Page 89 - Spring2010

ket products they produce. Formed through Facebook, ARMs have been established in at least thirty states and seven
countries.
With DATCP’s continued enforcement actions, passage of raw milk legislation is more important than ever. A joint
hearing on the General Assembly bill (AB 628) and the Senate bill (SB 434) was scheduled for March 10 in Eau Claire (see
Wise Traditions Winter 2009 issue for more information about the bills). In the weeks before the hearing, media attention
on the bills was increasing. Wayne and Janet Brunner of Midvalleyvu Farm gave a number of interviews on their ten-year
struggle to sell raw milk legally in Wisconsin and the importance of the bills’ passage for the survival of small dairy farms
in the state. State Representative Chris Danou (D-Trempeauleau), sponsor of the Assembly bill, also gave a number of
interviews publicly criticizing DATCP for its treatment of small dairy farms like Midvalleyvu.
One response of DATCP to criticisms of its raw milk enforcement policy was for Secretary Rod Nilsestuen to convene
in January a twenty-person committee to study the legalization of raw milk sales in Wisconsin. The committee is comprised
of farmers, representatives of the dairy industry, government officials and academia; the first meeting was to take place
on March 15 with monthly meetings to continue until July. One farmer estimated that fifteen of the committee members
were against legalizing the sale of raw milk. Many suspect that the committee was formed to give legislators an excuse not
to vote for any raw milk bill until they receive the committee’s final report sometime this summer; the current legislative
session ends April 22.

SOUTH DAKOTA: Last fall the South Dakota Department of Agriculture (SDDA) issued proposed regulations that would
have made it much more difficult to sell raw milk in the state (see Wise Traditions, Winter 2009 issue). Due to public out-
cry, State Secretary of Agriculture Bill Even withdrew the proposed rules. Instead, the department introduced a bill (HB
1057) through the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources at the start of the legislative session in January.
While the bill is not as bad for raw milk producers as the proposed regulations were, it would still be more onerous than
the current law. Under HB 1057 producers selling raw milk would need to get a Grade B permit (current statute requires
no permit) and would no longer be allowed to sell raw cream. Under the bill any producer wanting to obtain a Grade B
permit would need an enclosed facility with separate rooms for milking and bottling (handcapping is allowed). The permit
would cost $100 per year, which would cover the cost of an annual inspection; and in addition, there would be a $15
monthly milk testing fee. The bill also decriminalizes violations of the milk statute; however, the civil penalties could be
as high as $5,000 per violation.
The biggest concern with the bill is the cost of building a facility that would be in compliance with the Grade B re-
quirements. Lila Streff, a goat milk producer in Custer, sent written testimony to the House committee stating that she
spent $85,000 to put up a facility that met Grade B standards. An official with SDDA said that those dairies that would not
be able to meet the Grade B requirements would be able to distribute milk legally through a herd share program which
would not be regulated by the department. HB 1057 has passed the full House and was awaiting a vote by the full Senate
in March.

IOWA: On January 25 Charles Freitag and Mindy Slippy, individuals who had purchased a cow from a Riverside dairy
farmer and who had arranged to board their respective cow with the farmer, filed suit against Bill Northey, Secretary of
the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS), to obtain a declaratory judgment. The plaintiffs are
seeking four declarations from the court that they are entitled to: (1) own personal property in the form of a cow; (2)
consume the unpasteurized milk and other unpasteurized dairy products from their own personal cow; (3) enter into a
boarding contract with a farmer to have the farmer tend to, manage and take care of their personal cow for them; and
(4) enter into a service contract to have the farmer convert some of the milk from their own cow into unpasteurized dairy
products such as butter, kefir and yogurt.
On February 2, 2009, IDALS sent a letter to the farmer taking care of the plaintiffs’ cows, informing him that he was
“selling” raw milk to consumers in violation of Iowa law. The lawsuit claims that IDALS’s interpretation of the law prohibits
plaintiffs from exercising “their Constitutional rights (1) own, possess and use their private property, (2) to privacy and to
consume the foods of their choice for themselves and their families, (3) and to enter into boarding and service contracts
with an Iowa farmer.” No hearing date has been set for the suit.

For the latest developments on raw milk issues, go to www.thecompletepatient.com.
Those who have not joined the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund are encouraged to do so. Membership ap-
plications are available online at www.farmtoconsumer.org or by calling (703) 208-FARM (3276); the mailing address is
8116 Arlington Blvd., Suite 263, Falls Church, VA 22042.

SPRING 2010 Wise Traditions 89