Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
AL_WAPF
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Want to share photos of your group with the world? Add a group photo to Flickr.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Messages 442 - 471 of 607   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Messages: Show Message Summaries   (Group by Topic) Sort by Date v  
#471 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Wed May 7, 2008 6:34 pm
Subject: PENNSYLVANIA RAW MILK UPDATE MAY 7, 2008
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
PENNSYLVANIA RAW MILK UPDATE

MAY 7, 2008

TRIAL OF MARK NOLT
Mark Nolt appeared for his trial on Monday and pleaded Not Guilty to four counts
of selling milk without a permit.  He will appeal the verdict and plans to argue
his case on constitutional ground in an upcoming trial.

For the trial, the Pennsylvania Independent Farmers and Consumers Association
(PICFA) and local chapters of the Weston A. Price Foundation organized a rally
attended by 100 supporters wearing raw milk tee shirts and carrying placards and
signs. Farmers and WAPF consumers from NJ, NC, MD, VA and PA were there to show
their support-chapter leader Ruth Ann Foster drove all the way from North
Carolina!

A big thanks to WAPF PR wiz Kimberly Hartke who generated a huge amount of media
coverage, most of it quite favorable.  WGAL Channel 8, Fox 43, and CBS 21 were
all there.  Three other print journalists were there, Philly Inquirer, The
Sentinel and the Patriot News.  The Inquirer article went out on the
McClatchey-Tribune News Wire and has shown up already in Trading Markets a
publication based out of Los Angeles. Dave Gumpert the Complete Patient blogger
was there. The Pittsburg Post Gazette did a story that ran the day of the event.
Kimberly did an interview on public radio WITF, which airs at the top of each
hour the day after the rally, and will be made available to public radio
stations around the state.  A print version and an audio clip is on their
website in the archives.  Susquehanna Living is putting a brief and photo in
their next issue, and considering doing a longer feature story in their next
issue. World Net Daily, the largest internet news provider in the world has done
two articles, one before the event, the other reporting the results.

YOUR LETTERS AND FAXES
We have heard from many of you who reported that you have indeed sent in your
letters and faxes to Pennsylvania officials.  If you have not already done so,
please send in your letters and faxes before the end of the week.  I am
including the original email we sent out with background and contact
information.  The fax lists have been updated to include corrected fax numbers
for several lawmakers (Kitchen, Haluska, Cohen and Myers).

Thank you all for your splendid efforts-we will keep you posted on our progress!



RAW MILK SITUATION IN PENNSYLVANIA
UPDATE AND ACTION ALERT

Dear Members,

Once generally supportive of raw milk, Pennsylvania authorities have been making
life very difficult for raw milk farmers and consumers during the last few
weeks. This email will provide you with details about what has been going on and
describe an action plan.  As what happens in Pennsylvania affects the raw milk
situation throughout the country, we are sending it out to all members.  We ask
that you PLEASE READ THIS ALERT CAREFULLY and ALL join us in carrying out the
actions proposed. (We apologize for the length, but it is necessary to provide
you with all the facts and a careful explanation of what is going on.) Also,
please forward this alert to your own email groups.

RAID ON MARK NOLT'S FARM
"All truth passes through three stages," wrote Schopenhauer. "First it is
ignored, then it is violently opposed and finally it is accepted as self
evident."  Unfortunately the transition from the first to the second stage has
fallen on a gentle Pennsylvania Mennonite raw milk farmer, Mark Nolt, described
by many as the "Rosa Parks of farmers' rights."  On April 25, Mark's farm was
raided--for the second time--and this time he was arrested, in connection with
five citations for selling raw milk without a license.  He was taken in
handcuffs to a magistrate in Mount Holly Springs where he refused to make a plea
to the criminal charges against him.  A trial has been scheduled for May 5.

The first raid occurred last August 10, when the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture (PDA) seized over $25,000 worth of product, packaging equipment and
supplies. This occurred after a Commonwealth Court found Nolt in contempt for
violating an injunction prohibiting him from selling raw milk and raw milk
products without a permit.

In the second raid, the agents descended on the quiet farm, "like Vikings,"
according to Mark, in six police cars and at least five unmarked cars,
presumably belonging to PDA officials. The agents were personally led by Bill
Chirdon, Director of PDA's Bureau of Food Safety and Laboratory Services. Mark
tried asking one policeman what the state's authority was for being on the
property but the policeman kept cutting him off, seemingly trying to provoke a
confrontation.  The police threatened to arrest anyone who attempted to set foot
on Nolt's property; even Nolt's father and brother who live on the same lane
were denied access.

Imagine the position of Mrs. Nolt, enduring the sight of her husband carried
away in the back seat of a police cruiser.  The officers refused to tell her
where they were taking him.  Then she and her ten children had to stand by once
again while the officers went through their cheese shop and store, taking food
meant to feed many families, including their own. Fortunately, Mark was released
after the hearing, and he returned to the farm on foot rather than accept a ride
in a police car.

In a supreme act of arrogance, Chirdon stole a book off Nolt's shelf-"All I Ever
Wanted to Do is Illegal" by Joel Salatin. According to a PDA spokesman, Chirdon
will return the book at Mark's trial.

Mark let his permit drop several years ago because it did not allow him to sell
value-added products such as butter and cream. Mark's position is that he has a
constitutional right to enter into contractual agreements without a permit, that
is to sell raw milk and raw milk products directly to customers.

Mark told David Gumpert that the product PDA confiscated (mostly cheese) was
worth over $30,000. They also took supplies and equipment. PDA agents were
particularly malicious, taking valves, parts to a cream separator and pieces of
cheese-making equipment so his equipment could no longer be used. The warrant
PDA received from the magistrate states that PDA could search and seize "any
equipment, containers or supplies used to bottle or package for sale milk and
products manufactured from milk." Obviously cream separator parts and
cheese-making equipment have nothing to do with bottling or packaging products,
thus making PDA guilty of an illegal seizure.

At a time when millions of people all over the world are starving, PDA has no
qualms about throwing away perfectly good and nutritious food-the cheese was
carried away in an unrefrigerated truck. According to the PDA website
highlighting PDA's Blueprint for Hunger, "nearly 1.2 million Pennsylvanians,
almost 10% of our population, live in households at risk for hunger and about
335,000, almost 3% of all households, have someone who has experienced hunger."
The dumping of Mark Nolt's cheese in the face of widespread hunger in the state
of Pennsylvania can only be described as obscene.

Even the legality of the product seizure can be called into question. According
to PDA's Guidance Document (3/20/08, "Permits Allowing the Sale of Raw Milk for
Human Consumption"), the department can seize raw milk, "Whenever, in the
opinion of the Secretary of the Department, a given supply of raw milk or
illegally produced raw milk products is considered unsafe or a menace to public
health, the secretary may seize, condemn, denature, or destroy the milk or milk
products, without compensation to the owner of the milk or milk products." In
the affidavit submitted in his application for a search warrant against Nolt,
Chirdon made no allegation that the milk was unsafe.  No one from PDA has
provided evidence that Nolt's milk was a danger to the public. NO ILLNESSES HAVE
BEEN REPORTED from the consumption of Mark Nolt's cheese.

In an appearance April 30 before a magistrate at the Newville Magisterial
District Court, Mark Nolt was informed by the judge that he was facing two
additional charges for selling raw milk without a permit.  A trial has been
scheduled for Monday, June 3 in Newville.

Nolt refused to enter a plea to the charges claiming he was in court under
duress and that he was not subject to the court's jurisdiction.  The court
entered a plea of "not guilty" on his behalf.

Nolt's May 5 trial at the Mount Holly Springs Magisterial District Court will
take place at 9:30 a.m.  He is being tried in that case for five citations of
selling raw milk without a permit.  A rally in support of Nolt will be held
outside the courthouse that morning.

TRIAL FOR GLEN WISE
Glen Wise has a dairy in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania. He is a member of CARE
(Communities Alliance for Responsible Eco-Farming), a private milk club that
sells only to members. According to the citations he has received, he is accused
of selling "milk, milk products or manufactured dairy products" on three
separate occasions.

Apparently, PDA found out that Glen was selling raw milk without a permit at a
farmers' market last fall.  Chirdon told him at that time that he needed to fill
out an application for a permit, but Glen never did. (More about  Chirdon
below.) He heard nothing more from PDA until April 2 when he received the three
citations all at once.  All the citations against him were for selling at his
farm store.


HARASSMENT OF PERMITTED RAW MILK FARMERS
While PDA insists that all raw milk farmers must have permits, the agency is
making it very difficult for those farmers who already have permits or wish to
obtain them. Its scheme is to use inappropriate testing techniques that give
false positives, then suspend permits and issue inflammatory press releases, in
what appears to be an effort to stem the ever growing number of raw milk
permits-from just a few dozen to over 100 in the last two years. We also have
reports that PDA is now making it very difficult for farmers to obtain new raw
milk permits.  The attitude is distinctly hostile, as the following cases will
demonstrate. As one farmer put it, "The raw milk permit is just a license to be
harassed." It is important to emphasize that in spite of PDA's reports of
pathogens, NO ILLNESSES HAVE BEEN REPORTED in the cases cited below.

1.The farm of Clark and Elaine Duncan tested positive for Listeria Monocytogenes
on April 4 and PDA ran a press release naming the farm on April 7.  The milk
sample had been taken on March 31.  The Duncans sent a sample to a private lab
the week following their suspension and that came back positive as well.  They
have not sent any samples for testing since.  The PDA Guidance Document on raw
milk states that the permit holder must refrain from selling raw milk until two
consecutive tests taken at least one day apart show that the milk is pathogen
free and the department approves of the tests that were taken.  It is normally
the permit holder's responsibility to send the samples to a state-approved lab
for testing.  The Duncans did not receive the paperwork from PDA on the test
results until several weeks after the department issued the press release about
the farm's positive listeria test.

2. On April 4, PDA told Arnold and Esther Diller of Piney Ridge Farm in Western
Pennsylvania that their raw milk sales were being suspended because their milk
tested positive for listeria. Arnold Diller subsequently sent out a sample to an
independent lab, which came back negative (the same thing happened last year). 
As a condition for resuming sales on their farm, their inspector gave them a
list of things to be done for reinspection.  After repeatedly being unable to
clean a piece of milking equipment to the satisfaction of the inspector, the
Dillers turned in their license to PDA.  Esther Diller said that she wished they
had never obtained the license.

Not long after their sales were suspended, the Dillers were told by a state
employee from Harrisburg that if they voluntarily gave up their raw milk
license, their problems with the state would be all cleared up.  There is a
State Representative who got raw milk from the Dillers.  The night before PDA
issued the press release about the Dillers' positive test for listeria, PDA
faxed a copy of the press release to that representative.   It seemed like an
attempt to discourage the representative from remaining a customer. The Dillers
also had some of their customers picking up milk at a local health food store. 
Shortly before the positive listeria tests in both 2007 and 2008, a Pennsylvania
food and safety inspector witnessed the raw milk in a walk-in cooler and voiced
disapproval even though there is no law prohibiting what was being done.  We
have no proof that this was related to the positive listeria test, but it does
seem that PDA wanted the Dillers out of the raw milk business. Many people who
depended on them for raw milk are now without a supplier.  (There are very few
permitted raw milk farmers in Western Pennsylvania.)

3. On Monday, April 21 a preliminary test for permit holder Norman Sauder came
up positive for salmonella. The inspector had told him that even though he was
not due for his next test until December, he was being asked to move it up to
April.  Norman sent a sample to the US Food & Dairy lab and it also came back
positive for salmonella.  On April 28, PDA issued a press release stating that
anyone who purchased milk from Sauder after March 31 should discard it
immediately.  To this date Sauder has still not been directly informed by PDA
whether the final test results for salmonella were positive.

He said his coliform counts all winter had been slightly elevated--sometimes
150. After he asked the inspector whether it was possible for a sample to be
contaminated between his farm and the lab, his coliform count came back at 10
for the next four inspections.  Sauder believes that sampling tools or lab
equipment could be playing a role in the slightly elevated counts.  He suspects
that he is not getting accurate tests.

4. The Amos B. King Dairy in Blain sells most of its milk to Dairy Farmers of
America for processing but distributes about 30 gallons of raw milk a week to
his own customers. Amos' milk was tested on April 14 and the results came back
positive for campylobacter on Friday April 18. After cleaning his equipment,
Amos asked for a reinspection to be scheduled for April 21 or 22.   Even though
PDA told him that shouldn't be a problem, the inspector did not arrive until
April 28.  Meanwhile, the news of his positive test for campylobacter hit the
press.  Amos estimates he will not be cleared to resume raw milk sales before
May 10 at the earliest.

5. The most egregious example of biased PDA policy involves the Beulah Land
Jersey Farm, owned by Dennis and Joanne Wenger. The Wengers sell milk for
pasteurization to Dairylea and also have a raw milk permit.  On April 8, both US
Dairy (a state-approved independent lab) and PDA took samples from the bulk
tank. The next day, the milk hauler for Dairylea picked up milk.  On April 11,
PDA informed the Wengers that their test was "presumptive positive" for listeria
and requested they discontinue selling raw milk.  Additionally, the PDA test
results showed a somatic cell count (SCC) of over one million.  On April 14, the
PDA called to say that the test had confirmed "positive" for listeria and that
they would have to discontinue raw milk sales. By this time the Wengers had
received the results from both US Dairy and Dairylea showing SCC under 200,000. 
The Wengers faxed copies of these test results to PDA.

On April 15, 16 and 17 MicroBac (another state-approved independent lab) came to
the farm to take samples from the bulk tank for listeria testing. On April 16,
Dennis called Senators Mike Brubaker and Mike Folmer to inform them about the
large discrepancy in somatic cell counts between PDA's test results and those of
US Dairy and Dairylea.    Later that day, Dennis received a call from Bill
Chirdon of PDA.  After some discussion, Chirdon offered to retest the Beulah
Land Jersey Farm milk.  The next day, on April 17, the state came to take
samples (the SCC test results for this sample were considerably lower than the
first PDA test but still much higher than those obtained by the other two labs).

On Saturday, April 19, the Wengers received the test results from the first
sample taken by MicroBac-negative for listeria.  On the following Monday, the
state lab made a highly unusual call to MicroBac to find out the results of the
Wenger's samples.  MicroBac refused to release the information without the
Wenger's consent.  The state then called the Wengers to inform them that their
sample was negative. This was followed by a call from MicroBac saying that the
second and third samples had also tested negative.  PDA reinstated the Wenger's
raw milk permit on April 22.

This incident creates the strong suspicion that PDA is not being honest about
their test results, or that their testing techniques are not accurate and are
giving false positives. In fact, this incident and the others above create a
strong suspicion that the PDA is not taking milk samples properly and may even
be tampering with them.  Dennis has demanded an apology from PDA for its
actions.

ABOUT PDA'S TESTING PROCEDURES
PDA uses the same testing methods for raw and pasteurized milk. They get
preliminary results using the VIDAS 30 rapid testing system. If the preliminary
results are positive, such as for listeria, the agency then uses a culturing
technique intended to suppress the growth of anything in the culture other than
listeria.  This is a fair test if the milk is pasteurized because pasteurized
milk is a dead food with no good bacteria to out-compete pathogens.  Australian
Microbiologist Ron Hull, PhD, has carried out tests showing that in raw milk,
the threat of listeria goes away with time because good bacteria gradually
increase and eventually render listeria harmless. Raw milk is not the same
product as pasteurized milk; so it is neither fair nor good science to use the
same testing protocol for raw and pasteurized milk.

Comparing raw milk to pasteurized milk is comparing a fresh product with a
cooked product.   For this reason there should be zero tolerance for pasteurized
milk but not for raw milk, because raw milk contains good bacteria present to
overwhelm any listeria present. What's needed are studies to quantify how high
the infectious dose would have to be before it would cause illness in humans
that consume the product.  USDA publishes a universal infectious dose for a
particular pathogen even though they acknowledge that it is unlikely to be the
same in all foods. The agency has never conducted studies to determine what the
infectious dose for pathogens would be in fresh raw milk intended for human
consumption.

The current zero tolerance standard for listeria in raw milk is not appropriate
because, as the experience in Pennsylvania has shown, people are consuming raw
milk that has tested positive for listeria and are not getting sick.  As the
press releases in these cases admit, "NO ILLNESSES HAVE BEEN REPORTED . . . ." 
The standard is causing economic hardship for raw milk producers and supply
interruptions for consumers. The fact that PDA did not until recently pull raw
milk when the first test was positive shows a fundamental acceptance of this
concept-that the tolerance levels for listeria and other pathogens in raw milk
is not zero.

Furthermore, state regulators are operating under the mistaken belief that milk
right out of the teat is sterile so that all bacteria found in milk comes from
environmental contamination. We now know that raw milk-in humans as well as
animals-contains bacteria from the milk ducts and surfaces of the teat, so these
bacteria are a natural and beneficial component of the milk and not a result of
contamination. (The exception is milk from a cow with mastitis, which is an
infection in the udder itself.) The regulators' goal of getting rid of all
bacteria is hazardous to human health because bacteria aids in digestion and
immunity; and good bacteria are needed to protect against pathogenic bacteria.

Current research has produced enough evidence that the Pennsylvania Legislature
should be convinced that raw milk and pasteurized milk are two different
products requiring different testing and safety standards for each.  The two
should not be treated the same in terms of regulatory policy.

THE BILL CHIRDON ERA
The hostile attitude against raw milk farmers began when Bill Chirdon took over
as Director of PDA's Bureau of Food Safety and Laboratory Services in the fall
of 2006.  Chirdon formerly worked five years as a plant manager for Dean Foods,
one of the nation's largest industrial dairy companies, and 20 years as a plant
manager for Hershey. Obviously he is totally unqualified to be in charge of raw
milk regulation. With his industry background, he has absolutely no
understanding of raw milk nor sympathy for the position of raw milk farmers and
consumers.

Before Chirdon took over, PDA would not suspend a farm's sales of raw milk for
pathogens until there had been two positive tests.  Now PDA is suspending sales
and issuing harmful press releases after one positive test.

Before Chirdon, PDA viewed labor contracts between raw milk licensees and
consumers as legal.  Under the labor contracts, the farmer would process the raw
milk the consumer had purchased into other dairy products such as cream, butter,
yogurt or kefir.  Under Chirdon, PDA considers the labor contracts illegal.

PDA used to test raw milk licensees once a year for pathogens.  Now it tests
twice.

Since Chirdon, it has become standard practice for undercover PDA employees to
buy from unlicensed dairy producers in an effort to trap farmers into getting
cited for selling raw milk without a permit.  PDA employees made at least eight
purchases from Mark Nolt and another three from Glen Wise.  (It is important to
remind CARE farmers not to sell to any customers unless they show their
membership cards; and it is noteworthy that PDA has not tried to stop private
milk club arrangements such as CARE in over a year now.)

During Chirdon's tenure, PDA has issued press releases when farms tested
positive for pathogens even though in almost all cases NO ILLNESSES HAVE BEEN
REPORTED. (PDA asserts that some people got sick consuming milk from one dairy
in 2007, although the dairy does not know of any customers that got sick.)

In March of this year Fisher's Dairy in Porterville tested positive for
salmonella.  Because of that positive test at that one farm, Chirdon required
that all licensed dairies in the state send in raw milk samples.  Since the
statewide testing began, five other farms have had their raw milk sales
suspended (three for listeria, one for campylobacter and one for salmonella),

Farmers seeking new raw milk permits are now reporting that the PDA is using
pathogen testing to hinder and revoke raw milk permits. Of interest is the fact
that there is not one reference to pathogen testing in the Milk Sanitation Law
or the Pennsylvania Code, which PDA acknowledges supersedes their Raw Milk
Permit Guidelines.  PDA recently and arbitrarily changed the guidelines,
requiring more pathogen tests and making it more difficult to obtain a permit. 
The authority of PDA to dictate the guidelines needs to be challenged.


ACTION TO TAKE-PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENTS
We can use this situation to accomplish a huge victory for raw milk if we ALL
work together in creating a huge public outcry!

We are asking all Pennsylvania residents concerned about raw milk and farm
freedom to set aside one quiet hour on Saturday May 3.  Use this hour to compose
a letter that you will send by regular mail to your state senator, state
representative, the heads of the senate and house agriculture committees, Mr.
Dennis Wolff, Secretary of Agriculture, and Governor Edward Rendell. A letter
sent by regular mail carries much more clout than an email or fax, and now is
the time to make our voices heard.

We then ask that you mail your six letters on Monday morning, May 5.
(Optionally, you may also send your letters to local media.) We want our elected
officials to receive an avalanche of mail on this subject on Raw Milk D-Day, May
6.

In your own words, write a brief testimonial about how raw milk has benefitted
you and your family and then request the following:

1.  The resignation of Bill Chirdon and his replacement with someone who is
knowledgeable about the science and health benefits of raw milk. We must send a
strong message to the other states that raw milk consumers will not tolerate
department of agriculture hostility and bias against raw milk.

2.  That PDA immediately return to their pre-Chirdon testing and permitting
policies and cease the strong-arm tactics against Pennsylvania raw milk farmers.

3.  That the Pennsylvania legislature hold hearings and immediately pass
legislation allowing an exemption from licensing and regulation for farmers
selling raw milk and raw milk products direct to consumers, whether it be at the
farm, through delivery or at farmers' markets. (Farmers selling raw milk through
stores could be subject to the pre-Chirdon testing and permitting policies.)

4.  That PDA drop all charges against Mark Nolt and Glenn Wise or suspend
charges pending hearings before the legislature regarding an exemption from
licensing and regulation for raw milk producers selling direct to consumers.

5.  That PDA immediately return all supplies and equipment seized from Mark
Nolt's farm on April 25 (much of the equipment is old so the parts PDA took are
not replaceable) and compensate him for the theft of his cheese.


For names and addresses of your state senators and representatives, go to
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/index.cfm, where you can search your elected
officials by zip code and county.


Ag & Rural Affairs - Senate Chairman
Hon. Michael W. Brubaker
Chairman, Ag & Rural Affairs
Senate Box 203036
Harrisburg, PA 17120-3036


Ag & Rural Affairs - House Chairman
Hon. Michael K. Hanna
Chairman, Ag & Rural Affairs
302 Main Capitol Building
PO Box 202076
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2076


Mr. Dennis C. Wolff
Secretary, Department of Agriculture
2301 N. Cameron St.
Harrisburg, PA  17110


Governor Edward G. Rendell
225 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, PA  17120



ACTION TO TAKE-NON-PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENTS
Please also spend one quiet hour on Saturday May 5 composing your letter along
the guidelines given above. On May 6, Raw Milk D-Day, email or fax your letter
to the following:

Ag & Rural Affairs - Senate Chairman
Hon. Michael W. Brubaker
Chairman, Ag & Rural Affairs
mbrubaker@...
(717) 787-4420
FAX:  (717) 783-3156


Ag & Rural Affairs - House Chairman
Hon. Michael K. Hanna
Chairman, Ag & Rural Affairs
mhanna@...
(717)772-2283
FAX: (717) 787-4137


Governor Edward G. Rendell
Phone: (717) 787-2500
Fax: (717) 772-8284
http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Governor/govmail.html

Secretary Dennis Wolff
Phone: (717) 772-2853
Fax: (717) 705-8402
DWOLFF@...



EXTRA CREDIT FOR RESIDENTS AND NON-RESIDENTS OF PENNSYLVANIA
Fax and email your letter to all the members of the Agriculture and Rural
Affairs committees

SENATE COMMITTEE
Chairman, Hon. Michael Brubaker mbrubaker@... (717) 787-4420 FAX:(717)
783-3156
Michael Waugh mwaugh@... (717) 787-3817 FAX: (717) 783-1900
Michael O'Pake opake@...((717) 787-8925 FAX: (717) 772-0578
Joseph Scarnati jscarnati@... (717) 787-7084  FAX: (717) 772-2755
Michael Eichelberger jeichelberger@...(717) 787-5490 FAX: (717)783-5192
Mike Folmer mfolmer@... 717) 787-5708 FAX: (717) 787-3455
Roger Madigan rmadigan@... (717) 787-3280 FAX:  (717) 772-0575
Terry Punt tpunt@... (717) 787-4651 FAX:  (717) 772-2753
Shirley Kitchen skitchen@... (717) 787-6735 FAX:  (717) 772-0581
Sean Logan slogan@... (717) 787-5580  FAX:  (717) 772-3588
John Wozniak  wozniak@... (717) 787-5400  FAX:  (717) 772-0573


HOUSE COMMITTEE
Honorable Michael Hanna, Chairman mhanna@...  (717)772-2283 FAX: (717)
787-4137
Gary Haluska ghaluska@...  (717) 787-3532 FAX: (717)783-7548
Mike Carroll mcarroll@... (717) 787-3589 FAX: (717) 780-4763
Mark Cohen mcohen@... (717) 787-4117 FAX: (717) 787-6650
H. Scott Conklin sconklin@... (717) 787-9473 FAX: (717) 780-4764
Peter Daley pdaley@... (717) 783-9333  FAX: (717) 783-7558
Richard Grucela rgrucela@... (717) 705-1878 FAX: (717) 783-3180
Harold James hjames@... (717) 787-9477 FAX: (717) 787-7517
Babette Josephs bjosephs@... (717) 787-8529 FAX: (717) 787-5066
Tim Mahoney tmahoney@... (717) 772-2174 FAX: (717) 780-4786
John Myers jmyers@... (717) 787-3181 FAX: (717) 772-4038
Frank Louis Oliver foliver@..., arucker@...   (717) 787-3480
FAX: (717) 783-0684
Timothy J. Solobay tsolobay@... (717) 787-1188 FAX: (717) 705-1887
Tom Yewcic tyewcic@... (717) 783-0248 FAX: (717) 787-4922
Rosita C. Youngblood ryoungbl@... (717) 787-7727 FAX: (717) 772-1313
Art Hershey ahershey@...  (717) 783-6435 FAX: (717) 705-1868
Bob Bastian bbastian@... (717) 783-8756 FAX: (717) 783-3899
Mike Fleck mfleck@...  (717) 787-3335 FAX: (717) 260-6504
Karen Boback kboback@... (717) 787-1117 FAX: (717) 705-1889
Michele Brooks mbrooks@... (717) 783-5008 FAX: (717) 705-1948
Jim Cox jcox@... (717) 772-2435 FAX: (717) 260-6516
Gordon Denlinger gdenling@...  (717) 787-3531 FAX: (717) 705-1951
David S. Hickernell dhickern@... (717) 783-2076 FAX: (717) 705-1946
Rob Kauffman rkauffma@... (717) 705-2004 FAX: (717) 705-1951
Mark Keller mkeller@... (717) 783-1593 FAX: (717) 705-7012
David Millard dmillard@... (717) 783-1102 FAX: (717) 772-0094
Dan Moul dmoul@...  (717) 783-5217 FAX: Fax: (717) 334-8426
Tina Pickett tpickett@... (717) 783-8238 FAX: (717) 705-1949



OTHER EVENTS-WE NEED YOU THERE!

May 5: Hearing and Rally for Mark Nolt
9:30 am
229 Mill Street
Mount Holly, Pennsylvania  17065

May 6:  Trial of Glen Wise
Magisterial District Court
920 South Spruce Street
Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania



WRITE A LETTER AND WRITE A CHECK!
To support the Nolts in this time of hardship, you may send donations directly
to

Mark and Maryann Nolt
P.O. Box 136
Blain, Pennsylvania  17006


The Farm-to-Consumer Foundation provides compassionate relief funds to farmers
who have endured a farm raid or other urgent financial hardship related to their
direct-to-consumer sales.  Donations to the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation are
tax-deductible to the full extent of the law.

ONLINE: http://www.ptfassociates.com/secure/ftcldf/donation_form_compassion.asp
BY PHONE:  703-208-FARM (3276) (10 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. EST)
BY MAIL:  Check payable to FTCF - Compassionate Relief Fund, 8116
Arlington Blvd., #263, Falls Church, VA  22042.



PLEASE JOIN ME!
I will be composing my own letters on Saturday, May 5.  Please join me in this
sacred act of communication, support and activism.

Sincerely,
Sally Fallon, President
The Weston A. Price Foundation

#470 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 1:31 pm
Subject: NEW RAW MILK FARMER...possible Chattanooga delivery
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Got a note from a WAPF counterpart about a raw milk source in TN. 
Thought those of you in TN might need this.

John Langlois,
Moderator
   

Hi everyone,
This is a HUGE new opportunity. A Grade A dairy farm has decided to start selling raw
milk--this is historic and unprecedented in our area. His name is John and he can provide
up to 250 gallons per day of raw cow milk! He has a herd of Holsteins and Jerseys that are
pastured/grassfed as much as possible. The milk he delivers is from his Jerseys. This is a
WONDERFUL opportunity. I cannot tell you how excited I am about it.

He is a strong believer in grass feeding. As a rule, it is what he does. But since the
drought he will have to feed a little bit more grain this winter to take care of the cow's
needs and weight. He will have his milk tested for pathogens once a month...this is a
really good thing.

His milk is not "certified" organic yet, but that is just a technicality since all he does is
organic. His pastures are all organic--no spraying no anything like that. In the
wintertime, his cows receive about 50% hay, a little corn, and the rest is pasture when
weather permits. In the spring and summertime, his cows will receive almost all grass.

No BST, no antibiotics, and no hormone shots are ever given to the cows. He uses all
natural medicines and he has eliminated all soy from his feed. One thing he really works
on is giving the cows a high mineral level in their diet, so the milk therefore is higher in
nutrition for humans. The minerals he feeds are organic also.

Eventually, he is planning on replacing all his Holstein cows with with Jerseys or some
similar crossbreed--some breed that is more receptive to grass feeding than Holsteins.

He will also be starting to provide butter and cream as soon as he can get that up and
rolling. He has not decided on the price yet for those. He has eggs right now, pastured in
the Joel Salatin method for $3.50 per dozen.

John's raw milk will be delivered in Nashville every Saturday, from 9:30AM to 11:00AM in
the Green Hills area. The driver, Kenny Brown and his wife Cindy are considering
deliveries into Memphis, Chattanooga, and Knoxville, and also many places in between. If
you are interested in getting Kenny to come your way, or if any of you in Georgia would
like to get his milk, let Cindy know. She is trying to see if there are enough customers to
justify a trip. She would need an area coordinator to drop the milk off with, and leave it
with, so that they can continue on with their deliveries without having to wait at for
everyone to arrive to get their milk. If you would want to be a coordinator let her know
that as well.

The purchasing is structured as a private LLC buying club, kind of like a Sam's Club
membership, which will take it out of the the purview of the Ag. Department because it
will be a private buying club using private contracts--it comes under contract law and is
constitutionally protected. There will be a small premium to join--$30 annually. The
milk costs $7 per gallon. But it's not milk you're paying for, it is for his labor. That labor
comes to $7 per gallon. No money ever changes hands for milk, as SELLING farm fresh
milk is illegal in our states. It is not the milk we are paying for but his labor. One request
from John is, never ever put this price in writing to anyone, or his address and contact
info--just this posting is okay and personal emails to people you know.

The way it would work is that basically you would place your order online and then come
get your milk each week at the delivery point from Kenny. John does not have email or
voice mail. The best way to communicate with John right now is through his driver, Kenny
Brown and his wife Cindy Brown (cbmom4@hotmail.com). Their phone is 615-336-6024.

Thanks,
Shawn Dady
shawn@sunsetblvdstudios.com
615-336-2286



#469 From: "Mary Johnson" <mar@...>
Date: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:17 pm
Subject: Fwd: FDA ACTION AGAINST RAW MILK
mpmarus
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 




FDA HARASSES DAIRY COMPANY EMPLOYEES
Grand Jury Investigation is Latest Government Tactic against Raw Milk

March 24, 2008: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Special FDA agents and investigators from the US Food and Drug Administration aggressively interrogated two young female employees of Organic Pastures Dairy Company, the nation's largest raw milk producer, with questions focusing on the dairy's interstate sales of raw colostrum and raw milk for pet food.

The surprise interrogations took place after work in their private homes on the evening of March 19, just hours after Judge Tobias of the Hollister Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order against the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The state court ruling blocked enforcement of California's anti-raw milk AB 1735, which mandates unnecessarily stringent standards for beneficial coliform bacteria in raw milk. The temporary restraining order represents an important legal victory for raw milk producers and consumers in California and throughout the nation.

The federal agents threatened one employee with arrest if questions were not fully and truthfully answered about Organic Pastures' order fulfillment practices.  Her answers reflected information that is readily available at the company's website, www.organicpastures.com. The other employee was told FDA would "make it worth her while" to "wear a wire" and record conversations with Organic Pastures president Mark McAfee. The employee refused the offer. "We are like a family, I would never do that to a family member," she said, reflecting her close relationship with the McAfee family.

Both employees were served subpoenas to appear April 3 for a secret grand jury investigation. In 2003, Organic Pastures received a confirmation letter from Larry Childers of the FDA, which clearly stated that interstate sales of raw colostrum are not regulated because colostrum is not milk. The FDA website notes that "pet food" requires no pre-market approval and is unregulated by the FDA.

The Bronx Zoo in New York and other zoos regularly order raw colostrum and raw dairy products from Organic Pastures to save babies of endangered species and keep other animals healthy. Orders stipulate that the milk and colostrum must be raw because pasteurized versions make them ill.  Many veterinarians recommend raw milk for cats and dogs.

"FDA has gone on the record as 'hating raw milk' in any form," says Mark McAfee, founder and president of Organic Pastures. "The harassment of our employees and grand jury investigation is just the latest round in the government vendetta against Nature's perfect food. If Organic Pastures is doing something illegal, all FDA needs to do is come and tell us and we will make the necessary changes to our labels and procedures."

Organic Pastures will be represented in this action by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. Membership in the Fund helps support the defense of raw milk and direct farm-to-consumer sales.  For further information visit www.ftcldf.org.

CONTACT:
Mark McAfee, President, Organic Pastures Dairy Corporation, (55) 846-9742, cell (559) 351-2453, mark@....

Taaron Meikle, President, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, (703) 964-7421, tgmeikle@....


#468 From: Leah <leahrose@...>
Date: Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:46 am
Subject: Re: New Raw Milk Source Near Cullman, AL
queen3773
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I need to find a southern AL source too...Milton, Brewton would be fine...Mobile County, AL...Baldwin County, AL...or Escambia County, FL... anyone know of one?

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Deborah A. Lofink <dalofink@...> wrote:

Where is Cullman?  Does anyone know of a source within 30 to 45 miles (gas prices you know) of Brewton, Alabama or in Milton, FL?
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:37 PM
Subject: [AL_WAPF] New Raw Milk Source Near Cullman, AL

We have a new source for "pet milk" near Cullman, AL. They also do
chicken, beef, veggies, etc.
Contact me for a phone number if you are interested.

--
John Langlois
john.langlois@...
www.foggybottomwebdesign.com
www.foggybottomfarms.com



#467 From: "Deborah A. Lofink" <dalofink@...>
Date: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: New Raw Milk Source Near Cullman, AL
dalofink
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Where is Cullman?  Does anyone know of a source within 30 to 45 miles (gas prices you know) of Brewton, Alabama or in Milton, FL?
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:37 PM
Subject: [AL_WAPF] New Raw Milk Source Near Cullman, AL

We have a new source for "pet milk" near Cullman, AL. They also do
chicken, beef, veggies, etc.
Contact me for a phone number if you are interested.

--
John Langlois
john.langlois@foggybottomwebdesign.com
www.foggybottomwebdesign.com
www.foggybottomfarms.com


#466 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:37 pm
Subject: New Raw Milk Source Near Cullman, AL
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
We have a new source for "pet milk" near Cullman, AL.  They also do
chicken, beef, veggies, etc.
Contact me for a phone number if you are interested.

--
John Langlois
john.langlois@...
www.foggybottomwebdesign.com
www.foggybottomfarms.com

#465 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Sun Mar 9, 2008 5:16 pm
Subject: Organic Heirloom Seeds
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Those of you looking for Organic Heirloon seeds might appreciate knowing
of a local source.
See http://www.alabama-organics.com/ Mike Harper has beans, squash,
corn, watermelon, and a host other heirlooms that you won't find in most
places.


--
John Langlois
john.langlois@...
www.foggybottomwebdesign.com
www.foggybottomfarms.com

#464 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Thu Mar 6, 2008 2:33 pm
Subject: [Fwd: [RawDairy] Raw-milk law enforced for 1st time]
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

FYI,
John Langlois, Moderator

Raw-milk law enforced for 1st time

BAN ON DAIRY'S CREAM ANGERS DEVOTEES, INDUSTRY LEADERS

By Barbara Feder Ostrov
Mercury News
Article Launched: 03/06/2008 01:30:28 AM PST

When California's raw milk dairies learned about new legislation tightening safety standards for their unpasteurized milk and cream, they - alongside passionate raw milk devotees - bitterly lobbied against mandates they believed would destroy their business.

Now their fears are starting to be realized.

State agriculture officials have temporarily banned the sale of raw cream from the Organic Pastures dairy in Fresno, citing bacteria levels of up to 150 times the legal limit. They also have warned a Watsonville dairy, Claravale Farm, that it faces a similar ban if its raw skim milk or raw cream fails another inspection.

The ban marks the state's first enforcement of the controversial raw milk law that took effect Jan. 1. And it could reignite last year's fierce political and legal battles over its requirement that raw milk meet the same safety standards as pasteurized milk.

Mark McAfee, Organic Pastures' founder and owner, along with Claravale Farm, is suing to overturn the law. He says the action will help propel his lawsuit through the courts now that he is facing economic losses.

"I was actually looking forward to this day," McAfee said. "We're losing $10,000 a week on cream we can't sell."

Organic Pastures' other products, including skim and whole raw milk, aren't included in the sales ban and may still be sold at Whole Foods and other stores, said Steve Lyle, a spokesman for the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Raw cream already in stores also is not affected by the regulatory action and may remain on the shelves.

The sales ban on Organic Pastures' raw cream will last until two new cream samples tested within the same week meet state standards. McAfee said those tests were conducted on Sunday and Monday and that he's expecting results soon.

The cream that could not be sold is being made into butter to be sold at stores like Whole Foods, which carries Organic Pastures products, McAfee said.

Small, but devoted Although California boasts the nation's largest raw milk production and Organic Pastures is believed to be the nation's largest raw milk dairy, actual sales are small compared with the state's massive dairy industry.

Under the new state law, to avoid a sales ban raw milk dairies must pass three of every five inspections of samples of their milk products, including whole milk, skim milk, cream and colostrum, a type of milk produced by cows for newborn calves.

Before Jan. 1, raw milk was tested for dangerous bacteria such as salmonella, but dairies were not required to provide counts of other classes of bacteria.

Unlike pasteurized milk, raw milk is not heat-treated to kill bacteria that can cause disease, although it's routinely tested for certain disease-causing bacteria such as E. coli and salmonella.

Raw milk devotees consider it a healthy elixir, touting its ability to ease allergies, lactose intolerance and digestive disorders among other health problems. Public health experts, however, argue that raw milk is far more likely than the pasteurized kind to make people sick.

From 1998 to 2005, raw milk and cheese were implicated in 39 disease outbreaks nationwide that sickened 831 adults and children, hospitalized 66 and killed one, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

Mark Barbieri, manager of the Whole Foods supermarket in Campbell, said the temporary ban on Organic Pastures cream would not scare him away from his raw milk habit. He said he simply loves the taste and has confidence that the state agriculture department is diligently inspecting raw milk dairies.

"It's like drinking ice cream," said Barbieri, who favors Claravale Farm milk. "It's so sweet."

California's new raw milk safety standards allow no more than 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter, the same requirement for pasteurized milk.

Coliform bacteria include those that aid digestion as well as those that cause disease. Their presence is not necessarily a predictor of food-borne illness, but high levels can indicate a sanitation problem, said dairy scientist John Bruhn, professor emeritus at the University of California-Davis' Department of Food Science and Technology.

In one raw cream sample taken from Organic Pastures on Feb. 6, the overall bacteria count was 250,000 per gram, with coliform bacteria numbering 1,500 per gram - which Bruhn suggested could indicate a sanitation problem at the dairy. Milk destined for pasteurization, he said, should have less than 50,000 total bacteria per milliliter or gram.

Debate over standard Organic Pastures and Claravale Farm argued that the standard is impossible to meet. But Lyle, the agriculture department spokesman, said previous tests at both dairies last year suggested that the standard is attainable.

"The West is filled with states that have similar coliform standards, including Washington, which has a vibrant raw milk industry," Lyle said. "We think it's a reasonable limit."

Organic Pastures in particular has been beset by potentially harmful bacteria in its raw milk in recent years.

In 2006, five children were infected with E. coli bacteria linked to Organic Pastures' raw milk. Some suffered bloody diarrhea; others, kidney failure. The dairy is now facing lawsuits from two families affected by the outbreak.

The dairy's raw cream was recalled in September 2007 after listeria was found in a sample, although no illnesses were reported. Then, in November and December, state public health officials investigated reports of a campylobacter bacterial outbreak that sickened five people who drank Organic Pastures raw milk.

"The link appears suspicious, but it's just not something we can prove," said state epidemiologist Dr. Gil Chavez. "Our message still is that consuming raw milk carries a risk."

Bruhn wonders whether repeated reports of sales bans or recalls over potentially harmful raw milk may cause consumers to rethink their raw milk habits.

If the dairies are "having more trouble than success, then raw milk drinkers might develop doubts," Bruhn said. "Whether that will lead them to change their purchasing habits, I don't know. I know a lot of them are very dedicated to the product regardless of what the state does or says."

Organic Pastures' McAfee couldn't agree more.

"I invite (the agriculture department) to keep on sticking me in the ribs because it keeps increasing our sales," he said. "It stirs up the grass roots."

Contact Barbara Feder Ostrov at bfeder@mercurynews.com.







#463 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:39 am
Subject: Chelsea Green books
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Chelsea Green books Chelsea Green books
Dear John,

Chelsea Green has just published our spring/summer 2008 catalog, and we have several great new books that might be of interest to your Weston Price Chapter members. If you would like to order Chelsea Green books for your members, we offer a 50% discount for orders of 10+ books (any combination of titles) and 55% discount for orders of 100+ books (any titles).

A few of our new titles include:
Ø Renewing America’s Food Traditions: Saving and Savoring the Continent’s Most Endangered Foods (Available in May)
Ø  Roots Demystified: Change Your Gardening Habits to Help Roots Thrive (Available Now)
Ø  How to Store Your Garden Produce (Revised Edition, Available in June)
Ø  The War on Bugs (Available this month)
Ø The Flower Farmer (Revised Edition, Available in March)
Ø Sharing the Harvest: A Citizen’s Guide to Community Supported Agriculture (Revised Edition, Available Now)
Ø Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal: War Stories From the Local Food Front (Joel Salatin, Available Now)

We also publish the following favorites:
Ø  Wild Fermentation: The Flavors, Nutrition, and craft of Live-Culture Foods
Ø  Full Moon Feast: Food and the Hunger for Connection
Ø  The Revolution Will Not Be Microwaved: Inside America’s Underground Food Movements
Ø Mad Sheep: The True Story Behind the USDA’s War on a Family Farm
Ø  Natural Beekeeping: Organic Approaches to Modern Apiculture
Ø The Atlas of American Artisan Cheese
Ø Preserving Food Without Freezing or Canning

If you are interested in ordering Chelsea Green books please contact me. I would be glad to send you our 2008 catalog if you have not already received a copy. Thank you.

--
Michael Weaver
Chelsea Green Publishing
802/299-2422
802/299-2423 fax
877/696-5391 toll-free
mweaver@...
www.chelseagreen.com

Chelsea Green Publishing—The Practice and Politics of Sustainability. Proudly independent since 1984.


#462 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Tue Feb 5, 2008 11:35 pm
Subject: GA Bully Tactics
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Thought you all should see this.

John Langlois, Moderator



Hi All,
 
Lynn asked me to post this so that everyone is aware of the latest tactic the state of GA seems to be taking with respect to dairy.    They have stated that cow shares are their next target and last week at the Southern Dairy Conference they seem to have taken a shot across the bow.
 
The original agenda for the Conference included a segment on raw dairy and several dairy farmers were there from different states only because of that segment.  The fee to be there was $250.00 so they had paid their money and taken their time to come to hear what was being said about raw dairy.
 
The link to the original agenda is here http://www.caes.uga.edu/UNIT/ATHENS/documents/registrationmailingbrochure.doc    and you can see that raw dairy was indeed on the schedule.
 
Apparently the speaker for the raw dairy segment was Tim Roberts, Academy Farms from Calhoun GA.  Tim Roberts runs a cow share in GA.  
 
All of a sudden shortly before the raw dairy part was supposed to start the agenda changed and there was going to be no raw dairy discussion.   Instead someone other than Tim  Roberts took that time segment and spoke about organic (not raw) milk.
 
According to what Tim Roberts reported to dairy farmers there, he was approached by the State Dept of Health people right before the raw dairy piece was supposed to start and basically threatened.  He was told that what he was doing (cow shares) was illegal and that if he got up and spoke about that or raw dairy the state would shut down his dairy.
 
So he declined to take that risk and speak.
 
This seems to be the state starting to show it's muscle on the cow share issue.   As Lynn said, the state needs to understand there will be push back on this.  
 
It is really important that those of you who are farmers doing cow shares join the legal defense fund in order to have an added layer of protection and that those of you who are purchasers of raw dairy through a cow share or other means, also join the legal defense fund in order to support your farmers.
 
Alison 




#461 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Thu Jan 3, 2008 12:27 pm
Subject: Re: FW: help for this lady?
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Barb,

I suggest you visit the Alabama Weston A. Price Group on Yahoo.
John Langlois


Maneely's wrote:

I was hoping someone on this list could help this lady find some food!  Panama City is a VERY long drive !!   Thanks , Millie in PC
 
From: cmurphy
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 5:18 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] membership info

Hi Millie,
 
I just found your email address through the Weston A Price foundation. I have always fed my family the best possible foods available and after reading Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon felt inclined to do an even better job.
I live in Montgomery so not sure if a membership to the Whole Foods club in Panama City would work or not. I used to belong to one in Ohio but it was in my neighboring home town so very convenient. Now since moving to Alabama have had a hard time finding could nutritional foods. If you could pass along any info either with your membership or if you know of any such type of whole foods club in Montgomery I would appreciate it. I have emailed a couple on the list for Montgomery but have not heard back yet.
Thanks for any help or info you might have.
Barb Murphy
(334) 514-3402


#460 From: "Maneely's" <teamkaos2@...>
Date: Thu Jan 3, 2008 1:24 am
Subject: Re: FW: help for this lady?
mmaneely2000
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I was hoping someone on this list could help this lady find some food!  Panama City is a VERY long drive !!   Thanks , Millie in PC
 
From: cmurphy
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 5:18 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] membership info

Hi Millie,
 
I just found your email address through the Weston A Price foundation. I have always fed my family the best possible foods available and after reading Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon felt inclined to do an even better job.
I live in Montgomery so not sure if a membership to the Whole Foods club in Panama City would work or not. I used to belong to one in Ohio but it was in my neighboring home town so very convenient. Now since moving to Alabama have had a hard time finding could nutritional foods. If you could pass along any info either with your membership or if you know of any such type of whole foods club in Montgomery I would appreciate it. I have emailed a couple on the list for Montgomery but have not heard back yet.
Thanks for any help or info you might have.
Barb Murphy
(334) 514-3402


#459 From: Paulette House <paulettehouse@...>
Date: Wed Jan 2, 2008 3:57 am
Subject: FW: Yahoo! Groups: Welcome to AL_WAPF. Visit today!
ph74875
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I would like to join this group.  I found this site through Dr. Mercola's website.  I would like to buy raw milk product.  I am interested in better health.


> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 00:52:48 +0000
> From: AL_WAPF-owner@yahoogroups.com
> To: paulettehouse@...
> Subject: Yahoo! Groups: Welcome to AL_WAPF. Visit today!
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Welcome to the AL_WAPF group at Yahoo! Groups, a
> free, easy-to-use email group service. Please
> take a moment to review this message.
>
> To learn more about the AL_WAPF group, please visit
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AL_WAPF
>
> In order to protect the group from spammers, we require that you reply to our profile request.
> Please send me one paragraph defining your interest in the group.
>
> Upon approval you may start sending messages to members of this group, Simply send email to
> AL_WAPF@yahoogroups.com
>
> If you do not wish to belong to AL_WAPF, you may
> unsubscribe by sending an email to
> AL_WAPF-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> To see and modify all of your groups, go to
> http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John Langlois
> Moderator, AL_WAPF
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>



i’m is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference. Learn more

#458 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:51 pm
Subject: YEAR END GREETINGS, THANKS AND GOOD NEWS
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
As 2007 comes to an end, the Weston A. Price Foundation would like to
express sincere thanks to all its members for their enthusiasm and
support throughout the year. We've achieved many important milestones in
2007, most notably the establishment of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal
Defense Fund. It is also encouraging to observe the increasing
availability of raw milk.

In a December 20, 2007 report, Reuters lists raw milk as the number one health
issue in 2008.  And as we begin the new year, we can report excellent news on
the raw milk front.

OPTIMISM IN CALIFORNIA
We have the following report from Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy:

There will be no interruption of California raw milk availability in January
2008 or beyond!! California raw milk consumer voices have spoken loudly against
AB 1735, the sneak-attack anti-raw milk legislation passed earlier this year,
and raw milk will be protected in California!

Huge amounts of passionate grass roots effort combined with back stage political
activity and high-level meetings have occurred on the California raw milk
battlefront in the last three weeks. As a result, the course of California raw
milk history has been changed. The credit goes to the consumers....their voices
have raged!!

Three things protect your raw milk in California and as a direct result it will
continue be sold legally in the future. Consumers get the credit for the grass
roots uprising against AB 1735 and its biased, scientifically unsupported and
unfounded standards.

1.  Support from the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary of Agriculture has
dedicated himself to safe raw milk for California and declared that "AB 1735
standards will not act as a de-facto ban on raw milk." AG Kawamura, the
Secretary of Agriculture, made this statement adamantly and repeatedly at a
2.5-hour meeting held with representatives from Claravale and Organic Pastures
(the two raw milk dairies in California) in Sacramento on December 20th. He
pledged to review the 4-inch thick bound stack of documentation that was
delivered to him titled "AB 1735... Raw Milk--The Unheard Argument" and work
with us to ensure that raw milk would continue to flow uninterrupted. (That
document includes our most up-to-date version of the Raw Milk PowerPoint
presentation and our Rebuttal to the FDA PowerPoint presentation against raw
milk, both posted at realmilk.com.)

2.  A new law will be introduced in January reversing AB 1735. After an
investigation it was revealed and admitted that certain California Department of
Farm and Agriculture (CDFA) employees met with staff members of the Assembly
Agriculture Committee to place "eight special anti-raw milk words" into AB 1735.
These CDFA employees intentionally misled the legislature using erroneous and
false data. In addition, these CDFA employees had not been authorized to meet
with the legislature. The governor's office is supposed to review and authorize
all CDFA agency legislative matters and bills. This was not done as required by
executive branch and administrative policy and procedure. Instead, highly
misleading information was used to pass rapidly and secretly AB 1735 on a
"consent item" basis without discussion or open debate. Assemblymen and state
Senators who voted for AB 1735 are now very upset that they were misled, and
they support immediate repeal on procedural grounds. The attorney general's
office may eventually get involved because of this aberrant violation of
established process in furtherance of a "biased agenda that is far from being
consent item."

3.  The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is filing a lawsuit this week in San
Benito County. Part of that lawsuit requests an injunction which would legally
protect raw milk producers against enforcement of AB 1735 standards.  This
allows a deeper and more certain protection against AB 1735 until a new law can
be passed.

You have spoken and your grass roots voices have been heard loud and clear. Raw
milk is here to stay.  While the raw milk fight is not completely over (and will
not be over any time soon), the safety of the California raw milk supply has
been secured with multiple layers of strategic political, legislative and legal
efforts. Hearings will be announced as part of the new bill and the legislative
process that will start in January. The support and attendance of raw milk
consumers will be essential and welcomed.  Stay tuned!

Congratulations to the "raw milk grass roots" and the thousands of letters and
calls that made all the difference!  CA Raw Milk is SAFE from AB 1735 and those
that sought to eliminate this sacred healing whole food.

Action to take:
As we go forward....we ask that you take pictures of you and your family holding
raw milk bottles from Claravale and/or Organic Pastures and send them to the
governor's office and to your state  Assemblyman and State Senator offices.
Write on the picture, "Please support repeal of AB 1735." A picture of your
family is worth a thousand words. Pictures of you and your raw milk food choice
can not be denied. They are too personal.

GEORGIA
We have won an important raw milk victory in Georgia.  The Georgia Department of
Agriculture (GDA) followed North Carolina's lead and proposed a rule amendment
to the Georgia Feed Laws to require the addition of food coloring to raw milk
for animal consumption "which will render the milk charcoal gray in color" (the
sale of raw milk for human consumption is illegal in the state).

Opponents of the rule forced a public hearing on the proposed change by sending
far more than the required 25 letters (under the Georgia Administrative
Procedures Act) to GDA asking for an oral hearing. The opposition to the rule
surprised the agency. One GDA employee commented that an agency generally
receives only 5-10 comments on any rule change. On the proposed rule requiring
the dye, comments in opposition ran into the hundreds. The committee voted to
nix the proposal-an important victory. Thanks to WAPF chapter leaders Alison
Tyler and Lynn Razaitis, along with Alice Rolls, director of Georgia Organics,
for spearheading this success.

WISE TRADITIONS 2008
It's not too soon to start planning for our ninth annual conference, to be held
at the Hyatt San Francisco Airport in Burlingame, California, just south of the
San Francisco Airport, November 7-10.  The theme this year is "Life in its
Fullness." Speakers will explore the connection between nutrition and mental and
emotional health. We'll be posting details on our website as plans materialize.

SHOPPING GUIDE MAILING
Our traditional year-end Shopping Guide and funding appeal is in the mail-later
than we had planned due to a printing glitch.  The success of this mailing
determines the type of projects we can take on in the coming year.  Please
remember the Weston A. Price Foundation in your end-of-year giving.

The staff and board of directors of the Weston A. Price Foundation join me in
wishing you vibrant health in the year to come.

Sincerely,
Sally Fallon, President

#457 From: mike@...
Date: Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:38 am
Subject: Free Trade in Unpasteurized Milk by Ron Paul
mbortnick
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 
LewRockwell.com  
 * Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.
   
 
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul supports free trade in raw milk!

 
   
   
  Click the following to access the sent link:
   
 
Free Trade in Unpasteurized Milk by Ron Paul*
     
 
 
  SAVE THIS link FORWARD THIS link
 
 
   
Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email information from any Web site.
   
   
  *This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul422.html


#456 From: "Sandra Shattuck" <sdshattuck@...>
Date: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:33 pm
Subject: yoghurt and milk source?
sdshattuck
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I'm interested in a raw milk source somewhat close to northern Alabama. I'm in Huntsville and am willing to drive, share pickups, or whatever I need to do. Any ideas? Many thanks - Sandy



#455 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:22 pm
Subject: CALIFORNIA RAW MILK UPDATE 11-15-2007
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
UPDATE ON RAW MILK SITUATION IN CALIFORNIA

Your Donations Needed to Support Legal Action

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has agreed to research legal options to
overturn AB 1735, a new California law that mandates standards so stringent that
raw milk dairies would not be able to comply on a consistent basis. By
eliminating the major producers of raw milk in California and sending a clear
message to legislators in other states, this law will adversely affect the
availability of raw milk throughout the country.

BACKGROUND
The law, signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger on October 8 and scheduled to take effect
January 1, imposes a strict limit of 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter in
tests taken at the point of sale. All other states with the coliform limit of
ten for retail raw milk test at the bulk tank.  Since coliform bacteria rapidly
divide and multiply whenever milk is sent through pipes, the new law will mean
an end to raw milk sales in California.

Neither Organic Pastures Dairy nor Claravale Dairy, the two licensed raw milk
dairies in California, were notified of hearings on the bill.  Spokesmen for
both dairies have expressed opposition to the legislation, which they
characterize as a "sneak attack" on raw milk.

Most coliform bacteria are not pathogens but essential probiotic good bacteria. 
Both dairies have a superlative safety record.  Claravale has been supplying raw
milk to the public without incident for over 80 years; over 1300 tests carried
out at Organic Pastures since its founding in 1999 have failed to find a single
human pathogen.

ACTION PLAN

Spearheaded by Mark McAfee, president of Organic Pastures Dairy, consumers are
engaged in opposition to the legislation on three fronts

1.  Negotiations with the California Department of Farms and Agriculture and the
governor to overturn the legislation

2.  Lobbying and letter writing on the part of consumers

3.  Research into legal avenues to stop AB1735 in the courts.

ACTION TO TAKE

1.  Send your donations to the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation, a Section 501(c)(3)
non-profit organization whose mission statement and purpose is, in part, to help
save the nation's family farms by protecting the constitutional right of farmers
to provide their unprocessed and processed farm foods directly to consumers
through any legal means.  If everyone receiving this email would donate just $25
to the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation, we'd have the funds needed to mount a
powerful campaign. By donating to the Foundation, you will contribute to the
AB1735 Revolt and ensure that your right to raw milk and raw milk products is
protected. Go to

https://www.ptfassociates.com/secure/ftcldf/ftcfdonation_ab.asp

to make your tax-deductible donation. You may also send a check to

Farm-to-Consumer Foundation
AB1735 Legal Defense Campaign
8116 Arlington Blvd., Suite 263,
Falls Church, VA 22042

California stores that carry raw milk have said they will add to the kitty as
well. The goal is to raise about $35,000 dollars in the next few weeks to fund
very aggressive legal protection actions to stop AB 1735 via court proceedings
and subsequent litigation. Your donations can also help expose the parties that
performed this quiet and surgical sneak attack on your rights to eat the foods
of your choosing.

2.  Keep those letters coming to legislators and the governor of California. 
For contact information and sample letters, go to

http://organicpastures.com/contact_lawmakers.html.

Thank you for your help in keeping raw milk alive in California!

#454 From: Rob Lemley <rclemley@...>
Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 7:27 pm
Subject: Re: Raw Milk Under Attack in California
rclemley
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

I also noticed in an article about this on http://sfgate.com.  One of the excuses given for this action was to bring California law in line with Federal law.  There's at least one member of congress attempting to combat this insanity, plus he's running for president.  To my knowledge, non of the other presidential candidates have discussed these issues at all.  Here's what he says (emphasis mine):

Health Freedom

Americans are justifiably concerned over the government¢s escalating intervention into their freedom to choose what they eat and how they take care of their health.


The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to comply with standards dictated by supra-national organizations such as the UN¡s World Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA, has been assuming greater control over nutrients, vitamins and natural health care providers to restrict your right to choose the manner in which you manage your health and nutritional needs.


I have been the national leader in preserving Health Freedom.


I have introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies.


I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.


I oppose legislation that increases the FDA¡s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements.


I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.


[from http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/]

Read more here:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/58/free-speech-and-dietary-supplements/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/53/dietary-supplements-and-health-freedom/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/

----- Original Message ----
From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
To: AL_WAPF@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:57:26 PM
Subject: [AL_WAPF] Raw Milk Under Attack in California

Just in case you haven't seen this.

John Langlois,
Moderator

Collette, co-owner of Claravale Dairy, has asked me to post this to
all WAPF chapters. Please help us to save raw milk in California!

Dear Customers and Concerned Citizens:

As the owner of Claravale Farm, I would like to weigh in on the
recently passed AB 1735. We have been getting a number of questions
from our customers to which I would like to respond as well as the
press release from the California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA) and a letter from Nicole Parra (chair of the assembly
committee on agriculture) that was sent to our customers.

Many of you want to know where we stand on this new regulation so let
me give you our position up front: This new regulation and the
method with which it was implemented stink. If you want to continue
to be able to get Claravale milk or any raw milk in California you
need to fight this law with everything you have.

For many years now we have been telling our customers that there is
no conspiracy within the CDFA to eliminate raw milk; that the state
was actually very supportive of the product. We were dead wrong.
I'm sorry for having misled you. They are simply much more devious,
two-faced, and sinister than I could ever have imagined. The reasons
that they state for incorporating this new regulation are so
transparently false and the highly secretive method of its
introduction so obviously inappropriate that I think that there can
be no doubt that the CDFA is on a mission to hobble the raw milk
industry in California. Once again, our government is using secrecy,
lies, and half truths to advance their own agenda without having to
put up with the inconvenience of having to deal with the people who
they supposedly serve.

We already have an excellent and well constructed raw milk testing
protocol in California which includes bacterial counts and tests for
all of the pertinent pathogens. The state has not been able to shut
us down with these regulations not because the regulations are
insufficient but because our product is clean and safe. So now they
come up with a new regulation that contributes not at all to product
safety nor, at the bacterial levels we are talking about, to product
quality. Rather, the regulation seems to be solely for the purpose
of limiting the raw milk industry in the state to an insignificant
level that would be entirely inadequate to meet the demands of the
people of California for raw milk.

Our customers tell us that the CDFA has told them that we are in
favor of this law. In some weird-bureaucratic- alien-space logic they
say that since we didn't say anything against it we must be for it.
Of course we didn't say anything against it because we, like everyone
else, knew nothing about it. We didn't inform them that we were
against it because they never informed us of its existence. Let me
be clear: we are not in favor of this law.

According to our customers the CDFA has also told them that we are
already in compliance with the new regulation. As I understand the
regulation this is not true. While the milk in our bulk tank (where
the milk is held after it comes out of the cow but before it goes
into the bottle) consistently meets the new requirement, the milk in
our bottles does not.

The CDFA's main argument in advancing this bill is a public safety
argument. They state that coliform bacteria are a fecal contaminant,
that it is a danger to the public, and that they need this new law in
order to protect the public. This statement is patently false on a
number of levels as discussed below.

1. The coliform bacteria in our milk do not come from manure
contamination. I am so sick and tired of the CDFA telling people
that our milk is contaminated with feces. It is not true. Our milk
is not contaminated with feces. They seem to think that if they say
it enough people will believe it. It doesn't matter how many times
they say it, it is not true. I repeat: Our milk is not contaminated
with feces. The fact that the milk in our bulk tank meets the
coliform limits for sterilized (i.e. pasteurized) milk demonstrates
this fact absolutely and conclusively. At Claravale farm we have
been producing high quality, clean, safe, raw milk for over 80
years. We know how to milk cows. I would take exception to the
CDFA's statement that most coliform bacteria come from feces but
whether they do or not, it is an irrelevant, inflammatory statement.
Coliform bacteria exist and thrive without contact with warm blooded
animals either inside or out. It doesn't matter where most of them
come from. The coliform bacteria in our milk are not from this
source.

The reason why it is so important to the CDFA that you think that
there is cow manure in our milk is that they are trying to play off
of the recent hysteria over produce and beef illnesses due to
pathenogenic coliform. They are trying to create a raw milk hysteria
that will get people to support their bill. In other words, they
think you're not very smart.

2. Coliform bacteria are not a health threat. I know it's been said
before but apparently it bears repeating: Coliform bacteria are
everywhere in vast uncountably huge numbers. They are on every
surface of everything you touch every day. They are on the top of
Steven Beam's desk (I doubt that even he would argue a cow manure
source for those particular coliform). Every day we all (even non
raw milk drinkers) consume uncountably huge numbers of coliform
bacteria. Right now, sitting there, you are composed of more
bacterial cells, living on and in you, than human cells. The vast
majority of these bacteria are coliform. It is a sign of the times
we live in that most people consider what are probably the most
numerous and ubiquitous life forms on the planet to be some bizarre,
dangerous, anomaly. If coliform bacteria were dangerous we would all
be dead before we even got out of bed.

All of this is not to say that very high levels of coliform bacteria
in raw milk are good. They are not necessarily (see below) but the
assertion that coliform bacteria are a health threat is illogical and
untenable and demonstrates a disturbing ignorance of basic
bacteriology. The CDFA knows that this assertion is false but again,
they think that if they can generate hysteria by calling it a health
threat they can gain public support for a law which has nothing
whatsoever to do with public safety but which has much more sinister
objectives.

3. Yes, there are very, very, very rare pathenogenic forms of
coliform bacteria but because they are very, very, very rare this new
regulation does nothing whatsoever to aid in the detection of these
pathogens. There already exists in California an excellent testing
protocol for raw milk designed to ensure public safety. Among many
other things, these protocols include limits on the number of
bacteria which are allowed in the milk and specific tests for all of
the pertinent pathogens including pathenogenic coliform. Even in
the absence of tests for specific pathogens a coliform plate count
tells you absolutely nothing about the presence or absence of
pathogens. To try to argue that the new regulation is necessary for
the detection of pathogens given the already existing specific
pathogen tests is just stupid. It is as if the CDFA doesn't even
know why they do the tests they do. Under the new law the coliform
counts will be taken on exactly the same milk samples as the specific
pathogen tests. These specific tests tell the CDFA absolutely
whether pathenogenic coliform are present or not. The overall
coliform count is simply meaningless in this context. Again, the
fact that this new regulation cannot be used to ensure public safety
since it gives no additional data pertinent to public safety argues
for an alternate objective for the bill's originators.

The whole thing seems doubly absurd given the fact that, to my
knowledge, there has not been a case of pathenogenic coliform
bacteria found in raw milk (there have, however, been cases of
government agencies trying to pin pathenogenic coliform outbreaks on
raw milk dairies unjustly). The pathogens which are more likely to
be found in raw milk (salmonella and lysteria) won't even show up on
a coliform count because they are not coliform bacteria. But again,
it doesn't matter because there are specific tests for these
pathogens which are routinely performed by the CDFA.

The whole thing seems triply absurd given the very real food safety
issues in California. To put this much time and money and energy
into trying to outlaw a food which is demonstrably safe when there
are other food industries out there which are demonstrably not safe
seems to me to be criminal.

On one of the "fact" sheets given out by the CDFA there is a
statement about how high levels of coliform bacteria can affect milk
quality by causing off flavors and shortening shelf life. This is,
strangely enough, actually a true statement. This is why milk
processors pasteurize; not for public safety but to get an absurdly
long shelf life. At Claravale we take a different tack. Rather than
sterilizing our milk to preserve it so that we can warehouse it
before we finally get around to taking it to the store, we take the
effort and expense to get it to our customers quickly. Some of our
milk gets to the store within hours of coming out of the cow and it
is never more than a couple of days old. This is nowhere near enough
time for bacterial levels to come anywhere near reaching levels which
would cause the milk to be noticeably bad. The coliform levels
necessary to create noticeably bad milk are orders of magnitude
larger than the less than 10/ml level. Our levels are higher than
10/ml but our milk lasts a long time; certainly longer than the
purchase by date that we put on the bottle. Even though our levels
are higher than 10/ml we daily get calls from our customers telling
us how delicious and wonderful our product is.

With respect to the discussion here, there are three factors which
influence the growth of bacteria in milk: initial bacterial count,
temperature, and time. As I remember from my bacteriology courses,
because bacteria grow exponentially, temperature and time are vastly
much more important factors in determining final bacterial count than
initial number. Within the narrow range of bacterial levels we are
dealing with here, initial bacterial count is irrelevant. This is
why there are currently regulations on what temperature raw milk must
be kept at and the time we can hold it but not on initial coliform
count. Again, it seems that the CDFA doesn't understand why they
have the regulations they do. Whether we begin with 10/ml coliform
or 20/ml the results will be essentially the same. Time and
temperature, however, have a large effect.

As I have already stated we go to great effort to cut down the time
component. We also minimize the effect of temperature. While the
CDFA regulation on temperature is that the milk must be kept at 45F
or below, we keep our milk tank and cold room at 34F. This is why
our milk lasts so long. We start out at a low bacterial count
(although not as low as 10/ml) and then we keep the milk very cold
and get it to our customers very fast. Under the new regulation we
could actually legally produce milk that has a higher bacterial count
when it got to the customer than it does now by keeping it warmer and
using a longer purchase by date.

At any rate, with respect to product quality, this new law is
unnecessary and irrelevant. We already have laws pertaining to
product quality. Specifically, the product must be good within the
purchase by date which must be on the package. It is irrelevant how
the producer manipulates the above three parameters to get that
result. As long as the purchase by date law is enforced the customer
is assured of getting a good product.

In the CDFA "fact" sheet it states that the 10/ml level is the same
level used in several states including Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho,
and Washington. If nothing else does, this statement alone makes
their goal very clear. There are no raw milk industries in these
states. The regulations in these states were designed to hobble the
raw milk industry not support it. When the CDFA takes a law designed
to severely restrict raw milk production in one state and
incorporates it into California's codes obviously their goal is to
severely restrict raw milk production in California. In a classic
and blatantly obvious lie of omission, the CDFA does not tell you in
their "fact" sheet that the states of Connecticut, Idaho, and New
Mexico allow 50/ml in raw milk for direct human consumption and that
the state of Missouri allows 100/ml. These states have taken the
time to look at the science and develop rational, intelligent
regulations. They understand that using coliform levels to test the
functioning of a piece of machinery is different than setting
coliform level allowable in raw milk for direct consumption.

Several times in the literature put out by the CDFA they state that
they will be there to help us producers meet the new regulations.
Bull. It would have been helpful to have had some input into this
bill particularly concerning the specific allowable level of coliform
bacteria. It would have been very helpful to have had enough advance
notice to possibly be able to make changes to conform to the bill.
The fact that this bill was kept secret until there is not nearly
enough time to adapt (less than 2 months) demonstrates that the
State, in fact, wants us to fail. We recently completed a new dairy
facility at the cost of a million dollars. The CDFA was entirely
aware of this since we have to submit plans to them and let them
inspect the facility during construction. Had they informed us of
this new regulation we could have made changes to the facilities in
order to have a better chance of meeting the new regulation. Or we
may have decided not to build at all. Or we may have decided to
construct it to produce products other than raw milk. The fact that
they went ahead and let us sell our house and go into significant
debt to build a facility that they knew they were going to shut down
within a couple months of its completion indicates that they are
anything but helpful. Not only do they appear to want our dairy to
fail but they seem to want to totally destroy us personally.

Much has been said on the internet about the situation in
Washington. Washington may have about 20 producers on the books but
I don't see the state as having a significant raw milk industry. I
haven't researched the raw milk dairies of Washington but some have
called me for advice and I've heard about others. They seem
generally to be small goat operations that sell largely to their
neighbors. The packaging laws are also different in Washington where
they are required to bottle by hand, which means that they typically
pass the milk from the bulk tank through a couple feet of disposable
plastic hose into a sterile single use container. Contrary to what
it says on the CDFA "fact" sheet this is actually a much cleaner
process than using automatic fillers and cappers. (In fact,
California's machine capping law was not implemented for cleanliness
or public safety reasons directly but to prevent dairies from putting
milk in the customers own containers, which is illegal in
California.) Coliform contamination is a surface area phenomenon.
No surface is 100% cleanable. The more surface area the milk is
required to come in contact with, the more coliform will be in the
final product. The largest raw milk dairy in Washington that I know
about is about our size, however I don't know what percentage of his
milk he markets as raw. At any rate, both the coliform count law and
the hand capping law are used in Washington to limit the industry, to
keep raw milk production in the state small and insignificant.
Obviously you're not going to be producing milk for 50,000 customers
if you're standing at the bulk tank with a plastic hose filling each
bottle individually by hand. If we were to transfer that small goat
dairy model to California it would literally take thousands of new
dairies to fill the existing demand for raw milk. We just finished
building a new dairy in California. It took us 11 years and a
million dollars. No small goat operation is going to recoup that
kind of investment. Anyway, if you were to move these wonderful,
clean Washington raw milk producers down to California the CDFA would
shut them down because they don't conform to California's bottling
laws.

We are opposed to a coliform level regulation in raw milk because it
is unnecessary and ineffective in assuring a safe, high quality
product for consumers. All of the laws exist already which are
necessary to accomplish this end. That is why there isn't already a
coliform regulation for raw milk. It is irrelevant and unnecessary.
It wasn't an oversight on the part of anyone. A maximum coliform
level regulation for raw milk was purposely not included in the
code. For pasteurized milk the milk is pasteurized and then not
tested for pathogens. In raw milk the milk is not pasteurized but it
is tested for pathogens. Neither the coliform test on pasteurized
milk nor the level of 10/ml were developed to directly deal with
public safety issues. Both are used simply to see if the sterilizer
(i.e. pasteurizer) is working properly. That is why the regulation
has historically not been applied to raw milk. Raw milk is not
pasteurized therefore there is no pasteurizer to test therefore there
is no reason for the regulation. Once again, the CDFA does not seem
to know why it is performing the test it does.

While we think it is unnecessary, Claravale Farm would not be opposed
to a coliform regulation that was developed specifically with product
quality in mind. We think that a level of, perhaps, 100 cells/ml
would be more than sufficient to assure product quality, could be
obtained in farmstead settings with the application of good dairy
practice, and would allow for the continued production of raw milk at
current levels and above.

A couple of quick comments on some of the numbers on the CDFA fact
sheet and news release: The CDFA says that 25% of bulk tank samples
meet the 10/ml level suggesting that 25% of the milk could be sold as
raw. This is how that works out mathematically: 25% means that
three out of four samples are bad. The state condemns milk if three
out of five samples are bad. Three out of four is higher than three
out of five. At a 25% rate of good samples not a single drop of raw
milk will ever be bottled. The CDFA also states that 75% of the bulk
milk samples from the two raw milk dairies meet the new standards.
This may be true but it is irrelevant and intentionally misleading.
It suggests that, with the 3 out of 5 protocol, all of the milk from
these dairies could have been bottled as raw even under the new
regulation. As I understand the new regulation after talking with
the state, testing will be done in the final package, meaning that
bulk tank levels are irrelevant. With testing done in the bottle
virtually none of the milk from our dairy will be able to be bottled
as raw.

And yet Nicole Parra tells you in her happy letter that the
availability of raw milk in California will not be affected. Hmmm.

While the State of California would very much like to ban the sale of
raw milk outright it knows that this would be difficult to
accomplish. The tack that it has taken instead is to create a false
hysteria around the product concerning public health and then to
hobble the industry with unnecessary regulations designed to keep raw
milk production at a low and insignificant level. While the State
will then be able to say that raw milk is legal, because technically
it will be, it will not be possible to legally produce it on a scale
that will come near to fulfilling the demand for raw milk in
California. Believe me, this new bill will absolutely affect the
availability of raw milk in California and, regardless of what Nicole
Parra says, you will not be pleased.

If you want to continue to be able to obtain raw milk in California
you should fight this law with everything you have. Even if you are
not a raw milk drinker but want to be able to get fresh,
unadulterated produce or meat or, in fact any fresh food in the
future you should be fighting this law. This is only one additional
step in the State's campaign to pasteurize or sterilize everything.
In order to present a united front and not duplicate effort, or work
at cross purposes, we would suggest that our customers go to the
Organic Pastures website (www.organicpasture s.com) or
www.thecompletepati ent.com to find out what they can do to try to get
this law reversed.

Sincerely,
Dr. Ronald L. Garthwaite, BA, MA, PhD
Owner, Claravale Farm



#453 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 7:57 pm
Subject: Raw Milk Under Attack in California
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Just in case you haven't seen this.

John Langlois,
Moderator

Collette, co-owner of Claravale Dairy, has asked me to post this to
all WAPF chapters. Please help us to save raw milk in California!

Dear Customers and Concerned Citizens:

As the owner of Claravale Farm, I would like to weigh in on the
recently passed AB 1735. We have been getting a number of questions
from our customers to which I would like to respond as well as the
press release from the California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA) and a letter from Nicole Parra (chair of the assembly
committee on agriculture) that was sent to our customers.

Many of you want to know where we stand on this new regulation so let
me give you our position up front: This new regulation and the
method with which it was implemented stink. If you want to continue
to be able to get Claravale milk or any raw milk in California you
need to fight this law with everything you have.

For many years now we have been telling our customers that there is
no conspiracy within the CDFA to eliminate raw milk; that the state
was actually very supportive of the product. We were dead wrong.
I'm sorry for having misled you. They are simply much more devious,
two-faced, and sinister than I could ever have imagined. The reasons
that they state for incorporating this new regulation are so
transparently false and the highly secretive method of its
introduction so obviously inappropriate that I think that there can
be no doubt that the CDFA is on a mission to hobble the raw milk
industry in California. Once again, our government is using secrecy,
lies, and half truths to advance their own agenda without having to
put up with the inconvenience of having to deal with the people who
they supposedly serve.

We already have an excellent and well constructed raw milk testing
protocol in California which includes bacterial counts and tests for
all of the pertinent pathogens. The state has not been able to shut
us down with these regulations not because the regulations are
insufficient but because our product is clean and safe. So now they
come up with a new regulation that contributes not at all to product
safety nor, at the bacterial levels we are talking about, to product
quality. Rather, the regulation seems to be solely for the purpose
of limiting the raw milk industry in the state to an insignificant
level that would be entirely inadequate to meet the demands of the
people of California for raw milk.

Our customers tell us that the CDFA has told them that we are in
favor of this law. In some weird-bureaucratic-alien-space logic they
say that since we didn't say anything against it we must be for it.
Of course we didn't say anything against it because we, like everyone
else, knew nothing about it. We didn't inform them that we were
against it because they never informed us of its existence. Let me
be clear: we are not in favor of this law.

According to our customers the CDFA has also told them that we are
already in compliance with the new regulation. As I understand the
regulation this is not true. While the milk in our bulk tank (where
the milk is held after it comes out of the cow but before it goes
into the bottle) consistently meets the new requirement, the milk in
our bottles does not.

The CDFA's main argument in advancing this bill is a public safety
argument. They state that coliform bacteria are a fecal contaminant,
that it is a danger to the public, and that they need this new law in
order to protect the public. This statement is patently false on a
number of levels as discussed below.

1. The coliform bacteria in our milk do not come from manure
contamination. I am so sick and tired of the CDFA telling people
that our milk is contaminated with feces. It is not true. Our milk
is not contaminated with feces. They seem to think that if they say
it enough people will believe it. It doesn't matter how many times
they say it, it is not true. I repeat: Our milk is not contaminated
with feces. The fact that the milk in our bulk tank meets the
coliform limits for sterilized (i.e. pasteurized) milk demonstrates
this fact absolutely and conclusively. At Claravale farm we have
been producing high quality, clean, safe, raw milk for over 80
years. We know how to milk cows. I would take exception to the
CDFA's statement that most coliform bacteria come from feces but
whether they do or not, it is an irrelevant, inflammatory statement.
Coliform bacteria exist and thrive without contact with warm blooded
animals either inside or out. It doesn't matter where most of them
come from. The coliform bacteria in our milk are not from this
source.

The reason why it is so important to the CDFA that you think that
there is cow manure in our milk is that they are trying to play off
of the recent hysteria over produce and beef illnesses due to
pathenogenic coliform. They are trying to create a raw milk hysteria
that will get people to support their bill. In other words, they
think you're not very smart.

2. Coliform bacteria are not a health threat. I know it's been said
before but apparently it bears repeating: Coliform bacteria are
everywhere in vast uncountably huge numbers. They are on every
surface of everything you touch every day. They are on the top of
Steven Beam's desk (I doubt that even he would argue a cow manure
source for those particular coliform). Every day we all (even non
raw milk drinkers) consume uncountably huge numbers of coliform
bacteria. Right now, sitting there, you are composed of more
bacterial cells, living on and in you, than human cells. The vast
majority of these bacteria are coliform. It is a sign of the times
we live in that most people consider what are probably the most
numerous and ubiquitous life forms on the planet to be some bizarre,
dangerous, anomaly. If coliform bacteria were dangerous we would all
be dead before we even got out of bed.

All of this is not to say that very high levels of coliform bacteria
in raw milk are good. They are not necessarily (see below) but the
assertion that coliform bacteria are a health threat is illogical and
untenable and demonstrates a disturbing ignorance of basic
bacteriology. The CDFA knows that this assertion is false but again,
they think that if they can generate hysteria by calling it a health
threat they can gain public support for a law which has nothing
whatsoever to do with public safety but which has much more sinister
objectives.

3. Yes, there are very, very, very rare pathenogenic forms of
coliform bacteria but because they are very, very, very rare this new
regulation does nothing whatsoever to aid in the detection of these
pathogens. There already exists in California an excellent testing
protocol for raw milk designed to ensure public safety. Among many
other things, these protocols include limits on the number of
bacteria which are allowed in the milk and specific tests for all of
the pertinent pathogens including pathenogenic coliform. Even in
the absence of tests for specific pathogens a coliform plate count
tells you absolutely nothing about the presence or absence of
pathogens. To try to argue that the new regulation is necessary for
the detection of pathogens given the already existing specific
pathogen tests is just stupid. It is as if the CDFA doesn't even
know why they do the tests they do. Under the new law the coliform
counts will be taken on exactly the same milk samples as the specific
pathogen tests. These specific tests tell the CDFA absolutely
whether pathenogenic coliform are present or not. The overall
coliform count is simply meaningless in this context. Again, the
fact that this new regulation cannot be used to ensure public safety
since it gives no additional data pertinent to public safety argues
for an alternate objective for the bill's originators.

The whole thing seems doubly absurd given the fact that, to my
knowledge, there has not been a case of pathenogenic coliform
bacteria found in raw milk (there have, however, been cases of
government agencies trying to pin pathenogenic coliform outbreaks on
raw milk dairies unjustly). The pathogens which are more likely to
be found in raw milk (salmonella and lysteria) won't even show up on
a coliform count because they are not coliform bacteria. But again,
it doesn't matter because there are specific tests for these
pathogens which are routinely performed by the CDFA.

The whole thing seems triply absurd given the very real food safety
issues in California. To put this much time and money and energy
into trying to outlaw a food which is demonstrably safe when there
are other food industries out there which are demonstrably not safe
seems to me to be criminal.

On one of the "fact" sheets given out by the CDFA there is a
statement about how high levels of coliform bacteria can affect milk
quality by causing off flavors and shortening shelf life. This is,
strangely enough, actually a true statement. This is why milk
processors pasteurize; not for public safety but to get an absurdly
long shelf life. At Claravale we take a different tack. Rather than
sterilizing our milk to preserve it so that we can warehouse it
before we finally get around to taking it to the store, we take the
effort and expense to get it to our customers quickly. Some of our
milk gets to the store within hours of coming out of the cow and it
is never more than a couple of days old. This is nowhere near enough
time for bacterial levels to come anywhere near reaching levels which
would cause the milk to be noticeably bad. The coliform levels
necessary to create noticeably bad milk are orders of magnitude
larger than the less than 10/ml level. Our levels are higher than
10/ml but our milk lasts a long time; certainly longer than the
purchase by date that we put on the bottle. Even though our levels
are higher than 10/ml we daily get calls from our customers telling
us how delicious and wonderful our product is.

With respect to the discussion here, there are three factors which
influence the growth of bacteria in milk: initial bacterial count,
temperature, and time. As I remember from my bacteriology courses,
because bacteria grow exponentially, temperature and time are vastly
much more important factors in determining final bacterial count than
initial number. Within the narrow range of bacterial levels we are
dealing with here, initial bacterial count is irrelevant. This is
why there are currently regulations on what temperature raw milk must
be kept at and the time we can hold it but not on initial coliform
count. Again, it seems that the CDFA doesn't understand why they
have the regulations they do. Whether we begin with 10/ml coliform
or 20/ml the results will be essentially the same. Time and
temperature, however, have a large effect.

As I have already stated we go to great effort to cut down the time
component. We also minimize the effect of temperature. While the
CDFA regulation on temperature is that the milk must be kept at 45F
or below, we keep our milk tank and cold room at 34F. This is why
our milk lasts so long. We start out at a low bacterial count
(although not as low as 10/ml) and then we keep the milk very cold
and get it to our customers very fast. Under the new regulation we
could actually legally produce milk that has a higher bacterial count
when it got to the customer than it does now by keeping it warmer and
using a longer purchase by date.

At any rate, with respect to product quality, this new law is
unnecessary and irrelevant. We already have laws pertaining to
product quality. Specifically, the product must be good within the
purchase by date which must be on the package. It is irrelevant how
the producer manipulates the above three parameters to get that
result. As long as the purchase by date law is enforced the customer
is assured of getting a good product.

In the CDFA "fact" sheet it states that the 10/ml level is the same
level used in several states including Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho,
and Washington. If nothing else does, this statement alone makes
their goal very clear. There are no raw milk industries in these
states. The regulations in these states were designed to hobble the
raw milk industry not support it. When the CDFA takes a law designed
to severely restrict raw milk production in one state and
incorporates it into California's codes obviously their goal is to
severely restrict raw milk production in California. In a classic
and blatantly obvious lie of omission, the CDFA does not tell you in
their "fact" sheet that the states of Connecticut, Idaho, and New
Mexico allow 50/ml in raw milk for direct human consumption and that
the state of Missouri allows 100/ml. These states have taken the
time to look at the science and develop rational, intelligent
regulations. They understand that using coliform levels to test the
functioning of a piece of machinery is different than setting
coliform level allowable in raw milk for direct consumption.

Several times in the literature put out by the CDFA they state that
they will be there to help us producers meet the new regulations.
Bull. It would have been helpful to have had some input into this
bill particularly concerning the specific allowable level of coliform
bacteria. It would have been very helpful to have had enough advance
notice to possibly be able to make changes to conform to the bill.
The fact that this bill was kept secret until there is not nearly
enough time to adapt (less than 2 months) demonstrates that the
State, in fact, wants us to fail. We recently completed a new dairy
facility at the cost of a million dollars. The CDFA was entirely
aware of this since we have to submit plans to them and let them
inspect the facility during construction. Had they informed us of
this new regulation we could have made changes to the facilities in
order to have a better chance of meeting the new regulation. Or we
may have decided not to build at all. Or we may have decided to
construct it to produce products other than raw milk. The fact that
they went ahead and let us sell our house and go into significant
debt to build a facility that they knew they were going to shut down
within a couple months of its completion indicates that they are
anything but helpful. Not only do they appear to want our dairy to
fail but they seem to want to totally destroy us personally.

Much has been said on the internet about the situation in
Washington. Washington may have about 20 producers on the books but
I don't see the state as having a significant raw milk industry. I
haven't researched the raw milk dairies of Washington but some have
called me for advice and I've heard about others. They seem
generally to be small goat operations that sell largely to their
neighbors. The packaging laws are also different in Washington where
they are required to bottle by hand, which means that they typically
pass the milk from the bulk tank through a couple feet of disposable
plastic hose into a sterile single use container. Contrary to what
it says on the CDFA "fact" sheet this is actually a much cleaner
process than using automatic fillers and cappers. (In fact,
California's machine capping law was not implemented for cleanliness
or public safety reasons directly but to prevent dairies from putting
milk in the customers own containers, which is illegal in
California.) Coliform contamination is a surface area phenomenon.
No surface is 100% cleanable. The more surface area the milk is
required to come in contact with, the more coliform will be in the
final product. The largest raw milk dairy in Washington that I know
about is about our size, however I don't know what percentage of his
milk he markets as raw. At any rate, both the coliform count law and
the hand capping law are used in Washington to limit the industry, to
keep raw milk production in the state small and insignificant.
Obviously you're not going to be producing milk for 50,000 customers
if you're standing at the bulk tank with a plastic hose filling each
bottle individually by hand. If we were to transfer that small goat
dairy model to California it would literally take thousands of new
dairies to fill the existing demand for raw milk. We just finished
building a new dairy in California. It took us 11 years and a
million dollars. No small goat operation is going to recoup that
kind of investment. Anyway, if you were to move these wonderful,
clean Washington raw milk producers down to California the CDFA would
shut them down because they don't conform to California's bottling
laws.

We are opposed to a coliform level regulation in raw milk because it
is unnecessary and ineffective in assuring a safe, high quality
product for consumers. All of the laws exist already which are
necessary to accomplish this end. That is why there isn't already a
coliform regulation for raw milk. It is irrelevant and unnecessary.
It wasn't an oversight on the part of anyone. A maximum coliform
level regulation for raw milk was purposely not included in the
code. For pasteurized milk the milk is pasteurized and then not
tested for pathogens. In raw milk the milk is not pasteurized but it
is tested for pathogens. Neither the coliform test on pasteurized
milk nor the level of 10/ml were developed to directly deal with
public safety issues. Both are used simply to see if the sterilizer
(i.e. pasteurizer) is working properly. That is why the regulation
has historically not been applied to raw milk. Raw milk is not
pasteurized therefore there is no pasteurizer to test therefore there
is no reason for the regulation. Once again, the CDFA does not seem
to know why it is performing the test it does.

While we think it is unnecessary, Claravale Farm would not be opposed
to a coliform regulation that was developed specifically with product
quality in mind. We think that a level of, perhaps, 100 cells/ml
would be more than sufficient to assure product quality, could be
obtained in farmstead settings with the application of good dairy
practice, and would allow for the continued production of raw milk at
current levels and above.

A couple of quick comments on some of the numbers on the CDFA fact
sheet and news release: The CDFA says that 25% of bulk tank samples
meet the 10/ml level suggesting that 25% of the milk could be sold as
raw. This is how that works out mathematically: 25% means that
three out of four samples are bad. The state condemns milk if three
out of five samples are bad. Three out of four is higher than three
out of five. At a 25% rate of good samples not a single drop of raw
milk will ever be bottled. The CDFA also states that 75% of the bulk
milk samples from the two raw milk dairies meet the new standards.
This may be true but it is irrelevant and intentionally misleading.
It suggests that, with the 3 out of 5 protocol, all of the milk from
these dairies could have been bottled as raw even under the new
regulation. As I understand the new regulation after talking with
the state, testing will be done in the final package, meaning that
bulk tank levels are irrelevant. With testing done in the bottle
virtually none of the milk from our dairy will be able to be bottled
as raw.

And yet Nicole Parra tells you in her happy letter that the
availability of raw milk in California will not be affected. Hmmm.

While the State of California would very much like to ban the sale of
raw milk outright it knows that this would be difficult to
accomplish. The tack that it has taken instead is to create a false
hysteria around the product concerning public health and then to
hobble the industry with unnecessary regulations designed to keep raw
milk production at a low and insignificant level. While the State
will then be able to say that raw milk is legal, because technically
it will be, it will not be possible to legally produce it on a scale
that will come near to fulfilling the demand for raw milk in
California. Believe me, this new bill will absolutely affect the
availability of raw milk in California and, regardless of what Nicole
Parra says, you will not be pleased.

If you want to continue to be able to obtain raw milk in California
you should fight this law with everything you have. Even if you are
not a raw milk drinker but want to be able to get fresh,
unadulterated produce or meat or, in fact any fresh food in the
future you should be fighting this law. This is only one additional
step in the State's campaign to pasteurize or sterilize everything.
In order to present a united front and not duplicate effort, or work
at cross purposes, we would suggest that our customers go to the
Organic Pastures website (www.organicpastures.com) or
www.thecompletepatient.com to find out what they can do to try to get
this law reversed.

Sincerely,
Dr. Ronald L. Garthwaite, BA, MA, PhD
Owner, Claravale Farm


#452 From: "Tonya Lee" <webelees@...>
Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 12:38 pm
Subject: Re: I'm a New Member
webelees
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Welcome! This is a quiet group, but our moderator does a wonderful job
of posting events, sources, etc, and I've always felt welcome to ask
any questions.

There are also some other wonderful Yahoo groups that focus on native-
nutrition foods that have very active discussions (most are over my
head :), but this is the only (and best!) local, Alabama group. So
again, welcome!

tonya

#451 From: "Rob Lemley" <rclemley@...>
Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 5:17 pm
Subject: I'm a New Member
rclemley
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi,

I've heard about the Weston A Price foundation for years but recently
attended Sally Fallon's seminar in Auburn Alabama.  The seminar was
well worth it and I would recommend that anyone who has the chance
attend.  The impact of having Sally lay everything out and answering
questions over a 2-day period was excellent!

Butter, Butter, Butter seemed to be one of her mantras and I think
that butter is one of the most widely available and easy to get
"superfoods".  I have seen some GREAT results in one of my family
members serious health conditions (neurological) that I think is
attributable to the increased butter in his diet.

I'm looking forward to getting him started on butter-oil and cod liver
oil.

I'm glad to be a member of this group.

Rob Lemley

#450 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 2:16 pm
Subject: When Antibiotics Fail: Drug-Resistant Staph Infections—Can Anything Stop This Deadly Threat?
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 


I thought you might enjoy reading what Sally is preparing for the meeting.

John Langlois,
Moderator

When Antibiotics Fail: Drug-Resistant Staph Infections—Can Anything Stop This Deadly Threat?
 
Washington, DC  20016           November 1 2007
 
Wise Traditions 2007 Conference explores alternatives to ineffective antibiotics in the fight against deadly infections. Learn how you can treat these virulent microorganisms without the use of drugs.

For Immediate Release

Washington, DC/October 31, 2007—Recent reports on increased rates of antibiotic-resistant staph infections have health practitioners working in overdrive to find alternative solutions to ineffective antibiotics. The Associated Press recently reported that drug resistant staph infections were the cause of more than 94,000 serious infections and nearly 19,000 deaths each year.

“At one time these staph infections were only associated with hospital stays,” says Sally Fallon, President of the Weston A. Price Foundation. “Now new strains are showing up in pre-schools, public restrooms, and in people who have never been hospitalized. This is becoming a serious health threat.”

Successful nutritional and probiotic treatments for virulent microorganisms will be one of many topics on health, wellness and nutrition presented at Wise Traditions 2007, the eighth annual conference of the Weston A. Price Foundation, November 10-13 in Chantilly, Virginia (near Dulles Airport).

Key speakers include Mary G. Enig, PhD., a world-renowned expert on fats and oils, who participated in a recently published research project at Georgetown University. In the study, researchers demonstrated that a key component of coconut oil was more effective than antibiotics in treating virulent staph microorganisms.

Ms. Fallon, author of the best-selling cookbook "Nourishing Traditions" (with Dr. Enig) will present information on components of animal fats and traditional fermented foods that build immunity and protect against disease.

“The medical paradigm of the last century, which operated on the premise that the only good microbe was a dead microbe, is not working,” says Fallon. “It’s time to look at what recent science tells us about the beneficial role of microorganisms in the digestive tract and the immune-building components of traditional diets.”

Other speakers will discuss testing for nutritional deficiencies, strategies for digestive health, traditional remedies for childhood diseases and practical cooking and dietary plans.

The Weston A. Price Foundation is a nonprofit nutrition education organization based in Washington, DC, with over 400 chapters in the U.S. and overseas. The Foundation supports accurate nutrition information, principles of traditional diets, pasture-based farming, community supported agriculture and holistic therapies.

* * * *

ATTN MEDIA: For a media kit with books and more information and to schedule interviews call Kathleen M. Campbell; Campbell Public Relations; 877-540-6022; kcampbell@thecompletesolution.com






Dr. Mary G. Enig, a nutritionist/biochemist of international renown for her research on the nutritional aspects of fats and oils, is a consultant, clinician, and the Director of the Nutritional Sciences Division of Enig Associates, Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland. Dr. Enig, a consultant on nutrition to individuals, industry, and state and federal governments, is a licensed practitioner in Maryland and the District of Columbia. She has served as a Contributing Editor of the scientific journal Clinical Nutrition and a Consulting Editor of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

Dr. Enig has published numerous journal publications, mainly on fats and oils research and nutrient/drug interactions, and is a well-known invited lecturer at scientific meetings and a popular interviewee on TV and radio shows about nutrition. She was an early and articulate critic of the use of trans fatty acids and advocated their inclusion in nutritional labeling; the scientific mainstream is now challenging the food product industry's use of trans-containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. She received her Ph.D. in Nutritional Sciences from the University of Maryland, College Park, and is a Fellow of The American College of Nutrition, a member of The American Society for Nutritional Sciences, and President of the Maryland Nutritionists Association.

Sally Fallon is the author of the best-selling "Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats." This well-researched, though-provoking guide to traditional foods contains a startling message: Animal fats and cholesterol are not villains but vital factors in the diet, necessary for normal growth, proper function of the brain and nervous system, protection from disease and optimum energy levels. Now is its second edition, the best-selling Nourishing Traditions has stimulated the public health and medical communities to take a new look at the importance of traditional foods and preparation techniques, and to reexamine the many myths about saturated fats and cholesterol. The book places special emphasis on the feeding of babies and children to ensure optimal development during their crucial growing years.

Ms. Fallon and her colleague Dr. Enig are frequent contributors to holistic health publications. Their work is widely respected for providing accurate and understandable explanations of complicated subjects in the field of nutrition and health. Several articles on the dangers of modern soy products have generated intense controversy in the health food industry

Ms. Fallon is founding president of the Weston A. Price Foundation ( www.westonaprice.org) and editor of the Foundation’s quarterly magazine, as well as the founder of A Campaign for Real Milk(www.realmilk.com). She is also president and owner of NewTrends Publishing, serving as editor and publisher of "The Cholesterol Myths" by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD; "The Untold Story of Milk" by Ron Schmid, ND; "The Yoga of Eating" by Charles Eisenstein; "The Fourfold Path to Healing" by Thomas Cowan, MD; and "The Whole Soy Story" (February 2005) by Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD.

Ms. Fallon's most recent book, "Eat Fat Lose Fat" (Penguin, Hudson Street Press, 2005), co-authored with Dr. Mary Enig, includes three diet plans—Quick and Easy Weight Loss, Health Recovery and Everyday Gourmet—along with many delicious coconut-based recipes from around the world.

ATTN MEDIA: For a media kit with books and more information and to schedule interviews call Kathleen M. Campbell; Campbell Public Relations; 877-540-6022; kcampbell@thecompletesolution.com
 
Sally Fallon (safallon@aol.com)
The Weston A. Price Foundation
PMB 106-380 4200 Wisconsin Ave., NW
Washington, DC   20016
Phone : 202-363-4394

 

#449 From: "Mike Bortnick" <mike@...>
Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:07 am
Subject: RE: Meet Sally Fallon
mbortnick
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

Among other things, constant vigilance is necessary, as this from The San Francisco Chronicle shows:

 

 

   Mike Bortnick

 

 

 

Article:State's tough new raw milk standards upset consumers, f:/c/a/2007/10/25/MNM2SVJDN.DTL

Article:State's tough new raw milk standards upset consumers, f:/c/a/2007/10/25/MNM2SVJDN.DTL

Back to Article

State's tough new raw milk standards upset consumers, farmers

Friday, October 26, 2007

Claravale Farms raw milk is available, but a new law migh...Olga Eber, who prefers her milk unpasteurized, gets raw m...

Raw milk, as precious as mother's milk to about 40,000 California consumers, is likely to be tougher to find on store shelves come January because of a state law that the Legislature passed quietly this month.

For the first time, raw milk will have to meet a strict limit for coliform bacteria.

"It basically prohibits raw milk in California," said Mark McAfee, managing partner of Organic Pastures Dairy in Fresno, which produces most of the raw milk sold in California. He sees the standard as a stealth attempt to ban raw milk.

Raw milk advocates and milk safety authorities agree that most strains of coliform bacteria don't cause illness. Raw milk already is tested for the ones that do - E. coli, salmonella, listeria and campylobacter. The rest are part of the teeming culture of bacteria and enzymes that proponents believe make raw milk more healthful than pasteurized milk.

The raw milk standard was part of AB1735, a broader measure designed to align California milk standards with federal ones. There was no public debate over the bill, nor were the two raw milk dairies in California informed in advance. The bill won routine, unanimous approval, and the governor signed it Oct. 8.

The maneuver represents latest round in a struggle between raw milk's avid fans and government food safety and public health officials, who want all milk pasteurized. A Food and Drug Administration manager has compared drinking raw milk to "playing Russian roulette with your health."

California is one of just four states that allow raw milk to be sold in stores; 24 others permit sales directly from farms. The federal government requires any milk shipped across state lines to be pasteurized.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture, which inspects dairies and tests raw and pasteurized milk monthly, strongly backs the new raw milk standard.

"A coliform count by itself doesn't mean there's an organism that will make you sick," said Stephen Beam, the state agency's chief in charge of dairy food safety. But a high count is an "an indication of general sanitation and will lead you to solve a problem before it becomes a greater problem."

Several other Western states, including Oregon and Washington, have adopted the same limit, Beam said.

The food and agriculture department says the limit is reachable. About 25 percent of the raw farm milk the agency tests before pasteurization comes in below the limit of 10 coliform per milliliter, according to agency figures.

In preliminary tests over the last year, both of California's raw milk dairies met the standard six out of eight times, Beam said. Under the law, two bad results in any four consecutive tests draws a warning from the state, and a third out of five shuts down the dairy until it can demonstrate consistent good results.

McAfee said new coliform limit will be impossible for his 350-cow dairy to meet consistently because coliform are so common in the environment and in cows.

Besides that, he argues - and many raw milk consumers agree - that beneficial bacteria are a big reason people seek out raw milk. They believe bacteria help build the immune system and reduce allergies and asthma and that the good bacteria actually inhibit the production of bad bacteria in raw milk.

The new limit, McAfee contends, "is going to make the sale of raw milk very, very difficult if not impossible in California."

Organic Pastures sells $5.8 million a year in raw milk, cream and cheese, most of it in California. About 300 stores, including many Whole Foods supermarkets and San Francisco's Rainbow Grocery, carry the milk. It's also shipped to other states labeled as pet food, which is legal.

McAfee said, and the state agriculture department's Beam confirmed, that no illness-causing bacteria have been found in milk from his dairy.

But Organic Pastures raw milk has been recalled three times over the past two years, when state health authorities believed it had caused outbreaks of food-borne illness. Two involved non-fatal E. coli, but no E. coli bacteria was found in Organic Pastures milk, McAfee and Beam said. The third case, earlier this year, did find listeria in Organic Pastures cream; McAfee said he had bought the cream from another organic dairy.

The only other dairy that sells raw milk in California stores, as well as in farmers' markets, is tiny Claravale Farms, with 55 milking cows. It recently moved from Watsonville to San Benito County and has never found pathogens in its milk.

Claravale owner Ron Garthwaite said the new limit will make his job more difficult.

"It's hard to argue against a coliform limit," he said. "It's a contaminant, and if you are doing things cleanly, it shouldn't be there. But I don't know, maybe in six months I'll be out of business."

Most raw milk consumers, who already pay more for raw milk and can't find it in most stores, still aren't aware of the new law.

Informed of it by a reporter's call earlier this week, San Francisco artist Francesca Pera called it "pretty upsetting" and predicted it would drive raw milk drinkers underground.

Pera, who lives in the Richmond District, is the organizer of a 15-member buying club to purchase milk directly from Organic Pastures, both to save money and ensure their supply. Her family drinks it "mainly for health reasons," since her 16-year-old daughter was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease a couple of years ago.

"As happens in other states, people find small farms and buy raw milk illegally through cow shares," Pera said. "That's what we could be forced to do."

McAfee has vowed to fight for repeal and is talking with Assembly Agriculture Committee staff about a meeting next week.

He intends to stir up his customers - including, he says, actor Sylvester Stallone - to action, starting with a press conference Saturday in Fresno.

Whom to contact

Assembly Agriculture Committee chair Nicole Parra, D-Hanford (Kings County); (916) 319-2030

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger; (916) 445-2841 or www.gov.ca.gov

California Department of Food and Agriculture, Animal Health and Food Safety Services, Milk and Dairy Food Safety Branch;

(916) 654-0773

Organic Pastures;

(559) 846-9732 or www.organicpastures.com.

E-mail Carol Ness at cness@....

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/26/MNM2SVJDN.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

 

 


#448 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:57 pm
Subject: Organic Bytes: Organic Lawsuit, Toxics, Almonds, Frankecorn, & More..
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Organic Bytes #120: Organic Consumers Sue Aurora, Toxics, Almonds, Frankecorn, & More... Just in case some of you are not aware of the work OCA does, please see below.

John Langlois,
Moderator


Organic Bytes #120: Organic Consumers Sue Aurora, Toxics, Almonds, Frankecorn, & More...

Organic Consumers Association

Hello &;name;,

ORGANIC BYTES #120
Health, Justice and Sustainability News Tidbits with an Edge!


10/18/2007

Written and edited by Craig Minowa and Ronnie Cummins

IN THIS ISSUE

  • ORGANIC CONSUMERS SUE AURORA DAIRY IN 27 STATES FOR VIOLATING ORGANIC STANDARDS
  • ALERT OF THE WEEK: EPA APPROVES PESTICIDE KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER & MISCARRIAGES
  • QUICK RELATED FACT: WHO ADVISED THE APPROVAL OF NEW CARCINOGENIC PESTICIDE?
  • USDA APPROVES CHIP IMPLANTS THAT CAUSE CANCER TUMORS
  • QUICK RELATED FACT: WHO APPROVED TUMOR-CAUSING CHIPS?
  • SUSTAINABILITY ALERT: PRO-ORGANIC DRAFT FARM BILL UNDER ATTACK
  • ALERT UPDATE: RULE REQUIRING PASTEURIZATION OF RAW ALMONDS GOES INTO EFFECT
  • STUDY OF THE WEEK: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CORN TOXIN AFFECTING AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
  • QUICK TIDBITS: E.U. BLOCKS NEW GE CROPS -- U.S. APPROVES NEW GE CROPS
  • TALK ABOUT IT IN OCA'S WEB FORUM: NEW STUDY SAYS SOME MEAT EATING IS OKAY FOR ENVIRONMENT
  • QUICK RELATED FACTS: YOUR DIET IMPACTS ENVIRONMENT MORE THAN YOUR CAR



Aerial photo of Aurora "organic" dairy factory farm courtesy of Cornucopia Institute

ORGANIC CONSUMERS SUE AURORA DAIRY IN 27 STATES FOR
VIOLATING ORGANIC STANDARDS
Acting on behalf of organic food consumers in 27 states, class action lawsuits are being filed this week in U.S. federal courts in St. Louis and Denver, against one of the nation's largest organic dairies. The suits charge Aurora Dairy Corporation, based in Boulder, Colorado, with allegations of consumer fraud, negligence, and unjust enrichment concerning the sale of organic milk by the company. This past April, Aurora officials received a notice from the USDA detailing multiple and "willful" violations of federal organic law that were found by federal investigators, specifically not providing mandatory pasture access and bringing non-organic cows onto their massive feedlots. Unfortunately the USDA gave Aurora what the OCA considers a "slap on the wrist," rather than taking away the corporation's USDA Organic certification.

Commenting on this week's class action lawsuit, Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the OCA stated: "If the USDA refuses to properly enforce organic standards, then organic consumers have no choice but to act as their own enforcement body, using the courts to punish those corporations, like Aurora, that put profits ahead of organic integrity." Two weeks ago Aurora threatened to sue the OCA, Cornucopia Institute, and the Center for Food Safety if we didn't back off. Now it looks like Aurora will have to face the consequences of their "willful violations" of organic standards in court. OCA would like to thank the hundreds of organic consumers across the country who have joined in on this class action lawsuit. We would like to also thank the several hundred OCA network supporters who have sent us over the past two weeks more than $15,000 to carry on this important legal battle. But now we need your help more than ever. If you can afford to help us fight this David versus Goliath battle over organic integrity, please send us a donation now.

For more information on this historic lawsuit see: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7757.cfm


___________________________________

ALERT OF THE WEEK:
EPA APPROVES PESTICIDE KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER & MISCARRIAGES

On October 5, the EPA approved a new chemical fumigant for use on strawberries and other food crops across the U.S. The pesticide, methyl iodide, vaporizes quickly, causing it to drift far distances. Although the state of California has categorized it as cancer causing, and the EPA admits it causes thyroid tumors, the Bush Administration has been advocating approval of the fumigant for the better part of two years. In a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on September 25, the nation's leading chemists asked EPA not to approve methyl iodide without further scientific review. The chemical has been used to induce cancer in laboratory experiments and causes neurological and thyroid problems, as well as miscarriages in studies with laboratory animals. Farmworkers, families, rural workers, and the food supply will now be subjected to exposure to the carcinogen unless the EPA revokes the approval immediately.

Please take action now: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7580.cfm

___________________________________

QUICK RELATED FACT:
WHO ADVISED THE APPROVAL OF NEW CARCINOGENIC PESTICIDE?
James L. Connaughtonwas appointed by George W. Bush as the Senior Environmental Advisor and Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Before being appointed to this position, Connaughton was one of Capitol Hill's most successful lobbyists... for the mining, chemical, industrial and asbestos industries.

___________________________________

USDA APPROVES CHIP IMPLANTS THAT CAUSE CANCER TUMORS
Over the past couple of years, the OCA has reported on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a set of controversial, mandatory regulations the U.S. federal government claims to have abandoned to the states, but in fact is still pushing, specifically, in the 2007 Farm Bill. NAIS would require that all farmers and farm animal owners implant their animals with a computer chip, even those who just own a single cow, horse, chicken or other farm animal. Last week, the USDA approved the use of two new types of chips for the NAIS program. These same chips have already been planted in millions of pets and marketed to pet owners as an ID device to help find lost pets. Increasingly, these same chips are being marketed and implanted into humans. Evidence has now surfaced that a significant number of studies done in the 1990s revealed that lab animals implanted with the devices developed tumors. When the FDA approved the use of the chips for human implanting, these reports were never made public. In an interview with a retired toxicologic pathologist who studied the chips for Dow Chemical,"The transponders were the cause of the tumors."
Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7570.cfm

___________________________________

QUICK RELATED FACT:
WHO APPROVED TUMOR-CAUSING CHIPS?

The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of the original RFID chip's approval, was headed by White House appointee Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device's approval took effect on Jan. 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corporation, the company who designed the RFID chip. He was compensated by VeriChip with cash and stock options. In his public appearances, he continues to claim the chips are completely safe and urges all citizens get the implants for the sake of the health and safety of their families. To date, neither Thompson nor any member of his family has had the chip implanted.

Source: Associated Press 9/8/2008

___________________________________

SUSTAINABILITY ALERT:
PRO-ORGANIC DRAFT FARM BILL UNDER ATTACK

After a number of delays, the Senate Agriculture Committee is scheduled to take action on their version of the Farm Bill on Tuesday, October 23rd. Right now, many confidential negotiations and back room deals are underway in preparation for the Committee’s Farm Bill mark-up next week. Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) announced today that his draft Farm Bill includes strong provisions to promote organic and sustainable agriculture, conservation, beginning farmers and better nutrition. However, various sources have indicated that funding levels remain low for many of these crucial programs. With the Agriculture Committee set to vote next week, and the full Senate vote as early as the week of October 29th, NOW is the time to act. Please contact your Senators and ask them to support increases in funding for conservation, organic agriculture, healthy food and beginning and minority farmer programs.
TAKE ACTION:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7765.cfm

__________________________________


image parody
ALERT UPDATE:
RULE REQUIRING PASTEURIZATION OF RAW ALMONDS GOES INTO EFFECT
Despite massive opposition from almond producers, retailers and organic consumers, the USDA has implemented its ruling to require that raw almonds be pasteurized. The rule went into effect on September 1st, and since then, all retail outlets have been forced to remove truly raw almonds from store shelves. Consumers will be misled by this action as there will still be almonds on store shelves labeled as "raw", but they will actually be pasteurized. One of the FDA-recommended pasteurization methods requires the use of propylene oxide, which is classified as a "possible human carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and is banned in Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. Since the decision about the rule was made, Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, has stepped down. He is temporarily replaced by Chuck Conner. This may provide a new opportunity for reversal. Please contact Conner today to ask that the rule be suspended for 6 months while the public comment period is re-opened:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5227.cfm

___________________________________

STUDY OF THE WEEK:
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CORN TOXIN AFFECTING AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

A new study in the recent issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences indicates that a toxin in genetically engineered Bt corn is contaminating waterways near farm fields. The toxin is killing caddisflies which is a valuable food resource for higher organisms like fish and amphibians. This genetically engineered (GE) corn was approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a decade ago, but the agency never tested its impact on caddisflies, which are common insects in areas where these crops are grown. According to one of the study's researchers, Todd Royer, "I think probably the risks associated with widespread planting of Bt corn were not fully assessed." Since its inception, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has called for a moratorium on GE crops, based on a current lack of data regarding environmental and health safety.

Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7558.cfm

___________________________________

QUICK TIDBITS
E.U. BLOCKS NEW GE CROPS: The European Union has blocked the approval of a genetically modified potato and three genetically modified varieties of corn. Health regulators in several European countries expressed serious concerns about scientific data suggesting possible problems with the biotech plants. All of the proposed plants are already approved for use in the U.S.
Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7617.cfm

U.S. APPROVES NEW GE CROPS: The USDA has announced its plans to deregulate another variety of genetically engineered soybean. This will be the 71st genetically engineered plant the USDA has determined can forgo any and all safety and environmental regulations. The USDA will be taking comments on the proposal until December 4th.
Please comment here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7743.cfm

___________________________________

SURVEY OF OCA READERS:
IS IT OKAY TO EAT MEAT?
Researchers from Cornell have published a study that reopens the debate over whether it's better for the environment to be an omnivore or a vegetarian. According to the study, a low fat carnivore diet with a limited amount of meat, dairy and/or eggs is actually a more efficient use of the land. The explanation is relatively simple: if you are trying to sustainably produce the maximum amount of food nutrients on a plot of land, the high value soil is better suited for food plants, whereas low value land can create more food via grazing livestock or wild game than by planting crops. Researchers noted that the average modern meat eater consumes levels of meat and dairy that are nearly three times what would be considered "efficient". Although specific geographical areas may result in varying equations, the study's land analysis found that the amount of omnivore intake for environmental efficiency is 2 cooked ounces per day. That amounts to around the size of two decks of cards every three days. Learn more and share your opinions about this study in OCA's web forum. Please take our quick poll there too, so we can determine how many readers are vegan, vegetarian, omnivore and carnivore: http://organicconsumers.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=447

___________________________________

QUICK RELATED FACTS:
YOUR DIET IMPACTS ENVIRONMENT MORE THAN YOUR CAR

13 PERCENT = The percentage of greenhouse gases created by all trucks, SUVs, cars, airplanes, trains and other transportation.

18 PERCENT = The amount of greenhouse gases created by livestock production.

Source: United Nations

Moral of the story: If you are an average U.S. meat eater, reducing your meat consumption to 2 ounces per day is roughly equivalent to doubling your vehicle's fuel efficiency, in terms of greenhouse gas reduction.

_________________________________

FIND OUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN YOUR STATE
We have recently begun revamping our state pages to make them more accessible so that people can learn and share information about events, news, groups, and campaigns in their state. This week we've added an RSS feed so that you can receive your state's health, justice and sustainability news as soon as we post them. You will find an RSS link at the top of the news section. Help us make your state page dynamic and lively! Please take a moment to add an event, news story or green business by visiting your state page and clicking the “Become a news scout” link. To find your OCA state page, go to any OCA webpage and choose your state from the dropdown menu on the left hand navigation bar: http://www.organicconsumers.org/

__________________________________


******** support our supporters*********

INNOVATIVE NEW ALOE VERA PRODUCTS AVAILABLE FROM GOOD CAUSE WELLNESS

Aloe Vera Gel Flakes offer easy convenience and superior nutritional benefits to most aloe juices. The new Aloe Vera Drink Mixes recently introduced by Good Cause Wellness have been praised as the "best-tasting aloe vera gel I've tried yet" by Mike Adams in a review recently published at www.NewsTarget.com. Good Cause Wellness, an official sponsor of the OCA, offers Aloe Vera Drink Mixes made from a patented method that retains the flavor, color and nutrients of aloe vera better than traditionally produced aloe. The Aloe Vera Gel Flakes are easily added to water or a blended drink to deliver the incredible benefits of aloe vera. Good Cause Wellness offers three Aloe Vera Drink Mixes:

  • Aloe Vera100 - 100% Aloe Vera in a simple, delicious drink mix
  • Aloe Vera with Blueberry - Superior quality Aloe Vera and antioxidant-rich blueberries
  • Aloe Vera with Raspberry - All the benefits and nutrients of aloe vera plus great-tasting raspberries

To get complete details of these innovative new Aloe Vera products, please visit http://www.GoodCauseWellness.com

 

Please forward this publication to family and friends, place it on websites, print it, duplicate it and post it freely. Knowledge is power!

__________________________________

NOTE TO CO-OP AND NATURAL FOOD STORE SUBSCRIBERS:
Organic Bytes is a great tool for keeping your staff and customers up to date on the latest issues. Feel free to forward this email to your staff and print for posting on bulletin boards and staff break tables. You are also welcome to use this material for your newsletters. There's an attractive print-friendly PDF version of this available for free download at http://www.organicconsumers.org/organicbytes.cfm


_________________________________

ORGANIC BYTES is a publication of:
ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
6771 South Silver Hill Drive
Finland, Minnesota 55603
Phone: (218)- 226-4164 Fax: (218) 353-7652
__________________________________

Subscribe: http://www.organicconsumers.org/organicbytes.htm
Safe Unsubscribe: Change your subscription settings to receive Organic Bytes as plain text here:
__________________________________

 


 

 




-- John Langlois
john.langlois@...
www.foggybottomwebdesign.com
www.foggybottomfarms.com

#447 From: The Lee Family <webelees@...>
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:26 pm
Subject: free ground venison
webelees
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I have quite a bit of ground venison from last season that I need to clear out of my freezer. It is very mild tasting. It was mixed with some beef tallow before I could tell the butcher not to do that, but the meat is still mostly free-range and grass-fed. :) If you'd like some, just come pick it up. I'm in Montgomery. First come, first served, so call first.
Blessings!
Tonya Lee
334-356-7577


Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.

#446 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:12 am
Subject: [Fwd: CONFERENCE UPDATE]
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
SURPRISE SPEAKER

Wise Traditions 2007, our 8th annual conference, is fast approaching.  We are
very pleased to announce that Joel Salatin, pioneer of grass-based farming and
author of "Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal" will be our speaker at the
Closing Ceremony on Sunday, November 11.  He will also join us for the
Right-to-Farm panel discussion on Saturday afternoon, and will be available
during informal meetings of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.  The Fund
will be hosting soaked oatmeal breakfasts, with all the fixings, all three
mornings of the conference.

OCTOBER 1 CUT-OFF DATE
The cut-off date for advance conference registration is Monday, October 1.
Prices increase after this date. Space this year is very limited and we may not
even be able to accommodate full conference registration after that date.  Full
conference registration includes all delicious meals and the awards banquet
featuring Canadian raw milk activist Michael Schmidt.  So if you are planning to
attend the full conference (including all the delicious meals), we urge you to
register by Monday.

To register, go to westonaprice.org/conference/2007/registration.html.

HOTEL RESERVATIONS
We have added more rooms to our reservation block but it looks as though the
hotel will sell out for our event.  So if you are planning to stay in the
beautiful Westfields Marriott Hotel, don't delay in making your reservation.
Call (800) 627-7468 to reserve your room and be sure to mention the Weston A.
Price Foundation to receive the reduced rate of $145 per night.

For information on room shares, ride shares, baby care and the children's
program, visit westonaprice.org/conference.2007/.

SUNDAY EVENING BUFFET
If you are making travel plans, please note that the hotel dining room will be
open for no-host buffet dining on Sunday evening. (In previous years, the hotel
dining room has been closed on Sunday evenings.)

#445 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:52 pm
Subject: [Fwd: [SEDairyClub] NEW Source for raw milk and butter-TN]
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
FYI North Alabama seekers.
John Langlois, Moderator

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SEDairyClub] NEW Source for raw milk and butter-TN
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:05:59 -0000
From: peacepast <Peacepast@...>
Reply-To: SEDairyClub@yahoogroups.com
To: SEDairyClub@yahoogroups.com


Since we are closing down the dairy, we are referring customers to
Belinda in Jamestown, TN. She has grass fed cows and goats as well as
(cow) cream and raw butter. Her butter is $8/pound. Contact her
directly for more information. She does ship butter.

Bilherbs@aol.com

Jenny Drake
Peaceful Pastures



#444 From: John Langlois <john.langlois@...>
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 3:52 pm
Subject: [Fwd: [SEDairyClub] Fw: Sally Fallon Seminar]
jlanglois4816
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Here's a reminder.
John Langlois, Moderator


 

The Auburn Chapter of the
Weston A Price Foundation
presents
Seminar on
Traditional Healthy Diets
with
Sally Fallon
Author of Nourishing Traditions and
President, The Weston A. Price Foundation
 
Held at the Auburn Church of Christ
712 South College Street
Auburn, Alabama
 
Friday Evening September 28, 2007 
6:00pm-10:00pm
All-Day Saturday September 29,2007
10:00am-6:00pm
 
Friday Evening Lecture
The Oiling of America    The incredible story of the phony cholesterol hypothesis.  Find out how Americans have been manipulated to believe that imitation foods are good for them and real foods are bad.  Learn to recognize fraud in health research and the hidden agendas behind the push for lowfat foods.  Find out why our bodies are literally starving for butter and other high-quality fats.  Discover the true causes of heart disease and the dangers of cholesterol-lowering drugs.
 
Saturday Lectures
The Basics of Healthy Diets    Learn about the pioneering work of Weston A. Price and his studies of healthy nonindustrialized peoples.  Dr. Price's photographs graphically illustrate the effects of processed foods on human health..  Topics include the importance of fat-soluble vitamins, problems with a vegan diet, myths and truths about dairy products and the dangers of modern soy foods.
 
All About Fats & Oils    Confused about fats and oils?  Learn about the basics of fats and oils -- saturated versus polyunsaturated, trans fats, omega-6 and omega-3 -- and how to recognize misinformation about fats in the popular press.  Find out about the dangers of lowfat diets and how good fats can prevent aging and help us deal with stress.
 
How to Change Your Diet for the Better    Learn how to prepare your food for maximum digestibility, nutritional value and taste!  Apply the wisdom of the ancients in your own kitchen.  Easy ways to prepare breakfast cereals, soups and broths, high-enzyme condiments, thirst-quenching beverages and delicious snack foods...delicious, nourishing foods that kids will actually eat..
 
Advanced Registration by 9/18/07
FRIDAY EVENING
$10
ALL DAY SATURDAY
including Nourishing Traditions Lunch  $45
FRIDAY AND SATURDAY
including Nourishing Traditions Lunch on Sat.  $50
 
Registration after 9/18/07 and at the door
FRIDAY EVENING
  $15
ALL DAY SATURDAY
 including Nourishing Traditions Lunch  $50
FRIDAY AND SATURDAY
including Nourishing Traditions Lunch on Sat.  $60
 
To Register, Send Check or Money Order Payable to Auburn Chapter, WAPF
8141 Chambers Rd 22
Waverly, AL 36879
 
For more information, call
(334) 821-8063
 
Don't miss this rare opportunity to learn about the principles of healthy diets for all members of the family.  This is your chance to find out...
    ...why animal fats are good for you
    ...why cholesterol is your best friend
    ...the dangers of soy foods
    ...about foods that give limitless energy and vibrant health.
 
 
 



#443 From: "Tonya Lee" <webelees@...>
Date: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:38 am
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [WAPFchapterleaders] Anti Cancer Soup]
webelees
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I found it at my regular grocery store in the Asian food section. I've
used it in recipes, and it's fishy (not a surprise), but tends to
impart a wonderful, light flavor to dishes.
tonya

#442 From: Grayson Long <gclong4@...>
Date: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [WAPFchapterleaders] Anti Cancer Soup]
gclong4
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I bought fish sauce at the reg.grocery store -not sure which one. It was in the condiment aisle. Haven't dared to use it yet!


 "The Bible calls debt a curse and children a blessing.
But in our culture, we apply for a curse and reject blessings.
Something is wrong with this picture." Doug Phillips, Vision Forum
Ministries


Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!

Messages 442 - 471 of 607   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Advanced
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help