Editor’s note: This story is by Sylvia Fagin, a Montpelier freelance writer.
Last week Rural Vermont, a farm advocacy group, and the Agency of Agriculture engaged in an intense dialogue about how to protect farmers who sell raw milk from having to monitor the actions of their customers.
On Feb. 10, the agency advised Rural Vermont that continuation of its “Raw Dairy Processing Classes” could result in legal action. Rural Vermont suspended the classes to avoid placing farmers at risk.
In these classes, which Rural Vermont has conducted since 2009, farmers and Rural Vermont staff teach participants how to make cheese, butter, and other products from raw milk.
Daniel Scruton, chief of the dairy section of the agency, alleged in the notice that Rural Vermont is in violation of the law because the classes distribute cheese produced by persons who don’t hold valid milk-handlers licenses. Scruton also said advertising for the classes encourages farmers to boost raw milk sales by teaching or offering a dairy processing workshop, violating the portion of the statute which excludes any use of raw milk other than for fluid consumption.
The crux of the conflict stems from the language of Act 62, the “Raw Milk Bill,” passed in 2009. Rural Vermont led a lobbying effort in support of the legislation.
As enacted, the law permits “the production and sale of unpasteurized milk for fluid consumption” and defines “ unpasteurized (raw) milk” as “ unpasteurized milk sold for fluid consumption and does not include…unpasteurized milk produced for use in manufacturing of milk products other than fluid milk.”
Jared Carter, the executive director of Rural Vermont, said the agency alleges that the classes violate the statute. Carter disagrees with that assessment.
Much of the disagreement centers on the definition of “unpasteurized milk sold for fluid consumption.” Carter says the agency has interpreted the law to mean that “fluid consumption” occurs when the customer ingests the product, i.e., the milk. This interpretation means that the onus is on farmers to ensure consumers don’t use raw fluid milk to make cheese or another product, Carter says.
“The Agency says that any farmer who knowingly sells raw milk knowing that it’ll be consumed in a way other than as fluid milk is breaking the law,” he said. “Is it the role of farmers to be policing this? We argue no.”
Rural Vermont would prefer to interpret “fluid consumption” as occurring at the time of sale, Carter said on Friday, rather than at the time the product is ingested.
Carter has met with Scruton and Diane Bothfeld, deputy secretary of dairy policy, and Jolinda LaClair, deputy secretary for the Agency of Agriculture. Chuck Ross, the secretary of the agency, has not attended any of the meetings yet, according to Bothfeld, though he has been kept abreast of new developments. Ross did not respond to requests for comment.
Carter has characterized the meetings with Scruton and Bothfeld as “cordial” and “productive.” A change in the language of the law has been a topic in their discussions, but “we hold out hope that we won’t need to go to the Legislature for a language change,” Carter said on Friday, adding that Rural Vermont’s preference is for a change in the way the Agency interprets “fluid consumption.”
Milk handlers or instructors
In addition, the agency questions whether charging participants for the class constitutes selling cheese.
The warning alleges that Rural Vermont is in violation of the law because “cheese to be distributed in commerce (served to the class)” falls into the category that requires the producer to hold a valid milk handler’s license. “It’s unclear if participants consume the product or take the product home” at the end of the class, Bothfeld said, adding, “To take home what you made in class is beyond the scope of the law.”
Although Rural Vermont charges participants for the classes in order to cover costs, “we never buy milk, we never sell cheese, I think it’s a stretch to say we’re milk handlers,” Carter said Thursday. In question is the definition of “sale,” according to Carter.
“The Agency says that by accepting money for the class, Rural Vermont is selling a product,” Carter said. “If someone took a pottery class at UVM, and at the end of the class, took home what they made, would you say that UVM sells pottery? No one would say that,” Carter said.
As of Friday, Rural Vermont had received over 200 calls and e-mails, primarily from consumers, supporting the classes, Carter said.
“Rural Vermont believes we are well within our rights teaching these classes,” Carter said. “There’s nothing in the law that says that they [the Agency] can tell people that they can’t make cheese in their own kitchen for their own consumption,” he said. “Our Constitution protects freedom of speech which includes education.”
According to Bothfeld, the agency has no issue with individuals making cheese from raw milk for their own consumption, and “we have no issue with education,” she said. At issue, according to Bothfeld, is the “increased sale of raw milk” implied in Rural Vermont’s advertising for the classes.
The increased sale would result from consumers buying more raw milk with which to make cheese and other products; however, the statute defines raw milk as milk sold for fluid consumption, only.
“We want to protect farmers and meet the statute,” Bothfeld said Wednesday. “Do we need to tweak the definition so farmers aren’t acting as police? We want to take the onus off farmers to ask questions. Asking is a bad place to put farmers in.”
The agency would like to come to an agreement without having to change the language of the law, according to Bothfeld. “We’d like to find something least disruptive to the law,” she said.
Raw milk cheese has been in the national news of late due to potential changes to the federal rules regulating cheese made with unpasteurized milk. However, the Notice of Warning was not in response to any federal action or pressure, according to Scruton.
The FDA has stepped up inspection of cheesemaking facilities, according to Mateo Kehler, co-owner and cheesemaker at Jasper Hill Farm in Greensboro.
“We didn’t see the FDA here from 2005-2010,” Kehler said. In September of 2010, three FDA agents spent three days inspecting the Jasper Hill facility. Jasper Hill passed with flying colors, as did the other six Vermont facilities visited by the FDA inspectors.
Kehler expressed concerned about the impact a food-safety scare from unlicensed cheesemaking could have on his business.
“We want to see more cheesemakers, safely,” Kehler said.
At the end of the day Friday, a definitive agreement between Rural Vermont and the Agency of Agriculture had yet to be reached.
Disclosure: Sylvia Fagin is an individual member of Rural Vermont.
