Lawmakers debate more milk testing

AUGUSTA – State veterinarian Don Hoenig went grocery shopping before testifying Monday before a legislative committee looking to add new testing requirements to the sale of milk.

Holding up a quart of milk in his right hand, Hoenig told members of the Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Conservation, that milk is the most tested product on the face of the earth.

Holding a bunch of broccoli in his left hand, he remarked that the raw vegetable was not tested at all before being sold.

Hoenig was demonstrating the complex issue of what bacteria to test for to keep the public safe, particularly when it comes to testing raw milk. Maine is one of 11 states that still allows the sale of raw, unpasteurized milk.

Hoenig, representing the Maine Department of Agriculture, was one of several people testifying against LD 654, which would require the department to conduct additional tests of milk if any farm fails three out of five bacteria inspections. Those tests are proposed to clarify whether the coliform count that caused the failed tests are “good” or “bad” bacteria.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. John Nutting, D-Leeds, testified that some of Maine’s raw-milk sellers had their dairies shut down when test results indicated the presence of nonharmful bacteria in three of five inspections.

“The Department [of Agriculture] is not differentiating between benign E. coli bacteria and bad E. coli,” Nutting said. He proposed that additional testing be conducted on any farm that fails the state’s existing tests, which happens about 10 times a year.

Gloria Varney of Nezinscot Farm in Turner testified that for more than a year, her herd’s coliform count has consistently been above average and therefore she cannot display or advertise her raw milk. She estimated she is losing more than $100 a day.

“If the Maine Department of Agriculture is going to fail me, they need to show me that the fecal E. coli counts is the one giving them the indicators,” Varney said.

Varney testified that other factors – such as the age of the cows and whether antibiotics are used – play a role in the coliform count, not just cleanliness.

Also testifying in favor of LD 654 was Rep. Nancy Smith, D-Monmouth, a former Agriculture Committee member.

“I know everyone in this room wants to protect consumers,” Smith said. “But there has to be a better way to do it without hurting Maine farmers.”

But Hoenig maintained in his testimony that without vigorous testing of milk, consumers would be the ones that got hurt. “The question this bill places before you is … should we as a regulatory agency determine which bacteria are safe, at what level and for whom.”

Hoenig said Maine’s standard, in the case of coliforms, which is the family to which E. coli belongs, is to test an individual dairy for cleanliness. “We are in line with other states in that our standard is 10 coliforms per milliliter,” he said. “We’ve looked around the country and set our standards in line with other states.”

Hoenig pointed out that “we know that raw milk can be a source of many pathogens [harmful bacteria] … Why would we want to jeopardize the achievements made by so many dairy processors who meet or exceed our existing high standards?”

Russell Libby, executive director of Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, did not express either his opposition or support to the bill, but said he thought that the Maine Department of Agriculture and any future legislation needed to work more closely to assist farmers.

“It’s not just milk that is a local issue,” Libby said. “Whatever regulatory system we end up with, we need to find a way to encourage farmers to continue to make products, not discourage them.”

Otherwise, he warned, farmers will go underground and exchange with their neighbors outside of regulatory measures.

No date has been set yet for a work session on the issue.