Hi, raw-milk lovers, from Aajonus:

Your diligence is working, faxing and mailing letters to State officials. Again, when the CA State health department is involved in anything, I am not optimistic until it is over. Raw milk is still very threatened. The head of agriculture refused to put it in writing that our raw milk supply would not be impaired by AB1735. They have not withdrawn their statement to the press that they are going to enforce Ab1735. Everyone has refused to put anything in writing except law AB1735 will be enforced sooner or later. As far as I can tell, they are measuring our resolve on this issue. That means that we have, in down-home vernacular, to stay on their butts like hip pockets.

This is not a time to rejoice and congratulate ourselves on pushing them to the point that they are going public with something. We do not know what they are going to do or announce. Several of the producers group think that this is all in our favor. I guarantee that there is nothing to celebrate because the only thing they have put in writing and publicly supported is AB1735. Besides the present ministration, they are the most ruthless bunch of thugs that I have ever encountered and I have dealt with them too many times on this issue since 1970. They have never willingly given up anything. Only by force of numbers and action by lawsuit and/or letters/faxes/calls.

We have the opportunity to be heard on this issue before the Assembly Agriculture Committee on WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16TH, specifically addressing a proposed bill that will be written and altered on Monday, January 14th. We do not have any idea what that bill is going to say. Some people are very optimistic but as I stated, they have given nothing but shallow promises. Whatever the bill states by Monday evening, we must be prepared to support it or condemn it beginning now. I give a proposed letter to fax below to each Assembly Agriculture Committee member.

Those who are willing to travel to Sacramento to demonstrate for the safety of raw milk, should make arrangements immediately. In Los Angeles the day of the vote, we had a record demonstration at a County Board meeting. We had so many people that wanted to be heard on the raw milk issue, they agreed to vote yes if everyone that was pro-raw milk declined to be speak. I agreed if they would put it in writing. They did and I agreed. That bill dissolved the 38-years-old County Medical Milk Commission, putting 6 doctors out of a government job.

Usually committees begin about 9:20 am and hear debates all day on proposed bills. You never know which one they will address at any particular time even though there is a schedule; so be there early. Have someone posted in the Agriculture hearing room because they could call on the bill when no one expects it. If the subject were scheduled for 1:30 pm and they call it at 10 am, you lose your chance to speak on the issue. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors tried that one twice in 4 meetings. Because I had someone posted in the meeting, she was able to alert us to the sneaky tactic. If no one is there when the issue reaches the floor, they simple state it is a no-show contest and we lose everything we had work for to that point. It is an ugly game that they know how to play very well. Do not underestimate them. Do not trust them. I will not be there because I am in a remote area of Thailand where I cannot get a phone connection in many places.

Have demonstration signs stating "RAW MILK PROVEN SAFE; LESS REGULATIONS NOT MORE!" Any other declaration will be moot. We must stress the safety issue because that is where they attack raw milk. Yes, freedom of choice is very important but as you know from this administration, freedom of choice is a matter of what they think safety is.

WHERE: California State Capital, at 10th and L Streets, Sacramento, CA, Room 4202

WHEN: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 9 am. Begin demonstration immediately. You may occupy the side walk but you must leave room for people to freely pass. Do not block the sidewalks, steps or doors. They will declare you are unsafely demonstrating and order you to stop. If you see anyone jeopardizing your demonstration and refuses to stop, call on a police officer to handle the situation. Have video cameras rolling to be certain that everything is documented if the government tries to refuse your demonstration. Constitutionally, you do not need a permit unless you disrupt sidewalks and street traffic.

WHAT TO BRING:

• Children speak volumes for support of raw milk*.
• Banners and signs that do not obstruct traffic, stating: RAW MILK PROVEN SAFE; LESS REGULATIONS NOT MORE.
• Food, especially raw milk!
• Your written prepared statement of why you want raw milk or testimonial - must be 2 minutes or less.

*A 10-years-old boys testimonial at a Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors meeting: "My name is ______, I have asthma. I cannot drink pasteurized milk. It makes me sick. I can drink raw milk and I feel good when I drink it. Don't take my raw milk away from me."
That testimony was the most moving to everyone in the room and it was given in about 1 minute.

Thank you all! We are going to win this issue. Also, the lawsuit is almost ready to file. Please continue to visit www.SaveRawMilk.org and donate.

healthfully,
aajonus

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

Suggested letter for faxing (faxes are always best) and mailing (for those of you who do not live in CA, you may or may not delete the first sentence):

January 13, 2008
Re: Raw-milk proven safe; less regulations not more!

Dear Agriculture Committee Member,

Since you have governance over all of California Agricultural law, and I live in California, I am your constituent.

There has not been one scientifically proved link between raw milk and any type of illness. All of the reports that linked raw milk to diarrhea and/or vomit were associated by survey and hearsay not science. When a hospital or doctor reported a case of diarrhea or vomit, a health department employee called the sufferer and asked what s/he ate. Each time that it was discovered that raw milk was consumed, investigations and inquiry stopped and raw milk was blamed. That is not science. That is prejudice based on rhetorical nonsense that raw milk carries, spreads and causes disease. There is absolutely no sound science to prove those assertions. Those erroneous claims rooted in the 1930's when Knudsen Dairy began pasteurization and wanted to eliminate the raw-milk competition. They hired writers and doctors to create and generate myth that raw milk was dangerous. The myth still exists and your health department continues to believe and act on myth.

True science has been done and reported that raw milk benefits health. The research and observation were by Harvard, Princeton, Cambridge, University of Georgia Dairy Science Department, Dartmouth College, Ohio State University School of Agricultural Chemistry, Washington University School of Medicine, Tufts University, Mayo Clinic of Minnesota, Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Weston A. Price Foundation as swell as medical journals and publications such as Certified Milk Magazine, American Association of Medical Milk Commission, Milk Industry Foundation, The Lancet, JAMA, World Cancer Research Fund, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, Consumer Reports, Consumer's Union, St. Vincent's Hospital, and the prestigious Hartford Hospital. I understand that Dr. Vonderplanitz sent you his and Dr. Douglass' report covering raw-milk fact, not fiction. If you have misplaced it or need another copy, contact Dr. Vonderplanitz at optimal@earthlink.net.

Also, Fact:
coliform (col·i·form) (ko´lĭ-form) [L. colum a sieve] Lactose-fermenting, gram-negative bacilli.
Lactobacillus acidofilus, bulgaris and causicus - beneficial coliform bacteria found in the intestinal tract of healthy mammals

genus Lactobacillus - type genus of the family Lactobacillaceae

lactobacillus - a Gram-positive rod-shaped bacterium that produces lactic acid (especially in milk)

Acidofilus is sold to aid digestion. Yogurts full of coliform are sold to better digestion and health.

The State's coliform regulation does not address any bacteria that is isolated and reported to cause disease, such as E.coli 0157:H7. In fact, the new coliform regulations are superfluous to the claim that they protect the health of the people. Getting rid of healthful coliform does exactly the opposite.

Comparing regulations of pasteurized and raw milk is like comparing apples to oranges. I choose to drink raw milk because of the live coliform that helps digestion, the intact vitamins and enzymes, and stable proteins, fats and milk-sugars. Virtually ridding the milk of healthful coliform by pasteurization or any other method does not make milk more sanitary or safe. It makes it less digestible and nutritious. My family and I want beneficial coliform in our milk. Forcing raw dairy producers to eliminate coliform by poisoning the raw milk with iodine or any other substance does not add nutrient value to raw milk. In fact, it does the opposite, poisons it and makes it unsafe. Statements that raw milk are unsafe are scientific nonsense fed to you by the FDA and CDC. Please, NOT ONLY REVERSE ALL REFERENCES TO COLIFORM COUNTS IN RAW MILK BUT ELIMINATE SUPERFLUOUS REGULATIONS OF RAW MILK.

Thank you. I look forward to your written response.


CA Ag members::

Nicole Parra, State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0030, (916) 319 - 2030
(916) 319 - 2130 Fax

Doug LaMalfa, State Capitol, Room 4164 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0002, Ph: (916) 319-2002
Fax: (916) 319-2102

Tom Berryhill, State Capitol Room 4116, Sacramento, CA 95814, Ph: (916) 319-2025
Fax: (916) 319-2125

Mervyn M Dymally, State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0052, (916) 319-2052
No fax number listed; you will have to call the office on Monday to discover fax number.

Jean Fuller, State Capitol Room 3098, Sacramento, CA 95814, Ph: (916) 319-2032
Fax: (916) 319-2132

Cathleen Galgiani, State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0017, Tel: (916) 319-2017
Fax: (916) 319-2117

Dave Jones, State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0009, (916) 319 - 2009
(916) 319 - 2109 Fax

Tony Mendoza, State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0056, Tel: (916) 319-2056
Fax: (916) 319-2156

Raw milk testimony scheduled to be heard...

California residents: Play your part in ensuring raw milk is available to us from here on out, with no curve balls or surprises. As you write or video your 30 second testimonial How Raw Milk Has Changed My Life please send me a copy at facilitator@wewant2live.com or place it right on this blog as a comment.

...our access to raw milk is still unprotected...

Message from Aajonus:
As of January 10, 2008, our access to raw milk is still unprotected.
AB1735 has not yet been repealed or overturned and no State authority
has agreed to put in writing that they will not take raw milk off CA
shelves. In fact, the State is now testing with the new standards set
by AB1735 and plans to enforce them beginning immediately. So, even
though State officials promised raw-milk producers that raw milk will
not be banned as a result of the new standards, officials refuse to
put it in writing.

The law firm of Gross Belsky in San Francisco will be filing our
consumer's lawsuit in the next few day but we need to select
several key plaintiffs as examples for all 900 plaintiffs who have joined.

Our consumer's suit is different than the one being filed through the
WAP associated Farm to Consumer Legal Defense on behalf of
California raw dairy producers. Both producers are in communication
with us about our suit and the legal teams are also in communication.
We all agree that having several suits filed strengthens our chances
of protecting our right to food choices in California and elsewhere.

We would like the following specific types of California-resident
plaintiffs:
1. a person who wants to drink raw milk for personal reasons (such
as bodily integrity, believing foods should be in their natural state, etc.)
2. a person whose doctor has told him or her not to drink
pasteurized milk, but only raw milk.
3. a person who drinks raw milk for medical reasons, but has not
been directed by a doctor to drink raw milk.
4. a person whose religion has dietary principles, and one of those
principles is to drink raw milk such as those outlined in the Essene
Gospel of Peace.

We are ready to file but need those specific plaintiffs to represent
all other plaintiffs who have joined the lawsuit. If you would like to
be one of those specific plaintiffs, please contact me immediately so
that we can file our lawsuit immediately.

Please continue to fund our lawsuit with donations. Please tell your
friends and email lists about our plight to choose our food at
www.saverawmilk.org.

We are certain that what happens to raw milk in California will impact
the rest of the country and perhaps the world. So, even if you don't
live in California, please keep informed, spread the word and support
us in any way that you can.

RAW MILK - IT DOES A BODY GOOD

The following is reprinted with the permission of Jeff Everson's Planet Muscle magazine, by

Randy Roach, historian and author: “Muscle, Smoke and Mirrors."
Believe it or not, once upon a time, back about 1950, when guys like Gironda, Reeves, Grimek, Ross and Tanny, promenaded and exercised at Muscle Beach, there were no anabolic steroids. Bodybuilding did not mean the greatest massive size, with the least body fat. Instead, it stood for a 100% healthy lifestyle, clean and fresh, and sometimes raw foods, clean fresh air, no drugs, booze or smokes, and plenty of exercise in the open and clean air and sunshine.In fact, starting well back over 100 years ago, both lifestyle and bodybuilding were actually unified under one umbrella term known as “Physical Culture”.

Now my point, over all those years, many of the physical culturists promoted the muscle and health effects of raw milk, including Joe Weider, in his 1981 book, “The Weider Approach to Bodybuilding”. So, it is with great irony (and sadness) that this decade’s-long right for California health advocates to choose farm fresh milk, is being terminated by CA. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who, somewhat uncharacteristically this time, seems badly misinformed on the subject matter.

On October 8th of this year, Schwarzenegger signed anti-milk legislation, AB1735. This changes bacteria standards to include less than 10 coli forms per ml. of raw milk. When this law is activated early in 2008, it will basically clear the shelves of some 300 California stores, depriving thousands of customers of the milk of their choice!

The claims of raw milk as being dangerously unhealthy, borders on sheer fraud, as varying medical politicians, operating through both state and federal agencies, have been very successful in manifesting a germ phobic society, (Seinfeld Germaphobes), such that we have become a culture that literally fears its food. However, it was actually one of the medical orthodoxy’s own, Dr. Henry Coit, who forged the certified raw milk movement back in the 1890s because he understood the medicinal value of properly-raised cows, yielding pure, raw milk.

Technology has moved tremendously since the atrocities of the dirty distillery dairies that helped make the case for pasteurization, many years ago. The safety standards now where raw milk is processed are enormously high. Yet today, other industry doesn’t seem to care at all what they feed livestock or how it is raised; hell, destroy and over-farm the soil, fill it full of chemicals, stuff the cattle and hogs full of growth hormone and steroids, the cows will still produce milk. Why worry? Scientists can just genetically modify, irradiate (cold pasteurization), or chemically spray or boil, all milk!

Consumers of farm fresh milk are not stupid people. People who drink certified raw milk are not aimlessly lining up at dairy farms simply to acquire diarrhea. They represent hundreds of thousands of people across the United States and Canada who have researched this issue and find it more than worth the effort to seek the benefits of raw milk. Dr. Scott Connelly, the inventor of MET-Rx and Progenex, notes, “Raw milk contains higher undisturbed levels of many critical nutrients.”

It’s all another erosion of your free right to choose. Bodybuilders have always been nutrition-ally innovative, and we must protect that right. This is not just a stance to consume raw milk, but also to maintain a standard of clean, organic and biodynamic farming by knowledgeable farmers who know that healthy life begins in a healthy soil. These tillers of the land not only produce quality food for those who desire it, but also high quality source products that constitute a number of the supplements you utilize in your own protocols.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, 7 times Mr. Olympia, 5 times Mr. Universe, author of “The Education of a Bodybuilder” and “The Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding”, this is your golden opportunity to stand up and show the people of the Golden State and those who primarily built your status over the years, (bodybuilders who read M&F, went to the movies and Arnold Classic), just exactly who and what you truly stand for. Randy Roach, historian and author: “Muscle, Smoke and Mirrors."

Preface for members of the Fitness Community:

It is important for all factions of the fitness industry to be aware of what is happening in California presently regarding the right for citizens to acquire farm fresh milk due to legislation AB1735 signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This issue extends much further than the forced pasteurization of all milk. Federal agencies are also entertaining thoughts of cold pasteurizing leafy, green vegetables. How do you cold pasteurize? Look it up! This influence also continues in the form of a constant push to ban many supplements which is happening world wide.

The fitness community is large and powerful and has successfully turned back such threats on previous occasions. This is about uniting and retaining our rights to choose the foods we consume for our health. A loss in California will have serious repercussions right across North America in terms of the quality of our food production.

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