NEWSDAIRY

In a stuffy room in Wisconsin, upwards of 500 people gathered for a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) hearing on a proposed factory dairy farm that would bring 5,000 cows to Richfield, WI. Many in attendance wore red "No CAFO" tee-shirts and shared their concerns over waste disposal — especially manure runoff, water usage, and the farm's impact on the local community including its pristine lakes and streams.

The five-hour hearing was held at the behest of local activists and concerned citizens who live near the proposed site. It was meant to help the DNR determine if it will grant a permit allowing Milk Source, the company that will run the proposed farm, to discharge pollutants into state waterways. It seems odd, then, that instead of the DNR presenting the facts and information about the proposed farm to start the meeting, officials granted that role to the CEO of Milk Source. The DNR also seemed to defer to Milk Source, allowing executives to answer questions the DNR should have had answers to (for instance, whether or not Milk Source has had any environmental violations in the past).

The meeting wasn't all pandering, though. Many people got to tell the DNR why they are opposed to the farm and explain their very real worries. Of particular concern is what the farm will do with its waste manure. The farm's current plan is to hold manure in massive pits (small ponds, really), and then have trucks haul it away to spread on fields. "A lot of them will be running right down in front of my house to spread manure on the fields on 3rd and 4th avenue over there," Paul Powolish, the closest neighbor to the proposed farm, said. "I can't live under conditions like that."

Earlier this year, Minnesota officials introduced a bill that would make things easier for farmers trying to sell raw milk.  Currently raw milk sales are legal in the state, but only if consumers drive to the farm to buy it. This new bill would allow farmers to sell at farmers' markets, buying clubs, and direct deliveries, making life simpler for both purveyors and consumers. Of course Big Dairy raised immediate objections, citing safety concerns, and sent a hoard of lobbyists to complain about the bill during the recent Dairy Day event with lawmakers.  But something tells me that the real objection is over losing the monopoly they have over the processing and distribution of the state's dairy production.

But away in the Minnesota Capitol is not the only place this battle is raging. The fight hit the streets, too. Minnesota officials are cracking down on the sale of raw milk — exactly the kind of direct sales that would be legal under the proposed bill — and organic farmer Alvin Schlangen is taking the hit.

On March 9, 2011, officials say they seized unpasteurized milk and uninspected meat that Schlangen was selling out of his van and a south Minneapolis natural foods warehouse. Schlangen counters that he was doing nothing illegal.  He runs a private food-buying club called the Freedom Farms Coop that provides local, organic, and grass-fed produce, meat, and dairy to 85 families in the Twin Cities metro area.  And yes, that includes raw dairy products. He is a farmer himself and also sells his organic, pasture-raised chicken and eggs. He says that because members contractually lease the animals from whence these products come, then they are raising them for their own private use and no inspections are necessary. Clearly state officials disagree.

Looking for a free pass to pollute drinking water in California? Well, if you're a large-scale dairy farm, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) seems content to look the other way while cow waste contaminates groundwater with high levels of dangerous nitrates.

A new report from Food & Water Watch reveals that CVRWQCB, the regional agency responsible for protecting groundwater in the Central Valley, has failed to effectively enforce water regulations established for dairies. Without the threat of enforced regulations or fines, factory farm dairies are polluting drinking water in the region with harmful levels of nitrates generated by enormous amounts of concentrated animal waste. Co-written by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the report calls upon California Governor Jerry Brown to nominate strong appointees to the Water Board.

Many of California's largest dairy farms are found in the Central Valley, where they produce enough fecal waste to rival a city of 21 million people. This staggering output of pollution is often left untreated and seeps into nearby waterways where it poses a serious threat to human health and the environment. According to the report, 60 percent of the roughly 1,500 dairies in the Central Valley have groundwater on their property that is contaminated with nitrates above the drinking water standard.

Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa is going to Washington. Again.

Attorneys with the Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice recently filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). They contend that if fully deregulted, GE alfalfa, which is engineered to live through regular dousings of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, will contaminate non-GE alfalfa and bring down the organic alfalfa, dairy, and beef industries. This lawsuit aims to have the USDA rescind its decision to completely deregulate GE alfalfa.

Opponents of GE alfalfa claim that the new crop infringes on consumer and farmer rights. The USDA's latest stats show very little use of any herbicide on alfalfa. The decision to deregulate GE alfalfa would dramatically change that.

Minnesota is home to one of many raw milk battles currently raging across the United States. On one side are advocates for consumer choice, small farmers, and buyers who believe fervently in the health benefits of raw milk. On the other are Big Dairy lobbyists and those who believe fervently in the health dangers of raw milk (for more on the facts on that ongoing debate, check out this post).

Raw milk sales are currently legal in Minnesota but only on farms themselves, hindering raw milk's sales potential and forcing many consumers to drive long distances to get the beloved product. A month ago, legislators introduced a bill in Minnesota that would allow farmers a bit more flexibility, giving them the ability to deliver raw milk to customers or to sell at farmers' markets.  Makes sense, right?

Minnesota State Senator David Brown (R-Becker) thought so initially, saying that he "had no reason not to support [the] bills." But he heard from a great many Big Dairy lobbyists during the recent 10th annual Dairy Day lobbying event, during which producers get a chance to meet with more than 50 state and local Minnesota lawmakers.. The Minnesota Milk Producers Association (MMPA) is completely against the expansion of raw milk sales because it threatens the grip that Big Dairy has on the industry. If farmers don't have to sell to a centralized distributor to have their product pasteurized, packaged, and sold, the monopoly by the centralized dairy co-ops that have traditionally paid these farmers a pittance for their product is seriously challenged.

Oregon's House Bill 2222, dubbed the "Family Farm Act," is designed to tweak some state rules to make it easier for small scale and family farms to provide local, sustainable food to those who want it. The bill, written by Friends of Family Farmers, would allow small farms to slaughter up to 1,000 chickens for use as human food without state or federal inspection, expand the state limit for raw milk producers (currently three cows or nine goats), establish family farm representatives on the State Board of Agriculture, and more.

On the raw milk front, Oregon's Family Farm Act is part of a larger, national movement. There is legislation in Texas, Oregon, Minnesota, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin focused on making it easier for consumers to get raw milk and raw milk products. Depending on the state, the legislation looks to ease local regulations or even outright legalize the sale of raw milk, which is extremely restricted in some states. It's good news for folks who want the choice to buy a less processed, local, dairy product.

I can't believe it's that butter.

When most of us hear "genetically engineered (GE) seeds" we think of Monsanto. But the new Roundup Ready, GE alfalfa seeds that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) just deregulated were actually co-developed by Forage Genetics International, a subsidiary of butter producer, Land O'Lakes. And the company isn't shy about saying so, either: On January 27, Land O'Lakes posted Forage Genetics' press release announcing the deregulation.

Forage Genetics is leasing their seed to Monsanto, so the deregulation of GE alfalfa is probably good news to Land O'Lakes' cooperative members. This kind of vertical integration (GE seeds for alfalfa fed to cows that produce milk for Land O'Lakes butter) is good for their bottom line. But is it good news to consumers?

We've done it before: We've gotten corporate giants like Safeway and Starbucks to carry milk from rBST-free cows. Farmers have responded, and fewer are using growth hormones and non-therapeutic antibiotics in order to meet consumer demand for drug-free milk. Now we need to speak up about genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa and sugar beets.

I recently spoke with organic dairy farmer Albert Straus about his experience with GE-contaminated feed. His story showcases why it's so important for consumers to stand against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Five years ago, Straus started testing his organic cattle feed for GMOs and actually found some contamination. He was able to address the contamination with the supplier quickly without it impacting his business in a significant way, but it taught him how important testing can be for organic farmers. After all, for a product to truly be considered organic, it must be free of genetically modified materials.

Of course, testing for GMOs is not required in the farming industry, organic or otherwise, and neither is labeling. But Straus is concerned enough about the role GMOs play in agriculture that he wishes more farmers would test for the presence of GMOs. Most don't, he says, because they're not sure how to get started and they're afraid of what they would do if they did find GMOs. The Non-GMO Project helped Straus begin testing and can be a valuable partner, he says.

A while back, New Mexico's incoming governor, Susana Martinez, attempted to sidestep a few laws she didn't like that had been passed in the previous session of the state legislature. Laws don't go into effect in New Mexico until they are published, and while these laws had been passed, they hadn't been printed yet. Governor Martinez thought it would be a fun trick to simply order the laws she didn't like not to be printed, preventing them from going into effect and derailing years of hard work.

One of the laws was a new regulation on dairy farms — namely, factory dairy farms. The law mandated that dairy farms had to tell the state how much they were polluting and what they were doing to prevent this contamination. Pollution has become an increasing problem, as nearly 90 percent of groundwater near dairy factory farms is polluted. A large coalition thought that this regulation was absolutely necessary to protect the state's water supply, and folks didn't like that Governor Martinez was single-handedly scrapping it. So the coalition sued Governor Martinez.

Now, just one month after Governor Martinez attempted her sleight of hand, the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that she can't just do away with laws she doesn't like. Those suing Martinez and other state officials argued that not publishing the laws was a violation of the state's constitution and other regulations. The court, made up of a panel of five judges, agreed. They ordered the factory farm law and others to be published and put into effect, just like the legislature intended. The decision was unanimous.

As anyone who frequents this site knows, our food system is becoming increasingly industrialized, with factory farms quickly replacing family and small-scale farms at a frighteningly fast pace. Using cheap and environmentally harmful farming practices and friendly government policies, massive corporate farming operations are wiping thousands of small farmers off the map (just like Walmart is wiping "mom and pop stores" off the map).

One group in Oregon, however, refuses to roll over and let the industrialized food system win. The organization is Friends of Family Farmers, which describes itself as a coalition of family farmers, consumers, and concerned citizens working to "foster an approach to agriculture that respects the land, treats animals humanely, sustains local communities, and provides a viable livelihood for family farmers."

To that end, the group has just written and introduced H.B. 2222, Oregon's Family Farm Act. It seeks to further family farm-friendly policies that will help small scale farms get food from the fields to your table. The bill would allow small farms to slaughter up to 1,000 chickens for use as human food without state or federal inspection, expand the state limit for raw milk producers (currently three cows or nine goats), establish family farm representatives on the State Board of Agriculture, and more. You can help support this important state bill by signing the organization's petition urging Oregon's State Legislature to pass the Family Farm Act.