Doyle vetoes raw milk legislation

[Archae]

Good.

[undeterred]

1. This was a compromise bill.

But Jim Doyle doesn't compromise when it comes to corporate interests.

Here's a letter giving an alternate point of view:

Dear Governor Doyle

As you contemplate the signing of the Raw Milk bill, I just wanted to help make you aware of a population of people who would benefit from this product.

We are seeing a growing number of food allergies and intolarances. This is in part related to exposing the immune system along the GI track to new and more complex proteins. Pasteurization (heating and killing of harmful bacteria) has made milk safer to drink but also destroys key bacteria and enzymes that allow milk protein to be broken down into amino acids that are easily absorbed and less likely to cause an immune reaction. There are many different influences in our environment that has made our immune system more sensitive to these proteins including over-reliance on acid suppressing medications (acid is needed to break down proteins), more cesarian deliveries (babies are exposed to healthy bacteria as they travel throught birth canal), less breast feeding and more antibiotics. These influences create a potentially unhealthy environment within the GI track that can cause a more robust immune reaction to food proteins.

Having raw milk available to patients with these food intolerances allows the enzymes and bacteria to break down the protein which is more easily tolerated than milk that has been pastuerized where the enzymes and bacteria have been inactivated. Obviously there is risk if the milk is allowed to sit too long before consumption. This is why I hope you can help allow access to raw milk for these patients while insuring its safety.

Thank you for your help and guidence with this important topic.

Sincerely,


David Rakel, MD
Director, University of Wisconsin Integrative Medicine
Associate Professor
Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
608 265-8421
drakel@uwhealth. org

[dembotoz]

2. i can no longer drink milk

can't say that i miss it.
can't say that i would be quick to drink raw milk.

but this is interesting information.
I would have assumed the while milk gives me intestinal problems, I would have thought raw milk would have given me even greater intestinal problems.

If is wasn't that the concept of raw milk kind of grosses me out, maybe some time i would have tried a raw milk chocolate malt.

no
probably
not

[undeterred]

3. Many of the people who favor it are part of a bartering economy.

Living on small farms in rural areas they exchange farm raised milk, eggs, vegetables, and so forth. It doesn't threaten anyone and its the way people have lived for centuries. I don't see why it has to be outlawed. I didn't grow up on raw milk and I've only had it once, but there are plenty of people in Wisconsin who would like to have the option.

[mzteris]

5. I have a lot of friends in NC

who buy "Pet milk" - you can buy raw milk but everyone has to swear it's for their pets.

It's still a fairly clandestine operation, though. You have to KNOW someone in order to get in with the sellers. They're very very cautious about getting caught.

My friends swear by it. I don't drink milk, period (I hate the taste), and my older son - at the time we lived in NC - has one of those ever so very precise "taste bud" things. He'd notice when I changed BRANDS of milk and not drink it. (And yeah, I tried fooling him. didn't work.)

I had/have my concerns about selling raw milk on a large scale. But from what my friends said, these small local farmers were organic everything whose own families drank the milk so they weren't "taking any chances". They weren't "getting rich" off of the sale of the milk- that wasn't the point of the sellers. They were part of the whole organic movement. I think that makes a difference, really. It's when those whose sole purpose is to "make money" gets in on the act (of anything) you start seeing corners being cut.

[undeterred]

4. Four reasons why the Legislature should override Doyle’s raw milk veto

By Joe Plasterer

The absentee governor has made his choice. He chose to cower in the face of well-funded special interest at the expense of mom & pop Wisconsin.

Never mind that his deficit-spending DATCP agents were putting profitable family farms out of business during the worst economic depression this state has seen, right before winter.

He was cozy in his taxpayer-supported mansion on the lake. He had already retired from the job but wanted to savor the perks before he went looking for his next gig. He knew he had nothing to fear from voters by going back on his word.

Members of the current Legislature running for re-election can enjoy no such comfort. Predictions are for a Democratic incumbent bloodbath. Even heir-apparent Republicans shouldn’t get too comfortable. Looking ahead to this fall election season, Wisconsin legislators should override Gov. Jim Doyle's veto. Here are four good reasons why:

-- SB 434 has popular support.

The bill passed in both the Senate (25-8) and the Assembly (60-35) with significant majorities and bi-partisan support. People showed up in large numbers at the public hearings, to an extent that many elected officials and staff have never seen, with an estimated 750 attending in Eau Claire and 150 registered to speak. People have been calling, demonstrating at the Capitol, writing articles, giving interviews and engaging their elected officials. There is popular support for this bill to protect people’s freedom to choose their food and who they buy it from. The support for this bill spans the political spectrum, from the alternative health crowd to the local food folks to the Tea Partiers. And given their collective disappointment with government, the raw milk issue is not going away.

-- This bill is a small pilot project with a sunset.

Based on the conditions set forth in this bill, this law would have a very limited initial impact. This bill would create an 18-month “test” window where registered dairy farmers can sell directly to consumers who come to their farm. It would provide a “pilot project” opportunity to see and study what impact the limited sales of raw milk have on food safety and the rural economy. Since there are an estimated 100 farms selling raw milk directly to the consumers out of Wisconsin’s 12,967 licensed milk-producing farms, very few will likely be participating. The bill provides a visible, public and low-impact way to test an idea while we measure it for food safety and viability so we can make science-driven policy decisions.

-- The bill’s critics have questionable motives.

Lawmakers may want to question the motives of the bill’s critics. There was ample time for the critics, many of them large agribusiness concerns, some with out-of-state ownership, to engage in an open debate in committee hearings with legislators and the public. Given the limited scope of the bill, it appears that Big Ag is making a “mountain out of a molehill.” Unless there are other motivations, of course.

Consider that these agribusiness concerns are more interested in protecting their iron-grip on the liquid milk supply chain and would prefer to “nip this in the bud.” Given that 28 states and many countries in western Europe allow raw milk sales, their public health fears are only a smoke-screen.

-- Showing some spine in support of the freedom to choose raw milk might save incumbent legislators from the bloodbath.

A veto override will tell voters that you are there for them FIRST, that you're not some life-long politico who has never had to make a living with his own hands, whose mortgage and health care were guaranteed, thanks to a generous public salary and benefits package. You can stand proud telling your constituents that you are not a puppet of big out-of-state agribusiness with an army of lobbyists and fear-mongering PR minions.

With your constituents you will be able to cheer as the U.S. Department of Justice's new agricultural anti-trust unit looks into the monopolistic, unfair trade practices that keep Wisconsin’s milk price the lowest in the nation.

And maybe your constituents will remember that you are just like them, trying to make it through the great recession with your family intact, helping where you can.

Many legislators from both parties (85 out of 132) get it.

The governor doesn’t. That’s why his "Clean Energy Jobs Act" didn’t pass. He didn’t understand that when you take care of people, they take care of you. When you help without asking for payback, they help without question.

http://bizopinion.wisbusiness.com/2010/05/four-reasons-why-legislature-should.html

[dembotoz]

6. at a time where we continue to suffer from lack of government control

be it from broken oil rigs, poopy water on the spinach farm, lead in toys, bank meltdown, what ever,
i remain reluctant to remove safety measures that have worked very well in the past.

Isn't the pasteurization of milk supposed to be on of the great advancements of science in the public interest?

Like i said above.
I don't drink it so it does not effect me directly outside of having to take another family member to the hospital with my crapppy insurance if he/she should get some bad raw milk.