Page 84 - Fall2011

In a subsequent meeting at the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, an official from CDFA informed the
Hulmes that while it was legal for goat owners to board their goats at the farm and to have the Hulmes milk their goats,
the owners could only drink the milk from their goats at the Hulmes’ farm; once they left the farm with the milk, Evergreen
Acres had become a dairy processing plant and was violating the law since it did not have a license. The official did not
give the Hulmes any public health reason for this distinction.
With licensing not being an option due to cost and zoning issues, the Hulmes and San Jose goat owners Ian Gerbode,
Sara-Jane Skiwski and Sarah Sullivan filed a lawsuit against CDFA and the County of Santa Clara, asking for a declaration
by the court that the boarding contract the goat owners had with the Hulmes was legal. The suit, filed July 22 in the
Superior Court of Santa Clara County, asks for a permanent injunction against the State of California and Santa Clara
County to prevent Defendants from commencing or continuing any enforcement action against the Plaintiffs “or anyone
else in California who wishes to engage in the conduct engaged in by Plaintiffs.”
In commenting on the threatened prosecution that led to the lawsuit, Mike Hulme pointed out, “There is no injury
here; no one has become sick from milk produced at the farm. There have been no complaints from either the goat
owners or the city of San Jose. The only conclusion I can draw is that this is a politically motivated action by the district
attorney and CDFA to effectively put a small family farm out of business.”
CDFA has drawn widespread criticism for its stance on herdshares and there is evidence the agency is reevaluating its
position on shareholder dairies. At a meeting held with raw milk producers and consumers on August 23, CDFA Secretary
Karen Ross said that she wanted to form a working group on herdshares in California and have the group draft a report
with recommendations on the issue. An attorney for CDFA admitted at the meeting that there was no law on the books
covering herdshares. Ross said that she wanted the report from the working group to be finished four months after the
members of the group get started on the project.
SOUTH CAROLINA: TUCKER ADKINS DAIRY
A prime example of FDA bias against raw milk occurred in South Carolina at the expense of Tucker Adkins Dairy. On
July 16, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a press release stating that three confirmed cases of campylo-
bacteriosis in North Carolina were associated with the consumption of raw milk obtained on June 14, 2011 from Tucker
Adkins Dairy of York, South Carolina. As far as is known, public health officials investigating the outbreak did not look
for other possible causes of illness after discovering that the three individuals drank raw milk.
FDA issued the press release prior to receiving test results of a milk sample the agency had taken from a container
obtained on June 14 by one of the individuals allegedly ill from the milk. Any threat of illness from the milk produced
by the dairy had already passed by the time FDA issued its press release. The agency could have waited until the test
results were in but did not. Shortly after the press release was issued, FDA acknowledged the milk suspected of harboring
campylobacter tested negative. FDA’s press release was more a statement of its policy on raw milk and did nothing to
promote or advance the public health; the agency’s accusations against the dairy were based more on its position that
“no one should drink raw milk at any time for any reason” than on any evidence.
Contrast the actions of FDA with those of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(DHEC), the agency that has the hands-on responsibility for insuring that Tucker Adkins Dairy produces a safe product.
The department could have suspended the dairy’s license or suspended raw milk sales if it suspected the dairy was re-
sponsible for making people sick; it did not.
The department took two samples of its own, each of which tested negative for campylobacter. DHEC found that
the dairy did nothing wrong. In its seven years of operating as a licensed dairy, Tucker Adkins Dairy has never been cited
for a violation by the department nor has a complaint ever been made against the dairy for the raw milk it produces.
Like FDA, the department advises the public that raw milk has inherent risk and that all milk should be consumed
pasteurized. Unlike FDA, DHEC waits until the facts are in and does not carry out an anti-raw milk action at the expense
of the reputation of a hardworking family farm.
WISCONSIN: GRASSWAY ORGANICS & ZINNIKER FARMS
On August 12 Dane County Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Fiedler denied the motions of Grassway Organics Farm
Store LLC and Zinniker Farms—and the respective private associations doing business with the two entities—for a rul-
ing in their lawsuits against the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) that the
distribution of raw milk by Grassway and Zinniker to the members of the respective associations was legal. (See Wise
Traditions Fall 2010 and prior issues for background on the cases.)
Grassway Organics Farm Store LLC, which has a Grade A milk producer license in its name, issued stock in the LLC to
Grassway Association and its members. Under 2002 and 2004 administrative law decisions in the state, those purchasing
shares in the entity holding a milk producer license could purchase raw milk from that entity. Grassway Organic Farm

84 Wise Traditions FALL 2011 FALL 2011 Wise Traditions

82725_WAPF_Txt.indd 84 9/15/11 2:01 PM