Page 78 - Winter2009

Permits would not be issued unless standards in the proposed regulations are met. These standards include a me-
chanical bottling machine (handcapping would be prohibited) and a separate facility for bottling; for Grade A licensed
dairies, a building separate from the milk parlor would be required for bottling. One licensed Grade A dairy farmer cur-
rently selling raw milk estimated that if the proposed rules became law, he would have to spend a minimum of $76,000
to be in compliance after figuring the cost of a separate building for bottling, a storage tank for the bottling facility, pumps
to move the milk from the parlor to the bottling facility, a mechanical bottling machine and the installation costs. Aside
from equipment and construction requirements, there are other onerous provisions in the proposed rules. Raw milk
producers would have to test twice yearly for bovine tuberculosis (TB) and brucellosis; no other State requires testing
more than once a year. Raw milk would be tested in the final container (i.e., bottle) for coliform with the maximum per-
missible level being ten per millimeter (10/ml). This standard has proven difficult for California raw milk licensed dairies
to meet. Those producers selling raw milk would be required to maintain customer lists to be provided to SDDA upon
request. Moreover, “[t]he list must be continually updated and include the data for at least 60 days. This customer list
shall include customer names, addresses, phone numbers and quantities of raw milk sold for human consumption.”
A hearing was held on the proposed rules on November 17; almost thirty people spoke in opposition to the proposed
rules while the only ones speaking in favor of the rules were South Dakota government employees. After the hearing,
the South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture Bill Even indicated that he would probably modify the proposed rules but
that opponents of the rules should not expect to get everything they want. The next hearing on the rules took place
onDecember 21 before state Representatives and Senators who serve on the six-member South Dakota Legislature’s
Rules Review Committee. If the proposed rules are not adopted by January 12, 2010, they will expire and SDDA would
have to initiate the rulemaking process again with the earliest the agency would be able to do so being April 2010.

MISSOURI: Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster has filed a petition for both a preliminary and permanent injunction
against Armand and Teddi Bechard, seeking an order from the Greene County Circuit Court enjoining Bechard Family
Farm from delivering raw milk and cream to its customers at a central distribution point. Under state law, “an individual
may purchase and have delivered to him for his own use raw milk or cream from a farm.” The state’s position is that any
delivery of raw milk must be direct to the customer’s home. The petition alleges that two separate purchases of raw milk
from Bechard Family Farm were made by undercover agents working for the Springfield-Greene County Health Depart-
ment. The purchases took place in April, 2009 at the parking lot of Mama Jean’s Natural Food Market in Springfield.
According to the complaint, undercover agents “never ordered milk from Mr. and Mrs. Bechard or any representative of
the Bechard Family Farm and therefore never requested that the milk be personally delivered to [them] from the farm,”
as permitted by state law. The Bechards’ contention is that the law does not limit delivery of raw milk and cream to the
consumer’s residence. All of the Bechards’ customers want delivery to take place at a central distribution point. The case
has attracted widespread attention throughout Missouri, with many wondering why the state can’t find a better use for
its resources.

MARYLAND: On October 13, attorneys for Buckeystown Dairy farmer Kevin Oyarzo filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
to the Maryland Court of Appeals asking the court to review an adverse ruling by the State Court of Special Appeals.
On August 26, that court had affirmed a lower court ruling that rejected Oyarzo’s challenge to the state regulatory ban
on herd/cow-share arrangements [Kevin Oyarzo v. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, et al. (See
Wise Traditions Fall 2009 for background on the case.) Despite ruling against Oyarzo, the Court of Special Appeals did
acknowledge that cow-share and herd-share arrangments can be valid under the law, stating that “(a) it is not illegal in
Maryland for the owner of a dairy cow to drink the raw milk which that cow produces; (b) it is not illegal in Maryland
to sell a fractional interest in a herd of dairy cattle; and (c) it is not illegal in Maryland for an agister to provide agistment
services by boarding and caring for dairy cows owned by others.”
A major contention of Oyarzo in his petition to the Maryland high court is that, in effect, the Court of Special Ap-
peals made these types of conduct illegal by upholding the regulation banning herdshares. The petition also claims that
the Court of Special Appeals has improperly held that MDHMH can regulate any transaction involving the distribution
of milk instead of only transactions concerning sales. Unfortunately, Court of Appeals decided not to hear the case. Pro-
raw milk legislation will be needed to open Maryland up to raw milk.

For the latest developments on raw milk issues, go to www.thecompletepatient.com. Those who have not joined the
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund are encouraged to do so. Membership applications are available online at www.
farmtoconsumer.org or by calling (703) 208-FARM (3276); the mailing address is 8116 Arlington Blvd, Suite 263, Falls Church,
VA 22042.

76 Wise Traditions WINTER 2009