Page 90 - Fall2010

a shareholder program with more than three cows, seven sheep or seven goats must comply with milk testing require-
ments specified in the law. All shareholder dairies must register with the state and must test their animals each year for
tuberculosis and brucellosis. Under prior law, herdshare programs were not regulated; the law on the sale of raw milk has
not changed. Those producers obtaining a retail raw milk permit can still sell raw milk on the farm and in retail stores.

MASSACHUSETTS
On August 6, the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture and Resources (MDAR) mailed Sandisfield dairy farmer
Brigitte Ruthman an “order to cease and desist the distribution of raw milk.” Ruthman operates a one-cow shareholder
dairy and distributes raw milk to the three people that have invested in the cow. If MDAR believed the order would
convince Ruthman to stop distributing raw milk and quietly go away, the agency was mistaken.

The farmer sent a copy of the order to David Gumpert, declaring that she was going to continue on with the cow share
program. Shortly after Gumpert posted a story on his blog about the order, MDAR sent an inspector to Ruthman’s farm
to personally deliver the “cease and desist” order to her. Ruthman was enraged about the trespass on to her property
and wound up retaining an attorney to contest the “cease and desist” order.

On August 24, Ruthman’s attorney, Douglas Wilkins, sent a letter to MDAR requesting that the department revoke the
order, accusing MDAR of violating Ruthman’s due process rights by not granting her notice and an opportunity to be
heard prior to issuing the order. The department subsequently revoked the order but did not change its position that
anyone operating a cowshare or herdshare program needed to be registered and licensed with the state.

Ruthman had previously refused to get licensed because the costs of complying with the licensing requirements were
not affordable for her one-cow dairy. If MDAR does not change its position on cow shares, Ruthman is intent on going
to court to obtain a ruling that her cowshare program is not under the state’s jurisdiction.

MINNESOTA
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) has continued its efforts to limit the sale of raw milk in the state, with
the department’s focus centering on the farm of Michael and Diana Hartmann in Gibbon [see Wise Traditions Summer
2010 issue for background]. On June 16, inspectors from MDA along with law enforcement officials executed a second
criminal search warrant against the Hartmann farm, embargoing all meat and dairy products that inspectors found on
the farm that had not already been embargoed during a prior raid on May 26. The inspectors also issued the Hartmanns
an order to cease selling all products of the farm except poultry and eggs.

While the inspectors were at the farm, they took numerous samples for pathogen testing. MDA tested the samples for
all the major pathogens except E. coli O157:H7—an interesting decision since MDA had publicly declared that raw milk
from the farm allegedly tainted with E. coli O157:H7 had been responsible for making at least eight people ill. MDA had
publicized the results showing the strain of E. coli O157:H7 found in manure and environmental samples taken on the
Hartmann Farm was indistinguishable from the strain found in stool samples taken from the sick individuals.

Why didn’t the state test for a pathogen responsible for the illness claimed to have been caused by the farm? Was this
because a negative test for E. coli would overturn their order to the Hartmanns prohibiting the sale of meat and dairy
products?

MDA followed up on the embargo orders by petitioning the Sibley County Court for a condemnation order so that the
embargoed food could be destroyed. The Hartmanns and their attorney, Zenas Baer, took advantage of the petition by
filing a counterclaim that asked for the embargo and the order not to sell any products except poultry and eggs be lifted.
From mid-August into the beginning of September, a marathon series of hearings on the condemnation petition took
place at the Sibley County Courthouse. The state’s strategy was to persuade the court that the embargoed food should
be destroyed due to unsanitary conditions at the farm—not because E. coli O157:H7 was found in samples taken there.

The Hartmanns and MDA were not the only parties to the case. An organization called The Foundation for Consumer
Free Choice (FCFC) as well as individuals who were customers of the Hartmanns successfully moved to intervene as third
parties. FCFC consisted of many of the Hartmanns’ customers; the individuals were customers whose names were on
specific products embargoed by MDA and they wanted those products released by the judge to them.

90 Wise Traditions FALL 2010