Become a Member  |  Donate  |  Renew  |  Shop for Activist Wares  |  Join Our Mailing List
Action Alert - Visit www.farmtoconsumer.org    
REMINDER:
Attend Public Raw Milk on July 26
milkpitcherGlass
Submit Comments by August 5, 2013 

 

The South Dakota Department of Agriculture (SDDA) wisely scratched their last draft of raw milk regulations, but they're at it again. SDDA has restarted the rulemaking process and is holding a public hearing on proposed raw milk rules Friday 9:00 a.m. Central on July 26, 2013.

Friday - July 26, 9:00am CT
Public Hearing on Proposed Rules 12:81
Capitol Building, Room 414
500 E. Capitol Ave.
Pierre, South Dakota [directions]

 

Due to SDDA's missteps, the June hearing record will be discarded, and a new record is being created. 

 

Submit Comments by 5:00pm Central, August 5th

A
TAKE ACTION 
Submit Comments to SDDA by 5:00 p.m. Central, August 5  

 

SDDA has amended the proposed rules since the June meeting and is discarding the record creating by the June 6 meeting.  Please send comments to help create the new record.


Via Email - You may write your own message or copy/paste the form letter below
Subject:  Comment on Article 12:81 Raw Milk Rules

Via Fax - You may fax your message or print/sign the form letter below to 605-773-5926

     To:  SD Division of Agricultural Policy

           Attn: Courtney DeLaRosa, General Counsel & Division Director 

 

Via US Postal Service - Be sure to mail in time to arrive Monday, August 5th 

             South Dakota Department of Agriculture

Ag Services

523 E. Capitol Ave.

Pierre, SD 57501  

 

In order to keep freedom of food choice, your letter needs to arrive by August 5th at the SD Department of Agriculture (even if it is after August 5th please send your letter).  

B
YOUR PARTICIPATION WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE! 
 

Recently the South Dakota Department of Agriculture (SDDA) promulgated new rules which would have affected the availability of raw (unpasteurized) milk and even the choice of "offering and providing" it. There was a public hearing in Pierre on June 6th and written public comment was accepted. During the June hearing process, raw milk supporters sent in more than 700 letters to SDDA. 

 

Due to SDDA's missteps, the last hearing record will be discarded, and a new record will need to be created.

Raw dairy producers are small business people who have chores morning and night, and it will require great sacrifice for them to attend yet another hearing in Pierre. In this era of state budget cost consciousness the taxpaying citizens of South Dakota will pay twice in footing the bill for a second hearing.  

 

Producers of raw milk for commercial sale in South Dakota are already subject to health testing, labeling, and other safety precautions; they have been selling raw milk safely for years. SDDA's proposed rules do not increase public safety; instead, they add a lot of burdensome red tape.

 

Apparently the initial public outcry made a difference and SDDA threw out those first rules. However, they have "redrafted" those rules now with only minor changes, and have included the same very stringent testing regime that will make it impossible to sell raw milk in this state.

 

The SDDA seems determined to stop the sale of raw milk in South Dakota. Show SDDA that residents are equally determined to keep raw milk flowing in South Dakota! 

C

South Dakota Department of Agriculture (SDDA)

Ag Services  

523 E. Capitol Ave.

Pierre, SD 57501

 

RE: Proposed Raw Milk Rules - Article 12:81  

 

Dear Sec. Lentsch:

 

As a South Dakota resident, I want to thank you for amending your proposed rules. I appreciate the removal of the language "offer and provide," replaced with "sale" of raw milk, the elimination of various animal-health requirements since they already are in place under state animal-industry regulations, and the deletion of a second re-test sample requirement after contamination.

   

However, the amended rules are still a major concern since they still create an economic barrier and encroach on personal freedoms. These rules will eliminate any small farmer from selling raw milk -- which also eliminates the freedom to purchase and consume the milk of one's choice. Producers of raw milk for commercial sale for human consumption in South Dakota are currently subject to health testing, labeling, and other safety precautions. These proposed rules do not increase public safety; instead, they add a lot of burdensome red tape.     

 

The following are my specific concerns and requests for changes:

  

1) 12:81:03:01   Delete "There shall be no direct openings between the milk packaging area and milking operations".

* This will cost producers extra money, cause major inconvenience, and does not contribute to public health.

* This is inconsistent with current rule 12:17:04:12 which allows a door in between rooms.

 

2) 12:81:02:02, 12:81:03:04   Delete coliform testing requirements. Corresponding sections, including 12:81:03:03(4), 12:81:04:02, 12:81:04:04, should be amended to match.

* Coliform testing is new and does not fit the stated intent of the rules.

* Proposed level of 10 per/ml is too low. Other states set this limit as high as 100 or don't even test for this.

* Raw milk contains naturally occurring, beneficial bacteria which exit the animal's udder higher than the limit of 10.    

 

3) 12:81:03:03   Change Bacteria Limits in 12:81:03:03, address conflict between it and 12:17:03:09 in 12:81:04:01

* Current rule 12:17:03:09 for bacteria of 500,000 per/ml is adequate. New rule of 20,000 is too low.

 

4) 12:81:02:02, 12:81:03:04   Delete pathogen testing requirements. Corresponding sections, including 12:81:03:03(5), should be amended to match.

* Pathogen testing not necessary. Utah just suspended pathogen testing because the state lab never saw a confirmed positive test result.

 

5) 12:81:03:05   Delete warning label and bottling date requirements.   

* Current statute is adequate requiring a "raw milk" label to be placed on bottles of raw milk sold direct-to-consumer.

* It is impossible for the producers to attach such a warning label to their current bottles and prohibitively expensive to buy new bottles.

* Bottling dates are not needed when milk is sold fresh, direct-to-consumer.

 

 6) Miscellaneous: *12:81:01:01(1) definition offered conflicts with a similar definition in 12:17:01:01; *12:81:01:01(5) definition conflicts with 12:17:01:01(2); *12:81:01:01(6) definition conflicts with 12:17:01:01(19); *12:81:02:01 repetitive paragraphs should be streamlined for clarity; *12:81:02:02 paragraph 4 should be removed as it is not pertinent to this section, is repetitive, and does not provide the standards for sample confirmation and re-tests as stated in 12:81:04:04;*additionally, suspension of a permit based on one non-specific pathogen test yields no additional public safety measures while placing severe undue burden on small producers; *12:81:02:02 conflicts with 12:17:04:10 in 12:81:04:01,*12:81:04:01 several provisions in this section conflict with provisions outlined elsewhere in the proposed rules. This section needs to be streamlined for clarity. Issues are listed here: *12:17:02:11conflicts with proposed 12:81:04:04, *12:17:02:13 conflicts with proposed 12:81:04:02, *12:17:02:14 conflicts with proposed 12:81:04:03, *12:17:03:09 conflicts with proposed 12:81:03:03(3), *12:17:03:22 Somatic Cell Count requirements should be part of 12:81:03:03 and made relevant to raw milk (Cows & Goats); *12:81:04:01 paragraph 2 should be clarified to ensure these requirements only apply to milk that is sold as Grade A. *12:81:04:02 to 12:81:04:05 inclusive - these sections should be deleted and relevant rules written that are directly applicable to raw milk. *Several provisions conflict with current rule and therefore with the proposed rules themselves under 12:81:04:01. *New standards are introduced that are not included in 12:81:03:03. *Standards for permit suspension and reinstatement are unclear and included in several different provisions. These sections should be rewritten for clarity.

  

Thank you for making these changes so that the raw milk rules are streamlined for clarity in accordance with your stated intent, in the spirit of Gov. Daugaard's Better Government Initiative.

 

 
Sincerely,

 

Name __________________________________________________

 

Address ________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________

D
Content for this alert was provided by  Dakota Rural Action and the following raw milk producers: 
  FOR THE LATEST UPDATES:

 

www.blackhillsgoatdairy.com 

  

www.facebook.com/BlackHillsGoatDairy 

   

Appeal2013banner

Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, defends the rights and broadens the freedoms of family farms and artisan food producers while protecting consumer access to raw milk and nutrient-dense foods. Learn more
About Us or check out the FTCLDF 2013 Summary.

Membership benefits include the possibility of representation in court; the Fund typically pays for all court costs. The Fund is not an insurance company and cannot guarantee representation on all legal matters. Your membership fees and donations help to keep local food sources available and preserve family farms facing unjust enforcement actions.


NEW! Subscribe to Food Rights News RSS Feed. 
     
Donations to the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund are always appreciated though not tax-deductible. Prefer to make a tax-deductible donation? Go to www.f2cfnd.org/donate to earmark it for "public interest litigation" (PIL). Or contact us by email at [email protected] or call 703-208-FARM (3276).   

Please forward this alert to others who are concerned about protecting locally-sourced nutrient dense foods and preserving sustainable small family farms and artisan food producers as well as defending the rights to sell and to access the foods of one's choice from the source of one's choice.