Page 89 - Spring2008

RAW MILK UPDATE
by Pete Kennedy

Much has happened in the raw milk movement over the past few months. Media coverage continues and has
become increasingly favorable. While reporters still publish the government line in their stories, they’re also devoting
more space to the testimonials of raw milk advocates. Reuters has predicted that raw milk will be the number one
health story in 2008. Politicians have taken notice. A number of bills have been introduced at the state and federal
level that would either legalize or expand the sale of raw milk. On the down side, the State of California is continuing
its efforts to establish a de facto ban on the retail sale of raw milk. A major court battle is also underway in New York
over the question of whether shareholder dairies are beyond the state’s jurisdiction.

ALASKA: State Representative Mark Neuman (R-Wasilla) has introduced House Bill 367, a bill to legalize the sale
of raw milk and raw milk products in Alaska. The bill was prompted by the shutdown of a state-run milk plant in
Alaska’s southeastern region last fall. The region’s four licensed Grade A dairies that were selling to the plant had no
other place to sell their milk after the shutdown and have been dumping well over half of their daily milk production
ever since. If HB 367 passes as it was originally written, Alaska would be the first state to permit the sale of raw milk
in restaurants. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the state agency in charge of regulating milk
and milk products, opposes the bill. Shortly after the introduction of the bill, DEC threatened to shut down the state’s
largest cow share dairy which also happens to be a Grade A licensee. Current law permits the distribution of raw milk
through cow share programs.

MARYLAND: House Bill 147, a bill that would exempt from regulation the sale of raw milk and raw milk products from
milk producers directly to the final consumer, was introduced. A similar bill was before the Legislature last year but did
not make it out of committee. On another front, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland will be ruling this summer
on a challenge by Buckeystown farmer Kevin Oyarzo to the state’s cow share ban. Maryland is one of only four states
whose law expressly bans cow shares. [For the background of the case see the Winter 2007 Wise Traditions.]

MISSOURI: State Representative Belinda Harris (D-Hillsboro) has introduced House Bill 1901, a bill that would clarify
the law on the sale of raw milk and cream in Missouri. Current law excepts the sale of raw milk and cream at the farm
and through delivery from the general prohibition on the sale of raw milk. Last summer and fall the state Milk Board
sent warning letters to half a dozen farmers claiming that a permit was required to sell under the exception. Rep. Har-
ris’ bill was in response to the public outcry that followed the Milk Board’s actions. HB1901 makes clear that a permit
is not required to sell raw milk and cream at the farm and through delivery. Even if the bill does not pass, it can be
considered a success. The Milk Board has reversed its position and now says that a permit is not required to sell under
the exception. The Milk Board sent letters of apology to all the farmers it had warned last year. Rep. Harris’ bill has
broad support. The biggest obstacle to its passage is that the Republicans, who comprise the majority in the Missouri
House of Representatives, may introduce a raw milk bill of their own. The Chair of the House Special Agribusiness
Committee to which HB1901 has been assigned has delayed a hearing on the bill while waiting to see if a Republican
bill will materialize.

OREGON: Oregon residents recently lost an opportunity to have a plentiful supply of raw milk and raw milk products.
On December 21, 2007, an administrative law judge held that the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) was
within its legal authority when it placed under embargo one pound of raw butter at the warehouse of Azure Standard,
a wholesale distributor located in Dufur. Until ODA placed the embargo on the butter, Azure Standard had been sell-
ing raw milk and raw milk products produced by Organic Pastures Dairy Company (OPDC) of Fresno, California. The
OPDC products had been labeled “for cat or dog food only.” The issue before the judge was whether the ban on the
sale of raw milk in Oregon extended to products for pet consumption. If the judge had ruled in Azure Standard’s favor,
the Oregon market for raw milk and raw milk products would have opened up considerably. OPDC, at one time, sold
raw dairy products to about forty retail stores in the state before the Oregon Attorney General issued an opinion in late
2005 that it was illegal to sell raw cow’s milk and products made from raw cow’s milk for pet consumption. Under
current law, only farms with two or fewer lactating cows are exempt from the ban on the sale of raw cow’s milk.

SPRING 2008 Wise Traditions 89