Just in from my attorney, the court date of October 5, 2007 has not been confirmed. I will post the confirmed date when I receive it. It will not be to long.

From the trenches,

Celeste

WSR 07-19-068

EMERGENCY RULES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE [ Filed September 17, 2007, 1:06 p.m. , effective September 17, 2007, 1:06 p.m. ] Effective Date of Rule: Immediately.

Purpose: The state veterinarian has determined that there is an increased threat from tuberculosis in cattle that participate in rodeos or other timed events. Cattle used for rodeo or timed events in Washington state must be accompanied by proof of a negative bovine tuberculosis test within the last twelve months before entry into the state. This immediate action is necessary to protect the health of Washington state livestock and citizens.

Citation of Existing Rules Affected by this Order: Amending WAC 16-54-085.

Statutory Authority for Adoption: Chapter 16.36 RCW.

Other Authority: Chapter 34.05 RCW.

Under RCW 34.05.350 the agency for good cause finds that immediate adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule is necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare, and that observing the time requirements of notice and opportunity to comment upon adoption of a permanent rule would be contrary to the public interest.

Reasons for this Finding: See Purpose above.

Number of Sections Adopted in Order to Comply with Federal Statute: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; Federal Rules or Standards: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; or Recently Enacted State Statutes: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0.

Number of Sections Adopted at Request of a Nongovernmental Entity: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0.

Number of Sections Adopted on the Agency’s Own Initiative: New 0, Amended 1, Repealed 0.

Number of Sections Adopted in Order to Clarify, Streamline, or Reform Agency Procedures: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0.

Number of Sections Adopted Using Negotiated Rule Making: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; Pilot Rule Making: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; or Other Alternative Rule Making: New 0, Amended 1, Repealed 0.

Date Adopted: September 17, 2007.

Robert W. Gore

Deputy Director

The law firm of Knauss and Seaman, PLLC, Attorneys at Law, 203 A. West Patison Street, Port Hadlock, WA 98339 have been retained by Celeste Bishop to pursue failure of the WSDA to disclose documents on the National Animal Identifications System known as NAIS.

Contact information: (not for purposes of putting into the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)

Attorney: Shane Seaman

360-379-8500

Fax-360-568-8502

www.knaussandseaman.com

Petitioner: Celeste Bishop

14301-127th Ave SE

Snohomish, WA 98290

350-568-8175

elisheva@w-link.net

Respondent: WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, a governmental agency

Filings:

A Motion for Judicial Review (will be scanned today)

Celeste Bishop Statement

Motion for Order to Show Cause Pursuant to RCW 42.56.550

42 Attachments

Available:

A 200 page log listing the failures of WSDA to provide documents to Celeste Bishop’s request under the Public Disclosure Act of State of Washington during the Production and Installment Process. from May 15, 2006 to current .

Court:

The Petition for Judicial Review, Motion to Show Cause Pursutnat for RCW 42.56.550, and the Declaration of Celeste Bishop have been filed with the Clerk of the Court.

Thurston County Superior Court

2000 Lakeridge Dr. SW

Olympia, WA 98502-6045

Available after the Hearing:

The 200 page log listing of WSDA’s failure to comply to my request under the Public Disclosure Act will be made after the hearing.

Hearing is tentatively set:

October 5, 2007 @ 9 :00 AM at the Thurston Superior Court.

More later….

From the trenches,

Celeste

WSDA for failing to comply with the Public Disclosure Act in Washington State forcing Celeste Bishop to retain an attorney, Shane Seaman of Knauss and Seaman; and who filed on his client’s behalf a Judicial Review and Show Cause pursuant to RCW 42.56.550 for denial of access to documents on the National Animal Identification System known as NAIS. The case is filed in Thurston County, WA. WSDA has five business days to respond.

The Show Cause Action will be posted with additional documents later this evening.

From the trenches,

Celeste

The voice of the people has spoken NO NAIS. The system is redundant, expensive, and invades privacy. Certain industries, who are paid contractor’s of the government say we need NAIS. Here is their report:

2007 NAIS Implementation Report

From the trenches,

Celeste

RFID, Grain of rice next to a radiological warning sign

Your hand my dear…..

A RFID label

Total Surveillance

Electromagnetic Bombardment

In Phase 1 of the National Animal Identification System known as NAIS many people across the United States and probably other countries have had their premises signed up without their consent.

Phase II is the electronic (RFID) identification of animals. In harmonization with global standards you are considered an animal in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code.

Phase III of NAIS is tracking you and your animals every move, cradle to grave.

People right now are struggling with how to get out of premises identification. Have the courage to resist Phase II electronic RFID identification. It may be inconvenient, it may not be cool, you may loose your job but the alternative has spiritual ramifications and is downright ugly:

Removing the RFID is better than keeping it in your flesh.

Do you want this for yourself?

Would insert into the flesh your newborn baby with a RFID?

Would you implant into the flesh of your animal a RFID knowing it scientific evidence shows it may cause cancer?

From the trenches,

Celeste

Deu 31:6 Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.

Just like the popular police show ‘Law & Order’ the Pandemic Flu has hit law enforcement and the justice department:

Law Enforcement Pandemic Flu Checklist

Pandemic Flu and the Justice Department

Preparing Law Enorcement for Pandemic Flu

I guess one might say, “leave no stone unturned.” Though ducks are in a row as it was foretold bring to your remembrance do not fear. Fear of…..’fill in the blank’ is what assisted us in getting into this mess. Fear one only, your Creator.

From the trenches…under His banner and under His wings,

Celeste

Straight from your newly established Avian Flu headquarters: (Just in case you think they aren’t serious):

Health care worker surge capacity

Promising practices that significantly increase health care worker surge capacity.

Extended Childcare (TN)

The Extended Childcare materials provide a process through which state employees could contract childcare services if they are required to respond to an emergency. This practice may…

Health Human Resources Planning Tools (Ontario, Canada)

The Health Human Resources Planning Tools are intended to provide a competency-based framework for recruiting and screening volunteers to assist with patient care in a pandemic…

Good Samaritan Legislation (NC)

The Good Samaritan legislation proposal aims to provide statutory protections for businesses and non-profit organizations that assist in governmental response efforts following a..

Tips for first responders for people with special needs (NM)

A small pocket guide provides guidance on how first responders should approach caring for people with special needs during an emergency. The content may serve as a quick reference for…

Central Brooklyn Center for Bioterrorism and Preparedness Planning: An Integrated Plan to Augment Surge Capacity (NY)

A concept of operations describes an integrated approach to developing surge capacity plans between multiple hospitals. Four hospitals in Brooklyn, New York, developed a collaborative…

Creating Ambulatory Care Integration into Hospital Surge Event Response: MediSys Health Network Emergency Response (NY)

A process for integrating ambulatory care centers into hospital surge capacity response plans is described in this document. The workgroup involved in the process built on the assets…

Health System Surge and Resource Management (WA)

An after-action report from Seattle and King County covers the objectives, tools, and results from a tabletop exercise on healthcare surge capacity during an influenza pandemic. The…

If our friends to the north are implementing this policy you can be sure we aren’t far behind due to out global harmonization. Rebuttal coming soon….

Public Health

Raw milk and the protection of public health

Erica Weir MD MSc*, Joanne Mitchell BA LLB, Steven Reballato MASc and Dominic Fortuna BASc

*Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.; Regional Municipality of York; Health Protection, Regional Municipality of York, Ont.

The raw-food movement, characterized by eating raw rather than cooked food, is a fledgling but growing trend in North America. One product that might be incorporated and distributed under this movement is raw, or unpasteurized, milk. Physicians, members of the public and public health officials need to be alert to the fact that raw milk is a hazardous product.

Raw milk is a known vehicle and medium for pathogens such as Escherichia coli, Mycobacterium bovis, Listeria monocytogenes and species of Campylobacter, Brucella and Salmonella.1 From 1988 to 2005, a total of 33 outbreaks of campylobacter, salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 infections associated with raw-milk consumption were reported to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.2 The most recently reported outbreak involved 18 cases with a mean age of 9 years. Of the cases, 4 were admitted to hospital with hemolytic uremic syndrome. In England and Wales, from 1992 to 2000, 14 outbreaks of infectious intestinal diseases that were associated with raw-milk consumption were reported to the UK Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre.3 In Canada, there were 4 reported cases in 2005 of illness due to E. coli O157:H7 infections that were associated with raw-milk consumption in Ontario.4

Milk can become contaminated in many ways. For example, if a dairy cow has a mammary gland infection (mastitis) or a systemic infection, the pathogen can be passed to the milk. Milk can also become contaminated by manure dust or by equipment used for milk collection or storage. A number of hygienic practices, such as vigilant and routine equipment cleaning and attention to proper storage and handling of milk, can reduce the risk of contamination. Pasteurization, which in Ontario involves heating and maintaining the temperature of the milk to 72°C for 16 seconds, greatly reduces the bacterial load in collected milk. Provided that the pasteurized milk is adequately stored and refrigerated and is consumed before the established “best-before” date, the risk of infection from consuming pasteurized milk is very low.

In developed countries, most jurisdictions have enacted legislation to ensure the safety of milk products. In Canada, the sale of raw milk has been strictly prohibited since 1991 under the federal Food and Drug Regulations. These regulations require that all milk for sale in Canada be pasteurized. Provinces may pass laws with respect to the prohibition of unpasteurized milk within their sphere of jurisdiction, provided that their laws do not conflict with federal legislation.

The move to require milk pasteurization in Ontario was spearheaded in the 1890s by Adelaide Hoodless, following the death of her young son after he acquired an infection from raw milk. Through her efforts, the Women’s Institute was founded, which later influenced the introduction of milk pasteurization in the 1930s in the Public Health Act. In 1965, the Milk Act came into force. The Milk Act regulates the quality of milk products sold in Ontario and requires that all distributors and operators of premises where milk products are processed be licensed (Box 1). The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) is responsible for enforcement of the Milk Act. Currently, the investigations and prosecutions of OMAFRA are carried out by the investigative arm of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

In 1983, the Health Protection and Promotion Act5 came into force and replaced the Public Health Act. The act sets out a mandate for boards of health with respect to the provision of public health services, and it sets out the powers and duties of the chief medical officer and the medical officers of health in Ontario, among other things. Several sections of the act provide investigative and enforcement powers that enable medical officers of health and their delegates to investigate and prevent the distribution of raw milk and raw-milk products. An exception to the Health Protection and Promotion Act was created by the Ontario Food Premises Regulations for cheese made from unpasteurized milk. The sale of this product is not prohibited if it has been stored below 2°C for at least 60 days following manufacturing.

The following hypothetical case illustrates how the public health system of Ontario would respond to a case of raw-milk exposure.

A medical officer of health receives 2 laboratory-confirmed reports of E. coli. When the health unit staff investigate, they learn that the cases shared the same exposure, namely, consumption of raw milk distributed at a local corner store. The public health inspector visits the store to inspect the milk; however, the store owner forbids entry.

Section 10 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act requires that medical officers of health inspect food premises. In this case, by forbidding entry, the store owner is obstructing the medical officer of health, according to section 42 of the act. Under section 43 of the act, the medical officer of health can secure a warrant to enter the premises.

A medical officer of health or public health inspector may secure a warrant from a justice of the peace. The person seeking the warrant must demonstrate that it is necessary to gain entry and access the premises and to carry out examinations, investigations, tests and inquiries. The evidentiary material accompanying the warrant application should demonstrate the medical officer’s right to inspect, the reason for the inspection and that entry has been denied.

What precautions must be taken when executing a warrant?

The need to apply for a warrant signals the potential for resistance and physical violence; thus, the police must be alerted to the scenario and need for a warrant. Police assistance should be sought when it is necessary to enter a premises using a warrant, because health unit staff are not trained to handle violence. The public health laboratory should be alerted about forthcoming samples.

Under section 19 of the act, all hazardous material may be seized to protect the public. Samples should immediately be transported to the public health laboratory. Evidence of the enzyme phosphatase in the milk indicates that it has not been adequately pasteurized. The samples should also be tested for evidence of pathogenic contamination.

If the laboratory reports evidence of raw milk or unacceptable pathogenic contamination, the medical officer of health or public health inspector can issue a “cease-and-desist” order under section 13 of the act forbidding further distribution of unpasteurized milk products. If the operator contravenes the order by refusing to cease distribution, the medical officer of health can charge the operator under section 100 of the act. The operator can be fined up to $5000 for each day or part day that the order is violated.

How can the operator appeal an order?

There is a stepwise progression of appeals available to the operator. The first step is to appeal the order to the Ontario Health Services Appeal and Review Board. The board’s decision can be appealed to the Ontario Divisional Court. The next appeal lies with the Court of Appeal for Ontario, with permission of the court. In Ontario, the sale of unpasteurized milk has only been considered once by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board. In 1994, the board determined that there were reasonable and probable grounds to conclude that the unpasteurized milk and milk products produced by the appellant, except for cheese aged for 60 days or longer, constituted a health hazard (Box 1).

How can further contravention of an order be prevented?

The medical officer can make an application under section 102 of the act to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The judge may order any action deemed necessary to prevent the person from contravening the order. If the operator fails to comply with the court order, it is possible to seek a contempt order from the Superior Court.

The Health Protection and Promotion Act pertains to the jurisdictional boundaries of the health unit. Occasionally, hazardous products may be distributed across the boundaries of several health units. In this scenario, the units must cooperate and coordinate efforts to provide consistent practices and standards. The chief medical officer of health and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care can play a coordinating and leadership role. In Ontario, the Ministry of Natural Resources also has a role to play, particularly if there is provincial impact. In cases with the involvement of numerous jurisdictions and ministries, it is essential to define the roles and responsibilities on matters of investigations, communication, enforcement and legal applications.

Increased education and awareness are additional mechanisms available to public health staff to prevent the consumption of raw milk. When a specific source of raw-milk exposure is identified, public health efforts should ensure that residents of the affected area are aware and informed of the risk. Orders and warrants can be issued expeditiously, but investigation and enforcement takes time, and there may be lengthy procedures and delays.

Enforcement has the potential to escalate to violence. Good cooperation and communication between public health staff and local police are essential for enforcement of warrants and orders. These relationships should be established well before the need for enforcement arises.

Sensitivity to public perception and media coverage is also an important consideration. Regulation and enforcement represent the extreme end of the spectrum of prevention and control interventions. Fostering good, trusting relationships with local media and establishing a reasonable voice on matters of risk assessment and communication well before a crisis arises can be invaluable.

Footnotes

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not of the Regional Municipality of York.

This article has been peer reviewed.

Competing interests: None declared.

End story.

Proud to be an American raw milk drinker!

From the trenches,

Celeste

Here is the contact information for Good Neighbor Vet the proud owner of the *RFID cancer chip-mobile*. How this company can justify what they do is beyond common sense. If you get separated from your pet or animal you *might* be able to get the animal back. But …..in doing so you just might cause an aggressive and malignant cancer. Is it worth it? Let this company know what what you think of their pro-chip policy: