A $2 raw milk sting is well on its way to producing a statewide policy discussion. 

There are legislative questions about what state law should be on retail sale and labeling of unprocessed milk. These questions center directly on my official duties as an elected state senator.

There are also concerns about administrative enforcement of current law at the farm of Arlie Stutzman in Holmes County. These concerns fall into the less official part of my work, since the Ohio Department of Agriculture has the official responsibility to enforce state laws in this case. Legislators frequently interact with the administrative branch of government in order to understand, and sometimes try to influence, how citizens are being served and impacted by state programs.

I made a prompt inquiry to the Department because it appeared that the license revocation placed some significant portion of a family’s livelihood is at risk. Quite a bit is being reported on these administrative actions.

But what about current state laws? Should the line drawn by current state law be moved in some way on retail sale of unprocessed milk or it’s labeling?

Roughly half the states allow retail sale of raw milk. 

Ohio began prohibiting sale of raw milk in 1997 as part of a larger food safety act. It included a grandfather clause allowing raw milk retailers to continue if they had continuously sold since October 31, 1965.

The last grandfathered retailer recently ceased sales, according to officials at the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

This same 1997 act required containers used in these sales to be labeled: “This product has not been pasteurized and may contain disease producing organisms.” This labeling requirement was meant for the grandfathered retailers, since they were the only ones allowed to sell unprocessed milk to end consumers.

Citizens have been pushing to again legalize these sales for several years.

HB 534 proposing this change was introduced March 15 by State Rep. Arlene Setzer, R-Vandalia. Her bill would limit sales to the farm premises, to grade A producers who hold a raw milk license.

Mr. Stutzman would not qualify, since he is a grade B producer. However he might qualify to sell under a co-op ownership arrangements by using this proposed provision: “This chapter does not apply to an individual who owns an animal for the purpose of personal consumption of the dairy products produced by that animal.”

HB 534 may generate a forum for investigating the various dimensions of this issue.

Certainly the Stutzman action, coupled with its portrayal by various media around Ohio, will give the bill a significant boost.

On the other hand, this type of bill has an uncertain future. If it passes it is likely to take a path that extends months or even years. For example, although the bill is scheduled for first hearing Wednesday at 8:30 a.m. in the House Ag Committee (Room 116), this is an election year and there are few voting sessions scheduled after the first week in April.  Few bills get hearings when the legislature is not in active session. If the bill doesn’t pass this year, it would have to start all over next year with a new legislature and a new administration.

 Two bodies of science need to be explored: potential health benefits associated with raw milk and risk levels for various milk-borne diseases.

Even if the disease risks end up proving to be significant and if the evidence of health benefits turns out to look thin, it seems very likely that the risks will be lower than many things Ohio specifically allows, like driving cars on the highway, smoking tobacco products and riding motorcycles without helmets, to name a few.

There is reason to believe that a significant number of citizens want to purchase and consume unprocessed milk. Shouldn’t liberty and self-government be the norm unless a clear and convincing need is proven for government prohibition?