Temperance, Tea Parties, and Raw Milk

“Never again will any political party ignore the protests of the church and the moral forces of the state.”

-Wayne B. Wheeler, as quoted in Smithsonian, May 2010*

The godfather of prohibition did not wait until he had a majority behind his cause when he began his Temperance crusade. He did it – according to Daniel Okrent’s illuminating article in the May 2010 issue of Smithsonian – with minorities.

Wheeler focused on elections in districts where just a few percentage points separated the candidates, and mustered the temperance vote behind candidates who promised to support prohibition. His small groups of committed voters often were enough to swing close elections. Wayne Wheeler may not have invented pressure groups, but he was the first to use them effectively to gain a specific political objective in the face of a majority that was either opposed – or indifferent – to his aims.

The Tea Party movement has benefited from Wayne Wheeler’s lessons. Its members are among the most conservative elements of the US population. They represent the political opinion of a minority of the country’s citizens. They are, arguably, a minority even within the Republican Party. Yet this relatively small group of people has had a significant impact on the current round of election primary results – and on the policies of established politicians, including former Presidential candidate and self-proclaimed maverick, John McCain.

Then there’s raw milk.

The great majority of US consumers are either opposed – or indifferent – to legalizing retail sale of raw milk. Yet through the actions of a minority of committed consumers, raw milk can be purchased legally in 29 states. The number may be growing as raw milk advocates continue to refine the lessons taught by Wheeler’s temperance movement.

Earlier this month, supporters of raw milk fought successfully against a Massachusetts effort to place restrictions on raw milk “buying clubs” in that state. The movement also came within a whisker of achieving their goal in Wisconsin. A recent 1bill to legalize raw milk sales in the Dairy State was vetoed by Governor Jim Doyle.

The stated goal of the raw milk movement is to make retail sale of raw milk legal in all 50 states. Despite the occasional setback, they are well on the way to achieving that objective.

And the food safety movement?

Ask any consumer whether he or she supports food safety, and the answer will be “yes.” Why, then, has it been so difficult to achieve reform of our food safety system? I believe that the answer lies in the temperance, tea party and raw milk movements.

An omnibus food safety bill like S510 dilutes the message. It gets bogged down, and ends up taking a back seat to more politically pressing legislation. Eventually, it dies, because food safety isn’t glamorous.

We need to define our goals, rank them by priority, and tackle them one by one, district by district, and state by state.

Is mandatory recall authority for FDA and USDA our number one priority? If so, let’s promote a bill that tackles this single item, and swing our votes in favor of candidates who agree with us.

Do we want USDA to define all raw beef as adulterated if it contains Salmonella, Campylobacter, STEC E. coli, or any other human pathogen? Then we must craft a bill that focuses on this one issue.

Do we want to see true Country of Origin labeling for all food ingredients? That, too, should be a stand-alone bill.

The only way to achieve our food safety legislative goals is one step at a time – just like the temperance movement, just like the Tea Party activists. And just like the raw milk advocates.

Daniel Okrent’s article on Wayne Wheeler and the temperance movement should be required reading for all food safety advocates.

*Okrent, Daniel. “The Man Who Turned Off The Taps.” In: Smithsonian, pp. 30-37. May, 2010.


Ron Paul Is Right!

FDA Should Lift Its Ban On Interstate Sale of Raw Milk For Human Consumption

I never thought that I would agree with Representative Ron Paul. But after long reflection, I think that FDA should change its raw milk policy.

Consumers who wish to purchase and drink raw milk must navigate a labyrinth of regulations that govern its sale. Some states ban the retail sale of raw milk outright. Some permit it on store shelves. Still others allow its consumption through the back door of a “cow-share” program. Cow-share programs allow consumers to purchase a part of a dairy cow, and circumvent state laws that only permit consumption of raw milk by the cow’s owner.

This hodgepodge of state policies results in little or no oversight of raw milk producers and bottlers. And, in consequence, everybody suffers.

Earlier this week, representatives of the US dairy industry urged the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) to subject raw milk producers to the same regulatory and reporting requirements that are faced by producers of pasteurized milk. But how can FDA regulate raw milk producers while simultaneously banning the retail sale of their products?

The consumption of raw milk, and of dairy products made from unpasteurized milk, has been behind numerous outbreaks of food-borne disease. Many of these outbreaks have been linked to raw milk obtained through cow-share programs or purchased directly from dairy farmers.

In lifting the outright ban on interstate shipment of raw milk for retail sale, FDA would be able to bring raw milk under its regulatory umbrella. National standards could be set in cooperation with all 50 states, in much the same way that uniform standards have been agreed to for pasteurized milk. FDA and state regulators could insist on stringent safety and sanitation standards that would apply equally to all raw or pasteurized milk producers.

I have never been a supporter of the raw milk lobby. I know too well that raw milk, as it is produced and marketed today, is microbiologically risky. But prohibition isn’t working – just as it didn’t work for alcoholic beverages in the 1930s.

I have come to the conclusion that the only way to protect the US consumer from the health risks associated with drinking raw milk is to legalize it – and to hold raw milk to the same demanding safety standards that pasteurized milk must meet.

It’s time to recognize – and to regulate – raw milk.

Food Safety: Perpetual Policy Orphan

December 21, 2008

President-elect Obama has introduced his Cabinet nominees and major staff appointments, and has left Chicago for a two-week rest – admittedly well-earned – in Hawaii with his family.

We have met the new President’s foreign policy team, his economic team, his energy/climate change team, his trade & commerce team, and the rest of the people who will be sitting around the Cabinet table.

We have been introduced to the incoming President’s Energy Czarina, his Chief Science & Technology Advisor, and his Director of the new White House Office on Health Care Reform.

We can deduce – to some extent – from these appointments the new policy directions in which President-elect Obama hopes to lead the United States. But on one issue that affects the health of every US resident, the incoming President has remained silent.

There is no one at the Cabinet table to speak for food safety.

The responsibility for ensuring the microbiological and chemical safety of our food supply is shared among several federal departments, most prominently the Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. In each case, food safety is a Cinderella praying for her fairy godmother to save her from the ashes.

Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, the current FDA Commissioner, has already announced that he will resign effective Inauguration Day. His replacement will have a full plate replenishing an agency that has been bleeding expertise for the last eight years and more. The FDA’s food safety enforcement activities represent only a small part of the agency’s overall mandate.

The newly nominated Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, is a proponent of bioethanol, and was governor of an agricultural state. We haven’t received a single hint of his attitude toward the food safety side of USDA – again only a small part of the department’s mandate.

Food safety, once more, will be the orphan of US government policy – unless President-elect Obama gives this vital area a seat at the Cabinet table. There is precedent for this move.

Former President Clinton established a President’s Council on Food Safety to review, and recommend improvements to, the country’s food safety policies. The Council’s recommendations, for the most part, have been gathering dust for the last eight years.

Please, Mr. President-elect. Give food safety policy a strong voice in your administration. Give those of us who care about food safety “Change We Can Believe In.”