Raw milk sales tops legislative agenda

Farmers who want to sell raw milk directly to consumers are one step closer to being able to do it legally.

A bill co-sponsored by Senators Byron Pelton, R-Sterling, and Dylan Roberts, D-Frisco, recently won a unanimous vote from the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

Senate Bill 43 “is about freedom and choice” for consumers to pick the foods and beverages they want to consume and to help promote local agriculture producers, Roberts told the committee on Jan. 18.

Many other states already allow for direct sales of raw milk, but Colorado has some of the most restrictive laws on the books, Roberts said. At least eight other states have already lifted their restrictions on those sales.

Allowing direct sales of raw milk follows in the footsteps of other sales of agricultural products, such as meat or eggs, Roberts added.

Raw milk sales would be limited primarily to farmer’s markets or with individual farmers, and would not be allowed in grocery or other retail stores. Farmers wanting to do those sales must be registered with the State and subject to inspections on labeling, transportation and bottling outlined in the bill. 

This also doesn’t impact herd shares, Roberts said. 

That’s when someone purchases a share membership of a dairy cow herd and currently that’s the way most people buy raw milk. 

Pelton said the bill’s language is intended to provide good protections. “Most of us have grown up on raw milk,” he said. 

But he also noted it’s possible to get sick from raw milk and said family members have experienced that. The labeling should cover warnings to consumers so that they’re aware of the risks, he added.

Tyler Garrett of Rocky Mountain Farmers Union spoke in favor of the measure. “We believe consumers have the right to determine their own risk” for consuming raw milk. 

“This bill is a step in the right direction,” Garrett said. 

While he’s also heard concerns from consumers and producers about the impact on herd share, which helps sustain family farms, the bill is careful not to interfere with that model, Garrett indicated.

The bill was amended at the request of the Colorado Department of Agriculture to align the raw milk inspection and enforcement program with those already in place such as for eggs. The bill also requires farms to register with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Erin Meschke of Boulder, a raw milk fan, asked for the bill to be amended to be more friendly to farmers. 

Meschke pointed out the public health department has been campaigning against raw milk sales for a century and that the Department of Agriculture isn’t a whole lot friendlier.

That raised concerns the bill allows both the public health and ag departments to change rules on the raw milk program, which she called “insidious.” 

Farmers, consumers and lawmakers might be happy with the bill, but the two departments could tinker with the rules in order to dismantle it. 

This bill would put the fox in charge of the henhouse, Meschke said. 

Nancy Eason of Fort Collins had some of the same reservations about interference by State agencies. Eason represents the Colorado chapter of the Weston A Price Foundation, which has promoted raw milk, among other things, for two decades.

“Who’s setting the standards” when those rules and regulations are written? Eason questioned. She asked that the bill allow for input from farmers and consumers on the rule-making process.

She also said the bill’s penalty of $1,000 for each violation, per each container of milk, could put a farmer out of business. 

Danielle North King owns LaMancha Farms in Fort Collins and owns two dairy cows that serve 20 families. Her farm participates in herd share agreements and she would participate in the new program but said she doesn’t have enough information to do it. 

Roberts emphasized that the bill does not impact herd share and that the bill creates a new way to sell raw milk. You don’t have to do it if you don’t want to, he said.

Julie Ebert of Ebert Family Farm in Byers said her farm has been in the herd share program for 18 years. But the penalties in the bill are too onerous and she asked for a per incident rather than per bottle fine. She told the committee she can deliver up to 500 bottles per day and a $500,000 fine would put her out of business in one day.

The labeling requirements also add to her time and expense. Raw milk doesn’t spoil like pasteurized milk, it sours, she said. Consumers then can use it differently, but customers demand the milk not be sour; they want good tasting milk.

The good bacteria in raw milk is such that bacteria is not a safety risk and as a result labeling would be unnecessary, Ebert told the committee.

The bill sponsors sought a reduction in the fine from $1,000 per container to $500 per container. Roberts noted the unpasteurized egg program, which has been in place for three years, has yet to see a fine for violations. 

Pelton, however, pointed out that the health department does issue fines to restaurants and other commercial businesses. “If you’re going to sell food and you’re not doing it properly, there will be corrective action,” he said.

While he voted in favor of SB 43, Sen. Cleave Simpson, R-Alamosa, said he’s still unsatisfied with the fines levied in the bill. 

SB43 now heads to the appropriations committee.

The same committee also approved a bill requiring the Colorado Water Conservation Board, agriculture commission and the parks and wildlife commission to renew their public engagement meetings in each of their districts.

Senate Bill 26 pointed out that those commissions held at least two public meetings per year in their geographic districts, beginning in 2011. But that came to an end a couple of years ago.

The bill requires those commissions to hold at least one meeting per year on the Western Slope and another on the eastern part of the State, Roberts told the committee. 

Roberts said the bill could help re-establish trust that was lost when Colorado Parks and Wildlife released wolves in Grand County in December without any notification to the ranchers or elected officials in those communities. 

“These commissioners need good outreach to the public,” which has been a problem in the past, said co-sponsor Sen. Perry Will, R-New Castle. 

Will is a retired wildlife officer in the Division of Wildlife. 

After a unanimous vote, SB 26 moves on to the appropriations committee.