The RAnts of RA

The future of Raw Milk in California in jeopardy

The governor of California and his henchmen have just legislated away our right to drink raw milk. Of course they didn’t ban it outright: that would have been noticed by the citizens of the state of California and protested against. No, they chose to pull a sneaking maneuver and inserted eight little words that will have the same effect.

These eight words will prevent California dairies from selling raw milk:

"or more than ten coliform bacteria per milliliter"

Those eight words were added to dairy legislation in California on October 8, 2007.

Assembly Bill #1735 (AB 1735) was signed by the Governor and becomes law on January 1st, 2008. Contained in this law are new standards for raw milk. These new standards require 10 coliform bacteria per ml or less. This standard does not increase the safety of raw milk and it will make the production of organic raw milk in California nearly impossible. Under the tried and true old standards that have been in existence for forty years or more, coliforms could be 50 or 500. It did not matter.

A press conference was held at the Fresno Farmer’s Market in Fresno on Saturday, October 27 at 11 a.m. in protest of the new law. This post will be updated as more details become available.

You might be thinking, "I don’t drink raw milk. Why should I care?" While many of us who grew up drinking raw milk and extol the benefits of drinking a healthy natural beverage. This isn’t merely about the availability of milk. This issue extends far beyond the obvious in that our government is supposed to be transparent. Ours is supposed to function as a government for and by the people. When our public officials use underhanded, sneaky and unethical tactics to achieve their goals, we all pay the price.

The EPA reports that even testing for fecal coliforms (a subset of coliform bacteria) is a "a poor indicator of the risk of digestive system illness." The EPA goes on to advise that the only way to determine whether food is actually sanitary is to test for those specific coliforms that can be a sign of something harmful such as E. coli and enterococci. Neglecting to test for those specific harmful coliforms, but banning all coliforms outright is equivalent to forcing Ford to recall every vehicle they ever made when only a single model year of one product is found to have a flaw. Even then, the previous law set the limit of coliforms at 750 coliforms per mL. A legal reduction of over 98% over the course of less than 3 months cannot be interpreted as anything other than a direct attack on raw milk providers, particularly when far more than 90% of coliform bacteria are not harmful.

This is not the first-time I’ve personally witnessed the blatant disregard for public opinion and openness required for our government to function properly by those in Sacramento. For instance, it’s not an uncommon practice for a legislator to reuse a bill number that is no longer active – after the date legally prescribed under California law. There is a reason legislation isn’t allowed to be introduced after a certain date, but that doesn’t stop our legislative branch from manipulating the rules to their advantage.

How long will Californians stand by and allow our elected officials to skirt the laws that guarantee the rest of us a spot at the table? If you are sick and tired of being railroaded and regulated to death, now is your opportunity to let your voice be heard in Sacramento. Contact your legislators and let them know what you think about the way they are conducting our business.

More Information:

• Government Sneak Attack on California Raw Milk
• Contact lawmakers today about Ag. Bill 1735
• Eight words are threatening to change your life:
• State’s tough new raw milk standards upset consumers, farmers
• Will Raw Milk Still Be Available in CA Come Jan. 1?
• Arizona Raw Dairy Alert
• What is Organic?

The liberal leaning states of New York and California led the pack, passing legislation banning non-self-extinguishing cigarettes; many other states are in the process of following their heavy-handed lead.

The state of Illinois will require all cigarettes sold in the state to be self-extinguishing after Jan. 1, 2008. Both Colorado and Iowa are considering passing similar bills. What voters may not realize is they are being hoodwinked. I’m not certain at this point what the monetary motivation is. I do know that “safety” is not the reason behind the push for selling these killer cigarettes.

I supposed this is one way to rid the country of smokers because these cigarettes will kill us off, slowly, one-by-one. The premise behind the push for these so-called self-extinguishing cigarettes is that the cigarette will go out when it is dropped or sitting in an ashtray, and therefore not ignite a careless home fire.

The problem is — well the problem with these cigarettes are numerous. They don’t go out when they sit in an ashtray, but they do go out while you are holding them. In order to keep them lit you have to suck like a baby on a bottle with a teeny-tiny hole that won’t allow the milk to pass through.

California’s self-extinguishing cigarette law went into effect in January. I can’t sleep at night because I’ve got the granddaddy of smokers’ coughs. Each night when I lay down to sleep it starts. I’ve been smoking for many years (29) and I’ve never had a cough like this in my life.

I didn’t put two and two together, until I had the opportunity to pick up some cigarettes recently while visiting family in Nevada. Low and behold – after smoking only one pack of "regular" cigarettes, my cough was gone but as soon as I started smoking California regulated cigarettes the cough was back in full force.

Which brings me to the next problem; the cigarettes burn unevenly. In attempts to keep the cigarette lit, without blowing out my lungs, I’ve tried relighting it with a lighter, only to have it flare up and almost scorch my eye browse. Many times the paper bands around the cigarette refuse to burn off and end up landing on me causing me to burn my fingers and sometimes even my clothing.

I’ve put more holes in my clothes since California passed this menacing law than I did when I was first learning to smoke. It’s down right painful, not to mention embarrassing.

These new "banded" cigarettes are a health hazard to smokers, causing unnecessary burns, chest pains, uncontrollable coughing jags and should be permanently banned. Voters in states consider implementing these horrid cigarettes should think twice before they further endanger their health. It’s bad enough we are told everyday how smoking is bad for us by every self-important well-meaning non-smoker on the face of the planet, and now they seem hell-bent on making it so.

I have a choice to make:

• I can spend years trying to fight this new law;
• I can attempt to bring a class action lawsuit against the state of California;
• I can move to a new state that doesn’t force banded cigarettes on their citizens; or
• I can break the law and go to a neighboring state to purchase my cigarettes, risking jail and/or a fine.

These are tough choices; one I shouldn’t be forced into making.

Vote NO on "banded" or "self-extinguishing" cigarette laws being legislated in your state. The life you save could be your own.

Child and Family Protection Association recently issued an alert on California Assembly Bill 755 (AB 755) and while I agree that this bill creates a huge problem for parents of young children. I really think they miss the point.

The alert highlights the following points of contention:

AB 755 (Assembly Member Sally Lieber) – Prohibition of Spanking Opposition Points to Share with Legislators
Position: Strongly Oppose
Status: AB 755 (introduced 2/22/07)

Assembly Member Sally Lieber’s first proposal to address all spanking of children ages three and under was never introduced as a bill, apparently due to much opposition. However, contrary to claims originating from her office:

1. She has not “fixed” her no-spank proposal; she has only adopted a different strategy;
2. AB 755 is an anti-spanking bill “in disguise” and would have the effect of abolishing most spanking without using language directly outlawing spanking.
3. Lieber believes that all “good parents” never spank their children; that only “bad parents” do, and therefore “good parents” do not need to be worried about her bill; and
4. When Lieber claims that her bill only deals with child abuse, remember that she believes that all spanking, by definition, is child abuse. Her strategy in AB 755 is to treat all spanking with an object as criminal child abuse. She has deliberately failed to make any distinction between spanking as a method of discipline and true child abuse.

AB 755 would amend Penal Code 273a, which currently makes it a crime to cause unjustifiable pain, harm, or injury to any minor child. AB 755 would create a new “rebuttable presumption” that physical pain or mental suffering inflicted upon a child is unjustifiable if it is caused by any of the seven kinds of actions, which are listed in AB 755.

The first of the seven actions listed is: “the use of an implementation, including, but not limited to, a stick, a rod, a switch, an electrical cord, an extension cord, a belt, a broom, or a shoe.” This first action includes the act of spanking with an implement (i.e. an object other than using one’s hand).

The significance of the new “rebuttable presumption” in AB 755 is that regardless of any circumstances, the police and District Attorney would have to consider all spanking with an implement to be unjustifiable. Parents would have the difficult task of proving (rebutting the charges) that the spanking was justifiable to the satisfaction of the court in a criminal trial in order to avoid being sent to jail for up to one year or receiving other penalties. The case also could be referred to Child Protective Services (CPS) and Juvenile Court, which could result in the possible temporary or permanent loss of custody of their children.

Roy M. Hanson, Jr.
Child and Family Protection Association
Alert issued April 12, 2007
PO Box 730
Lincoln, CA 95648-0730

Let’s put this all in perspective. The only way a parent would ever get caught up in this trap is by being reported by a childcare worker or medical personnel. This means that more parents will think twice before seeking medical attention.

The proposed legislation also requires; if a person is convicted of violating this section and probation is granted, the court shall require the following minimum conditions of probation:

1. A mandatory minimum period of probation of 48 months.
2. A criminal court protective order protecting the victim from further acts of violence or threats, and, if appropriate, residence exclusion or stay-away conditions.
   1. A Successful completion of either a nonviolent parental education class approved by the probation department or no less than one year of a child abuser’s treatment counseling program approved by the probation department. The defendant shall be ordered to begin participation in either the class or the program immediately upon the grant of probation.
   2. The terms of probation for offenders shall not be lifted until all reasonable fees due to the counseling program have been paid in full, but in no case shall probation be extended beyond the term provided in subdivision (a) of Section 1203.1. If the court finds that the defendant does not have the ability to pay the fees based on the defendant’s changed circumstances, the court may reduce or waive the fees.
3. If the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the defendant shall abstain from the use of drugs or alcohol during the period of probation and shall be subject to random drug testing by his or her probation officer.
4. The court may waive any of the above minimum conditions of probation upon a finding that the condition would not be in the best interests of justice. The court shall state on the record its reasons for any waiver.

This bill, as it is written, will provide a huge influx of cash for those offering parental education classes, treatment counseling programs and require more probation officers to be hired and more business for drug testing facilities. All of these “services” provided at the cost of the accused.

Those who are familiar with our court system know that it is currently next to impossible to get a fair trial. This bill will increase the caseload on the court system and does nothing to provided added protections for children.

In short, this bill is a smoke screen – a band-aid that does nothing but rake good parents over the coals and empty their wallets. You’ve heard the fraise “As California goes, so goes the nation.” If this bill is passed, you can expect to see similar legislation passed in many more states.

Related Articles

• AB 755 Action Alert
• AB 755 Alert Supplement
• Read AB 755 – Corporal punishment
• CA: Spanking Ban
• California News Archive