouble. If and when that happens, I will be calling upon any share member who feels like it, to show up in Court and testify as to how much the REAL MILK means to them, and how inconvenienced you-all are, by govt. interfering with you using and enjoying your property.
The immediate step is : anyone who is affected by an Order may put in a Request for Reconsideration, to the issuing officer. I urge share members who expected to get your milk from Anita’s, to call Rod Asplin at 604 918 7523 and demand he provide you with the form for doing that. Then get that form back to his office
Suite #300 - 4946 Canada Way Burnaby British Columbia V5G 4H7 fax 604 918 7520
The procedure has wide latitude. Have your say as to why you believe Inspector Asplin’s Order ought to be rescinded. If you take raw milk as a kind of medicine, that will be especially useful, in light of recent court decisions about the right to self-medicate.
Please make a copy of your Request for Reconsideration for me ; it will be very useful in defending myself against a ‘ticket’ = violation notice, or long form prosecution, or at the hearing for an injunction.
Gordon S Watson / Thursday December 17th 2009
...
You may already know this but to someone who is drinking the RAW milk from OUR cows and then told it has "fecal" contamination
this is important to all of our shareholders to understand that it is basically meaningless without the actual test results.
See the attachment from the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
New Coliform Standard for Milk Sold Raw to Consumers
January 2008
With the passing of (AB 1735) (Assembly Ag Committee), several milk product standards were updated to bring
California requirements into greater conformity with national standards, as well as those of neighboring states. The
changes take effect on January 1, 2008, and include the addition of maximum limits on the amount of coliform
bacteria allowed in fluid milk sold raw to the consumer. The purpose of this fact sheet is to provide brief answers to
questions regarding coliform bacteria in general, and what this new standard means with regard to the quality, safety
and availability of raw milk within California.
What are coliforms?
Coliforms are a group of bacteria commonly found in the environment, including soil, surface water, vegetation and
the intestinal tracts of warm-blooded animals. Detection of coliforms is used as a general indicator of sanitary
conditions in dairy production and processing environments. Most coliforms do not cause disease, but a small
percentage can cause illness in people, especially young children, the elderly, and those with weakened immune
systems. One example of these toxin-producing bacteria, known as E. coli O157:H7, can cause serious food-borne
illness, especially in children, including abdominal cramps, bloody diarrhea and acute kidney failure in severe cases.
How do coliforms get into milk?
Coliform bacteria are normally shed in the feces of healthy livestock, including dairy cattle. Thus, poor herd hygiene,
contaminated water, unsanitary milking practices, and improperly washed and maintained equipment can all lead to
elevated coliform counts in raw milk at the dairy farm. Even though cows with coliform mastistis (an inflammation of
the udder) can in some instances influence coliform counts, the milking of cows with wet and manure-soiled udders
and inadequately cleaned milking equipment, are the most common ways for coliform bacteria to enter milk on-farm.
Coliforms in milk: What does it mean?
Most coliforms originate from the intestines of warm-blooded animals, including people. Since most coliform bacteria
are not harmful, the finding of coliforms in milk does not necessarily mean that a disease causing, or pathogenic, form
of the bacteria is present. However, elevated coliform counts in milk and dairy products suggest unsanitary conditions
exist during production, processing or packaging. In the dairy farm setting, a coliform count is a useful indicator of
the extent of fecal bacteria in the milk, and is a recognized index of the level of sanitation at a facility. The use of
coliform counts as an indicator of sanitation has been a common tool in public health protection for many years. For
example, the presence of coliforms is used as one signal that environmental contamination of drinking water supply
systems has occurred. In dairy products, the process of pasteurization easily kills coliform bacteria. Therefore, the
finding of coliforms in pasteurized products indicates some level of contamination has occurred after pasteurization
during product manufacturing or packaging. For milk sold raw, where no intervening pasteurization step is utilized,
coliform counts reflect sanitation practices throughout milk handling, from the cow to final bottling. In addition to food
safety and public health concerns, coliforms, along with other bacteria, may produce off flavors in milk and reduce
shelf life of dairy products.
Since most food-borne pathogens originate from fecal contamination, including E.Coli, Salmonella and
Campylobacter, it is essential that strict sanitary practices be followed to minimize the risk to people consuming raw
milk products.
What level of coliforms is allowed in raw milk?
The new standard sets a maximum amount of coliform bacteria at no more than 10 bacteria per milliliter (mL) in milk
sold raw to the consumer, the same limit required for pasteurized milk. This level is consistent with both national and
international public health and food safety requirements as reflected in standards set for pasteurized dairy products by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Canadian Food
Inspection Service, and the European Economic Community (EEC). It is also the same standard currently used for
raw milk sold for direct consumption in several other states, including Arizona, Maine, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Utah and Washington. The states of Connecticut, Idaho and New Mexico allow no more than 50 coliform bacteria/mL.
1
Is this coliform standard achievable in milk that is not pasteurized?
Yes. Coliform counts of < 10 bacteria per milliliter (mL) can be routinely achieved in raw farm milk, with utilization of
sound cleaning and sanitation practices. On average, about 25% of regulatory bulk milk samples collected during the
year from dairy farms inspected by the Department have coliform counts at or below this level, even though virtually
all of this milk is ultimately pasteurized at a milk products plant. This agrees with national data collected by USDA’s
National Animal Health Monitoring System, and published in the Journal of Dairy Science in 2004 (J. Dairy Sci.
87:2822). This study gathered data from 21 states (including California) and represented 81% of dairy herds across
the country. Although fecal coliforms were detected in 95% of samples, approximately 20% were between 0 and 10
colony-forming units per mL. Similar results have also been reported for bulk tank raw milk coliform counts in the
state of New York (J. Dairy Sci. 81:1743).
Will this standard reduce the availability of packaged raw milk in California?
Consistent use of proper milking procedures, and effective cleaning and sanitation practices will allow for the
continued production of raw milk that meets minimum bacterial standards. The California Food and Agricultural Code
calls for the restriction of products that fail to meet bacterial standards in three of the last five regulatory samples. The
Department collects these samples approximately once per month. Producers are informed when elevated bacterial
counts are found, and official notices are written when specific products violate standards in two of the last four
samples. These procedures provide ample warning to producers, and allow for cleaning, sanitation or equipment
problems to be addressed before restriction of a product takes place. The Department’s Dairy Foods Specialists
routinely assist facilities with identifying and correcting problem areas. As always, prevention of problems through
regular adherence to sound milk handling and sanitation practices is the best way to avoid violation of bacterial
standards. Some common and effective practices to control coliform counts in raw milk include:
•
Properly managing manure, bedding, housing and pastures to prevent cows from arriving overly dirty at the
milking parlor.
•
Washing the udders and teats of cows, and ensuring they are clean and dry prior to milking.
•
Ensuring the hands of milkers are clean and dry
•
Use of an appropriate commercially available pre-milking teat sanitizer to further reduce the amount of bacteria
contacting milking equipment.
•
Milking any cows with infected udders last, and ensuring such milk is properly excluded from milk intended for
consumption.
•
Ensuring all equipment throughout the entire milking system is properly cleaned and sanitized after each milking.
•
Ensuring detergents and sanitizers are used at effective concentrations, and that adequate amounts and
temperatures of hot water are utilized.
•
Establishing and adhering to a maintenance schedule for milking equipment to ensure proper operation and to
replace worn out inflations, hoses, gaskets and other parts that can harbor coliform bacteria.
•
Providing sufficient refrigeration to ensure milk is properly cooled and stored at 45 degrees or below.
•
Ensuring the milk products plant where the raw milk is handled and finally packaged for the consumer is also
properly constructed, clean and sanitary. Bottles of raw market milk must be mechanically capped to avoid
contamination from workers’ hands.
All of these procedures are well-recognized and proven means to help control the bacterial quality of milk, including
coliforms. Without the added protective step of pasteurization, cleanliness and sanitation are of increased importance
to producing raw milk of safe and suitable quality for the consumer.
For additional information, you may contact the Milk and Dairy Food Safety Branch at (916) 654-0773.
CDFA Press Release on Raw Milk
...
Alice Jongerden and to shareholders in our herd
and to whom it may concern
Today, Jan 6th, 2010, I got a copy of the lab results printout which was given to one of our former depots, by Vancouver Coastal Health
a 'cfu' means = colony forming unit. The presence of colonies of bacteria is the way foods, in particular milk, are tested for pathogens. It is important to realize that we live in a world of bacteria everywhere. Colonies of bacteria may be either 'good' bacteria or 'bad' for human beings. For purposes of food safety, what matters is the sheer quantity of colonies present in a one gram sample of milk. The less the better.
the FOOD QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS for milk from our herd show that, the colony forming units range between 1,300 for the butter, up to 3000 for other products. The fluid milk was 2,400.
thus, the tests from the BC Centre for Disease Control show that our milk is well under the 10,000 cfu standard for pasteurized "homo milk" retailed in BC.
As well ; the standard in Washington state for raw milk sold there - quite legally under licences to dairies - is not more than 10,000 cfu
Our milk is perfectly fit to drink. It suits the so-called Health Authorities to use the loaded term "presence of fecal matter' for fearmongering. My suspicion that Fraser Health / Vancouver Coastal Health set out to demonize our cowshare has been confirmed. The fact that they have not actually shut down the flow of REAL MILK is tacit admission that cowsharing is perfectly legitimate.
The fact that they advertise a half-truth ... knowing that the ordinary person has no idea how milk is tested ... exposes their bad faith
Gordon S Watson
...
Barb Schellenburg of Ethical Kitchen was on CBC this morning and did very well presenting her side of the story. Provincial Health officer spoke after her, and said much the same tale as we have heard before. He declined to get specific about this child who supposedly got ill. We wonder if that really happened.
In a roundabout way, Dr. Kendal admitted that cowsharing is legal in BC.
We are confident our milk is perfectly ok to drink, and real milk is still flowing.
Alice
...
> From: margaret s [mailto:threedegreeez@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 11:02 AM
> To: home_on_the_range@telus.net; home_on_the_range@telus.net
> Subject: Contact from homeontherangefarms.com
>
>
> Hi I just read a story about your farm and your desire to sell
> raw milk to
> others, who are "shareholders." I grew up on a dairy farm and
> have a
> nutrition degree and I know for a fact that pasteurization DOES
> NOT cook any
> enzymes, vitamins, minerals or anything out of milk.
> Pasteurization ONLY
> kills the dangerous bacteria and viruses in the milk as it's not
> a cooking
> process. The milk is heated super hot very quickly and then
> quickly super
> cooled, which kills bugs but DOES NOT harm any nutritional value
> whatsoever.I and my parents did drink raw milk that our cows
> produced but we vaccinated
> our cattle and never became ill. We knew how to clean the cows' udders
> before milking and not to milk a cow who had been given
> antibiotics or we'd
> have to pour the whole tank down the drain because it can't be
> given to the
> public due to allergies. To allow others to clean and milk their
> own cows
> isn't a good idea; neither is selling raw milk. If someone gets
> sick, have
> they signed a waiver saying they won't sue you? They should or
> you're in
> danger of getting sued. I appreciate your love of raw milk and I
> remembergetting up in the morning and having to stir the milk in
> the jug in the
> fridge to mix in the cream that had risen to the top overnight.
> Check with a
> dietitian, a nutrition expert, and they will tell you there are
> only health
> dangers from drinking raw milk and NO nutritional benefits. And
> if you and
> your "shareholders" get sick, don't say you weren't warned.
>
...
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Watson [mailto:Walterson@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:10 PM
To: Home On The Range
Cc: threedegreeez@yahoo.com
Subject: my reply to negative feedback
in all the controversy about our dairy, about 99% of the comments have been favourable. A few are like the one at the very bottom, to which I have responded
==============================
Hello Margaret
your claim of exertise on this topic is belied by you saying that
" I know for a fact that pasteurization DOES > NOT cook any> enzymes, vitamins, minerals or anything out of milk" The Health Authorities believe otherwise in that their test for pasteurization is the complete absence of phosphatase. Phosphatase being merely the enzyme which enables the human metabolism to assimilate all the phosphorous combinations.
you are incorrect to assert
> Pasteurization ONLY> kills the dangerous bacteria and viruses in the milk as it's not a cooking" Cooking is cooking, whether you call it par-boiling - which is what the process was originally called - or 'flash pasteurization' at UHT. I recommend you go to a library and find the microscopy which proves that protein strands certainly are deformed from heating.
Promoters of pasteurization admit that cooking the milk certainly does destroy its vitamins. This has been received science since the 1930s. A good proof of which can be found in the Report of the provincial commission into Milk Marketing, done in 1955. For instance, this morning on CBC provincial Health Officer Perry Kendal admitted as much.
every one of the shareholders in our dairy does sign a waiver as part of the share agreement. Go to my website and find the letter from Ron Duffell, Executive Director of the Health Protection Branch, Sept 2005, wherein he acknowledges that our cowshare is legal, as long as members are informed of the risks of drinking raw milk, and are in touch with the conditions under which the animals are kept. Of course we easily meet those terms. www.freewebs.com/bovinity
we have several nutritionists, and physicians as shareholders. Your understanding of the science around REAL MILK is about half a century out of date. Go to the www.westonaprice.org and find the list of speakers for the recent conference in Chicago. One of them was a professor at Harvard, who retired to start a raw milk dairy. In his presentation he reels-off the latest scientific studies proving the nutritional superiority of REAL MILK
One of the best proofs of the benefits of pure, whole fresh raw milk is that about 1/4 of our shareholders have a member of their household who was diagnosed as 'lactose intolerant', yet those people are very happily drinking raw milk and products derived from it.
What is laughable is that all the controversy is advertisement for REAL MILK, such as money can't buy!
People are finding out the difference between the pale, whitish denatured, devitalized stuff ... adulterated with Milk Protein concentrate shipping in from the third world ... merchandised as "homo milk", versus the real thing.
Gordon S Watson
...Jan. 8, 2010
Well, the media storm is over as far as I am concerned. I am concentrating on milking your cows and the farm and getting your milk to you. It has become obvious that the authourities set out to slander our dairy as part of a bigger campaign in North America. Gordon Watson is gathering evidence with which to bring a civil lawsuit for public malfeasance. That is going to taks some time. He is very interested to speak with any sharemember which has been contacted by Fraser Health and/or Vancouver Coastal Health.
Also, as far as I am concerned, we have won the point that cow sharing is legal. It is our job to continue to provide you with the best milk available as we have done for almost 3 years. We are working hard to find a location/locations in Vancouver to make this happen.
We will have a New West depot in a week's time.
Alice
Jan.14
message from Alice:
Hi All
I just want to take a quick moment to update you on a few things, as there is a lot more going on then meets the eye.
As you can imagine, things at this end have been just a little crazy. Having our depots pulled out from under us, and trying to scramble to get new locations and set them up, visiting with sharemembers (the best part), dealing with the press and the oommunity calling, trying to wade through mega emails, and working at the farm makes for busy days. If that all wasn't enough, one of our employees 'forgot'to show up for the 2nd time (fired) and one of our employees is away for a month, and one gave notice to move to a less stressful job.
Then to top it off, the tractor broke, and they can't find a part to fix it, as the company went bankrupt, and they just don't make those parts anymore. So they are hoping to find a way to make it work. In the meantime, back to handscraping and wheelbarrowing. In addition, almost 2 months ago, I placed an order for a case of round milk filters, to ensure we had plenty of stock, and they have still not come in (apparently held at the border due to paperwork issues...hmmm). So we found another source JD Farms in Abbotsford, and when we went to pick them up, they openly told us they would not sell to us. Good thing for neighbouring USA and raw milk supporters, even if it is a longer drive etc.
It wasn't even 10 years ago, that a group of farmers in the valley decided to boycott the milk marketing board, and sold all their quota and shipped directly to a cheese plant. The other farmers banned together, and made sure the feed companies would not deliver feed to those farmers, and put them out of business. (Currently our feed supply is good-and again, neighbouring US would help if we needed it) Whatever happened to supporting the community around you? The company I purchase all our farm supplies from has informed me that they did have a conversation about what they would do if farmers came in with their heavy hand, and insisted they don't supply me. What does that tell you? They've been down this road before, and will have to make a choice--will they cave under pressure?
These are the real moments day to day that we deal with as we care for your cows. Because of all these extras, I am behind on returning emails. I will work hard to catch up, but I do spend a lot more hours in the barn these days. PS...Helen had a bull calf last night. Mom and babe are doing well.
So please be patient with us as we try to regroup. We have a location for a shed in Abbotsford and New Westminister, as well as a good chance in Surrey,,,,but to date we have nothing for Vancouver. I am sure the Olympics play a big part in this. If you have any suggestions, they would be welcome.
If you are meeting Bert to pick up your milk, you can make any requests for changes to him rather than email me, as he will bring what he has, and he can record the changes. Also, if you can make use of the forum---I get a lot of questions of people wanting to milk-pool. The forum is a great way to do this. If you do not have a password, you can contact Tyler,and he will set it up for you.
...
If you are looking for someone in your area to share driving, you can post it under the 'sharemember only' section, and work out the details that way.
Also, one more note. Regarding the milk flavour---there are still some jars with a stronger flavour--not bad milk--just more noticebly stronger scent/flavour. We know this is from the high alfalfa they are eating. I am trying to mix more grass in the mix, but some cows do not appreciate it as much, and dig for the alfalfa. Therefore some of the cow's milk is stronger in flavour than others. Last winter we did not use as much alfalfa, and the milk was nicer in flavour, but we were challenged more with the health of the cows. Catch 22. The older the milk gets, the stronger the flavour. We are testing another option that may help remove some of the flavour...once the jar is filled, we do not seal tightly, but leave covered loosely as it cools so air can escape. We tighten it when we put it in the fridge.
Other than that--all is well on the farm. It's pretty cool to see the cows head off to pasture in December and January... even though there is not really much grass--there is lots of space and air... :)
Alice
Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:29 PM
Subject: talking back to the Health diktocrats Jan 14 2010
to the Editor, Burnaby NOW newspaper
In the furore around Home on the Range dairy, statements from govt. officials resulted in headlines such as 'Raw milk hazardous to health'. They'd have you believe that 'every glass of raw milk is teeming with bad germs'. Which is utter nonsense. In fact, as it comes from a healthy, grass-fed cow, raw milk is one of the purest foods of all. How milk is handled from then on, is what determines whether a given batch contains bacteria harmful to humans
For the last 60 years - as called-for in the Communist Manifesto - American agriculture was industrialized. Marketing boards dictated winners and losers as the system churned out vast quantities of foodstuff. The perception of abundance was accomplished by reducing quality and diversity. Customers are deceived with quaint images of cows grazing in sunny fields. But the truth is ; the thin, denatured, devitalized whitish fluid inside cartons of "homo milk" comes from a factory farm. The dairy cartel is terrified by consumers rejecting its product after finding out how they've been cheated out of nutrition, who then seek out fresh, whole unadulterated raw milk.
Since REAL MILK was not available, I organized a little dairy and have assisted it for two and a half years, as we went from one cow, to 27. We own the cows. We pay the agister in advance to do the work for us. We do not advertise. Every one of our shareholders sought out this arrangement. Our milk never enters-in to commerce. Whether the Public Health Act has jurisdiction, at all, is debatable.
Chief Medical Health Officer Perry Kendall denigrated our dairy as a 'scheme to get past prohibition', leaving the impression that we're breaking the law. People who think it a crime for us to co-operate in farming to get a certain quality of food for ourselves, need to be reminded how this country is supposed to operate : we had the right to use and enjoy our property long before the Milk Marketing Board came along, and we still have it
Last week the Health Authorities trotted-out some figures showing our milk had "massive amounts of contamination in the products". But once we were given copies of the paperwork from the lab tests, we soon put the boots to that canard. Turns out that the tests were done days later, with samples not kept properly cold. Therefore those numbers are irrelevant. One has to wonder ; how come the experts in food safety did not follow the protocol for testing milk according to the Milk Industry Act ?
I'm suspicious that their negligence was no accident. In June 2008, we'd been operating for a year. Suddenly our agister received an Order to Cease+Desist "distributing" raw milk. As part of appealing it in the Supreme Court, I used the Freedom of Information process to obtain inter-governmental e-mails which showed Health Authority officials knew they needed a complaint to move against us, yet did not have one. Thus, issuance of that Order was an abuse of process. To this day, their lawyer refuses to produce the name of the purported "complainant"
Point being : I caught them lying before ... why believe them now?
Michael Schmidt was on trial last year in Ontario, charged with illegally selling raw milk. He knows a thing or two about it, gained from two decades providing raw milk to grateful shareholders. Of all this frantic fearmongering, he says "It's not about health, it's about control". What we've just witnessed here in BC is another episode in which the dairy industry is doing what monopolies always do ... attempting to eliminate every little bit of competition. As per the script played out all over America, many times, propagandists raise the spectre of an anonymous sick child, pillory raw milk as the only possible cause, then retreat into the excuse of 'privacy concerns' for not presenting evidence of any real harm
A couple of good things have come out of the recent attention to our dairy. More than 60 people requested shares in the herd. Cowsharing has been acknowledged as legitimate. With this proof of concept, hundreds more owner-operated local dairies will spring up across Canada, making wonderful REAL MILK for those of us who take responsibility for our own health.
Gordon S Watson
Justice Critic, Party of Citizens
<\lj-cut>
December 24th 2009
Last week, the depots where we were picking up our milk were ordered by the Fraser Health Authority to Cease and Desist ‘distributing raw milk’, or, to not have food on the premises if it was ‘not from an approved source’
FHA Inspectors supervised as your milk was dumped down the drain and your butter put in the garbage. In some cases, Inspectors took samples of the milk.
An FHA inspector came to the farm on Thursday morning, December 17th, took photos of the milk room, then left without leaving any document.
The depot on private property in Vancouver has not been visited. In Hixon, near Prince George, Inspectors from Northern Health Authority served an Order yesterday on the cowshare there, concerning only the Agister’s sale of butter made from raw milk. They told her they ‘didn’t want to touch the cowshare issue until after the Schmidt decision in Ontario’.
On premises where the province has jurisdiction to regulate commerce, they acted according to the power of Public Health Act, but raw milk on private residences is being left alone. I believe that this is tacit admission the government lawyers know that milk from such dairies is not caught by the Milk Industry Act.
On Wednesday December 16th, as soon as I heard about it, I went to the Burnaby depot to get a copy of the Cease + Desist Order. Since Inspector Asplin had written on it that returning the raw milk to Bert Jongerden was one of the options for compliance, I was hoping I could negotiate with FHA to at least recover our property. I then went and met with the Inspector who’d issued it, and his manager at the Burnaby FHA office. I left the meeting with the understanding that I had an appointment with the Inspector at the depot the next day at noon at which time we could take away our milk. Bert and I were there at noon Thursday, as arranged. We were literally about to start loading the milk out the back door of the depot, on to his truck, when Inspector Asplin took a phone call from his manager. A minute later, he told us that the agreement had been revoked. That milk sat there for a week until December 23, when the Inspector found time to supervise it being dumped down the drain.
Lacking any evidence of harm from that batch, the government of British Columbia deemed hundreds of gallons of pure whole fresh raw milk to be a biohazard, and sent it down the sewer, rather than to its owners.
Back in June 2008, the FHA slapped a Cease + Desist Order on our Agister at the farm. I immediately began an appeal in the Supreme Court of BC. Afterwards - for over a year and a half - they knew full well that the REAL MILK continued to flow because I took pains to notify them of that fact. So what moved them lately? At the meeting at the FHA office when I pointed out that ‘we’ve been going for 2 ½ years and no-one’s gotten sick from our milk.’ manager Gordon Stewart shook his head and said “we’ve had allegations” When I asked for facts along that line, he said “our investigation is ongoing. We don’t have to give you any information until it’s concluded”.
On Monday Dec 21, I spoke with Ron Asplin, who had issued the Order in Burnaby, demanding to know who the “allegations” had come from. Una Tyson of Fraser Health called me back to answer for him. She refused to give me any information, instead, telling me that I must go through the Freedom of Information process. That’s laughable. I am well experienced at the FoI game, having been one of the first ones to use it in order to supremely embarrass the govt. on other issues. In 1993, and for the first few years, the FoI&Protection of Privacy Act did work to make the apparatchiks cough up important info. But these days, it’s become just another tactic used for delay delay delay. Nevertheless, I shall put in a Freedom of Information demand.
It is utterly illogical for Fraser Health on the one hand to pretend that people have been sickened by our milk, yet refuse to divulge such information to the very people who can do something about it … me and the Agister for the Home on the Range herd.
As of this writing, the allegation that someone got sick from milk from our herd, is not only unsubstantiated, it is highly suspect in light of the FHA‘s misconduct in the spring of 2008. In that round, after they’d slapped the Order on us, I obtained records of emails behind the scenes in which officials acknowledged to each other that they needed a complainant to proceed properly, yet did not have one. A full year after demanding contact information for that supposed complainant, the FHA lawyer still refuses to co-operate. I am sure there was no complainant in 2008. Knowing so, yet issuing the Order they did, the Fraser Health Authority committed malfeasance of public office. An Order issued by a Health Authority is the bottom rung of the judicial system. Thus, deliberate mis-use of that power is the crime of obstruct / pervert / defeat of Justice.
This episode is shaping up much the same as happens time and again in other instances in North America : govt. officials get heavy-handed enforcing the letter of the law on speculation but without evidence of harm. Fraser Health has again acted outside the powers - certainly the ethical boundaries - of their office because they are not concerned with being held accountable. Unfortunately our little private-subscription dairy is caught up in one of the biggest issues of the day : bureaucrats abusing the powers of the government, demanding ordinary people comply with illogical regulations (better suited to a collectivist society) yet refusing to obey the laws we the people put in place to keep them as our civil servants, rather than petty tyrants.
The Campaign for REAL MILK is not going to go away. We’re in disarray here for the moment, but I’m arranging to set up a mobile depot on private property so it keeps flowing, legally. The plan is that I will be at a certain location in a different part of the City each day of the week. If your place would be suitable, please let Alice Jongerden know via email.
Any shareholder who can make it out at the farm at the afternoon milking can get your milk. The address is 49211 Prairie Central Road, just a few miles East of Chilliwack. Take the Prest Road exit off the freeway. Go right at the top of the off-ramp, which is south, to the first 4-way stop, then turn left. A couple of miles along, just past Gibson Road, look for the farm on the left side of the road. Proceed through the gate to the barn. It is about two hours’ driving time from Vancouver to the farm. So it will take about half a day there and back … not something you’d be doing regularly, but it’s fun as an adventure. And you get to pet your cows
The Pen is mightier than the Sword
As a shareholder, you always had the option to pick up your milk at the farm, or at any of the depots. Thus, each of you is someone affected by each and every one of the Orders made last week by the Fraser Health Authority or the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. Under section 43* of the Public Health Act British Columbia, you have the right to ask the Inspectors who made them, to reconsider their Orders. There is a form available from the Inspectors to do so, but you don’t need to use it. If you state in a letter that it’s a Request for Reconsideration of a particular Order, that will do. For our purposes, the beauty of the Act is that those Inspectors are obliged to answer each of you, in writing.
This turn of events is an opportunity to tell the government of British Columbia that the present policy to do with raw milk is so illogical as to be ridiculous. Especially intriguing is section of the Act which provides for someone affected to ask for reconsideration on the ground that, when he made the Order, the Inspector did not take in to account certain material. Lots of scope there to have your say! Whether they harken to us, or not, all the done by shareholders asking for Reconsideration, will not be lost. Every letter will be very valuable if and when this thing ever does wind up in Court.
The Orders at issue are :
Upon Rockwell Farms in Abbotsford, by Inspector Dan Dhillon
Direct a Request for Reconsideration to Inspector Dhillon at
Abbotsford Public Health Unit 34194 Marshall Road Abbotsford BC V2S 5E4 phone 604 864 3400 fax 604 864 3410
-----------------------------
Upon Anita’s Pharmacy in Burnaby by Inspector Rod Asplin
Direct a Request for Reconsideration to Inspector Asplin at
#300 - 4946 Canada Way Burnaby British Columbia V5G 4H7
Telephone 604 918 7523 fax 604 918 7520
------------------
Upon Ayurveda by Inspector Jas Sajan
Direct a Request for Reconsideration to Inspector Sajan at
Vancouver Coastal Health
1200 - 601 West Broadway Vancouver British Columbia V5Z 4C2
Phone 604 675 3800 fax 604 736 8651
------------------
details for the Orders upon the Ethical Kitchen in North Vancouver and the Controversial Kitchen on Commercial Drive in Vancouverwill be in my comment to follow, shortly
Gordon S Watson email < Walterson@shaw.ca >
604 526 5064
www.freewebs.com/bovinity
section 43 of the Public Health Act Revised Statutes of British Columbia is at the very bottom of this comment, below the Province news story
Raw-milk operation faces heat
Fraser Health Authority again tries to shut down farm
A small, shareholder-held Fraser Valley dairy that produces and distributes raw, unpasteurized milk products solely for its members has run afoul of the Fraser Health Authority's bureaucracy.
For the second time in less than three years, Fraser Health is trying to close down the little dairy on the pretense that drinking raw milk is a health hazard because it's not treated by high-temperature pasteurization, which zaps nasty little bugs that may make us sick.
Advocates say pasteurization also kills many health-giving qualities in raw milk — especially all-important enzymes — and is safe, as long as it's processed in clean facilities.
While it's not my intention today to argue the merits of raw versus pasteurized milk, there are many baby-boomers (me included) and older Canadians in good health who drank raw cow's milk as kids on the farm.
More to the point, this issue centres on whether or not Canadians who believe in raw milk's health benefits also have the right to produce, distribute and consume it.
That's the way the Chilliwack-based Home On The Range dairy and syndicate sees it.
Alice Jongerden, her husband and five children oversee the small farm's operations, where 20 grass-fed cows produce enough milk to supply about 365 Lower Mainland households. For a small fee, these consumers buy shares in the dairy and take their dividends through raw-milk products.
They have to do it this way because Canada is the only country in the G-8 that does not allow public raw-milk sales.
Fraser Health inspectors tried unsuccessfully to close this dairy early in 2008 and, last week, they tried again.
Working under the provincial Public Health Act, they shut down several of Home On The Range's distribution depots in Greater Vancouver and entered the Jongerden's farm — without a search warrant — to take photos of the milking facilities.
Tim Shum, Fraser Health's regional director of health protection, says the Public Health Act states that raw milk is a health hazard.
"That's how we're able to issue an order to anyone who is distributing raw milk to stop it," he adds. "Unpasteurized milk can transmit disease-causing bacteria."
Shum also says Fraser Health will take legal action against the dairy.
"Our mandate is to enforce public-health legislation, so we will exercise all possible legal remedies to make sure this activity stops," he added.
But that may not be so simple.
Both sides in a well-publicized raw-milk case in Ontario expect a court decision next month involving a dairy farmer who sells his milk to the public.
Now, the Canadian Constitution Foundation is supporting farmer Michael Schmidt and says that, if the decision goes against him, it's prepared to take his case to the Supreme Court of Canada on constitutional grounds.
Here at home, you have to wonder where Fraser Health could better spend its scarce health dollars to keep us healthy rather than using them to stomp like Big Brother on a few people who prefer raw milk.
Widespread tobacco and alcohol abuse come to mind.
By Brian Lewis, The Province December 22 2009
blewis@theprovince.com
===============
Reconsideration of orders
43
(1) A person affected by an order, or the variance of an order, may request the health officer who issued the order or made the variance to reconsider the order or variance if the person
(a) has additional relevant information that was not reasonably available to the health officer when the order was issued or varied,
(b) has a proposal that was not presented to the health officer when the order was issued or varied but, if implemented, would
(i) meet the objective of the order, and
(ii) be suitable as the basis of a written agreement under section 38 [may make written agreements], or
(c) requires more time to comply with the order.
(2) A request for reconsideration must be made in the form required by the health officer.
(3) After considering a request for reconsideration, a health officer may do one or more of the following:
(a) reject the request on the basis that the information submitted in support of the request
(i) is not relevant, or
(ii) was reasonably available at the time the order was issued;
(b) delay the date the order is to take effect or suspend the order, if satisfied that doing so would not be detrimental to public health;
(c) confirm, rescind or vary the order.
(4) A health officer must provide written reasons for a decision to reject the request under subsection (3) (a) or to confirm or vary the order under subsection (3) (c).
(5) Following a decision made under subsection (3) (a) or (c), no further request for reconsideration may be made.
(6) An order is not suspended during the period of reconsideration unless the health officer agrees, in writing, to suspend it.
(7) For the purposes of this section,
(a) if an order is made that affects a class of persons, a request for reconsideration may be made by one person on behalf of the class, and
(b) if multiple orders are made that affect a class of persons, or address related matters or issues, a health officer may reconsider the orders separately or together.
Ready for raw milk battle
Fraser Health steps up its efforts to stop distribution of local raw milk product
Paul J. Henderson, The Times
Published: Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Thorpe said Fraser Health is seeking a court injunction to stop the distribution, since the cease and desist order has already been given.
But the whole issue could hinge upon what happens in Ontario with dairy farmer Michael Schmidt and his fight for the right to sell his milk to the public. Schmidt is backed by the Canadian Constitution Foundation that is willing to take the issue to the Supreme Court of Canada if it comes to that.
As for Jongerden, she isn't at all surprised at Fraser Health's zeal, as she is now used to it.
Email to a friend
Printer friendly
Font:
"There are a lot of things they could be doing better with their time," she said. "The question is: why are they doing it? A lot of people interested in our health and we want to have access to what is rightfully ours."
Jongerden has support from raw milk advocates and as for Fraser Health's threat of legal action, she is ready.
"I say bring it on. Let's get to court and let a judge decide if we can't even drink our own milk from our own cow."
phenderson@chilliwacktimes.com
© Chilliwack Times 2009
In Brian Lewis' item from today's Province newspaper, he quotes a govt. official saying they are going to "exercise all possible legal remedies" to shut us down". This is very good news ; now we get to have a judge consider the validity of the law itself. And while the wheels of the Justice system grind on, REAL MILK continues to flow in British Columbia
===============================
Raw-milk operation faces heat; Fraser Health Authority again tries to shut down farm
A small, shareholder-held Fraser Valley dairy that produces and distributes raw, unpasteurized milk products solely for its members has run afoul of the Fraser Health Authority's bureaucracy.
For the second time in less than three years, Fraser Health is trying to close down the little dairy on the pretence that drinking raw milk is a health hazard because it's not treated by high-temperature pasteurization, which zaps nasty little bugs that may make us sick.
Advocates say pasteurization also kills many health-giving qualities in raw milk — especially all-important enzymes — and is safe, as long as it's processed in clean facilities.
While it's not my intension today to argue the merits of raw versus pasteurized milk, there are many baby-boomers (me included) and older Canadians in good health who drank raw cow's milk as kids on the farm.
More to the point, this issue centres on whether or not Canadians who believe in raw milk's health benefits also have the right to produce, distribute and consume it.
That's the way the Chilliwack-based Home On The Range dairy and syndicate sees it.
Alice Jongerden, her husband and five children oversee the small farm's operations, where 20 grass-fed cows produce enough milk to supply about 365 Lower Mainland households. For a small fee, these consumers buy shares in the dairy and take their dividends through raw-milk products.
They have to do it this way because Canada is the only country in the G-8 that does not allow public raw-milk sales.
Fraser Health inspectors tried unsuccessfully to close this dairy early in 2008 and, last week, they tried again.
Working under the provincial Public Health Act, they shut down several of Home On The Range's distribution depots in Greater Vancouver and entered the Jongerden's farm– without a search warrant — to take photos of the milking facilities.
Tim Shum, Fraser Health's regional director of health protection, says the Public Health Act states that raw milk is a health hazard.
"That's how we're able to issue an order to anyone who is distributing raw milk to stop it," he adds. "Unpasteurized milk can transmit disease-causing bacteria."
Shum also says Fraser Health will take legal action against the dairy.
"Our mandate is to enforce public-health legislation, so we will exercise all possible legal remedies to make sure this activity stops," he added.
But that may not be so simple.
Both sides in a well-publicized raw-milk case in Ontario expect a court decision next month involving a dairy farmer who sells his milk to the public.
Now, the Canadian Constitution Foundation is supporting farmer Michael Schmidt and says that, if the decision goes against him, it's prepared to take his case to the Supreme Court of Canada on constitutional grounds.
Here at home, you have to wonder where Fraser Health could better spend its scarce health dollars to keep us healthy rather than using them to stomp like Big Brother on a few people who prefer raw milk.
Widespread tobacco and alcohol abuse come to mind.
blewis@theprovince.com
Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009 | 4:00 am
Canwest News Service
Hi All Members
I have just been notified by a reporter from the Globe and Mail that Fraser Health is issuing a warning to all Sharemembers to destroy the milk on hand. They have said that they tested milk at the depots which they shut down, Ayurveda, Ethical Kitchen and Controversial Kitchen. They said their tests showed fecal contamination in 5 instances about 2-3 weeks ago.
This corresponds to the email we sent previously notifying all members when we had a complaint that the milk was off, that if they noticed anything to discard the milk. Our test which was done before any notification from Fraser Health showed 3 cows with high somatic cell count, at which time only 1 of the cows milk was sent out. We cultured the cows, and upon receiving results, had that cow removed from the premise. This morning we did cultures on all of the cows again, to ensure that there are no issues with any milk that is sent out. We are still waiting for the results.
I am confident with all the milk that is going to you at this time. Any cows that we consider a threat have had their milk set aside for the calves. For those that have come to the farm, you have seen the shape of the barn, and the cows and can eliminate this as an issue.
However, we do have another issue that we have been dealing with. And that is the flavour of the milk after a few days. We have had a couple of people mention a subtle off flavour, and have noticed ourself. We are confident that we have come to the bottom of this, but will only know after 1 weeks testing. The hose which travels from the transfer pump to the filling machine has been cleaned with bleach, and would have bleach residue sitting in it during the day and night when not in use. Even after rinsing, the flavour of bleach would remain in the line, and when the warm milk would sit in if for a few minutes, it would disflavour the milk. We have replaced the hose, and have a new system for disinfecting, so we are sure that problem is eliminated....
I would suggest that if you suspect your milk in anyway, that you send it back to us, rather than discard it, so we can test it at 2 different labs to compare results.
At this time we have no one ill from the milk that we are aware of.
If you have any questions or concerns, please let us know, or come to the farm and see for yourself :)
Alice
...
the media release from the BC Centre for Disease Control bodes to be a textbook example of how the smear campaign is carried out against REAL MILK
what's going on is that about the middle of November, one of our shareholders took his child to the hospital complaining of intestinal distress. The doctor asked for a list of what the child had been eating. When they got to "raw milk", the doctor stopped asking. That child is soon recovered and is perfectly OK now
On December 16th when they slapped the first Order on us, I met with Gordon Stewart, a manager at Fraser Health, to negotiate getting our milk back. He said they had had "allegations" that someone had been ill from our milk. Yet he point-blank refused to give me any information.
Yesterday, I was standing in the office of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, serving them legal documents to begin a Judicial Review of the various Public Health Act Orders against our depots. Is it not telling that the top guy - Dominic Losito - didn't think it worth mentioning that - ostensibly - someone has been made ill by our milk?
Is it not telling that the so-called "Health Authorities" alerted media reporters, but didn't tell us, at source?
No, from the perspective of the relentless campaign of the dairy cartel to destroy every source which embarrasses it by proving what milk really is, versus the dreck they put on retail shelves ... it all does make sense. As Michael Schmidt says "it's not about health. It's about control"
Last time 'round, I shoved the idiots back by obtaining internal correspondence which proved they had committed malfeasance of public office ... knowingly abusing the powers at their disposal to slander us. They left us alone for a year and a half because they knew our milk was perfectly OK. This time 'round, the bad faith is even more obvious. In the meeting with Gordon Stewart, I demanded our property back. At first, he agreed. I said I wanted it in order to get independent lab tests done. Overnight they changed their mind so that when I went to pick up our milk the next day, the Inspector refused. Later, all that wonderful good food was poured down the sewer with bleach.
An Order under the Public Health Act is quasi-judicial in nature. As they destroyed the evidence I needed in order to get a genuinely -independent analysis, so as to put it in to the Supreme court of BC for a Judicial Review of their Orders, Fraser Health and Vancouver coastal Health obstructed Justice.
Let's have the actual lab results
Gordon S Watson
To shareholders in our herd of dairy cows
Today, Fraser Health served an Order under the Public Health Act, upon each of our depots in Langley, Burnaby and Abbotsford. By these Orders, all the REAL MILK and raw milk products, including eggs and other things which are not properly under that Act, were seized at Anita‘s Pharmacy / LadyBug Organics and Rockwell Farms.
Apparently, Fraser Health was told that someone had become ill after drinking raw milk from our herd, about a month ago. I met with the manager of the Burnaby office, on Wednesday afternoon but he refused to give me any more information than that.
Officials in Fraser Health are very well aware of the argument in my appeals of previous Orders upon our Agister : the Milk Industry Act pertains to milk which is sold. Our milk is never sold. Thus our milk does not fall under that Act since our group of shareholders is not a “producer-vendor” as defined in it. I say that the orders are null and void from the start because Fraser Health has no jurisdiction over raw milk produced by our private dairy for our own consumption, since it never enters-in to commerce.
Last time they slapped Orders on us, May 2008, Fraser Health was so severely embarrassed by me putting in to Court some of their own e-mails that they backed off. The emails, which I’d obtained via Freedom of Information requests, showed behind-the-scenes discussion in which they acknowledged they knew they needed a complaint about us, in order to act legally, but they didn’t have one. Yet they had lowered the boom anyway!
On Wednesday Dec 16 2009, I made a formal Freedom of Information request orally, right there in the manager’s office, for all records to do with the rationale for these recent Orders. His response was that they don’t have to comply with the FoI & Protection of Privacy Act while an investigation is underway. They have something to hide, alright. And it will come out eventually
Meanwhile, I am determined to keep the REAL MILK flowing to the more than 400 households who hold shares in the herd.
The plan is that I’ll be going out to the farm and getting our property - that would be, our milk - and deliver it to shareholders’ homes, the way I did when our cowshare started, and for the first 6 months. Yeah, it’s a lot more time / work / expense, but it must be done while I wrangle with these idiots who want me to obey their interpretation of the law of the land, yet won’t abide by it themselves.
From the very start of our enterprise, I told Alice Jongerden that I was only interested in getting a supply of raw milk going in BC legally. We succeeded at that for two and a half years. Having put in a couple of decades in Her Majesty’s Courts, so as to know what really goes on there, I had no desire whatsoever, to take the raw milk issue into that venue. But since the bureaucrats at Fraser Health quit using common sense … instead, taking some very bad advice from their lawyer, namely Guy McDannold in Victoria … then I guess we’ll be airing it out before a Justice in the Supreme Court.
On the REPORT which was given to our Burnaby depot, it says
Failure to comply with a Public Health Act Order can result in further enforcement action ( violation ticket, long form prosecution, or court injunction)
If the bureaucrats have a grain of sense, they won’t interfere with my home deliveries. After the way we were treated today … when they would not abide by the terms written on their own Order!! …. I’m not counting on reasonableness. I’m readying for more trouble. If and when that happens, I will be calling upon any share member who feels like it, to show up in Court and testify as to how much the REAL MILK means to them, and how inconvenienced you-all are, by govt. interfering with you using and enjoying your property.
The immediate step is : anyone who is affected by an Order may put in a Request for Reconsideration, to the issuing officer. I urge share members who expected to get your milk from Anita’s, to call Rod Asplin at 604 918 7523 and demand he provide you with the form for doing that. Then get that form back to his office
Suite #300 - 4946 Canada Way Burnaby British Columbia V5G 4H7 fax 604 918 7520
The procedure has wide latitude. Have your say as to why you believe Inspector Asplin’s Order ought to be rescinded. If you take raw milk as a kind of medicine, that will be especially useful, in light of recent court decisions about the right to self-medicate.
Please make a copy of your Request for Reconsideration for me ; it will be very useful in defending myself against a ‘ticket’ = violation notice, or long form prosecution, or at the hearing for an injunction.
Gordon S Watson / Thursday December 17th 2009
...
You may already know this but to someone who is drinking the RAW milk from OUR cows and then told it has "fecal" contamination
this is important to all of our shareholders to understand that it is basically meaningless without the actual test results.
See the attachment from the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
New Coliform Standard for Milk Sold Raw to Consumers
January 2008
With the passing of (AB 1735) (Assembly Ag Committee), several milk product standards were updated to bring
California requirements into greater conformity with national standards, as well as those of neighboring states. The
changes take effect on January 1, 2008, and include the addition of maximum limits on the amount of coliform
bacteria allowed in fluid milk sold raw to the consumer. The purpose of this fact sheet is to provide brief answers to
questions regarding coliform bacteria in general, and what this new standard means with regard to the quality, safety
and availability of raw milk within California.
What are coliforms?
Coliforms are a group of bacteria commonly found in the environment, including soil, surface water, vegetation and
the intestinal tracts of warm-blooded animals. Detection of coliforms is used as a general indicator of sanitary
conditions in dairy production and processing environments. Most coliforms do not cause disease, but a small
percentage can cause illness in people, especially young children, the elderly, and those with weakened immune
systems. One example of these toxin-producing bacteria, known as E. coli O157:H7, can cause serious food-borne
illness, especially in children, including abdominal cramps, bloody diarrhea and acute kidney failure in severe cases.
How do coliforms get into milk?
Coliform bacteria are normally shed in the feces of healthy livestock, including dairy cattle. Thus, poor herd hygiene,
contaminated water, unsanitary milking practices, and improperly washed and maintained equipment can all lead to
elevated coliform counts in raw milk at the dairy farm. Even though cows with coliform mastistis (an inflammation of
the udder) can in some instances influence coliform counts, the milking of cows with wet and manure-soiled udders
and inadequately cleaned milking equipment, are the most common ways for coliform bacteria to enter milk on-farm.
Coliforms in milk: What does it mean?
Most coliforms originate from the intestines of warm-blooded animals, including people. Since most coliform bacteria
are not harmful, the finding of coliforms in milk does not necessarily mean that a disease causing, or pathogenic, form
of the bacteria is present. However, elevated coliform counts in milk and dairy products suggest unsanitary conditions
exist during production, processing or packaging. In the dairy farm setting, a coliform count is a useful indicator of
the extent of fecal bacteria in the milk, and is a recognized index of the level of sanitation at a facility. The use of
coliform counts as an indicator of sanitation has been a common tool in public health protection for many years. For
example, the presence of coliforms is used as one signal that environmental contamination of drinking water supply
systems has occurred. In dairy products, the process of pasteurization easily kills coliform bacteria. Therefore, the
finding of coliforms in pasteurized products indicates some level of contamination has occurred after pasteurization
during product manufacturing or packaging. For milk sold raw, where no intervening pasteurization step is utilized,
coliform counts reflect sanitation practices throughout milk handling, from the cow to final bottling. In addition to food
safety and public health concerns, coliforms, along with other bacteria, may produce off flavors in milk and reduce
shelf life of dairy products.
Since most food-borne pathogens originate from fecal contamination, including E.Coli, Salmonella and
Campylobacter, it is essential that strict sanitary practices be followed to minimize the risk to people consuming raw
milk products.
What level of coliforms is allowed in raw milk?
The new standard sets a maximum amount of coliform bacteria at no more than 10 bacteria per milliliter (mL) in milk
sold raw to the consumer, the same limit required for pasteurized milk. This level is consistent with both national and
international public health and food safety requirements as reflected in standards set for pasteurized dairy products by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Canadian Food
Inspection Service, and the European Economic Community (EEC). It is also the same standard currently used for
raw milk sold for direct consumption in several other states, including Arizona, Maine, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Utah and Washington. The states of Connecticut, Idaho and New Mexico allow no more than 50 coliform bacteria/mL.
1
Is this coliform standard achievable in milk that is not pasteurized?
Yes. Coliform counts of < 10 bacteria per milliliter (mL) can be routinely achieved in raw farm milk, with utilization of
sound cleaning and sanitation practices. On average, about 25% of regulatory bulk milk samples collected during the
year from dairy farms inspected by the Department have coliform counts at or below this level, even though virtually
all of this milk is ultimately pasteurized at a milk products plant. This agrees with national data collected by USDA’s
National Animal Health Monitoring System, and published in the Journal of Dairy Science in 2004 (J. Dairy Sci.
87:2822). This study gathered data from 21 states (including California) and represented 81% of dairy herds across
the country. Although fecal coliforms were detected in 95% of samples, approximately 20% were between 0 and 10
colony-forming units per mL. Similar results have also been reported for bulk tank raw milk coliform counts in the
state of New York (J. Dairy Sci. 81:1743).
Will this standard reduce the availability of packaged raw milk in California?
Consistent use of proper milking procedures, and effective cleaning and sanitation practices will allow for the
continued production of raw milk that meets minimum bacterial standards. The California Food and Agricultural Code
calls for the restriction of products that fail to meet bacterial standards in three of the last five regulatory samples. The
Department collects these samples approximately once per month. Producers are informed when elevated bacterial
counts are found, and official notices are written when specific products violate standards in two of the last four
samples. These procedures provide ample warning to producers, and allow for cleaning, sanitation or equipment
problems to be addressed before restriction of a product takes place. The Department’s Dairy Foods Specialists
routinely assist facilities with identifying and correcting problem areas. As always, prevention of problems through
regular adherence to sound milk handling and sanitation practices is the best way to avoid violation of bacterial
standards. Some common and effective practices to control coliform counts in raw milk include:
•
Properly managing manure, bedding, housing and pastures to prevent cows from arriving overly dirty at the
milking parlor.
•
Washing the udders and teats of cows, and ensuring they are clean and dry prior to milking.
•
Ensuring the hands of milkers are clean and dry
•
Use of an appropriate commercially available pre-milking teat sanitizer to further reduce the amount of bacteria
contacting milking equipment.
•
Milking any cows with infected udders last, and ensuring such milk is properly excluded from milk intended for
consumption.
•
Ensuring all equipment throughout the entire milking system is properly cleaned and sanitized after each milking.
•
Ensuring detergents and sanitizers are used at effective concentrations, and that adequate amounts and
temperatures of hot water are utilized.
•
Establishing and adhering to a maintenance schedule for milking equipment to ensure proper operation and to
replace worn out inflations, hoses, gaskets and other parts that can harbor coliform bacteria.
•
Providing sufficient refrigeration to ensure milk is properly cooled and stored at 45 degrees or below.
•
Ensuring the milk products plant where the raw milk is handled and finally packaged for the consumer is also
properly constructed, clean and sanitary. Bottles of raw market milk must be mechanically capped to avoid
contamination from workers’ hands.
All of these procedures are well-recognized and proven means to help control the bacterial quality of milk, including
coliforms. Without the added protective step of pasteurization, cleanliness and sanitation are of increased importance
to producing raw milk of safe and suitable quality for the consumer.
For additional information, you may contact the Milk and Dairy Food Safety Branch at (916) 654-0773.
CDFA Press Release on Raw Milk
...
Alice Jongerden and to shareholders in our herd
and to whom it may concern
Today, Jan 6th, 2010, I got a copy of the lab results printout which was given to one of our former depots, by Vancouver Coastal Health
a 'cfu' means = colony forming unit. The presence of colonies of bacteria is the way foods, in particular milk, are tested for pathogens. It is important to realize that we live in a world of bacteria everywhere. Colonies of bacteria may be either 'good' bacteria or 'bad' for human beings. For purposes of food safety, what matters is the sheer quantity of colonies present in a one gram sample of milk. The less the better.
the FOOD QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS for milk from our herd show that, the colony forming units range between 1,300 for the butter, up to 3000 for other products. The fluid milk was 2,400.
thus, the tests from the BC Centre for Disease Control show that our milk is well under the 10,000 cfu standard for pasteurized "homo milk" retailed in BC.
As well ; the standard in Washington state for raw milk sold there - quite legally under licences to dairies - is not more than 10,000 cfu
Our milk is perfectly fit to drink. It suits the so-called Health Authorities to use the loaded term "presence of fecal matter' for fearmongering. My suspicion that Fraser Health / Vancouver Coastal Health set out to demonize our cowshare has been confirmed. The fact that they have not actually shut down the flow of REAL MILK is tacit admission that cowsharing is perfectly legitimate.
The fact that they advertise a half-truth ... knowing that the ordinary person has no idea how milk is tested ... exposes their bad faith
Gordon S Watson
...
Barb Schellenburg of Ethical Kitchen was on CBC this morning and did very well presenting her side of the story. Provincial Health officer spoke after her, and said much the same tale as we have heard before. He declined to get specific about this child who supposedly got ill. We wonder if that really happened.
In a roundabout way, Dr. Kendal admitted that cowsharing is legal in BC.
We are confident our milk is perfectly ok to drink, and real milk is still flowing.
Alice
...
> From: margaret s [mailto:threedegreeez@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 11:02 AM
> To: home_on_the_range@telus.net; home_on_the_range@telus.net
> Subject: Contact from homeontherangefarms.com
>
>
> Hi I just read a story about your farm and your desire to sell
> raw milk to
> others, who are "shareholders." I grew up on a dairy farm and
> have a
> nutrition degree and I know for a fact that pasteurization DOES
> NOT cook any
> enzymes, vitamins, minerals or anything out of milk.
> Pasteurization ONLY
> kills the dangerous bacteria and viruses in the milk as it's not
> a cooking
> process. The milk is heated super hot very quickly and then
> quickly super
> cooled, which kills bugs but DOES NOT harm any nutritional value
> whatsoever.I and my parents did drink raw milk that our cows
> produced but we vaccinated
> our cattle and never became ill. We knew how to clean the cows' udders
> before milking and not to milk a cow who had been given
> antibiotics or we'd
> have to pour the whole tank down the drain because it can't be
> given to the
> public due to allergies. To allow others to clean and milk their
> own cows
> isn't a good idea; neither is selling raw milk. If someone gets
> sick, have
> they signed a waiver saying they won't sue you? They should or
> you're in
> danger of getting sued. I appreciate your love of raw milk and I
> remembergetting up in the morning and having to stir the milk in
> the jug in the
> fridge to mix in the cream that had risen to the top overnight.
> Check with a
> dietitian, a nutrition expert, and they will tell you there are
> only health
> dangers from drinking raw milk and NO nutritional benefits. And
> if you and
> your "shareholders" get sick, don't say you weren't warned.
>
...
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Watson [mailto:Walterson@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:10 PM
To: Home On The Range
Cc: threedegreeez@yahoo.com
Subject: my reply to negative feedback
in all the controversy about our dairy, about 99% of the comments have been favourable. A few are like the one at the very bottom, to which I have responded
==============================
Hello Margaret
your claim of exertise on this topic is belied by you saying that
" I know for a fact that pasteurization DOES > NOT cook any> enzymes, vitamins, minerals or anything out of milk" The Health Authorities believe otherwise in that their test for pasteurization is the complete absence of phosphatase. Phosphatase being merely the enzyme which enables the human metabolism to assimilate all the phosphorous combinations.
you are incorrect to assert
> Pasteurization ONLY> kills the dangerous bacteria and viruses in the milk as it's not a cooking" Cooking is cooking, whether you call it par-boiling - which is what the process was originally called - or 'flash pasteurization' at UHT. I recommend you go to a library and find the microscopy which proves that protein strands certainly are deformed from heating.
Promoters of pasteurization admit that cooking the milk certainly does destroy its vitamins. This has been received science since the 1930s. A good proof of which can be found in the Report of the provincial commission into Milk Marketing, done in 1955. For instance, this morning on CBC provincial Health Officer Perry Kendal admitted as much.
every one of the shareholders in our dairy does sign a waiver as part of the share agreement. Go to my website and find the letter from Ron Duffell, Executive Director of the Health Protection Branch, Sept 2005, wherein he acknowledges that our cowshare is legal, as long as members are informed of the risks of drinking raw milk, and are in touch with the conditions under which the animals are kept. Of course we easily meet those terms. www.freewebs.com/bovinity
we have several nutritionists, and physicians as shareholders. Your understanding of the science around REAL MILK is about half a century out of date. Go to the www.westonaprice.org and find the list of speakers for the recent conference in Chicago. One of them was a professor at Harvard, who retired to start a raw milk dairy. In his presentation he reels-off the latest scientific studies proving the nutritional superiority of REAL MILK
One of the best proofs of the benefits of pure, whole fresh raw milk is that about 1/4 of our shareholders have a member of their household who was diagnosed as 'lactose intolerant', yet those people are very happily drinking raw milk and products derived from it.
What is laughable is that all the controversy is advertisement for REAL MILK, such as money can't buy!
People are finding out the difference between the pale, whitish denatured, devitalized stuff ... adulterated with Milk Protein concentrate shipping in from the third world ... merchandised as "homo milk", versus the real thing.
Gordon S Watson
...Jan. 8, 2010
Well, the media storm is over as far as I am concerned. I am concentrating on milking your cows and the farm and getting your milk to you. It has become obvious that the authourities set out to slander our dairy as part of a bigger campaign in North America. Gordon Watson is gathering evidence with which to bring a civil lawsuit for public malfeasance. That is going to taks some time. He is very interested to speak with any sharemember which has been contacted by Fraser Health and/or Vancouver Coastal Health.
Also, as far as I am concerned, we have won the point that cow sharing is legal. It is our job to continue to provide you with the best milk available as we have done for almost 3 years. We are working hard to find a location/locations in Vancouver to make this happen.
We will have a New West depot in a week's time.
Alice
Jan.14
message from Alice:
Hi All
I just want to take a quick moment to update you on a few things, as there is a lot more going on then meets the eye.
As you can imagine, things at this end have been just a little crazy. Having our depots pulled out from under us, and trying to scramble to get new locations and set them up, visiting with sharemembers (the best part), dealing with the press and the oommunity calling, trying to wade through mega emails, and working at the farm makes for busy days. If that all wasn't enough, one of our employees 'forgot'to show up for the 2nd time (fired) and one of our employees is away for a month, and one gave notice to move to a less stressful job.
Then to top it off, the tractor broke, and they can't find a part to fix it, as the company went bankrupt, and they just don't make those parts anymore. So they are hoping to find a way to make it work. In the meantime, back to handscraping and wheelbarrowing. In addition, almost 2 months ago, I placed an order for a case of round milk filters, to ensure we had plenty of stock, and they have still not come in (apparently held at the border due to paperwork issues...hmmm). So we found another source JD Farms in Abbotsford, and when we went to pick them up, they openly told us they would not sell to us. Good thing for neighbouring USA and raw milk supporters, even if it is a longer drive etc.
It wasn't even 10 years ago, that a group of farmers in the valley decided to boycott the milk marketing board, and sold all their quota and shipped directly to a cheese plant. The other farmers banned together, and made sure the feed companies would not deliver feed to those farmers, and put them out of business. (Currently our feed supply is good-and again, neighbouring US would help if we needed it) Whatever happened to supporting the community around you? The company I purchase all our farm supplies from has informed me that they did have a conversation about what they would do if farmers came in with their heavy hand, and insisted they don't supply me. What does that tell you? They've been down this road before, and will have to make a choice--will they cave under pressure?
These are the real moments day to day that we deal with as we care for your cows. Because of all these extras, I am behind on returning emails. I will work hard to catch up, but I do spend a lot more hours in the barn these days. PS...Helen had a bull calf last night. Mom and babe are doing well.
So please be patient with us as we try to regroup. We have a location for a shed in Abbotsford and New Westminister, as well as a good chance in Surrey,,,,but to date we have nothing for Vancouver. I am sure the Olympics play a big part in this. If you have any suggestions, they would be welcome.
If you are meeting Bert to pick up your milk, you can make any requests for changes to him rather than email me, as he will bring what he has, and he can record the changes. Also, if you can make use of the forum---I get a lot of questions of people wanting to milk-pool. The forum is a great way to do this. If you do not have a password, you can contact Tyler,and he will set it up for you.
...
If you are looking for someone in your area to share driving, you can post it under the 'sharemember only' section, and work out the details that way.
Also, one more note. Regarding the milk flavour---there are still some jars with a stronger flavour--not bad milk--just more noticebly stronger scent/flavour. We know this is from the high alfalfa they are eating. I am trying to mix more grass in the mix, but some cows do not appreciate it as much, and dig for the alfalfa. Therefore some of the cow's milk is stronger in flavour than others. Last winter we did not use as much alfalfa, and the milk was nicer in flavour, but we were challenged more with the health of the cows. Catch 22. The older the milk gets, the stronger the flavour. We are testing another option that may help remove some of the flavour...once the jar is filled, we do not seal tightly, but leave covered loosely as it cools so air can escape. We tighten it when we put it in the fridge.
Other than that--all is well on the farm. It's pretty cool to see the cows head off to pasture in December and January... even though there is not really much grass--there is lots of space and air... :)
Alice
Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:29 PM
Subject: talking back to the Health diktocrats Jan 14 2010
to the Editor, Burnaby NOW newspaper
In the furore around Home on the Range dairy, statements from govt. officials resulted in headlines such as 'Raw milk hazardous to health'. They'd have you believe that 'every glass of raw milk is teeming with bad germs'. Which is utter nonsense. In fact, as it comes from a healthy, grass-fed cow, raw milk is one of the purest foods of all. How milk is handled from then on, is what determines whether a given batch contains bacteria harmful to humans
For the last 60 years - as called-for in the Communist Manifesto - American agriculture was industrialized. Marketing boards dictated winners and losers as the system churned out vast quantities of foodstuff. The perception of abundance was accomplished by reducing quality and diversity. Customers are deceived with quaint images of cows grazing in sunny fields. But the truth is ; the thin, denatured, devitalized whitish fluid inside cartons of "homo milk" comes from a factory farm. The dairy cartel is terrified by consumers rejecting its product after finding out how they've been cheated out of nutrition, who then seek out fresh, whole unadulterated raw milk.
Since REAL MILK was not available, I organized a little dairy and have assisted it for two and a half years, as we went from one cow, to 27. We own the cows. We pay the agister in advance to do the work for us. We do not advertise. Every one of our shareholders sought out this arrangement. Our milk never enters-in to commerce. Whether the Public Health Act has jurisdiction, at all, is debatable.
Chief Medical Health Officer Perry Kendall denigrated our dairy as a 'scheme to get past prohibition', leaving the impression that we're breaking the law. People who think it a crime for us to co-operate in farming to get a certain quality of food for ourselves, need to be reminded how this country is supposed to operate : we had the right to use and enjoy our property long before the Milk Marketing Board came along, and we still have it
Last week the Health Authorities trotted-out some figures showing our milk had "massive amounts of contamination in the products". But once we were given copies of the paperwork from the lab tests, we soon put the boots to that canard. Turns out that the tests were done days later, with samples not kept properly cold. Therefore those numbers are irrelevant. One has to wonder ; how come the experts in food safety did not follow the protocol for testing milk according to the Milk Industry Act ?
I'm suspicious that their negligence was no accident. In June 2008, we'd been operating for a year. Suddenly our agister received an Order to Cease+Desist "distributing" raw milk. As part of appealing it in the Supreme Court, I used the Freedom of Information process to obtain inter-governmental e-mails which showed Health Authority officials knew they needed a complaint to move against us, yet did not have one. Thus, issuance of that Order was an abuse of process. To this day, their lawyer refuses to produce the name of the purported "complainant"
Point being : I caught them lying before ... why believe them now?
Michael Schmidt was on trial last year in Ontario, charged with illegally selling raw milk. He knows a thing or two about it, gained from two decades providing raw milk to grateful shareholders. Of all this frantic fearmongering, he says "It's not about health, it's about control". What we've just witnessed here in BC is another episode in which the dairy industry is doing what monopolies always do ... attempting to eliminate every little bit of competition. As per the script played out all over America, many times, propagandists raise the spectre of an anonymous sick child, pillory raw milk as the only possible cause, then retreat into the excuse of 'privacy concerns' for not presenting evidence of any real harm
A couple of good things have come out of the recent attention to our dairy. More than 60 people requested shares in the herd. Cowsharing has been acknowledged as legitimate. With this proof of concept, hundreds more owner-operated local dairies will spring up across Canada, making wonderful REAL MILK for those of us who take responsibility for our own health.
Gordon S Watson
Justice Critic, Party of Citizens
<\lj-cut>