http://www.ajc.com/living/content/printedition/2007/10/02/rawmilk1002.html


By Elizabeth Lee
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 10/02/07

Gray milk sounds about as appetizing as moldy bread.

And that's the idea. To discourage people from drinking raw milk, the Georgia Department of Agriculture is considering requiring farmers to dye unpasteurized milk. Raw milk lovers are organizing to fight the proposal, which is up for a decision on Oct. 25.

Raw milk can be sold as pet food in Georgia, if it is labeled appropriately. But a growing number of people are buying the milk to drink themselves, to give to their children or to use in cheese-making.

That has put raw milk drinkers on a collision course with federal health officials, who launched a campaign this spring to discourage consuming unpasteurized milk, which can contain disease-causing bacteria. After a small outbreak of campylobacter infections this summer traced to raw milk in northwest Georgia, state officials also warned against consuming the product.

The milk is increasingly popular, especially with those who are embracing local agricultural products or who believe that unpasteurized milk offers health benefits. That claim is disputed by medical groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as the Food and Drug Administration.

Raw milk is available through some weekly deliveries and at a farmers market in metro Atlanta, and is on the shelves of at least one grocery store.

The agriculture department proposal, which went out to pet dairy farmers last week, also calls for adding a label warning about the health risks of raw milk. The dye is a safe additive, Commissioner Tommy Irvin said.

"I think you should drink pasteurized milk, as I do," Irvin said on Monday.

A growing number of people, led by the Weston A. Price Foundation, disagree. The Washington, D.C.-based foundation, which runs a campaign to promote raw milk, is fighting a similar new rule in North Carolina and vows to oppose any changes in Georgia.

"This is such a waste of the taxpayers' money," said Sally Fallon, foundation president.

Georgia Organics also plans to fight the dyed milk, although it doesn't object to a new warning label.

"Who wants to drink gray milk?" said Executive Director Alice Rolls, who pointed to the pet food labeling as enough of a deterrent. "We already have something in place that's meant to be a warning."

Rolls would like Georgia to move to a system similar to South Carolina's, which allows on-farm sales of raw milk for human consumption at dairies that go through state safety checks.

"There is risk involved, but there is a risk involved in eating foods with pesticides in them," Rolls said. "Where do you draw the line?"

Raw milk was linked to 45 outbreaks of food-borne illness between 1998 and 2005, with 1,007 illnesses and two deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The FDA does not allow sales of raw milk in interstate commerce, but leaves it up to individual states to handle those sales within their borders. About half of the states allow it in some form, according to the Price Foundation.

The agriculture department is accepting comments through Oct. 24. The department will make its decision on Oct. 25.

To read the proposed changes and find out how to comment:
http://agr.georgia.gov/00/article/0,2086,38902732_39815994_92569439,00.html

Got Raw Milk? Be Very Quiet
Tuesday, Mar. 13, 2007 By WENDY COLE/CHICAGO


http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1598525,00.html


Richard Hebron, 41, was driving along an anonymous stretch of highway near Ann Arbor, Mich., last October when state cops pulled him over, ordered him to put his hands on the hood of his mud-splattered truck and seized its contents: 453 gal. of milk.

Yes, milk. Raw, unpasteurized milk. To supply a small but growing market among health-conscious city and suburban dwellers for milk taken straight from the udder, Hebron was dealing the stuff on behalf of a farming cooperative he runs in southwestern Michigan. An undercover agricultural investigator had infiltrated the co-op as part of a sting operation that resulted in the seizure of $7,000 worth of fresh-food items, including 35 lbs. of raw butter, 29 qt. of cream and all those gallons of the suspicious white liquid. Although Hebron's home office was searched and his computer seized, no charges have been filed. "When they tested the milk, they couldn't find any problems with it," says Hebron. "It seems like they're just looking for some way to shut us down."

People have been drinking raw milk for a long time, of course — at least since sheep and goats were domesticated in the 8th or 9th century B.C. Raw milk is rich in protein and fat, and milk from cows became a staple of the American diet in colonial times. When milk leaves the animal, however, it can also contain any number of pathogens, which is why most doctors consider pasteurization — subjecting milk to a short burst of heat followed by rapid cooling — one of the great public-health success stories of the 20th century. By eliminating most of the pathogens that cause disease, including E. coli, salmonella and listeria, they say, pasteurization has helped lower infectious-disease rates in the U.S. more than 90% over the past century.

Raw-milk enthusiasts have a different perspective. They insist that along with the bad pathogens, heat-treating milk destroys beneficial bacteria, proteins and enzymes that aid in digestion. Some people with a history of digestive-tract problems, such as Crohn's disease, swear by the curative powers of unpasteurized milk. Others praise its nutritional value and its ability to strengthen the immune system. "I have seen so many of my patients recover their health with raw milk that I perceive this as one of the most profoundly healthy foods you can consume," says Dr. Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician and author who rails against the medical establishment on his website, mercola.com.

You might think raw milk would be a tough sell after the Taco Bell and bagged-spinach E. coli scares. After all, even the healthiest grass-fed cows tromp around in mud and fecal matter and carry all manner of bacteria with them into the milking parlor. Between 1990 and 2004, U.S. health authorities traced 168 disease outbreaks to dairy products; nearly a third were linked to unpasteurized items, according to the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. But in fact, demand for raw milk seems to be rising faster than cream in an unhomogenized gallon jug. Hebron's dairy co-op has no shortage of customers willing to pay a premium for milk that hasn't been processed. A California dairy producer estimates that 100,000 Californians drink raw milk every week.

All of which has created a simmering problem for health officials. While the U.S. has no laws against gulping milk straight from cows, the government's stance on controlling the sale of raw milk is far murkier. The Food and Drug Administration, which recently determined that it's safe to drink the milk of cloned cows, takes a tougher stand on unprocessed milk. It banned interstate sales of raw milk 20 years ago but left it up to individual states to decide what to do about commerce within their borders. The result is a hodgepodge of conflicting rules and loopholes big enough to drive a milk truck through. While 23 states, including Michigan, officially prohibit raw-milk sales for human consumption, the rest allow money to exchange hands under certain conditions. In California, raw dairy products are available in grocery stores, while Illinois consumers can buy them directly from farms if they bring their own containers. An increasingly popular arrangement designed to circumvent state restrictions is a so-called herd-sharing program, like Hebron's, which requires members to, in effect, lease a portion of a cow — for $20 a year, in his case — and sign an agreement opposing "all governmental standards for food, preparation, storage and safety." The $6.25-per-gal. charge is technically not a sale but compensation to cover board and transport costs.

Some raw advocates believe it's the emergence of these cow-sharing schemes in the past few years that has prompted state agriculture officials to crack down. Columbus, Ohio, attorney David G. Cox says he has represented six raw-dairy producers over the past year for alleged illegal sales, some of whom have been in business for decades without incident. "There seems to be an orchestrated effort to dry up the supply," he says. "I suspect that conventional dairy producers are concerned that if [raw milk] were widely available and people got sick, all milk would get a bad name and the whole industry would suffer."

What raw milk fans most resent is stepped-up efforts to crack down on a personal choice that wasn't doing anyone else any harm. "There are 65,000 child-porn websites," asks indignant co-op member Nancy Sanders, a pediatric nurse and mother of five from Des Plaines, Ill. "Why doesn't the government go after those?"

Meanwhile, farmer Hebron says he won't be spooked by Michigan authorities. Back in business a week after his goods were seized, he's become a cause celebre of the raw movement. After an Ann Arbor retailer he worked with was served a cease-and-desist order, a co-op member offered her nearby home as a new pickup site. Meanwhile, some of Hebron's clients in Michigan and Illinois have been flooding the fax machines of state agriculture officials to protest the treatment of the mild-mannered dairyman. In Feburary, the Amish farmer who supplies Hebron's co-op with raw milk received a warning letter from the FDA about potential interstate commerce violations. Hebron met with federal officials in Detroit on March 6th to defend the legality of herd-sharing arrangments, and is adamant about continuing his milk runs.
Recently, Hebron parked his truck in front of a North Side Chicago health-food store and began carrying crates filled with brown eggs and pasture-raised beef and pork into the shop for co-op members. He had to distribute the milk, however, out of the back of his truck — a rule the store's owner, Paula Campanio, reluctantly imposed after the raid. "I'm trying to be discreet," she says. "When I see a police car go by, I'm convinced they're coming for me." Demand from her customers for the milk is strong enough that she's willing to take the risk, but she's hoping that keeping the stuff out of her premises will make her a tad less culpable. Got raw milk? Shhhhh.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A160975


SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
A gray market for raw milk?

BY SUZANNE NELSON


Contraband raw milk
Photo by Rex Miller
Earlier this month, the N.C. Board of Agriculture voted unanimously to adopt a rule that requires the addition of gray dye to all unpasteurized milk sold in the state. Currently, unprocessed milk can be legally sold in North Carolina only if it is labeled "pet milk."

Fresh, unprocessed milk is legally sold in a number of states, including South Carolina, and a growing cadre of fans tout its health attributes, but the state health and agriculture departments both adamantly oppose its sale. An underground market has developed to procure it directly from farmers, many of whom label it "pet milk" to stay within the letter of the law. (See "Drink it raw," June 20.)

Assistant Commissioner of Agriculture David McLeod said the rule was designed to discourage that practice.

Unless it is successfully challenged, the rule will go into effect on Nov. 1. Raw milk advocates have been collecting citizen letters to push the rulemaking into legislative review, which would delay adoption of the rule until lawmakers would have a chance to block it next spring.

That's also when the House is likely to take up a bill to legalize what are known as "dairy shares," whereby individuals pay the farmer the agriculture equivalent of room and board and then have a right to their own cow's milk. Such contractual agreements were legal in North Carolina until 2004. The Senate passed legislation to re-legalize dairy shares by a vote of 39-9 in May.


http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/2007/10/articles/raw-milk/dyed-raw-milk-no...


Dyed raw milk: Not without a fight
Posted on October 4, 2007 by Brae Surgeoner

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today reports that the proposal to start dyeing raw milk to discourage human consumption has stirred up enough opposition that the Georgia Department of Agriculture has decided to hold a public hearing on Nov. 2.

Pet dairy farmers and raw milk lovers are said to be fighting the dye proposal and seeking legislative help. Originally, the department planned to take written comments and issue new rules on Oct. 25.

The hearing starts at 9 a.m. Nov. 2 in Room 201 of the Agriculture Building, 19 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Atlanta.


Give me your best yuck face
Posted on October 1, 2007 by Brae Surgeoner

Elizabeth Lee today reports in the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that to discourage people from drinking raw milk, the Georgia Department of Agriculture is proposing dyeing it charcoal gray.

The story says that raw milk can be sold as pet food in Georgia, if it is labeled appropriately. But it's no secret that people buy the unpasteurized milk to drink themselves, to give to their children or to use in cheese-making.

The department, which notified pet dairy farmers of proposed changes Sept. 24, is said to be committed to making the change, although it is asking for comments through Oct. 24 and will make its decision Oct. 25.

Last month, the Greensboro News and Record reported on a new rule approved by the state Board of Agriculture in North Carolina outlining that unpasteurized milk sold as pet food must be dyed a charcoal-gray color and labeled as not for human consumption. The story explained that the charcoal color was chosen to clearly differentiate the product from standard milk and make raw milk unappealing to children.
Will charcoal dyeing catch on in other states where raw milk sales are permitted for animal consumption - Florida? Indiana?

=============================================


http://agr.georgia.gov/00/article/0,2086,38902732_39815994_92569439,00.html

Notice is hereby given that the Georgia Department of Agriculture will consider the adoption of amendments to rules relating to the Georgia Feed Laws

October 2, 2007

To all interested persons and parties:

Notice is hereby given that the Georgia Department of Agriculture will consider the adoption of amendments to rules relating to the Georgia Feed Laws on Friday, November 2, 2007, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon in Room 201, of the Agriculture Building, 19 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Atlanta, Georgia.

Synopsis and Main Features:

The new rules update published references for feed ingredient listings and analytical variations. Rule provisions are added to establish guidelines for regulating the distribution of raw milk for use as commercial feed and pet food and specialty pet food. Flavor designation guidelines for pet food and specialty pet food are modified to conform to AAFCO current regulations. The synopsis of individual rules follows.

Rule 40-5-2-.01 (f) 1 & 2 removes reference to a specific edition of Official Publication of the AAFCO. The 1992 Official Publication is no longer accurate and authoritative and the new wording eliminates out of date reference source.

Rule 40-5-2-.02 (10) establishes requirement that the product name for raw milk for commercial feed identify the species of animal from which the raw milk is collected. Such labeling would more fully inform the buyer of source of milk being purchased.

Rule 40-5-2-.04 (1) removes reference to a specific edition of Official Publication of the AAFCO. The 1992 Official Publication is no longer accurate and authoritative and the new wording eliminates out of date reference source.

Rule 40-5-2-.05 (4) establishes requirement for labeling raw milk for commercial feed with precautionary statement. This is necessary because milk sold for animal feed should not be consumed by humans due to numerous bacteria found in unpasteurized milk.

Rule 40-5-4-.01(3) establishes requirement that raw milk used for commercial feed be decharacterized by using coloring which will act as a distinguishing identifier.


Rule 40-5-8-.02 (18) establishes requirement for labeling raw milk for pets and specialty pets with precautionary statement. This is necessary because milk sold for animal feed should not be consumed by humans due to numerous bacteria found in unpasteurized milk.

Rule 40-5-8-.03 (1) removes outdated standards used as basis of flavor designation for pet food to conform to the current AAFCO Official Publication.

Rule 40-5-8-.03 (8) establishes requirement that the product name for raw milk for pets and specialty pets identify the species of animal from which the raw milk is collected. Such labeling would more fully inform the buyer of source of milk being purchased.

Rule 40-5-8-.06 (2) establishes requirement that raw milk used for pets and specialty pets be decharacterized by using coloring which will act as a distinguishing identifier.

Rule 40-5-9-.01 removes "1992" and,"and supplements thereto". The 1992 Official Publication is no longer accurate and authoritative and the new wording eliminates out of date reference source.

Interested individuals may submit written comments concerning the proposed rules by mail or facsimile to:

Ms. Julie Hester
Assistant to Division Director
Georgia Department of Agriculture
19 MLK Jr. Drive Room 601
Atlanta, GA 30334
Fax Number – 404-463-6670

Written comments must be received prior to the close of business (4:30 p.m. EDT) on Thursday, November 1. 2007.