Diet UltraSound Diabetes Cancer & Biopsy Germanium Heart Disease Free Radicals IV Chelation Therapy	Vibrant Life Home Web Family Of Three Chelation Formulas MSM Other VL Products The Wednesday Letter Frequently Asked Questions Testimonials	Karl Loren Web Shopping Cart	Separate Search Page or search below
Navigation Help	Oral Chelation Therapy Other	Ingredients Technical	Write To Karl Loren	Table Of Contents

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IN PETITION TO UPHOLD UNANIMOUSLY PASSED VOTE IN FAVOR OF GRADE A AND GUARANTEED RAW MILK TO CONFORM TO CALIFORNIA STATE CODE

TO:      Each Los Angeles County Board of Supervisor – March 2001

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Petition Report & Attached Exhibits: 

Exhibit A, Supplemental Report (“SR”, 32 pages); 

Exhibit B, Dr. Nancy Mann, PhD Biostatistics; 

Exhibit C, Dr. James Privitera, MD; (former Commissioner of Los Angeles County Medical Milk Commission); 

Exhibit D, Dr. Paul Fleiss, MD (incumbent President of the American Association of Medical Milk Commission, former chairperson for the LACMMC); 

Exhibit E, Dr. Roger Noorthoek; 

Exhibit F, Dr. Earl Smith; 

Exhibit G, Dr. Thomas Cowan, 

Exhibit H, Sally Fallon; 

Exhibit J & K, Raymond Novell; 

Exhibit L, Mikel Theobald; (13 pages).

FACTS

On December 8, 2000, LA County Department of Health Services (“DHS”) ordered Claravale raw milk off of healthfood store shelves.  Many consumers called and faxed the Board of Supervisors and The Department of Health, and vigorously complained.  On December 19, 2000 the Board approved a motion by Mayor Antonovich, instructing the Director of DHS and County Counsel to align the County ordinance with State Code, thus permitting the sale of Grade A and Guaranteed raw milk. .

Pursuant to an amended order by Supervisor Yaroslavsky, the DHS submitted its Report On Raw Milk, Grading, Testing and Public Health Implications (“DHS Report”), January 2001.  The DHS Report contains prejudicial, unsubstantiated, misleading and inaccurate content designed to intentionally (malice), unreasonably (unlawfully & in bad faith) and illegally obstruct (Equal Protection) and deny (Equal Protection & Right to Choose) access (RICO) and eliminate raw milk.  Having considered the DHS Report, Director Mark Finucane recommends that the excessive certification procedures for current raw-milk “hold and test” (for each milking, 2 milkings per day) be maintained for 12 months while DHS recommends to the State a “hold and test” for each milking procedure, rather than allow for immediate conformity to State code.  These procedures are so costly that any small dairy would not remain in business for long.  Claravale would be unable to produce raw milk. This certification procedure drove Alta-Dena to abandon its production of Steuve’s (their raw milk subsidiary), leaving Claravale the only raw milk dairy left in California.

Legal Merits

Fraudulent efforts to eliminate raw milk have been ongoing since World War II (see SR History p. 22,23,24), when the push for pasteurization was undertaken. Although It has been extensively countered by scientific study findings, Medical Journal reports, and “high risk” group consumers clinical experience (see SR), the Department of Health Services “official” bias towards it has illegally remained.

1)       In the last decade, Four Los Angeles County Medical Milk Commissioners raised raw milk certification standards unreasonably, prejudicially and discriminatively high: (SR, p.29, last par; Exh. C, par 2; Exh. J, par. 1; Exh. K, par. 5,7.)  Too often, the milk did not pass the excessive standards and the raw dairy producers were forced out of business, leaving LA County residence without raw milk. — “It is the policy of this State to promote, foster and encourage the intelligent production and orderly marketing of commodities necessary to its residents…” (13 Cal.2d at pp. 626-627, 91 P.2d 577.)

2)       Los Angeles County consumers, mostly in the “high risk” group, have been successfully using raw milk to reverse medical conditions of serious and critical illnesses either not responsive or due to side affects of regular treatment with drugs, surgery, and radiation. Some were sentenced to die as incurable.  Most of them have been consuming Claravale raw milk for the entire time that tests showed bacterial and pathogen counts in the raw milk, were considerably beyond what is unscientifically “speculated to be safe.” None of the “high risk” consumers got sick from the raw milk for that 16-month period, instead their conditions greatly improved, or completely recovered. Many of this group are Petitioners on the Raw Milk Agenda, available for testimony, but were not allowed to speak at the hearing.

3)       It is without merit to claim the High Risk group is at any greater risk than with Pasteurized milk consumption. There is evidence to the contrary (SR, p.4, ¶ I-III; 7-9.)

4)       It is without merit to raise the concern “substantially higher risk of serious infections, and some of which can be transmitted to other”, when there is no substantial empirical scientific evidence to substantiate this claim.

5)       It is prejudicial to claim there are no known health benefits to raw milk consumption when extensive scientific study findings exist: DHS Report (p.5, par 6.) states, “A review of the literature found no scientific study which demonstrates medical or health benefits of raw milk.”  DHS has more resources than most individuals to have gathered the information that Dr. Douglas and others have presented in the Supplemental Report.  It is shameful of the Department of Health, illegal and immoral to show such unmitigated prejudice and bad faith to the people they are supposed to protect.  (SR, p.5, ¶ 4; p. 16-25.)

6)       Statistics show that racial groups have allergies to pasteurized milk and can only drink raw milk without symptoms.  (SR, p.11 ¶ 5; 19 ¶ 3.)  Denying these groups access to a necessity is unlawful and prejudicial.

7)       Pursuant to State law, the county has been granted the discretion to determine whether milk sold in the County must be pasteurized (F&A Code section 35756). The Board has the discretion to adopt the proposed ordinance as an exercise of this discretion. Pursuant to State law (Gov. Code S818.2), a public entity is not held liable for injury caused by adoption of an ordinance. This is immunity granted as an expression of its discretion “…so long as the requirement of the municipal ordinances are not in themselves pernicious as being unreasonable and discriminatory...” Natural Milk vs. City of San Francisco, 20 Cal.2d101. If the Board doesn’t adopt the ordinance as protected for doing so, it would err and abuse its discretion if that decision is based on a prejudicial, unsubstantiated, faulty and incomplete report.

  A related case that occurred with the California State DHS and legislature:

            In 1997, the California DHS encourage “An act to amend Section 113996 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to retail food facilities, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.”  Assembly Bill 2612, containing the proposed amendment, was introduced to require all ready made meat and eggs to be cooked well-done.  The bill was passed and made law in January 1998.  Action against the law was initiated because the law was discriminatory and prejudicial, violated freedom of choice, etc., to minorities of racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and culinary preferences.  Assembly Bill 2612, containing the new proposed amendment, was introduced to allow raw meat and eggs as long as the patron was notified by language, signage or menu, or the patron asked for meat or egg to be served other than cooked well-done.  This allowed for ready made foods to be served raw, such as steak tartar, carpaccio, sashimi, cerviche, kibbie, and Caesar salad.  Based on the extensive evidence contained herein of safety, health benefits, and legal merits, it is completely improbable, given the long history and traditional use of raw milk without any epidemic attributed to raw milk to date, that there exists such a danger, and to claim otherwise without scientific, historical, or legal basis, is dangerous, making opinion as unlawful policy for regulation, and does not show good faith towards the people strongly advocating, who desire it.

We respectfully submit that state-governed Grade A and Guaranteed raw milks are safe and health-giving based on the medical, health, and scientific study and findings and legal merits.  To withhold immediate conformity to State code as unanimously passed would endanger the residents of Los Angeles County. Claravale Dairy is the only raw milk dairy serving Southern California.

Respectfully,

Arlene Binder, Attorney at Law

Roger Noorthoek, Attorney at Law

16161 Ventura Blvd.

Encino, CA 91436

800-695-3763; Fax: 883-3484

            Petitioners

Encl:    Exhibits A, Supplemental Report with Summary; Exh.B,Dr. Mann; Exh.C, Dr. Privitera; Exh.D, Dr. Fleiss; Exh.E, Dr. Noorthoek; Exh.F, Dr. Smith; Exh.G, Dr. Cowan; Exh.H, Sally Fallon; Exh.J, Novell; Exh.K, Novell.

            CC:      Los Angeles County Health Commissioners

Chief of Operations, Public Health, John F. Schunhoff, PhD.

                        Director Mark Finucane, DHS

                        County Counsel

                        Gray Davis, Governor  

SUBSCRIBE:  The Wednesday Letter is a free electronic monthly newsletter written and published by Karl Loren.  You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here.  The Wednesday Letter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter.  It is automatically published on the Tuesday night just before the first Wednesday of every month.  You can subscribe to this free monthly electronic letter by entering your eMail address and name below.  You will then automatically receive a request for confirmation, sent to whatever address you have entered.  If you do NOT receive this confirmation request, then you will not be subscribed.  There may have been an error with your address and you should resubmit.  The letter is never sent twice to the same address -- so you do not have to worry about a duplicate subscription.  When you receive this confirmation request you must reply to it, or your subscription will not become active.  No one can subscribe your name, and address, without you being notified, and if you get an unwanted notice of subscription you only need to DO NOTHING and the subscription will NOT be active.

REMOVAL:  You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways.  Click here to read about this entire newsletter system.  Every edition of The Wednesday Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list.  If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed.  Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge.  But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.

Personal Message:  When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions.  Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US.  You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.