From the Sacramento Bee, January 25, 2012

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/25/4212815/local-food-movement-picks-up-verbal.html

The grass-roots (and grass-fed) agriculture revolution that Patty Chelseth started last summer is picking up steam.

Chelseth, of My Sisters’ Farm in Shingle Springs, has launched a campaign to get a “Local Food and Community Self-Governance” ordinance. Her effort got a warm reception Tuesday from the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors.

Although supervisors did not pass anything with teeth, they gave strong verbal support to Chelseth and others who believe they are starting a revolution against onerous state regulations that hurt small farmers.

“I am personally appalled that they will come onto my ranch and tell me I can’t share my cow or I can’t share my chickens,” said Supervisor Ray Nutting, after speaking of his homesteading, cow-milking, (and chicken-decapitating) grandmother. “Whatever we need to do, I’m in full support.”

Chelseth was backed by more than 20 speakers and more than 100 onlookers who overflowed the board’s meeting room.

Her cause began last year when the California Department of Food and Agriculture issued a cease and desist order against Chelseth. She was selling shares of cows on her farm in an attempt to deal with rules that prohibited her from selling raw milk directly to consumers.

She only keeps two cows.

Sheriff John D’Agostini told supervisors he consulted with the district attorney about Chelseth.

“I made the decision that the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office was not going to be the milk police,” he said. “So I support this ordinance.”

State officials portray it as a food safety matter, protecting the public from possible food poisoning from uninspected foods.

Speakers at the hearing – unanimously in support of an ordinance to allow the direct sales – portrayed it as a matter of freedom vs. oppression.

“Protect us and our rights,” Chelseth asked the board. “The choice of the food we eat and the water we drink is the most basic of our rights.”

Mark McAfee, operator of Organic Pastures near Fresno, said he was the closest producer of legal raw milk and said inspectors are out to get him. “They don’t look for real things,” he said. “They look for stumbling blocks to put me out of business.”

However, the state said it found real things in November, after five children in four counties fell ill with E. coli poisoning. McAfee’s milk was recalled after the illnesses.

Chelseth tacitly acknowledged the issue. “We cannot completely eliminate risk,” she said. “Life is risky.”

The local food advocates, however, said the real risks were from the corporate food producers whose products have generated increasing rates of obesity, heart disease and cancers.

Certain kinds of low-risk foods — like fresh vegetables – are often sold directly to consumers by small producers.

Chelseth’s ordinance would expand it to “any food or food product that is grown, produced or processed by individuals within El Dorado County, who sell directly to their patrons through farm-based sales, private agreement, or private food buying clubs.”

But sections of the ordinance appear to run afoul of the state’s constitutional prerogative to regulate food for public safety.

The county counsel advised supervisors it wouldn’t work as is.

Though calls for local autonomy appear to be getting louder, state regulators won’t kowtow to the movement when it comes to changing policy.

“We would look to the state Legislature,” said Steve Lyle, spokesman for the Food and Agriculture Department. “To my knowledge, there is nothing imminent.”

The one exception is the Small Dairy Herd Working Group, which Lyle said is working to establish more regulatory clarity and determine appropriate ways to regulate “very small providers.”

In the interim, Chelseth says she has approached a few state legislators and is in communication with other activists trying to establish county food sovereignty.

Among them are Yannick Phillips, who came to the hearing representing the Sonoma Valley Grange.

The California State Grange supports county ordinances, she said. “We are searching for an alpha dog to lead the way, and we’re encouraging your county to be the one.”

The supervisors’ only action was to appoint two members to develop a resolution in support of local food self-governance, and explore the possibilities of an ordinance.

Proposal for CDFA Small Herd Dairy Working Group

 1. FAMILY COW:Citizens have milk for their own family and they share it with their neighbors. This category allows for no more than 3 animal units in lactation formilk production. These cases are exempt from both the 1947 Food and Ag Code and inspection by the CDFA.

Oregon Model: 621.012 Exception for small-scale on-farm sales. The provisions of ORS 621.062, 621.070, 621.072, 621.076, 621.084, 621.088, 621.116, 621.117 and 621.259 and standards developed under ORS 621.060, 621.083 or 621.224 do not apply to a person owning not more than three dairy cows that have calved at least once, nine sheep that have lactated at least once or nine goats that have lactated at least once, but such person may sell the fluid milk from those animals for human or other consumption without complying with the provisions of ORS 621.062, 621.070, 621.072, 621.076, 621.084, 621.116, 621.117 or 621.259 or standards developed under ORS 621.060, 621.083 or 621.224 only if:

(1) The person does not advertise the milk for sale; (2) The milk is sold directly to the consumer at the premises where produced; and (3) No more than three producing dairy cows, nine producing sheep or nine producing goats are located on the premises where the milk is produced.

Kansas Model: (w) “On-farm retail sales of milk or milk products” means the sale of milk or milk products on the farm by the producer from the production of the dairy herd to the final consumer, so long as the person making such sales does not promote the sale of milk or milk products to the public in any manner other than by the erection of a sign upon the premises of the dairy farm. The advertisement upon any such sign shall state that such milk or milk products are raw and shall be in letters of a uniform size. Each container in which any unpasteurized milk is sold or offered for sale shall be clearly labeled as ungraded raw milk.

2. LIVESTOCK BOARDING CONTRACT (HERD-SHARE): Consumers are herd owners, with a legal and equity interest in the herd. They board their herd with the farmer, who charges a maintenance fee for his or her land, facilities, and services. These are private agreements where the owners are entitled to the milk their animals produce. These arrangements are exempt from FAC and CDFA regulations. This also includes “intentional communities” where the milk from the herd is only for the community members.

Tennessee Model: SECTION 1.Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 53, Chapter 3, Part 1, is amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section: 53-3-119.

Nothing in this part or any other provision of law shall be construed as prohibiting the independent or partial owner of any hoofed mammal from using the milk from such animal for the owner’s personal consumption or other personal use .

3. MICRO-DAIRY: Farmers at this small scale may want to sell their milk through on-farm sales, at farmers markets, or through local retail outlets. Current code demands facilities that are not needed and certainly not affordable at this size. These farmers will be subject to a “performance-based” standard and labeling requirementwith the goal of ensuring safety. This would include milk and animal testing and be inspected by CDFA under a modified Grade A standard.

Idaho Model: Under the new code the small-herd exemption operations do not have to meet Grade A dairy requirements for facilities and equipment, but must meet Grade A requirements for the quality of the raw milk, which includes bacteria limits; the milk is tested frequently. Livestock owners must apply for a permit from the Idaho State Department of Agriculture to sell raw milk to the public, and the operation must meet inspection standards to receive a permit.

Background

Historically, the small family farmer has had a few cows and shared that milk with friends and neighbors. This practice has gone on in the United States for over 200 years with essentially no outbreaks of disease. This practice continues today and does not present a public health threat.

Health risks are nearly non-existent on very small family farms and the number of people with two or three cows/goats is high. To criminalize this group of law abiding citizens would put an incredible burden on the state and local sheriffs, who do not have the resources to enforce unnecessary laws.

When the dairy industry became more industrialized, the problems in milk safety became a reality that had to be dealt with. The laws for milk safety were developed in response to the dangers of the swill dairies of old, and those laws continue to be relevant today in protecting consumers from dairy produced in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). These CAFOs produce a product that can be rife with dangerous bacteria and therefore require strict facility and pasteurization requirements to kill the pathogens within their milk.

In fact, it is precisely the industrialization of our food industry that has led to the many recent and past outbreaks of food borne illnesses. This is the reason that the local, know-your-farmer movement is becoming such a force in the modern world. Consumers are making an educated and informed choice to go with “unprocessed” whole and local foods, including fresh, unprocessed dairy. Many are enjoying the new-found pride of livestock ownership and responsibilities that go with it, and when zoning does not permit livestock on their property, they contract with local farmers to take care of their animals, including milking and delivering their milk. The transparent and close relationship between co-owners in such an arrangement naturally initiates a self-regulating system.

In 1969 when the milk pool laws took effect, the State of California lost an incredible number of mid-sized dairies. It seemed overnight that in the Sonoma, Mendocino, and Petaluma areas, whole blocks of smaller dairies closed their doors. It became a situation of “get big or get out,” and it is still very difficult to begin and maintain small and mid-size dairies in this environment.

Our group of livestock owners and farmers have developed the following 3 categories for consideration:

When an over-zealous regulator shows up at a farm dinner demanding that food be destroyed as hungry guests await, who do you call? Here’s Laura’s account written as a letter to her guests who had come to Quail Hollow Farm expecting a meal of foods harvested from local small family farms.

This incident shows the value of the 24/7 legal hotline for farmers like Laura who need help…even on a Friday night!  A member benefit like the hotline is available thanks to the financial support of the many FTCLDF members and donors.

Dearest Guests, (You have all become dear to us!)

What an evening we had this last Friday night!  It had all the makings of a really great novel: drama, suspense, anticipation, crisis, heroic efforts, villains and victors, resolution and a happy ending.

The evening was everything I had dreamed and hoped it would be. The weather was perfect, the farm was filled with friends and guests roaming around talking about organic, sustainable farming practices. Our young interns were teaching and sharing their passion for farming and their role in it.  (A high hope for our future!)  The pig didn’t get loose.

Our guests were excited to spend an evening together. The food was prepared exquisitely.  The long dinner table, under the direction of dear friends, was absolutely stunningly beautiful. The music was superb. The stars were bright and life was really good.

And then, …

for a few moments, it felt like the rug was pulled out from underneath us and my wonderful world came crashing down.  As guests were mingling, finishing tours of the farm, and while the first course of the meal was being prepared and ready to be sent out, a Southern Nevada Health District employee came for an inspection.

Because this was a gathering of people invited to our farm for dinner, I had no idea that the Health Department would become involved.  I received a phone call from them two days before the event informing me that because this was a “public event” (I would like to know what is the definition of “public” and “private”) we would be required to apply for a “special use permit”.

If we did not do so immediately, we would be charged a ridiculous fine.

Stunned, we immediately complied.

We were in the middle of our harvest day for our CSA shares, a very busy time for us, but Monte immediately left to comply with the demand and filled out the required paper work and paid for the fee.  (Did I mention that we live in Overton, nowhere near a Health Department office?)  Paper work now in order, he was informed that we would not actually be given the permit until an inspector came to check it all out.

She came literally while our guests were arriving!

In order to overcome any trouble with the Health Department of cooking on the premises, most of the food was prepared in a certified kitchen in Las Vegas; and to further remove any doubt, we rented a certified kitchen trailer to be here on the farm for the preparation of the meals.  The inspector, Mary Oaks, clearly not the one in charge of the inspection as she was constantly on the phone with her superior Susan somebody who was calling all the shots from who knows where.

Susan deemed our food unfit for consumption and demanded that we call off the event because: 

1. Some of the prepared food packages did not have labels on them.  (The code actually allows for this if it is to be consumed within 72 hours.)

2.  Some of the meat was not USDA certified.  (Did I mention that this was a farm to fork meal?)

3.  Some of the food that was prepared in advance was not up to temperature at the time of inspection. (It was being prepared to be brought to proper temperature for serving when the inspection occurred.)

4.  Even the vegetables prepared in advance had to be thrown out because they were cut and were then considered a “bio-hazard”.

5.  We did not have receipts for our food.  (Reminder!  This food came from farms not from the supermarket!  I have talked with several chefs who have said that in all their years cooking they have never been asked for receipts.)

At this time Monte, trying to reason with Susan to find a possible solution for the problem, suggested turning this event from a “public” event to a “private” event by allowing the guests to become part of our farm club, thus eliminating any jurisdiction or responsibility on their part.  This idea infuriated Susan and threatened that if we did not comply the police would be called and personally escort our guests off the property.  This is not the vision of the evening we had in mind!  So regretfully, again we complied.

The only way to keep our guests on the property was to destroy the food.

I can’t tell you how sick to my stomach I was watching that first dish of Mint Lamb Meatballs hit the bottom of the unsanitized trash can.

Here we were with guests who had paid in advance and had come from long distances away anticipating a wonderful dining experience, waiting for dinner while we were behind the kitchen curtain throwing it away!  I know of the hours and labor that went into the preparation of that food.

We asked the inspector if we could save the food for a private family event that we were having the next day.  (A personal family choice to use our own food.)  We were denied and she was insulted that we would even consider endangering our families health.  I assured her that I had complete faith and trust in Giovanni our chef and the food that was prepared, (obviously, or I wouldn’t be wanting to serve it to our guests).

I then asked if we couldn’t feed the food to our “public guests” or even to our private family, then at least let us feed it to our pigs.  (I think it should be a criminal action to waste any resource of the land. Being dedicated to our organic farm, we are forever looking for good inputs into our compost and soil and good food that can be fed to our animals. The animals and compost pile always get our left over garden surplus and food.  We truly are trying to be as sustainable as possible.)

Again, a call to Susan and another negative response.

Okay, so let me get this right.

So the food that was raised here on our farm and selected and gathered from familiar local sources, cooked and prepared with skill and love was even unfit to feed to my pigs!?!  

Who gave them the right to tell me what I feed my animals?

Not only were we denied the use of the food for any purpose, to ensure that it truly was unfit for feed of any kind we were again threatened with police action if we did not only throw the food in the trash, but then to add insult to injury, we were ordered to pour bleach on it.

Now the food is also unfit for compost as I would be negligent to allow any little critters to nibble on it while it was composting and ingest that bleach resulting in a horrible death.  Literally hundreds of pounds of food was good for nothing but adding to our ever increasing land fill!

At some point in all of this turmoil Monte reminded me that I had the emergency phone number for the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) on our refrigerator.  I put it there never really believing that I would ever have to use it.   We became members of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund several years ago as a protection for us, but mostly to add support to other farmers battling against the oppressive legal actions taken against the small farmers trying to produce good wholesome food without government intrusion.

The local, sustainable food battle is being waged all across America!  May I mention that not one battle has been brought on because of any illness to the patrons of these farms!  The battles are started by government officials swooping down on farms and farmers like SWAT teams confiscating not only the wholesome food items produced but even their farm equipment!  Some of them actually wearing HAZMAT suits as if they were walking into a nuclear meltdown!  I have personally listened to some of their heart wrenching stories and have continued to follow them through the FTCLDF’s updates.

Well, I made the call, told my story and within a short period of time received a phone call back from the FTCLDF’s General Counsel, Gary Cox.   When told the story, he simply suggested that we apply our fundamental constitutional right to be protected against “unlawful search and seizure.”  I simply had to ask Mary two questions.  “Do you have a search warrant?”  “Do you have an arrest warrant?”

With the answers being “No”, I politely and very simply asked her to leave our property.  As simple as that!  She had no alternative, no higher power, no choice whatsoever but to now comply with my desire. She left in a huff making a scene shouting that she was calling the police. She left no paperwork, no Cease and Desist order, no record of any kind that implicated us for one thing, (we had complied to all their orders) only empty threats and a couple of trash cans full of defiled food.  I will get back to “the inspector” and her threats shortly.  Let’s get to where it really gets good.

While I am on the verge of a literal breakdown, Monte and Gio get creative. All right, we have just thrown all of this food away, we can’t do this, we can’t do that, what CAN we do?  Well, we have a vegetable farm and we do have fresh vegetables. (By the way, we were denied even using our fresh vegetables until I informed our inspector that I do have a Producers Certificate from the Nevada Department of Agriculture allowing us to sell our vegetables and other farm products at the Farmers Market.  Much of our produce has gone to some of the very finest restaurants in Las Vegas and St. George.)

The wind taken out of the inspector’s sails, Gio and his crew got cookin’. It just so happened that we had a cooled trailer full of vegetables ready to be taken to market the following day. Monte hooked on to the trailer and backed it up right next to the kitchen. Our interns who were there to greet and serve now got to work with lamp oil and began harvesting anew. Knives were chopping, pots of pasta and rice from our food storage were steaming, our bonfire was now turned into a grill and literal miracles were happening before our eyes!

In the meantime, Monte and I had to break the news to our guests. Rather than go into the details here, you can see the video footage on Mark Bowers and Kiki Kalor’s (our friends and guests) website at: http://www.reallyvegasphoto.com/Events/CSA-Farm-Government-Inspection/19707296_v2zFML#1546717636_dJJDZjw

We explained the situation, offered anyone interested a full refund, and told them that if they chose to stay their dinner was now literally being prepared fresh, as just now being harvested.  The reaction of our guests was the most sobering and inspirational experience of the evening.

In an instant we were bonded together.

They were, of course, out-raged at the lack of choice they were given in their meal.

Out-raged at the arrogance of coming to a farm dinner and being required to use only USDA (government inspected) meats.

Outraged at the heavy handedness of the Health Department into their lives.

Then there was the most tremendous outpouring of love and support. 

One of our guests, Marty Keach, informed us that he was an attorney and as appalled as everyone else offered his support and counsel if need be, even if it be to the Supreme Court.  He was a great comfort in a tense time.

With their approval, Giovanni and crew got cooking and the evening then truly began. The atmosphere turned from tense and angry to loving and supportive. As soon as I heard my brother Steve sit down and begin strumming his guitar, I knew something special was happening.  Paid guests volunteered their services. Chef Shawn Wallace, a guest, joined Gio and his team his knife flying through the eggplant and squash.  Wendy and Thierry Pressyler and so many that I am not even aware of, were helping to grill and transport dishes.  Jason and Chrissy Doolen offered to run quick errands.  Jeanne Frost, a server for the Wynn hotel, didn’t take a seat and began serving her fellow guests.

Before long we were seated at the beautiful table and the most incredible  dishes began coming forth.  It was literally “loaves and fishes” appearing before our very eyes!  We broke bread together, we laughed, we talked, we shared stories, we came together in the most marvelous way.

Now this is what I had dreamed, only more marvelous than I could have ever imagined!  The sky being bright with glittering stars, we had the telescopes out and invited any guests who desired to look into our starry heaven.  While we were looking into the heavens, heaven was looking down upon us!  I can’t tell you the number of times I have felt the hand of providence helping us in the work of this farm.

As hard and demanding as this work is, I KNOW that this is what we are meant to do.

I KNOW that it is imperative that we stand up for our food choices.

I KNOW that local, organic, sustainable food produced by ourselves or by small family, local farms is indispensible to the health and well-being of our families and our communities now and in the future! If this work were not so vitally important, the “evil forces” would not be working so hard to pull it down.

We were victorious, we will be victorious, we must be!   Our grandchildren’s future is at stake!

Back to the inspector. She did call the police. You must remember that we live in a small town. We know these officers. They responded to the call dutifully but were desperately trying to figure out why they had been called. Never in all of their experience had they ever received a call like this.

Mary, the inspector, demanded that they give us a citation. The officer in charge said that she was to give us the citation, she responded that no, they were to give us the citation, which they then asked her for what violation. Even with the help of her superior on the phone she could not give them a reason. They asked her to leave which she did. The police were very kind and apologetic for the intrusion. All of this was done without fanfare and out of sight of our guests. The police officers are commended for their professionalism!

Now that we have come to the last chapter of our novel, I realize that it ends with a cliff-hanger. As happy as the ending was, it isn’t “happily ever after” yet.  This will remain to be seen in the ensuing days, weeks and even years ahead.

Tom Collins, our County Commissioner, furious by the events that took place, having formerly been a board member for the Southern Nevada Health District is putting together a meeting with himself, the current board members and ourselves to make sense of all this mess.

As so many of you have related verbally and through emails your desire to help and be involved, we will keep you informed as events take place.  I feel that we have been compelled to truly become active participants in the ongoing battle over our food choices.  This is just one small incident that brings to our awareness how fragile our freedoms are.  We are now ready to join the fight!

We would encourage all of you who can to contribute and to become a member of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.  They are not only fighting for the farmers, they are fighting for the consumers to have the right to choose.  You can find them at farmtoconsumer.org

As I close, I am reminded of the passage written so forcefully by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

The same battle continues.   I pray the result of the battle will be the same, that we have been “endowed by our Creator with … life and liberty”.

We love you all, and thank you with all our souls for your continued love and support!  We will stay in touch.

With warmest wishes for you and your families,

Monte and Laura Bledsoe
Written from Quail Hollow Farm
October 24, 2011
quailhollowfarmcsa.com
Email Laura at quailhollowfarm@mvdsl.com

See the videos:  http://www.reallyvegasphoto.com/Events/CSA-Farm-Government-Inspection/19707296_v2zFML#1546717636_dJJDZjw

Four companies currently control 90 percent of all beef processing in the US.  One of the least-discussed but most promising attempts at food system reform was dealt a serious blow the other day. The USDA itself eviscerated its proposed reform to a set of rules which would have given a government division with a wonky name — the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) — authority to crack down on the way large corporate meatpackers wield power over small and mid-sized ranchers.

To say this was a lost opportunity is a vast understatement. After all, the top four companies control 90 percent of all beef processing. In the case of pork, four companies control 70 percent of the processing, while for poultry it’s nearly 60 percent. When you get that kind of market power,* abuse becomes rampant. Indeed, ranchers all around the country now agree that it’s impossible for them to get a fair price for livestock.

And it’s not just the ranchers who hold that opinion. As hard as it is to believe, back in 2008, a group of farm-state senators inserted language into that year’s Farm Bill that forced the USDA to address the unfairness in livestock markets.

The existing livestock laws date back to 1921 — when the government first identified the need to level the playing field for smaller ranchers — but since then it has been observed almost entirely in the breach (i.e. not so much at all). But in 2009, USDA Chief Tom Vilsack called in reform-minded lawyer Dudley Butler to head the division in charge of livestock markets. Butler declared that he was coming to Washington ”to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act.” Not fix, mind you, enforce. And some would say for the first time.

All of this effort is to halt what has been called the “chickenization” of the rest of the livestock industry. As reporter Stephanie Ogburn explained in an in-depth report here at Grist, the poultry industry is run in such a way that allows single companies to own every step of the process (also known as “vertical integration”), while farmers get locked into lose-lose contracts. As Ogburn wrote:

90 percent of all poultry in the U.S. is now raised by growers who don’t own the birds or negotiate basic terms like price per pound …

Many chicken farmers these days are forced, contractually, to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in chicken houses that meet ever-changing packer specifications.

If anything goes wrong, as it often does, it’s the farmer who’s left holding the bag chickens with no recourse from the meatpackers. If things remain as they are, that kind of indentured servitude represents the future for most beef and pork growers. All the power will remain with a handful of massive corporate behemoths, and ranchers will be glorified hired help taking on all the risk and getting little or no reward.

Believe it or not, the USDA’s Vilsack and Butler came through last year with strong new proposedrules to protect smaller producers that would have changed all that. The draft rule garnered support from many quarters — including the typically Big Ag-friendly American Farm Bureau – and prompted the moderate ag lobbying group the National Farmers Union to refer to it approvingly as “the Ranchers Bill of Rights.”

Of course, the rule soon came under withering assault from the meatpacking industry, whichcommissioned a study designed to prove that the new rule would cost a ludicrous $14 billion and 104,000 jobs. Meanwhile, no mention was made of how many jobs might be saved by the rule — cattle ranching alone has shed 650,000 jobs over the last 30 years, while the number of hog farms dropped by 170,000 between 1992 and 2004, which can only have cost jobs.

The meatpackers also convinced Congress to hold a series of hearings packed with pro-Big Agwitnesses while House Republicans attempted to defund USDA work on the rule entirely (justrecently foiled by the Senate). In short, the industry was hell-bent to kill this reform. That alone should tell you how important it was.

Unfortunately, as the debate ground on, so did the Great Recession. Meanwhile, the disastrous 2010 midterm elections made any kind of reform that much harder. And, with the 2012 election on the horizon, the Obama administration became obsessed with placating a business community that is equally obsessed with his downfall.

As a part of that strategy, when Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel resigned to run for Mayor of Chicago, another Chicagoan and a JP Morgan executive(!), former Commerce Secretary Bill Daley, was brought in as his replacement to help soothe ruffled corporate feathers.

And why would this matter? Because the White House Office for Management and Budget (OMB) reviews and approves all new federal regulations. Since Daley, as Chief of Staff, effectively runs the White House day-to-day, his mantra of corporate conciliation has seeped into every corner, including the OMB.

This reality effectively gives Daley huge influence over all regulatory reform. In other words, rules that have been carefully constructed by federal agencies, have gone through extensive public comment periods and even more revision, can be altered, that is to say weakened, by OMB economists on the basis of “economic impact.” This creates the opportunity for vested interests to apply heavy, behind-the-scenes lobbying pressure.

A form of this kind of pressure played out earlier this year when the White House intervened in USDA’s attempts to restrict the planting of genetically modified alfalfa. Vilsack himself was personally humiliated in that fight, as his very public position to restrict GE alfalfa was steamrolled by a White House concerned with the corporate reactions. And he clearly got the message for future reform attempts. In the case of the livestock rule, rather than facing the White House steamroller again, the USDA did the dirty work itself and pulled out all the controversial parts of the rule that would have truly leveled the playing field for small producers.

It’s not a total loss. It looks like some important changes to the chicken and pork markets were preserved. But remember those four powerful beef packing companies who control 90 percent of the industry? They were spared entirely — the USDA is tabling any changes to the beef markets; nothing will change in their industry.

There is something disturbing about the administration talking up Occupy Wall Street while kissing up to large corporations.

But my take is that the failure to crack down on market abuses in agriculture is another sign that the administration continues to live in mortal terror of corporations, specifically the flood of corporate cash poised to swamp the 2012 election thanks to changes to election funding caused by last year’s Supreme Court Citizens United ruling.  The administration seems desperate to placate corporations in quiet ways.

To the untrained eye, consolidation of the livestock market looks like the triumph of economic efficiency. Fewer farms are raising more livestock! Eaters get lower prices at the supermarket! In reality, however, it has devastated rural communities economically and environmentally and is the very definition of unsustainable. While the outcome could have been worse — the USDA could have killed GIPSA reform entirely — it’s admittedly hard to take a glass-half-full view. I guess at this point reformers have to be thankful that there’s even a glass at all.

*for those keeping score at home, it’s not monopoly power, which refers to a limited number of sellers, but rather monopsony power — a limited number of buyers.

Why do we need a county resolution to protect our food rights?

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is making it increasingly difficult for people to obtain raw milk from their local farmers. Across the state the CDFA is issuing “cease and desist” orders to small, private dairy shares, including one in the fair town of Willits here in Mendocino County. A dairy share is when a group of people (who are unable to keep their own livestock) collectively purchase cows or goats and hire a farmer to feed, board and milk their animals and provide them with the dairy products.

The CDFA claims these arrangements are a threat to the public health and constitute an “illegal” commercial transaction of raw milk. Yes, they are serious. Recently a task force of agencies, including the CDFA, fronted by a SWAT team from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, raided the Rawsome food buying club in Venice, California, seizing produce, destroying milk stocks, confiscating cash, and arresting the owners. The charges? Processing and sale of unpasteurized milk to club members. The owners of Evergreen Acres Goat Farm outside of San Jose, California are facing criminal charges from the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office for their dairy share operation. In none of these cases did any of the shareholders report any illnesses or problems with their milk. In fact, the shareholders have been outraged that the government can tell them what they can or cannot drink.

Why are the CDFA and other government agencies so concerned about dairy share farmers?Why are our scarce tax dollars being used to harass small dairy farmers instead of going to public libraries, healthier school lunch programs, renewable energy programs, or a thousand other pressing needs and problems? Humans have been drinking raw milk for roughly 10,000 years. Unfortunately, the milk most Americans get from the supermarket (homogenized, pasteurized, with additives such as nonfat milk solids, milk protein concentrates, synthetic vitamins A and D, and sometimes with recombinant bovine growth hormone) bears little resemblance to the milk our ancestors drank thousands of years ago. This has led more and more people to seek the option of drinking wholesome fresh milk from a local farmer that they trust. Could large commercial dairies feel threatened by this? Could the CDFA be representing large dairy interests?

Everyone has the right to the foods of their choice. And, we need small, local farmers now more than ever. The CDFA should not have the right to shut down dairy shares and to prevent people from drinking raw milk from local farmers. Especially during these difficult economic times our local family farms, food processing by individuals, families and small, locally-owned businesses offer stability to our rural way. It is not just dairy farmers that experience excessive government intervention. Apple cider, sauerkraut, wildcrafted mushrooms, seaweed, and canned goods are all made scarcer by a system that stands in the way of small producers. Small food processors have difficulty even getting straight answers from the Environmental Health department and the state about what is required to sell dried foods, canned foods, pickled foods, you name it. The people of Mendocino County must have the right to produce, process, sell, purchase and consume local foods, thus promoting self-reliance, the preservation of family farms and local food traditions.

What you can do to help. Help pass a county resolution on “The right to the food of our choice”

1. Collect as many signatures as possible on the petition to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. Set up tables at Farmer’s Markets, schools, churches, food co-ops and other places to collect signatures and share copies of the proposed resolution. Pass out petitions to your friends and ask them to collect signatures.
2. Make an appointment with your representative on the County Board of Supervisors. Bring all the signed petitions you have collected and ask you representative to sponsor and/or support the resolution on “The right to the food of our choice.”
3. Organize a showing of the documentary movie Farmageddon. The movie interviews small farmers across the nation who are being persecuted by county, state and federal agencies merely because they are trying to provide food for their local communities. Invite small farmers to speak on a panel following the movie. Invite local and county officials to attend the movie, too.

For more information contact Green Uprising Farm at 707 216-5549

Please write, call, or visit your Supervisor to ask that he or she consider all sides of the question.

Here are some points you may want to make.

1)Many people rely on raw milk for a variety of health conditions. Many people in this county get milk directly from small farmers not licensed by the state. Some depend on raw milk because they are lactose intolerant, have digestive disorders, or immune system deficiencies that they feel are benefited by the consumption of raw milk.

2) Raw milk is no more dangerous than other foods and a lot safer than meat from the supermarket. On average, over the last ten years, there have been fewer than 20 confirmed cases of food poisoning from raw milk annually, according to government statistics. Yet, in August 2011, 70 people were sickened and one person died from eating turkey burgers infected with salmonella bacteria. The manufacturer, Cargill, has not been shut down, nor has ground turkey been banned.

3) Raw milk is what our grandparents and ancestors drank. The contamination the public health authorities are so worried about occurred at the end of the nineteenth century as huge urban dairies began supplying milk produced under appalling conditions. Once those conditions were removed, the epidemics associated with milk disappeared before pasteurization became widespread.

4) Many people get their fresh (“raw”) milk from small farms and dairy share arrangements. A dairy share is a group of people (unable to keep their own livestock) who collectively purchase cows or goats and hire a farmer to feed, board and milk their animals and provide them with the dairy products. Members of dairy shares do not believe the state (or the county) has the right to prohibit them from drinking the milk from the livestock they have purchased. Don’t adults in our society have a right to the foods of their choice? We have a right to buy tobacco products and alcohol. Why not real milk?

5) We need to support small family farms and dairies – especially in these hard economic times. Small family farms contribute diversity to our local foodshed and offer stability to our rural way of life by enhancing the economic, environmental and social wealth of our community.

6) Our county needs a resolution or ordinance, like those recently passed in Maine and Santa Cruz County. This would protect our right to the foods of our choice and send a message to Sacramento and to our legislators that we will not stand for further intervention in consumer choices.

Email your Supervisor directly through the Board of Supervisors portal: http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/bos/contact.htm.

Call the Board of Supervisors’ number, (707) 463-4221, and leave a message or ask for an appointment.

So what’s a reasonable person to think? The FDA’s food czar, Michael Taylor (poster boy for the revolving door between American’s most hated corporation, Monsanto, and America’s most hated public institution) recently defended his agency’s preoccupation with tiny dairy share operations as a vital part of protecting public health. Those of us who would like our milk fresh, whole and uncooked, defend dairy shares as private arrangements not subject the sorts of regulations that have accrued to keep us safe from the likes of Cargill.

Here are four easy pieces that might help you think through the fog of the dairy wars.

Isn’t Raw Milk Dangerous?

Public health officials, nearly in unison, argue that raw milk is dangerous. OK. Let’s consider that. But remember, this is the stuff humans have been drinking for roughly 10,000 years. We made it well into the twentieth century without pasteurization, but now we gotta have it, or we’ll die. So the public health folks say.

I want to be frank. Raw milk is risky. So is life. Crossing the street is risky. And eating is certainly risky. Every year there are an estimated 48,000,000 (yes, that’s million) cases of food borne illnesses in the United States. Actually reported food borne illnesses in 2010 were 90,771. Still a lot. According to government statistics, on average 41.83 of these could be attributed to drinking raw milk, though “confirmed” cases amounted to only 18.17 per year. So how risky does that make raw milk?

Here’s one way of doing the numbers. There are an estimated 9,384,000 admitted raw milk drinkers in the United States, according to a large recent telephone survey. Extrapolating from the data on food borne illnesses, it can be estimated that they suffered 2,759 cases of food borne illnesses, from all foods. So even for confirmed raw milk drinkers, the percentage of sickness from drinking raw milk was just 0.015 % (41.83 as a percentage of 2,759). That’s not a lot. And that assumes that 1) those “attributed illnesses” really came from raw milk, 2) they came, not from drinking raw milk from the bulk tanks of conventional dairy farmers (as in a recent Wisconsin case) but from dairies that produce raw milk for consumption on purpose, and 3) they only hit committed raw milk drinkers (again, not the case in Wisconsin).

All other foods combined, by contrast, account for almost 100 % of food borne illnesses. In fact, you are 66 times more likely to become sick from all other foods combined than from drinking raw milk, or 152 times more likely if we stick to “confirmed” cases of illness caused by drinking raw milk.¹

Another way of putting it is that we can expect less than half a person (0.45) per 100,000 to get sick from raw milk annually. By contrast, among light smokers, the rate of death from all smoking-related diseases for 35 to 44 year olds, per 100,000, is 87; and the rate goes up rapidly as you age. In case you were wondering, the odds of dying in an auto accident are 1 in 20,000, or 5 in 100,000.

So, go ahead. Drive to the store. Eat your peanut butter. Eat your salad mix. Eat your spinach. Eat your ground turkey from Cargill. Your government is protecting you. Sorta.

But don’t worry over much about the raw milk. If you do worry, of course, and you’re a member of a dairy share, consider insisting as part of your contract that your farmers regularly test for the major diseases. They’ll do it, provided they can find a lab that will serve a tiny operation and doesn’t charge an arm and a leg to do so. Should it make you feel better? That’s a matter for personal judgment. But given the statistics I just quoted, I wouldn’t lose much sleep over the safety of raw milk. The real safety measure? Know your farmer.

But doesn’t the state have a duty to protect the public?

Yes, of course. But are these dairy shares and food clubs public or private? When does a transaction become public? And do adults have a right to decide for themselves what they want to eat or not?

The shareholders and members of buying clubs are, well, shareholders and members. They own part of the herd or part of the club. And as owners they claim a right to the milk and other products provided. That’s because they have a right, after all, to hire someone else to care for the herd, breed the herd, deliver the kids, and milk the mamas. Don’t they? They’re not part of an anonymous “public” needing protection from distant and anonymous vendors of animal products like Cargill. They’re owners, contracting with someone to care for their cows or goats and deliver their product. Pretty simple.

Look at it this way. You own a herd of goats but for some reason can no longer devote time to caring for them — say, you need to make some money for a change. So you hire someone to come and care for the goats and milk them for you. Would that person be “distributing milk to the public” and guilty of violating various regulations if your facilities weren’t licensed? Of course not.

Now, what if you had to move to town, say, to care for your aging mother. You still get your milk the same way, but now you’re drinking it “off the property”. (CDFA claims that dairy shares would be legal as long as the milk does not leave the property!) Does that change the legal situation? Of course not. It’s still your milk. You’re just contracting with someone to care for your goats and provide the milk.

And say you and a friend buy goats together, with the intention of starting a dairy, but you just can’t come up with the quarter of a million dollars it will cost to be licensed (some recession or other, and the banks won’t lend). So you entrust the care and milking of the goats to your friend, you pay a portion for their upkeep as you had agreed in the first place, and you get the milk. Does that change things substantially? No, of course not. These are your goats, even if they’re boarded and cared for on someone else’s property. You’re still part owner and entitled to a reasonable portion of the goods they represent, including the milk.

That’s what a dairy share is. Shareholders own part or all of the herd. They pay someone else to board and care for them, and part of the deal is that this someone else milks the goats and provides milk products to the owners. Illegal? No, of course not. Only a CDFA lawyer could think it was. A “public sale” of milk subject to regulation by the state? No, it’s still just owners collecting on what they are entitled to.

If we have a right to grow and raise our own food, and we do, then we have a right to hire help to do so. We even have a right to board our animals somewhere else and hire someone else to do all the work. Pretty simple, don’t you think?

Why not just comply?

OK, so even if a dairy share is just a private transaction between a farmer and the shareholders/owners of the herd, why not just comply with the relevant regulations? Surely, they’re just common sense measures to protect all parties involved?

Well, no, they’re not. Not unless it is common sense to think that it is easier to wash a milking machine than your hands (the regs require use of a milking machine). Not unless you think spending, say, a quarter of a million dollars on facilities for milking a cow or two or a handful of goats is common sense. Regular testing and periodic inspections is what may come to mind when the authorities talk about complying. But the main obstacles to compliance for small fry like most dairy shares are not the regular testing and inspections required under the law. The main obstacles are those facilities.

What does the law currently require? (“Currently” is important. These laws have developed over decades. Sixty years ago there was little concrete and stainless steel involved. People like my Great Aunt Anna could even legally milk her solitary cow and sell butter and cream in town without much to-do. And, you know what? The health problems the regulations are supposed to address had largely been addressed by the 1920′s, mainly by shutting down the big, unsanitary urban dairies that were common at the turn of the last century.)

According to California State regulations, to be licensed you must have a separate milking room, used exclusively for that purpose. Floors must be concrete, stanchions can’t be wooden, walls must be coated with something “impermeable,” windows and exterior doors must be screened. You must use a milking machine, and it must be cleaned after each use. How? Chemicals are the preferred method in the industry, but very hot water is acceptable. Generally, the machine must be partially dismantled to do the whole job right.

Milk must be sent immediately to a separate cooling room, where it is chilled to reach the proper storage temperature within 45 minutes. This is usually done in a large, stainless steel vat. The cooling room must be constructed to the same standards as the milking room. The vat must be cleaned regularly.

If you intend to bottle milk or process it, say, into cheese, you need the dairy equivalent of a commercial kitchen. More stainless steel (especially for that pasteurization tank), more cement, special plumbing, separate hand washing and dish washing sinks, and all the rest. That could cost a quarter of a million all by itself.

Oh, and there’s the bathroom. There must be a bathroom (for the inspector), with outside access only. Flush toilets, of course. That’s right. The dairy animals can spend their whole lives wallowing in their own excrement, and many do; that doesn’t worry the crafters of the code. But the inspector must have a proper bathroom. It probably needs to be handicapped accessible, but I haven’t found explicit language to that effect. In fact, many of the requirements are scattered over multiple sections of the code. Though the Secretary of Agriculture was required by law to provide model building plans for licensed dairies, I couldn’t find any such document, nor any official estimates of the costs of such facilities.

That’s just the physical infrastructure required for licensing. The rest, the testing but especially the inspections, can be up to the inspector. Get a good one, and it’s easy. Get one who, say, hates the drive to your little tiny place way out where, and he or she can make your life miserable. Even shut you down. Unlike, say, Cargill. No, most people can’t “just comply.” That’s why most of our dairy farms have shut down over the last fifty years.

Bottom Line: We Need Local Dairy

Mendocino County is not going to attract major industry, experience another real estate boom, or live off tourist revenues for the foreseeable future. Our two chief agricultural products, wine and marijuana, are in the doldrums. The larger economy is not recovering and probably won’t. We need to continue to build a local economy, and the heart of a local economy is local food.

Where’s the dairy? There is one licensed dairy in the county, as far as I know, and it sells high-end goat cheese. Otherwise, we import our milk – or quietly get it fresh from friends and neighbors. Trouble is, the California Department of Food and Agriculture thinks all that local exchange is illegal. Karen Ross, Secretary of Agriculture, recently penned an editorial in the Sacramento Bee asserting her department’s commitment to helping support local food but insisting that she had an obligation to protect “public safety.” No, not from Cargill but from Mom and Pop local dairy producers. The department, she said, would do everything it could to help these folks get licensed.

There was no offer of financing in her letter, because there will be no financing. Nor do most local dairy producers want to go into hock for the upwards of a quarter million dollars it would cost to “go legal”. There are few in this county willing to take the risks that model of dairy entails. Eighty percent of dairies nationwide have gone under in the last ten years. Federal policies – from promoting bovine growth hormone to supporting an open import market to elaborate “safety” requirements – have contributed to the holocaust of small dairy farming. Who in her right mind would go into debt big time under these conditions?

What policy makers don’t understand – and many professional folks sincerely committed to a local food economy are as ignorant – is that local food production does not entail launching a lot of successful, middle-income farms. Not in Mendocino County and likely not in most parts of the country. People go into farming knowing that it will be a small part of their income, one of probably several income streams that they balance to keep them afloat. Sure, everyone hopes that “one day”, they’ll be able to live off farming, if that’s what they love doing. But for most people, it’s not likely to happen.

Local dairy is one of those little streams, part of a subsistence strategy for most people, not really a business strategy. They produce for themselves and cover expenses, but scarcely a wage, with surreptitious sales or a more open dairy share. That’s how it has been for years in rural America. And that’s how it will have to be if we are to have a local food economy that really amounts to something.

That’s also how it should be. Local dairy, backyard dairy, should be as ubiquitous as backyard chickens. And it should be as easy to sell a little milk or butter or cheese as it is to sell eggs. Are there risks? Of course, but they are small – undoubtedly smaller than consuming store-bought eggs, which have a thirty percent chance of carrying salmonella, according to recent studies. The benefits are immense. Not just that little income stream but the fresh, health-giving dairy products that people who taste them wonder how they did without when they shopped at the supers. And that little bit of money stays home, in our communities, where it belongs. So do the folks who would love to just keep on farming, raising animals, and sharing food with their neighbors.

We need local dairy. The California Department of Food and Agriculture isn’t going to help us get it. We have to build it ourselves, one dairy share at a time. And to do so, we’ll need support from our county government, to see to it that state officials back off and let us grow the economy we need. .Above all, we need a local food policy that really does promote local food production and that makes county agencies sympathetic players in that effort.

The real threat is that heavy handed government efforts to eliminate any possible risk from our food supply is stifling the growing local food movement in this country. As it is, small farmers and food producers have to jump through multiple hoops to comply with existing law, and the regulations are too often unclear, compliance outside the budgets of small producers. Meanwhile, giant corporations are implicated in large-scale food poisonings without serious consequences to themselves or their owners.

The FDA’s and CDFA’s targeting of tiny dairy producers is only the most public example of the difficulties others have encountered attempting to provide the public with tomato sauce, pickles, seaweed, sprouts, wildcrafted mushrooms, and other “potentially hazardous” foods. And the FDA is preparing rules for the sale of leafy greens that threaten to put small-scale producers out of business once and for all.

In this context, we insist on our right to feed ourselves. Starting at the county level, communities all over the country have begun to pass “food sovereignty” legislation challenging state and federal regulators to make room for traditional, small-scale production. Join the effort here in Mendocino County and help re-build our local food economy.

WHEREAS, the people of the County of Mendocino historically have maintained and enjoyed the right to raise food for themselves and their families; and

WHEREAS, family farms, sustainable agricultural practices and food processing by individuals, families and small, locally based firms offers stability to our rural way of life by enhancing the economic, environmental and social wealth of our community; and

WHEREAS, in this day and age, there are many barriers to people raising their own food and livestock, including the land required for such activities, capital costs, accessibility, time, knowledge, and skills; and

WHEREAS, as part of the right to raise food for themselves and their families, the people have and maintain the right to raise such food on their own land, subject to zoning and land use laws, and where desired, to contract with others to rent sufficient land for the growing of that food, for boarding their poultry and livestock, and for hiring services related to its care, maintenance, raising, and harvesting; and

WHEREAS, as part of that right, the people have the right to own, and where they deem it convenient to share ownership of, such agricultural activities, livestock, and other food producing animals for their own use, enjoyment, and consumption; and

WHEREAS, no local, state or federal law bars any person from raising their own food for use by themselves and their families; and

WHEREAS, in the interests of a vibrant local economy, it is important that the rights outlined above be maintained and that County officials encourage a healthy and environmentally friendly form of small scale agriculture.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors supports, endorses, and encourages the recognition of the right and freedom of people to raise their own food, including food derived from agricultural animals, for the enjoyment of themselves and their families, either by their own investment and labor or through the assistance of others through contractual arrangements.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors recognizes the right of people to contract with others for the production, processing and delivery of food for home consumption on terms set solely by the contracting parties and not subject to regulations designed for the public sale of such foods.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors supports the adoption of local, state, and federal laws that support and encourage the American people to continue and expand the activities of raising food for themselves and their families.

]]> http://mendofoodfreedom.com/2011/10/01/a-resolution/feed/ 2 michaelfoley http://mendofoodfreedom.com/2011/09/29/an-ordinance/ http://mendofoodfreedom.com/2011/09/29/an-ordinance/#comments Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:01:50 +0000 michaelfoley http://mendofoodfreedom.com/?p=83 ]]> AN ORDINANCE TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND INTEGRITY OF THE LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM IN THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, CALIFORNIA [DRAFT]

Section 1. Name. This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the “Local Food and Community Self-Governance Ordinance #______, 2011.”

Section 2. Definitions.
As used in this ordinance:
a) “Patron” means an individual who purchases any product or preparation directly from a processor or producer and who does not resell the product or preparation.
b) “Home consumption” means consumed within a private home or personally by patron.
c) “Local Foods” means any food or food product that is grown, produced, or processed by individuals who sell directly to their patrons through farm-based sales, roadside stands or buying clubs.
d) “Processor” means any individual who processes or prepares products of the soil or animals for food or drink.
e) “Producer” means any farmer or gardener who grows any plant or animal for food or drink.

Section 3, Preamble and Purpose. We the People of the County of Mendocino, California, have the right to produce, process, sell, purchase and consume local foods, thus promoting self-reliance, the preservation of family farms and local food traditions. We recognize that family farms, sustainable agricultural practices and food processing by individuals, families and small, locally-owned businesses offers stability to our rural way of life by enhancing the economic, environmental and social wealth of our community. As such, our right to a local food system requires us to assert our inherent right to self-government. We recognize the authority to protect that right as belonging to the County of Mendocino.

We recognize our individual rights and individual responsibilities. We have faith in our citizens’ ability to educate themselves and make informed decisions. We hold that federal and state regulations impede local food production and constitute a usurpation of our citizens’ right to foods of their choice. We support food that fundamentally respects human dignity and health, nourishes individuals and the community and sustains producers, processors and the environment. We are therefore duty bound under the Constitution of the State of California to protect and promote unimpeded access to local foods.

The purpose of the Local Food and Community Self-Governing Ordinance is to:
1. Provide citizens with unimpeded access to local food;
2. Enhance the local economy by promoting the production and purchase of local agricultural products;
3. Protect access farm based sales and direct producer to patron sales;
4. Support the economic viability of local food producers and processors;
5. Preserve local knowledge and traditional food ways.

Section 4. Authority. This Ordinance is adopted and enacted pursuant to the inherent, inalienable and fundamental right of the citizens of the County to self government, and under the authority recognized as belonging to the people of Mendocino County by all relevant state and federal laws including, but not limited to the following:

The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, which declares that governments are instituted to secure peoples’ rights, and that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

The California Constitution, which recognizes that “all political power is inherent in the people” (California Constitution Article II, Section 1) and that grants counties and cities all powers necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare (California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7) and Article 1 Section 9 which states in the Declaration of Rights: A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.

Section 5. Statements of Law.

Section 5.1. Right to Access and Produce Food. Mendocino County citizens possess the right to produce, process, sell, purchase and consume local foods of their choosing.

Section 5.1a Right to Ownership: Mendocino County citizens have the right to own livestock animals in whole or in part.

Section 5.1b. Right to Contract for Care and Production: All residents have the right to contract with any person to provide housing and care for animals that they own in whole or in part, including activities such as milking or shearing to provide products from such animals.

Section 5.1c. Right to the Products: All residents have the right to contract with any person to package and deliver the products, including dairy products, derived from animals that such residents own in whole or in part for the owner’s personal consumption or other personal use.

Section 5.2. Licensure/Inspection Exemption. Producers or processors of local foods in the County of Mendocino are exempt from licensure and inspection provided that the transaction is only between the producer or processor and a patron when the food is sold for home consumption. This includes any producer or processor who sells his or her products at roadside farm stands; sells his or her products through farm-based sales directly to a patron; or delivers his or her products directly to patrons.

Section 5.3. Right to Private Association in Production and Consumption of Food. Mendocino County citizens have the right to enter into private associations for the production, sharing and purchase of food of all sorts, including “herdshare” and “dairyshare” arrangements. These private associations shall not be subject to regulations designed by state and federal legislatures for public commerce.

Section 5.4. Right to Self-Governance. All citizens of Mendocino County possess the right to a form of governance which recognizes that all power is inherent in the people, that all free governments are founded on the people’s authority and consent.

Section 5.5. Right to Enforce. Mendocino County citizens possess the right to adopt measures which prevent the violation of the rights enumerated in this Ordinance. The Sheriff, being the supreme law enforcement official in the county, is hereby obligated to enforce this statement of law protecting the rights of the citizens of Mendocino County against outside agencies or corporations.

Section 6. Statement of Law, Implementation. The following restrictions and provisions serve to implement the preceding statements of law.

Section 6.1 State and Federal Law. It shall be unlawful for any law or regulation adopted by the state or federal government to interfere with the rights recognized by this Ordinance. It shall be unlawful for any corporation to interfere with the rights recognized by this Ordinance. The term “corporation” shall mean any business entity organized under the laws of any state or country.

Section 6.2. Patron Liability Protection. Patrons purchasing food for home consumption may enter into private agreements with those producers or processors of local foods to waive any liability for the consumption of that food. Producers or processors of local foods shall be exempt from licensure and inspection requirements for that food as long as those agreements are in effect.

Section 7. Civil Enforcement. The County of Mendocino may enforce the provisions of this Ordinance through seeking equitable relief from a court of competent jurisdiction. Any individual citizen of the County of Mendocino shall have standing to vindicate any rights secured by this ordinance which have been violated or which are threatened with violation, and may seek relief both in the form of injunctive and compensatory relief from a court of competent jurisdiction.

Section 8. County Action against Preemption. The foundation for making and adoption of this law is the peoples’ fundamental and inalienable right to govern themselves, and thereby secure their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Any attempt to use other units and levels of government to preempt, amend, alter or overturn this Ordinance or parts of this Ordinance shall require the County to hold public meetings that explore the adoption of other measures that expand local control and the ability of citizens to protect their fundamental and inalienable right to self-government. It is declared that those other measures may legitimately include the partial or complete separation of the County from the other units and levels of government that attempt to preempt, amend, alter, or overturn this Ordinance.

Section 9. Effect. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its enactment.

Section 10. Severability Clause. To the extent any provision of this Ordinance is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision will be removed from the Ordinance, and the balance of the Ordinance shall remain valid.

Section 11. Repealer. All inconsistent provisions of prior Ordinance adopted by the County of Mendocino are hereby repealed, but only to the extent necessary to remedy the inconsistency.