Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump to Announce Changes to Cuba Policy

Today, President Donald Trump is in Miami to unveil some policy changes regarding Cuba. He is expected to roll back the changes President Barack Obama initiated when he opened up diplomatic relations with the country in 2014. That softening came after decades of ice-cold relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Trump’s new endeavors will mean a crackdown on commercial relations and tourism.

Perhaps most importantly, the changes will also affect normal people who benefit from increased tourism. Human rights groups have even called for the White House to keep the current policies because fewer travelers to the island nation will only hurt the local population. “It’s true the repressive system in Cuba has not changed, but the fact that two years of a different policy didn’t change things isn’t a reason to go back to one that was a clear failure for decades,” said Daniel Wilkinson, managing director of Human Rights Watch’s America division.

Headed to Miami to announce new U.S. policy on Cuba. We are going to empower the Cuban people and hold the regime accountable!

— President Trump (@POTUS) June 16, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

For the roughly quarter of the population that is lactose-intolerant, as well as the vegan population and those who choose to forgo dairy products for whatever reason, milk substitutes like almond milk, coconut milk, and soy milk are a total cash cow, pun intended. But dairy producers aren’t particularly happy that these things can call themselves “milk.” And they’re ready to fight back against these so-called imposters.

Congressmen from states that are home to a number of milk producers are joining together to try to get the FDA to crack down on these non-milk milk producers. In a bipartisan effort, Representative Peter Welch (D-VT) and Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID) were recently joined by 23 of their colleagues, who all signed on to a letter to the FDA. That letter asks the FDA to enforce the definition of “milk”–essentially that it has to come from a cow (or presumably, another animal that produces milk, like a goat.)

The dairy producers argue that these other kinds of milk mislead consumers into thinking that they provide the same health benefits and nutrients as cow milk. But, that’s apparently not true. According to NPR, “Some milk-like drinks contain very little protein or calcium.”

The letter to the FDA reads:

While consumers are entitled to choose imitation products, it is misleading and illegal for manufacturers of these items to profit from the ‘milk’ name. These products should be allowed on the market only when accurately labeled. We urge FDA to enforce this matter by requiring plant-based products to adopt a more appropriate name that does not include the word ‘milk.’

But the producers of these other kinds of milks have their own points to make, namely that people aren’t confused by the use of the word milk–in fact, consumers buy milk alternatives specifically because they can’t or don’t want to eat dairy.

This isn’t the first time that cow milk producers have tried to get the FDA to crack down on the other uses of the word milk; similar efforts were launched in 2001 and 2010 to no avail. It’s still unclear what the FDA plans on doing this time, although the agency has said it will respond to the congressmen who sent the letter.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Can Legally Be Called Milk? Congress Gets Involved in the Fight appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. has a humongous surplus of cheese. So big that every man, woman, and child in the country would have to grab an extra three pounds and finish that before the end of the year to work through it. The 1.2 billion pounds of cheese sitting in storage are not even the issue. Surplus meat, poultry, milk, and other dairy products are flooding the food market.

The glut of cheese on the shelves has caused prices to drop, which is great for most of us consumers who love a good block of cheddar or ball of mozzarella, but not so great for the dairy farmers. The revenue from dairy sales has dropped 35 percent over the past two years, causing the USDA to announce it will spend $20 million on purchasing surplus cheese to help farmers out.

Good news for the nation’s dairy producers & families in need: @USDA purchasing $20 million of cheese for food banks & pantries across U.S.

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) October 12, 2016

So why this huge agriculture surplus? Two years ago the international market was hot and prices high. Due to an excess amount of grains on the market, farmers felt confident in buying more cattle since the feed was really cheap. Production of meat and dairy products skyrocketed but unfortunately coincided with the rising value of the dollar. So international buyers were deterred from buying American products, which caused the products to pile up, and the prices to go down.

Some farmers can’t even get rid of the milk by giving it away but have to dump it in lakes–as much as tens of millions of gallons, according to the Wall Street Journal. Sadly many farms are also going out of business. In California alone, 53 dairy farms closed down during the first half of the year.

The U.S. government has a long history of supporting local farmers when prices collapse, by buying a ton of dairy products and simply putting them somewhere else. This program was abandoned in 2012 but now the USDA buys food and donates it to food banks, which could at least help the farmers a little bit. The USDA also has paid 11.2 million to the Dairy Margin Protection Program, a type of subsidized insurance for dairy farmers.

Environmentalists and others have criticized the USDA’s measures, saying it is wasteful and financially not durable. Governments purchasing excess products just to throw them away might affect the economic market in negative ways, even if it is a small contribution. What is the point of letting that much food go to waste when there obviously is not that high of a demand for it?

But one other reason for the diary glut is that adults are not really made to drink milk. Humans are the only species that can drink milk in adulthood, but many of us still struggle with that, since our bodies are not made to digest the sugar in it. Scientists say it is a weird and unnatural genetic adaptation that allows some of us to tolerate lactose.

There’s also the environmental argument that cows produce methane, which is actually a huge contributor to global warming, so the government should not be encouraging raising more cows and making the situation worse. “It’s outrageous that the government continues to prop up the dairy industry and the wasteful pollution caused by year after year of surplus,” said Stephanie Feldstein from Center for Biological Diversity in a statement.

Clearly dairy farmers have another view on the whole controversy. Overall, milk drinking has declined in the country lately for various reasons, so the future is looking tough for the dairy farms. Unless America takes after the French and starts eating cheese with every meal…and would that really be a bad thing?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Is America Going To Do With 1.2 Billion Pounds Of Surplus Cheese? appeared first on Law Street.

For all you milk lovers out there, West Virginia may just be the new place to visit, vacation in, or even move to after this week’s big milk decision. That’s right, you heard me! Raw milk will soon be more accessible in the state of West Virginia for the first time in almost four decades.

Senate Bill 387 was signed by Governor Earl Ray Tomblin on March 3 and will go into effect 90 days later. This bill, which is a newer draft of a bill that failed to pass last year,  specifically legalizes “herd sharing,” or the trading of animals for their milk. The most recent version of the bill also requires the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Resources to work together to create rules that will regulate the distribution and consumption of raw milk, making it more passable. Now, don’t be too quick to celebrate, because the selling of raw milk in West Virginia is still illegal, but it will be easier to get access to raw milk on farms after signing liability waivers.

So, what does this mean for your milk drinking habits? Well, let’s take a second to break down raw milk for those of you who aren’t familiar with this delicacy. Simply put, raw milk is any milk that has not been pasteurized to kill bacteria. It’s a product that has recently been in the spotlight for controversy surrounding its potential health benefits and drawbacks.

It seems like scientists are still in the process of making a judgment on whether raw milk actually is better for you than regular milk, or this whole hypothesis is just a sham. Proponents of the natural movement cite several potential benefits of un-pasteurized milk over your everyday grocery store carton. These benefits include better taste, potential health and allergy benefits, and the freedom argument–we should be able to drink whatever milk we want to drink! On the other side of the issue, raw milk haters claim that raw milk really doesn’t have any benefits relative to pasteurized milk and it is significantly more risky to drink. The CDC falls on that side of the debate, noting “The risks of drinking raw milk outweigh any possible benefits.”

But, regardless of these risk factors, West Virginia has given raw milk the benefit of the doubt! The irony in all this? In the legislature’s celebration after passing this hip new bill, they passed around a glass of milk (unpasteurized, of course) for the entire group to try. A few hours later, several of the delegates who had partaken in the milk festivities became sick with some kind of stomach bug that may or may not be linked to the milk consumption.

Several of the lawmakers claim that they don’t think it was the milk that did them in, but, whatever it was, it certainly does not look good.

The milk enthusiast that day, Representative Scott Cadle, was pushing the other members of the legislative body to “live dangerously” and try the milk. Later that day, after the illness was running rampant, he defended the milk to the Charleston Gazette-Mail, which he did not think was the main cause of illness that day:

With that many people around and that close quarters and in that air and environment, I just call it a big germ. All that Capitol is is a big germ.

It’s unclear whether or not this milk was the source, but pretty much all of the legislators claim that it definitely was not. Is that all just a facade to promote the now-legal raw milk? Who knows.

So, drink up (at your own risk) America. And make sure to click here to learn more about raw milk in your state and to stay updated on all of the rawest raw milk happenings this country has to offer.

To learn more, read: What’s the Deal with Raw Milk?

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Legalize Milk? appeared first on Law Street.

About once a week, I head to my local store to pick up some things that I’ll need for the week, including some milk. Milk is always one of those tricky purchases, because you have such a short amount of time to use all of it before it expires. Thats why, whenever I go to buy milk, the first thing I do is look at the “sell by” date printed on the carton. But if I were buying milk in Montana, this is something that I would not need to worry about. That’s because in Montana, there is a law stating that milk cannot be sold or donated 12 days after pasteurization. This unusually strict law has forced grocers across Montana to dump thousands of gallons of what most would consider perfectly good milk each week. It’s for this reason that a documentary film crew from Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic recently travelled to Missoula, Montana to get the inside scoop on the state’s milk law.

Montana has by far the stricted law in the United States governing the “sell by” date of milk, and is only one of two states to even have a law that has a requirement for the number of days that milk can sit on a retailer’s shelf. That other state is Pennsylvania, where milk is allowed to sit on shelves for 17 days. Other states either just require that a date is printed without actually specifying any guidelines for that date, or, do not have a law at all.

Harvard Food and Law Policy Clinic director Emily Broad Leib stated that “this has been part of a long-running interest of ours that’s around how we’re wasting so much of the food we produce in the U.S. We’re looking at how these laws–like the law we’re looking at in Montana–are the cause of that waste.” One of goals of the documentary crew to use this case to illustrate the issue of food waste and how food expiration and “sell by” dates contribute to that problem.

Emily Deddensm, a law student working on the documentary, explained that they “went through a bunch of big ideas throughout the semester and finally settled on this law in Montana, which requires milk to be thrown out 12 days after pasteurization” because they “just thought this is good because it’s such an extreme example of the bigger problem.” To them, this was a perfect example of food being thrown out and wasted far before it needs to be.

This Montana law was established in 1980 by the Montana Livestock Board, and despite people’s countless attempts to change it, has remained firmly in place since then. Since studies show that the milk is actually just as fresh after 28 days, the documentary team set out to try and figure out what consumers actually think that arbitrary “sell by” date means.

According to Broad Lieb:

This law makes no sense. It’s really bad for consumers. But even though Montana is the strictest on milk, other states are strict on other things. Again, it’s not just milk. With all of these foods, it’s a quality date. It’s when the manufacturer thinks you get the peak quality on that food. And yet, 90 percent of consumers think it’s about safety, and they throw perfectly good food away.

While being interviewed, Missoula grocer Jim Edwards explained that dairies are the ones that do not want this rule to change. That’s because it means that grocers like him have to buy more milk to fill up their shelves. In addition, it keeps milk prices higher in Montana than in surrounding states.

He also explained that this law makes no sense when actually considering how long it takes a gallon of milk to go bad. According to Edwards:

Little cartons of milk, they go bad quick. But they’re dated for 30 days or something like that. But the gallons never go bad. Half gallons go bad before gallons because anything in a bigger container will last longer. It’s just like wine. A great big huge bottle of wine will age better than a small bottle of wine.

Yet it is the larger gallons that have the sooner expiration dates while the smaller, half gallons have later dates.

According to the documentary crew, most people are unaware that they are throwing away perfectly good milk. Broad Lieb explained that “most people think that if they eat that food after the date, they are going to get sick.” From personal experience, I can say that this is something that I have thought–and have never chanced. I’ve always thrown away food or milk that has reached the date printed on the container.

This is why another goal of the documentary is to raise consumer awareness about the actual meanings of expiration and “sell by” dates. So far, they are already doing a decent job just by sharing information about the documentary. Next time I’ll think twice about throwing away my “spoiled” milk.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard Law Documentary Uncovers the Truth About Expiration Dates appeared first on Law Street.

Move over marijuana, there’s a new form of contraband in town.

Milk.

Not just any milk, but raw milk, which is simply milk that hasn’t been pasteurized or heated to a temperature that kills illness-causing bacteria. It’s illegal to sell raw milk directly to consumers in about half of the United States. It’s also illegal to distribute raw milk packaged for consumption across state lines. Still, raw milk advocates stand up for their right to consume it. For example, protesters from a private buying club, Grassfed on the Hill, milked a cow on the Capitol lawn back in 2011 to protest the Food and Drug Administration’s action against a Pennsylvania farmer accused of selling raw milk across state lines.

Raw milk proponents say pasteurization kills flavor, nutritional benefits, and beneficial bacteria in addition to killing the harmful bacteria that it’s supposed to eradicate. Opponents say there’s simply no proof that raw milk has any benefits that pasteurized milk can’t confer, and that drinking it isn’t worth the health risk as it contains potentially dangerous bacteria. Both sides stand firm, creating controversy around one of America’s most wholesome and common commodities.

If you haven’t heard anything about raw milk yet, chances are you will. Warnings from regulatory and public health agencies are increasing, raw milk crusaders are banding together, and politicians are jumping on board to take a stand. As early as 2012, Ron Paul was using the topic of raw milk to rally a Wisconsin crowd, as seen in the video below.

Here’s what you need to know about the raw milk debate before it escalates to a full scale food fight.

Why do we pasteurize milk in the first place?

To understand the raw milk controversy, you need some background on pasteurization and why we do it in the first place.

Before milk makes its way to a carton, it starts in a cow’s udders, which are basically saggy mammary glands. (Yuck.) Like other bodily fluids, the milk produced in these glands contains bacteria, both good and bad. Unlike many other farm foods, milk isn’t usually cooked before consumption. Since cooking kills pathogens, many people ended up drinking a cocktail of bacterial specimens before pasteurization was invented.  In the early 1800s, illnesses like tuberculosis, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever were often transmitted through milk because of the unclean dairy practices common at the time.

Luckily for the American dairy industry, the French love their wine. They love it so much that Emperor Napoleon III gave a scientist by the name of Louis Pasteur the noble task of stopping wine spoilage. Pasteur soon became famous for nuancing a process that would keep wine from spoiling without changing its flavor. It involved heating the liquid to the right temperature for the right amount of time to destroy spoilage bacteria. He called it pasteurization.

Pasteurization was applied to dairy in the late 1800s, and incidence of disease caused by milk decreased drastically. At first it was only used for dairy farmed in unsafe conditions, but soon it was leveraged to reduce risk of illness for nearly all dairies. From there, pasteurization grew to dominate the dairy industry.

What are the laws regarding raw milk?

Although individual states have always regulated their own dairy processing, the Standard Milk Ordinance, now called the Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), was implemented in 1924 to help each state meet certain standardized quality recommendations to ensure public safety.

Raw milk didn’t become a truly legal issue until the 1980s when Public Citizen filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration that requested a ban on raw milk and raw milk products. The FDA had been trying to require that all products labeled “milk” be pasteurized since the 1970s, but met resistance and delays from the Department of Health and Human Services and certified raw milk producers. After hearing witness accounts and testimonies, the courts concluded that raw milk posed a serious threat to public health and should be banned from interstate sale.

It has been illegal to distribute raw milk from state to state ever since.

Since each state makes its own rules about the sale of raw milk, commerce within state borders gets a bit more complicated. Some states, like Florida and Virginia, prohibit all sales of raw milk. In Kentucky, you can only purchase raw goat milk straight from the farm. In New Hampshire, you can buy raw milk at a retail outlet, but it must adhere to uniform coliform standards. Things like cow-share agreements, where customers pay a fee for a percentage of cow’s milk, make things even more complicated. Alaska is an example of one state that allows “share” operations. Check out this chart for state-by-state raw milk regulations.

What Proponents Say About Raw Milk 

The supporters of raw milk tout benefits like taste and nutrition with religious fervor. Some even claim other benefits like decreased allergies and less acne.

The Taste Argument

People who’ve tasted raw milk and liked it keep going back for more. In this study of dairy producers who drink raw milk, 72 percent cite taste as their primary motive.

Raw milk lovers say it’s richer, sweeter, and more complex. Connoisseurs credit subtle flavors to a cow’s diet of natural greens. Many raw milk producers  “pasture” their cows, allowing them to eat greens as nature intended, as opposed to feeding them popular corn- and grain-based feeds.

Beyond drinking milk, raw milk cheese has a cult following, especially in France. Many of the country’s legendary cheeses are made with raw milk, which savants say imparts enticing characteristics unmatched in pasteurized varieties. In this 1998 New York Times article on the subject, cheese maker Bernard Antony said, ”Pasteurized cheese is not cheese; it’s like plastic.”

The Health Argument

In addition to being a holy grail of nuanced flavors, many raw milk advocates flock to raw milk because of its purported health benefits. They believe pasteurization kills beneficial enzymes and good bacteria. They also say raw milk can help quell body pains, reduce allergies, cure lactose intolerance, and more as evidenced from this Realmilk.com testimonials page.

Supporting studies for the claims are patchy. This study does suggest there might be an association with consumption of farm milk and asthma and allergies, but not enough to be conclusive. A Standford University School of Medicine study found that raw milk does not reduce lactose intolerance, in direct conflict with some testimonials and surveys. Why the clash between testimony and science? More research is needed to find out.

The Liberty Argument

Back in 2011, FDA officials raided Rawesome Foods and arrested its owner, James Stewart, and other raw milk suppliers for selling raw milk directly to customers. Apparently, Stewart had failed to show up for previous court appearances to face charges of shady fundraising, among other things. Even so, the arrest struck a cord with raw milk advocates who showed up to Stewart’s hearing wearing “raw milk heals” t-shirts.

They didn’t care if Stewart’s actions were illegal, they cared that he was fighting for their rights to consume raw milk. They believe that it should be individuals, not the government, who dictate what consumers put in their bodies.

What Opponents Say About Raw Milk  

Opponents, most specifically regulatory officials, argue that consuming raw milk and dairy products pose a serious threat to health, a threat that exceeds any potential benefits. And why take an unnecessary risk?

Watch the emotional video below that plays to the fear of what can come from taking unnecessary risks.

They also say that there aren’t any benefits of raw milk that you can’t get from pasteurized milk. These quotes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Raw Milk Questions and Answers page address some common raw milk proponent beliefs:

Many studies have shown that pasteurization does not significantly change the nutritional value of milk — pasteurized milk is rich in proteins, carbohydrates, and other nutrients. Heat slightly affects a few of the vitamins found in milk– thiamine, vitamin B12, and vitamin C– but milk is only a minor source of these vitamins.

While it’s true that the heating process of pasteurization does inactivate some enzymes in milk, the enzymes in raw animal milk are not thought to be important in human health.

There are no health benefits from drinking raw milk that cannot be obtained from drinking pasteurized milk that is free of disease-causing bacteria. The process of pasteurization of milk has never been found to be the cause of chronic diseases, allergies, or developmental or behavioral problems.

Why do they say raw milk is such a threat to health?

Unlike many other farm foods (e.g. milk and eggs), milk isn’t usually cooked before consumption, so there isn’t a step to kill illness-causing bacteria. Milk’s low acid content and high protein levels make it easier for pathogens to grow.

Even if milk comes out of the cow without bacteria, it can become contaminated easily during the farming process. Dairy farms breed pathogens naturally, even when they take necessary precautions. Pathogens can be transferred on multiple occasions on the farm:

• The milk might accidentally come in contact with cow feces
• The cow might have an udder infection (mastitis)
• The cow might have an undetected illness
• Bacteria on the cow’s skin might get into the milk
• Dirt from the barns and processing equipment might get on the milk
• Animal pests living in barns, like rats and insects, might contaminate the milk
• Humans with soiled hands or clothing might contaminate the milk

For these reasons and more, officials cite that pasteurization is the only way to make sure the pathogens in milk won’t pose a threat to human health. They say even farmers who follow hygienic practices and test their raw milk cannot guarantee safety.

Supporting Data

According to the CDC, outbreaks caused by raw milk  have increased from 30 in 2007-2009 to 51 in 2010-2012. The outbreaks are most commonly caused by Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella and include symptoms like diarrhea, vomiting, muscle aches, and fever. Relative to the amount of raw milk that is consumed, the risk of an outbreak from raw milk is 150 times greater than the risk of an outbreak from pasteurized milk.

Shouldn’t science stop this debate?

Advocates from both sides point to studies, surveys, testimonials, and data to prove their points, but still each side clings to their beliefs with evangelical conviction. In a literature review requested by the Maryland House of Delegates’ Health and Government Operations Committee, the authors point to a need for both raw milk advocates and regulatory agencies to be open to discussion and compromise. Surely both sides of this contentious debate can find some common ground in the future.

Will raw milk become a substance relegated to the black market? Will federal lawmakers cave and loosen boundaries on interstate trade? Only time will tell, but 2015 promises to be an interesting year for those on both sides of the aisle in the raw milk debate.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Raw Milk Questions and Answers

Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz: Milk Pasteurisation and Safety: A Brief History and Update

CDC: Increased Outbreaks Associated with Nonpasteurized Milk, United States, 2007–2012

NIH: Food Safety Hazards Associated With Consumption of Raw Milk.

NIH: A Survey of Foodborne Pathogens in Bulk Tank Milk and Raw Milk Consumption Among Farm Families in Pennsylvania.

CDC: Raw (Unpasteurized) Milk

U.S. District Court: Public Citizen v Heckler

Additional

New Yorker: Raw Deal

Chris Kresser: Raw Milk Reality: Benefits of Raw Milk

How Stuff Works: How Pasteurization Works

Raw Milk Facts: State by State Raw Milk Legislation

USDA: How Do Cows Make Milk?

The New York Times: How We Poison Our Children

NPR: Unlocking France’s Secrets to Safer Raw Milk Cheese

The New York Times: The French Resist Again: This Time, Over Cheese

Marler Clark: A Legal History of Raw Milk in the United States

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Deal With Raw Milk? appeared first on Law Street.