Hi, raw-milk lovers, from Aajonus:

Emails were exchanged between Mark McAfee [CEO of Organic Pastures Dairy - a raw milk dairy in California] and me [three time heavy-weight defender of raw milk in California]*. In them, I explain my position on the raw-milk issue in California that differs from Mark and Sally's. For those of you who think that I am too critical and should be more supportive of Mark and Sally efforts, you will probably better understand my position once you have read the exchanges. I think that is was very sad that Sally made the statement that my last email was unfortunate. She and her law firm have no experience in California raw milk battles or law. I have been battling in California since 1970 and continue to win even though we have been without raw milk for long periods.

Thank you for all of your work. PLEASE continue to fax and call the governor, head of CA Agriculture and CA legislators, and donate for consumer legal action to save raw milk at www.SaveRawMilk.org. I will send a suggested reply to Gov. Schwarzenegger's ridiculous response to your letters within 24 hours. So far, you have donated $5,000 in the last few weeks. We are $10,000 short of the $40,000 needed to conclude injunctive process and begin complaint processes. Let's do it.

Also, whether you have joined the lawsuit online or faxed it to me, please email me if you have any medical support for drinking raw milk. That is, if you have the records of having been tested positive for milk allergies yet can drink raw milk without allergies, I want to hear from you. Also, let me know if you are in a minority group that has a high ratio of pasteurized milk allergies, such as 95% of Asian Americans, 74% of Native Americans, 70% of African Americans, and 53% of Mexican Americans. Of course, if you are one of the 15% of Caucasians who have been diagnosed as lactose intolerant but thrive on raw milk, let me know. Thank you.
healthfully,
aajonus
*bracketed comments [ ] are from the person running the blog


Hi, Mark,
I wish that I could share your optimism but experience tells me that I would not only be naive, I would put my raw-milk supply at risk, and resultantly my health. I am not going to be gentle anymore about this issue. It is too arduous in the midst of people who make it a huge challenge and time-consuming including those of us trying to protect raw milk.

I am alarmed because I have been through this very same situation previously, 3 times in 1990's. California health departments gave Stueve's Natural the same assurances that the State gave you. The people of California were without raw milk for almost 3 years until I got the law changed, you began producing and James Stewart distributed raw milk. I am alarmed because the state declared to the San Francisco Chronicle that the State intended to enforce the law in response to your lawsuit. I do not intend to change one word of what I stated until your dairy has been unaffected for months and the law has been changed, or you receive something in writing from the state declaring they will not enforce AB1735; I will believe something that makes them legally liable and at risk. I hope I am WRONG but from history, I do not believe that I am.

In your lawsuit, your attorney's use of other foods not having the same standards was considered moot in past legislative and legal pleadings. I am concerned that your attorney did not do proper, thorough and adequate research to discover that that argument, presented excellently by biological attorney Raymond Novell in 1998-2000, was and is considered comparing apples and oranges. Novell won every court case against Alta Dena/Stueve's Natural for decades with juries. However, the argument worked against changing the law when judges and legislators were concerned. The argument, under the present bacterial phobic-mania, put raw milk in the minds of lawmakers and enforcers as more of a bacterial threat than before. You, Sally and attorney just do not get it. The thing that strikes me as alarming is that you, Ron and Sally take your attorney's' qualifications as good and sound for raw milk and he has had absolutely no experience more that the last year and does not know the legal history of raw-milk battles in California. Probably, Attorney Novell and I are the only one's qualified to be advisors on the issue but you have chosen to follow your attorney's naive advice on the issue. I am angry, appalled and concerned that all of you have placed our raw-milk supply at risk. Stueve's Natural's president thought that I was not loyal to the cause when I thought he was being too trusting of health-officials assurances that every thing would be resolved and raw milk would be on the shelves. Every month for 2 years, he said that his raw milk would be on the shelves within the next 30 days. It never happened and I did nothing but hound the health department and legislators with complaints. We lost Stueve's raw milk on commercial shelves forever.

Also, I was concerned that Sally's email stated that I had already declared that raw milk was unavailable in California. No where in my email did I state that. My subject heading stated, "Losing" not "Lost". I stated that we failed to stop enforcement of AB1735. I specifically stated. "Please act now because raw milk will not be on your shelves in California very much after January 1, 2008" in context that the state said that they were going to enforce the law after they assured you that they were not. I wish that we were all together on this but your faction of the same plight seems to be naively shooting with closed eyes and wishful thinking. Again, I hope that I am wrong. The next few months will tell unless another lawsuit can be initiated that is more threatening to the state. Our actions will move things one way or another, and time will tell.
healthfully,
aajonus