2777 / - H5 - IRRC 10-04-10 FO… · 2777 / - H5 From: Sent: To ... If they provide an...

Shomper, Kris2777 / - H5

From:Sent:To:Subject:

Miller, Sarah E.Monday, October 04, 2010 1:50 PMIRRCFw: IRRC Website - New Message

OCT 4 2010

INDEPENDENT REGULATORYREVIEW COMMISSION

From: Independent Regulatory Review Commission [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 01:46 PMTo: HelpSubject: IRRC Website - New Message

Independeiit Regulatory Review Ck^mmissiori

A new message has arrived from the IRRC Website

First Name: Tish

Last Name: Cotter

Company:

Email: chesterfielddavenport@gmaiLcom

Subject: raw milk

Message:My name is Tish Cotter. I am a raw milk consumer (I reversed bone loss completely in under 15 monthsdrinking raw milk) and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department ofAgriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not andcannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and hasdirect enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are nolonger our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Although someregulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1

responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function thatcould easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. I am very much atease with the agreements I have with my farmers and find them to be assuring enough as far as food safety goes-1 have know my farmers personally (for years) and have visited their family farms. There has never been anincident of compromised product or illness contracted in all the years I have been a customer. Again, I view the

proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that theproposed regulation be rejected.

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Christy McGuire [[email protected]] KtuEIYfcQSent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:07 PM fRRCTo: IRRC; [email protected]: reject raw milk legislation 2OI0 GCT ~ l | P ^ | 2

Dear Mr. Chirdon and the IRRC:

I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department ofAgriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not andcannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and hasdirect enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are nolonger our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flawswarrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Sincerely yours,

Christy McGuire

Researcher, Granoler, Mother, and Consumer

Christy L. McGuire, Ph.D.

EDalytics, LLC: Education Analytics

&ZENmama Granola (zenmamagranola. com)

P: 412-448-7667F: 320-323-1631Skype: mnemognose

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:44 PM I n ^ T

To: IRRC I ° L ' 4 20JQSubject: Fw: IRRC Website - New Message I


IRRCIndepericleant Hegolaiory Review Commissioii


First Name: Pamela

Last Name: Hannam

Company:

Email: [email protected]

Subject: Proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation

Message:If I have sent this to the wrong person, would you kindly forward to the proper address? Thank you. My name isPamela Hannam, and I am a raw milk consumer. I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation#2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and donot need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. To the contrary, my relationship with mylocal farmer/market/store is critical to my ability to ensure the well-being of my family. If thesefarmers/producers provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be outof business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; everyconsumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we needgovernment involvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporationscreated by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, their problems havemuch more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. Theregulation needs to focus on those operations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, theregulation could be much simpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves adesired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result inthe State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than insertingitself in micromanaging the operation. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some casesonerous and unnecessary. From a political/business point of view, these flaws warrant that the proposedregulation be rejected. From a profound personal point of view, and on behalf of my family which is enabled in

its quest to maintain high levels of nutritional value and immunity partly through access to raw milk, I urge youto reject this regulation. The loss of even one small dairy farmer's business due to excessive regulation is notacceptable to us, I greatly appreciate your taking my concerns into account. Sincerely, Pamela Hannam

Cooper, Kathy 5111From: JAMES DEILY [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:00 AMTo: IRRCSubject: regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160:

My name is Nancy Deily. I am a raw milk consumer and I request that you reject proposed regulation#2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am a discriminating consumer and do notneed protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactoryproduct or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level,State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need governmentinvolvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporationscreated by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problemshave much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is aproblem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler ifthey were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result How thatresult is achieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's rolebeing to test for compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itselfin micromanaging the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Sincerely,

Nancy Deily t ^8

i If> °Szi °»»o

Cooper, Kathy cTHIFrom: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 10:56 AMTo: IRRC; Johnson, Leslie A. Lewis; Totino, Michaele; Schalles, Scott R.; Wilmarth, Fiona E.Subject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message

From: Independent Regulatory Review Commission [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 10:53 AMTo: HelpSubject: IRRC Website - New Message

IRRCIndependent Regulatory Review Commission £* m5O

^ inA new message has arrived from the IRRC Website o«<

ZL °First Name: Antoinette ^

Last Name: Braun

Company:


Subject: Raw Milk RegulationMessage:I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department ofAgriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not andcannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and hasdirect enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are nolonger our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Although someregulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1

responsibility, not the State?s. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function thatcould easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, I view theproposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that theproposed regulation be rejected, thank you for your time and consideration.

Cooper, Kathy ^miFrom: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:05 AMTo: IRRC; Totino, Michaele; Schalles, Scott R.; Wilmarth, Fiona E.; Johnson, Leslie A. LewisSubject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message


RRC

1XT

>

O

mISO

Independent Regulatory Review Commission


First Name: Donna

Last Name: Miller

Company:


Subject: Raw Milk, Reg #2777

Message:My name is Donna Miller. I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That wouldresult in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather thaninserting itself in micromanaging the operation;

Cooper, Kathy J2 "HH

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:05 AMTo: IRRC; Johnson, Leslie A. Lewis; Schalles, Scott R.; Totino, Michaele; Wilmarth, Fiona E.Subject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message


RRC I*N>

1

rrAil

CDcr

m

i|rno



First Name: Cherise

Last Name: Harper

Company:


Subject: reg. #2777

Message:[Yes, this is a form letter. I have not changed anything in it because it so clearly reflects my views on thesubject.] My name is Cherise Harper, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent,discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If theyprovide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly.At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Foodsafety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impactsand we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simplerif they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result isachieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test forcompliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging theoperation. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

cp -11 "Wm-H A It: 21

My name is Julia Laurin, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation.

I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, Stateregulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need governmentinvolvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rathercorporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are morecomplex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningfulrecourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desiredresult. How that result is achieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. That wouldresult in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily be contractedout, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

a-m

IRRC

From: Independent Regulatory Review Commission [mailto:[email protected]] " t C E f V E OSent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:14 AM IRJfCTo: Help i^fm

Subject: IRRC Website - New Message «W OCT - U A f |* If *|

^§|||rf Independent Regulatory Review Commission


First Name: Elizabeth

Last Name: Checchia

Company: private citizen


Subject: Raw dairy regulation

Message:My name is Elizabeth Checchia, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that youreject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am anintelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor orlocal market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct aproblem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannotprovide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction andhas direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliersor markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safetyis not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reachingimpacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs tofocus on those operations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, theregulation could be much simpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the endproduct achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, notthe State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that couldeasily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. Theseflaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

jrniFrom: Independent Regulatory Review Commission [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:11 AM ornriurnTo- Hpln KfcufclvfcUI O . neip 1DDPSubject: IRRC Website - New Message l i m u

RRCQC1-M A 11- HI



First Name: Ann

Last Name: Smith

Company:


Subject: Proposed # 2777

Message:My name is Ann Tremain Smith, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that youreject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am anintelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor orlocal market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct aproblem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannotprovide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction andhas direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliersor markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safetyis not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reachingimpacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs tofocus on those operations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, theregulation could be much simpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the endproduct achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, notthe State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that couldeasily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. Theseflaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected. Respectfully submitted, Ann and SamSmith

1 RE0WVEOmm

OCT -M A l h f e g .

From: Anthony Martin [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:27 AMTo: Kaufman, KimCc: Wilmarth, Fiona E.Subject: Milk Regulation Hearing

Dear Director Kaufman, 4 October, 2010

My name is Anthony Martin, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am anintelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor orlocal market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct aproblem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannotprovide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction andhas direct enforcement options. Wliere we need government involvement is where the suppliersor markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safetyis not size neutral Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reachingimpacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needsto focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desiredresult. How that result is achieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. That wouldresult in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily be contractedout, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Respectfully yours,Anthony Martin,

Lititz, PA

a-m

RRC

From: Independent Regulatory Review Commission [mailto:[email protected]$£|Q|rjy£nSent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:26 AM |RJMvTo: HelpSubject: IRRC Website - New Message 2QK) OCT - l | A H ' Ufi

>|pif Independent Regulatory Review Commission


First Name: Ruth Ann

Last Name: Bowen

Company:


Subject: Proposed Regulation #2777

Message:My name is Ruth Ann Bowen and I am a raw milk consumer. I respectfully request that youreject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am anintelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor orlocal market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct aproblem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannotprovide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction andhas direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliersor markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safetyis not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reachingimpacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs tofocus on those operations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, theregulation could be much simpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the endproduct achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers' responsibility, notthe Statefs. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that couldeasily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. Theseflaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected. Respectfully yours, Ruth Ann Bowen

m̂-M A IMS

My name is Rebecca Ashkettle, lama raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that youreject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am anintelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor orlocal market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct aproblem they will be out of business quickly. At that level State regulation does not and cannotprovide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction andhas direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliersor markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Foodsafety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. Theregulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desiredresult. How that result is achieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. That wouldresult in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily be contractedout, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.Thank you for your attention to this matter.Sincerely,Rebecca M. Ashkettle

3TnFrom: Independent Regulatory Review Commission [mailto:[email protected]] RECEIVEDSent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:20 AM fRRCTo: HelpSubject: IRRC Website - New Message Jm OCT ~ i | A II: lift

RRCIndependent Regulatory Review Commission


First Name: Dan

Last Name: Checchia

Company:


Subject: Raw milk regulation

Message:My name is Dan Checchia, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am anintelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor orlocal market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct aproblem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannotprovide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction andhas direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliersor markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safetyis not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reachingimpacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs tofocus on those operations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, theregulation could be much simpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the endproduct achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers' responsibility, notthe State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that couldeasily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. Theseflaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected. My wife & I are working citizens. Wewill not be able to attend the meeting, this week, but care deeply about this issue.

^

From: Independent Regulatory Review Commission [mailto:[email protected] JVEOSent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:14 AM (RROTo: HelpSubject: IRRC Website - New Message $ | 0 QCT - M A II•* l |$

IRRCIndependent Regulatory Hevlew Commission


First Name: Kevin

Last Name: Koser

Company:


Subject: raw milk

Message:My name is Kevin Koser, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am anintelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor orlocal market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct aproblem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannotprovide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction andhas direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliersor markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safetyis not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reachingimpacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs tofocus on those operations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, theregulation could be much simpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the endproduct achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers' responsibility, notthe State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that couldeasily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. Theseflaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris


2777

Miller, Sarah E.Monday, October 04, 2010 1:54 PM1RRCFw: IRRC Website - New Message OCT 4 2010



IRRCIndependent Regulatory Review Commission


First Name: Chris and Melody

Last Name: Braungard

Company:


Subject: reg. #2777 Dept. of Ag. 2-160

Message:We respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: MilkSanitation. We are responsible consumers and do not need protection from our local farmer store. If theyprovide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly.At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every farm member evaluatesthat supplier with each transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvementis where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Foodsafety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impactsand we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simplerif they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result isachieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test forcompliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging theoperation. Again, we view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected. We look to the future and see the need for moresmall farmer businesses. It is urgent to encourage more small farmers and keep them in business withoutadditional hurdles. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

2777Shomper, KrisFrom: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04,2010 2:11 PM f nnrTo: IRRC 0CJ 4 2Q1QSubject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message / Tfc


IRRCIndependent Regulatory Review Ck»mmissiori


First Name: Janet

Last Name: Moulton

Company:


Subject: PLEASE reject proposed regulation #2777

Message:My name is Janet Moulton and I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and I do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. WHERE WE NEED GOVERNMENTINVOLVEMENT IS WHERE THE SUPPLIERS OR MARKETS ARE NO LONGER OUR NEIGHBORSBUT RATHER CORPORATIONS CREATED BY THE STATE. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. THE REGULATION NEEDS TO FOCUS ON THOSEOPERATIONS. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How thatresult is achieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being totest for compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanagingthe operation. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:33 PM ftPnriuph

To: IRRC REWyVtUSubject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message IRRC

ttT-U P £3M




First Name: Edina

Last Name: Glean

Company:


Subject: proposed regulation #2777

Message:To Whom It May Concern, My name is Edina Glean, I am an informed raw milk consumer and I respectfullyrequest that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am anintelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market orstore. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out ofbusiness quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; everyconsumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we needgovernment involvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporationscreated by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have muchmore far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulationneeds to focus on those operations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulationcould be much simpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desiredresult. How that result is achieved is the producers* responsibility, not the State's. That would result in theState's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than insertingitself in micromanaging the operation. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected. Sincerely, E Glean

2777Shorn per, Kris

From: [email protected] on behalf of Zechariah S [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:31 PMTo: IRRCSubject: Please vote against proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160.

Hello,My name is Zechariah Stover. I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from myfarmer-neighbor or local market or store= If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they willbe out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer policesthat supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where thesuppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is aproblem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers' responsibility, not theState's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather thaninserting itself in micromanaging the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that theproposed regulation be rejected.

Sincerely,

Zechariah Stover JSf

—< r n

i ilv °5%jj

XT

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Kevin Richardson [[email protected]] nt?(%r>Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:30 PM KtCfcjV£0To: IRRC IHRCSubject: proposed regulation #2777

WOCT-U P 2=3iMy name is Kevin Richards, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection frommy farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problemthey will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; everyconsumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvementis where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not sizeneutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningfulrecourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result How that result is achieved is the producers9 responsibility, notthe State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, ratherthan inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.


Thank You

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Lori Scott [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:30 PMTo: IRRC RECEIVEDSubject: Regulation #2777 IRRC

r , • 2OJB0CT-U P 2= 31To womit rmy concern,

My name is Lori Scears, I ama rawrrilk consumer. I respectfully request that you REJECT proposed reflation # 2777Departmffl<fAgna(ltffle2-160:Mi& Sanitation* I amaniffldligprit, dkmrdmnngaimun&ardfarnrr-rieigfrbor or load market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriatdy correct a problem they mil heout of business quickly. A t that lead, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higfoer leadpdidng every consumer polices thatsupplier mthewytramajctimar^ Where wdmedgyvernrrentin^rmrkets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food, safety is not size neutral Largpr operations aremore complex, problem haw rnuhrmrefar-reaMngir^ Thereflation needs to focus on those operations.

A Ithougfo some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wre performance standards,requiring that the end product achieves a desiredresult Howthat result is achieved is the producers' responsibility, rut the State's. Thatwwddresult inthe State's role being to test for compliance, a junction that andd easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself inrrkromana^rig the operation

Again, I dewthe proposedreflation as excessive and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flam wmrant that theproposed regulation be rejected

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,LoriD. Scears

2 7 7 7

Shomper, KrisFrom: Kim Day [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:29 PM

To: IRRC ft£$£{Y£0Subject: vote to DISAPPROVE "proposed regulation #2777 Department ofH^|julture 2-160

2 ( 1 OCr - t | p a * *My name is Kim Day, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulatidn #2S72JBepartment ofAgriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighboror local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of businessquickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier withevery transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets areno longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are morecomplex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. Theregulation needs to focus on those operations.



Sincerely,Kim Day

Shomper, Kris2777


INDEPENDENT REGULATORYREVIEW [email protected]

Monday, October 04, 2010 2:16 PMIRRCProposed Regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 20160: Milk Sanitation

My name is Laurie Thibault. I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation#2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not needprotection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannotprovide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcementoptions. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors butrather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problemshave much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulationneeds to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is theproducers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function thatcould easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micro managing the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

Regards,Laurie Thibault, PMPVice President, BNY MellonAsset Servicing Global Operations, BPSOffice: 617 382-5193Cell: 978 460-3951Email: [email protected]

The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential and is intended solely for the useof the intended recipient. Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any attachment, or any informationcontained therein, by any other person is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient please return the e=mail to the sender and delete it from your computer. Although we attempt to sweep e-mail and attachments forviruses, we do not guarantee that either are virus-free and accept no liability for any damage sustained as aresult of viruses.

Please refer to http ://disclaimer,bnymellon.com/eu.htm for certain disclosures relating to European legalentities.

Shomper, Kris 2777


Best, Sum" (L&I-BWC) [[email protected]]Monday, October 04, 2010 2:13 PMIRRC; '[email protected]'REJECT proposed regulation #2777.


My name is Suni Best,

I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation $2777Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation lam an intelligent, discriminating consumerand do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they providean unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of businessquickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; everyconsumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options.Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer ourneighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have nodirect meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desiredresult How that result is achieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State fs. That wouldresult in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily becontracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris2777

OCT A t,


Margie King [[email protected]]Monday, October 04, 2010 2:14 PMIRRCProposed Milk Sanitation Legislation

"^ssssgr

My name is Margie King and I am a Pennsylvania resident and voter. I am a raw milk consumer and Irespectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: MilkSanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correcta problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot providea higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has directenforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are nolonger our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if theywere performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result isachieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to testfor compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself inmicromanaging the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. Theseflaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected,

Very truly yours,Margie KingCertified Health CoachBecause Food Changes .Everything215-646-2670215-205-0938 (Cell)www.MargjeKing* net

Subscribe to my page as the Nutrition Examiner for Philadelphia Examiner.comConnect with me on Linkedln and on Facebook

Shomper, Kris2777

From:Sent:To:

Importance:

dlubinmjrzwa31 @verizon.netMonday, October 04, 2010 2:14 PMIRRC

High

OCT 4 2010


Danielle L Mirzwa _, I am raw milk consumer and I respectfully request thatMy name isyou reject proposed regulation #2777Department of Agriculture 2-160; Milk Sanitation, I am an intelligent,discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If theyprovide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly.At that level State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Foodsafety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impactsand we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flawswarrant that the proposed regulation be rejected

Shomper, Kris2777


[email protected], October 04, 2010 2:13 PMIRRCProposed regulation # 2777

OCT 4 2010


My name is Hilarie Weiss. I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent,discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market orstore. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will beout of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher levelpolicing; every consumer monitors that supplier with every transaction and has a direct impact. Wherewe need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors butrather large corporations. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex,problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there isa problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Again, I view the proposed regulationas excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that the proposedregulation be rejected. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

An educated Pennsylvania consumer,Hilarie Weiss

Shomper, Kris 2777From:Sent:To:Subject:

Miller, Sarah E.Monday, October 04, 2010 2:11 PMIRRCFW: IRRC Website - New Message

OCI 4 201Q

KEVIEW COMMISSION


RRCI n d e p e n d e n t Regulatory Review Cornrnissioii


First Name: Angela

Last Name: Taylor

Company:

Email: atavlor@angela-taylor. com

Subject: Reject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation

Message:I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department ofAgriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor. In fact I am worried that new difficult regulations will put my local farmer out ofbusiness, and I prefer to buy LOCAL, raw milk, direct from the farmer. Where we need governmentinvolvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather large corporations. Foodsafety is not size neutraL Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impactsand we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseLARGE operations. Obviously some regulations on large operations are necessary, but the regulation could bemuch simpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. Howthat result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role beingto test for compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself inmicromanaging the operation. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerousand unnecessary. These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be REJECTED, as it is flawed. Sincerely,Angela Taylor 5801 Roland Ave Baltimore MD 21210-1309 410.561.6241

Shomper, Kris

2777





IRRCIndependent Regulaiory Review Commission


First Name: Kim

Last Name: Barry

Company:


Subject: Raw dairy regulations

Message:I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department ofAgriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not andcannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and hasdirect enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are nolonger our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Although someregulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers'responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function thatcould easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, I view theproposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that theproposed regulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris2777

H¥PfH)From:Sent:To:Subject:

Lindaoak2001 @aol.comMonday, October 04, 2010 2:10 PMIRRCProposed regulation #2777, DOA 2-160

OCT 4 2010

REVIEW COMMISSION

My name is Linda Adsit, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they providean unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. Atthat level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer policesthat supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need governmentinvolvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations createdby the State, Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have muchmore far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. Theregulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if theywere performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result How that result isachieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to testfor compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself inmicromanaging the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.

These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Thank you.

Shomper, Kris

2777


Dan [[email protected]]Monday, October 04, 2010 2:09 PMIRRCopposition to proposed regulation #2777


My name is Joanna, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: I am an intelligent,discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market orstore. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problemthey will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannotprovide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transactionand has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where thesuppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by theState. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems havemuch more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is aproblem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desiredresult. How that result is achieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. Thatwould result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easilybe contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous andunnecessary. These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

2777Shomper, Kris ^PfT^nMfgfr^From:Sent:To:Subject:

Kaufman, KimMonday, October 04, 2010 11:34 AMIRRCFW: Milk Regulation Hearing

OCT 4 2010


From: Anthony Martin [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:27 AMTo: Kaufman, KimCc: Wilmarth, Fiona E.Subject: Milk Regulation Hearing

Dear Director Kaufman, 4 October,2010

My name is Anthony Martin, lama raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. lam an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Foodsafety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impactsand we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flawswarrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Respectfully yours,Anthony Martin,

Lititz, PA

Shomper, Kris2777


Miller, Sarah E.Monday, October 04, 2010 11:39 AMIRRCFW: IRRC Website - New Message



IRRCIndependent Regulatory Review Cornmissiori


First Name: David

Last Name: Himmelberger

Company:


Subject: Reg#2777 DO A 2-160 Milk Sanitation

Message:I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department ofAgriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not andcannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and hasdirect enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are nolonger our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Although someregulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers'responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function thatcould easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, I view theproposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that theproposed regulation be rejected. Dave Himmelberger

Shomper, Kris 2777


INDEPENDENT REGULATORYREVIEW COMMISSIONAnita Fletcher [[email protected]]

Monday, October 04, 2010 11:40 AMIRRCMilk Regulation Hearing - Please reject Regulation #2777 - Milk Sanitation

My name is Anita Fletcher. I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that youreject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am adiscriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market orstore. If I do not receive satisfactory service from a provider I will stop using theirservices and they will not longer be in business. At that level, State regulation does notand cannot provide a higher level of policing. Every consumer polices that supplier withevery transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created bythe state. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems havemuch more far-reaching impacts, and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is aproblem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if there were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves adesired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not theState's.This would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that couldeasily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.

Again I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

As consumers we need access to raw milk, and we do not need additional regulations that willmake access to the supply more difficult.

Thank you.

Anita Fletcher444 Bigham StreetPittsburgh, PA 15211412-224-2018

Shomper, Kris

2777


Kaufman, KimMonday, October 04,2010 11:58 AMIRRCFw: Raw Milk Regulation

OCT 4 2010

INDEPENDENT R5GUUTQRYREVIEW COMMISSION

From: Ehren Ehmann [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:55 AMTo: Kaufman, Kim; Wilmarth, Fiona E.; Schalles, Scott R.; Smith, James M.Cc: Totino, Michaele; Johnson, Leslie A. LewisSubject: Raw Milk Regulation

Hello,

My name is Ehren Ehmann, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Foodsafety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impactsand we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in management role.


Mr. Ehren Ehmann

ehren, ehmann(5),gmail. com

2777Shomper, Kris


Miller, Sarah E.Monday, October 04,2010 11:59 AMIRRCFW: IRRC Website - New Message OCT 4 2010





First Name: Mischita

Last Name: Henson

Company: Consumer



Message:My name is Mi'schita', I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation#2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and donot need or want protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactoryproduct or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, Stateregulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with everytransaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliersor markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not sizeneutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have nodirect meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Althoughsome regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

2777Shomper, Kris org/f^rgnw/7From:Sent:To:Subject:


11 I • 1 \ - - - V I • i l l \ I I • -

OCT 4 2010



RRCi n d e p e n d e n t RegyJatory Review Commiss ion


First Name: Sandra

Last Name: Shumate

Company:


Subject: #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation

Message:I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department ofAgriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not andcannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and hasdirect enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are nolonger our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State, Food safety is not size neutral Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Although someregulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1

responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function thatcould easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, I view theproposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that theproposed regulation be rejected. Thank you.

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:19 PMTo: IRRCSubject: Fw: IRRC Website - New Message

OCJ 4 2010



IRRCIndependent Regulatory Review ConiiTiissiori


First Name: Kathy

Last Name: Blum

Company:


Subject: REJECT proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation

Message:My name is Kathy Blum and I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers* responsibility, not the Statefs. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

2777Shomper, Kris


Miller, Sarah E.Monday, October 04, 2010 12:19 PMIRRCFw: IRRC Website - New Message OCT 4 2010





First Name: Mary

Last Name: Peffley

Company:

Email: mjmkl @juno.com

Subject: Revised Dairy Regulation

Message:My name is Mary Jane Peffley. I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the Statefs. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

"4777Shomper, Kris

From: Diehl, Michelann [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:30 PM RECEIVEDTo: IRRC IRRCSubject: Raw Milk regulation disapprove

2QM OCT -M P £ 2 8My name is Michelann Diehl, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they providean unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. Atthat level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer policesthat supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need governmentinvolvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations createdby the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have muchmore far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. Theregulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if theywere performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result isachieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to testfor compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself inmicromanaging the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. Theseflaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Sincerely,

Michelann Diehl

Programmer/Analyst

Information SystemsPenn State Unv2583 Gateway Dr, Suite 260State College, PA 16801(814)[email protected]

("—/"). ..- l l in-._X6_6 ) \ ( );-._;)(_Y_.)' •_ ) \_V\ : - '

_.--'_..-_/ /-1.7(H),-" (li),1 ((I.-1

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:27 PM - - . » . .To: IRRC RECEIVEDSubject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message IRRC

0CT -M P £ 28




First Name: Frederick

Last Name: Adsit

Company:


Subject: Proposed Raw Milk Regs

Message:My name is Frederick Adsit. I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected. Frederick Adsit

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:27 PM RECEIVEDTo: IRRC t&DftSubject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message 'KKO

OCT -M P £ 28




First Name: Gretchen

Last Name: Boyette

Company:


Subject: reject reg #2777

Message:My name is Gretchen Boyette, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected. Sincerely, Gretchen S. Boyette

27 TiShomper, Kris

From: Dwight & Brenda Stoltzfoos [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:25 PM DFf £IVEOTo: IRRC KtVMlu

Subject: vote to DISAPPROVE proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160

moci-u P ? 2 8

My name is Dwight Stoltzfoos, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfullyrequest that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department ofAgriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or localmarket or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. Atthat level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher levelpolicing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction andhas direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors butrather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral.Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reachingimpacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem.The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, theregulation could be much simpler if they were performance standards,requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that resultis achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That wouldresult in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function thatcould easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself inmicromanaging the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some casesonerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that the proposed regulationbe rejected.

Dwight Stoltzfoos708 White Horse RdGap PA 17527

2777Shomper, Kris

ULI 4EQIQFrom: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:20 PMTo: IRRCSubject: Fw: IRRC Website - New Message



RRCImdepeixlent Ragulaiory Review Commission


First Name: Merrill

Last Name: Liechty

Company:


Subject: Proposed regulation #2777

Message:My name is Merrill Liechty, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, well edcuated,discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If theyprovide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly.At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Foodsafety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impactsand we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simplerif they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result isachieved is the producers* responsibility, not the Statefs. That would result in the State's role being to test forcompliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging theoperation. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris2777







First Name: Duncan

Last Name: Alderson

Company:


Subject: Milk Sanitation

Message:My name is Duncan Alderson. I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris

2777;©[



OCT 4 2010



IRRCIndependent RegolaJtory Review Commission


First Name: Randy

Last Name: Murbach

Company:


Subject: Reject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation

Message:My name is Randy Murbach, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected. Thank you. Sincerely, Randy Murbach

2777Shomper, Kris


Miller, Sarah E.Monday, October 04, 2010 12:23 PMIRRCFw: IRRC Website - New Message ocr 42010

INDR

EPfTNDENTREGuUTORVREVIEW COMMISSION

From: Independent Regulatory Review Commission [mailto:No-Reply(g)irrc.state.pa.us]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:22 PMTo: HelpSubject: IRRC Website - New Message

IRRCI n d e p e n d e n t Regulatory Rev iew Commiss ion


First Name: Denise

Last Name: d'Entremont

Company:


Subject: the proposed revised dairy regulation

Message:I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department ofAgriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not andcannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and hasdirect enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are nolonger our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Although someregulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1

responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function thatcould easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, I view theproposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that theproposed regulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris

2777



Grace Horowitz [[email protected]]Monday, October 04, 2010 12:28 [email protected]; IRRCComment on proposed regulation #2777, Dept of Agriculture 2-160 - DON'T DO IT!

I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If theyprovide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be outof business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higherlevel policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has directenforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or marketsare no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is notsize neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reachingimpacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needsto focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desiredresult. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. Thatwould result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easilybe contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous andunnecessary. These flaws clearly warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Sincerely yours,Grace Horowitz

Shomper, Kris 2777


Kaufman, KimMonday, October 04, 2010 12:29 PMIRRCFw:

OCT 4 2010


Original MessageFrom: Griesser, Timothy [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:17 PMTo: Kaufman, KimSubject:

My name is Tim Griesser, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am anintelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor orlocal market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriatelycorrect a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation doesnot and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier withevery transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created bythe State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems havemuch more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is aproblem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Shomper, Kris2777

•aerFrom:Sent:To:Subject:


* LUlli

IHDEPENDEHT REGULATORYREVIEW COMMISSION


IRRCI n d e p e n d e n t Regiilai^Dry Rev iew C o m m i s s i o n


First Name: Anne

Last Name: Robertson

Company:


Subject: Regulation #2777 Dept of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation

Message:My name is Anne Robertson, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected. Sincerely, Anne Robertson

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:34 PM .To: IRRC I OCT 4 JQJQSubject: Fw: IRRC Website - New Message

a^ssss*From: Independent Regulatory Review Commission [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:31 PMTo: HelpSubject: IRRC Website - New Message

RRClodepeoderit fU*gul&tofy Review Commission


First Name: Jenine

Last Name: Pontillo

Company:



Message:My name is Jenine Pontillo, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

2777

Shomper, Kris •©[From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:34 PMTo: IRRCSubject: Fw: IRRC Website - New Message

OCT 4 2010





First Name: david

Last Name: hauser

Company:


Subject: raw milk

Message:my name is david hauser, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris


2777


OCT 4 2010



RRCIridepeodleint Ragulaiory Review Commission


First Name: Betty

Last Name: Valdes

Company: CARE Fanner's member

Email: bettyvaldes 1 (gjgmail.com

Subject: Reject Regulation # 2777

Message:My name is Betty Valdes, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

2777Shomper, Kris





IRRCIndependent RegolaftDry Review Commission


First Name: Elizabeth

Last Name: LeDoux

Company:


Subject: Proposed Reg. 2777 Milk Sanitation

Message:My name is Elizabeth LeDoux, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected. Thank you for your time and your careful consideration. ElizabethLeDoux

Shomper, Kris


2777Miller, Sarah E.Monday, October 04, 2010 12:43 PMIRRCFw: IRRC Website - New Message

RECEBWIEO>*L ;P*fc ^ M g% g\ M f\

OCT 4 2010


From: Independent Regulatory Review commission [mailto:No-Reply(g)irrc.state.pa.us]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:39 PMTo: HelpSubject: IRRC Website - New Message

RRCindependem.RegulaJoty- Review Commission


First Name: Sarah

Last Name: Donovan

Company:

Email: sarahbdonovan@gmail .com

Subject: Milk Regulation

Message:My name is Sarah Donovan, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sarah Donovan

Shomper, Kris2777

RIBSPMPIBiFrom:Sent:To:Subject:


OCT 4 2010



IRRCIndependent Regtilatory Review Ck*mmissiori


First Name: Stacey

Last Name: Atwell-Keister

Company:


Subject: Please reject regulation #2777

Message:My name is Stacey Atwell-Keister. I drink raw milk and believe raw dairy products should be available foreducated consumers. I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from myfarmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriatelycorrect a problem they will be out of business quickly. I visit farms that I purchase food from, and I will not buyfood or milk from a farmer whose practices and sanitation make me uncomfortable. At that level, Stateregulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with everytransaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliersor markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operationsare more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourseif there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Although some regulations on this lattergroup are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performance standards, requiring thatthe end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not theStatefs. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily becontracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, I view the proposedregulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that the proposedregulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris2777

T\ n\



OCT 4 2010





First Name: Linda

Last Name: Crayton

Company: Self-employed

Email: lindagcraytonffiyahoo.com

Subject: Regulation 2777-Milk Sanitation

Message:My name is Linda Crayton, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the Statefs. That would result in the Statefs role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris2777



OCT 4 2010


From: Independent Regulatory Review Commission [mailto:No-Reply(g)jrrc.state.pa.us]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:40 PMTo: HelpSubject: IRRC Website - New Message

RRCIndependent Regulatory Review1 Commissioii


First Name: Charlotte

Last Name: Hen-

Company:


Subject: raw milk regulations

Message:My name is Charlotte Herr, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

2777Shomper, Kris


Miller, Sarah E.Monday, October 04, 2010 12:44 PMIRRCFw: Proposed regulation 2777 OCT 4 2010

REVIEW COMMISSION

From: Mary Paget [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:43 PMTo: Miller, Sarah E.Subject: Proposed regulation 2777

My name is Mary Paget, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am a discriminating consumer and do notneed protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product orfail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level State regulation doesnot and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction andhas direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets areno longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flawswarrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris2777

nPT 4 2010


Traci Azato [[email protected]]Monday, October 04, 2010 12:50 PMIRRCReject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation


Dear IRRC;

My name is Traci, myself and my family are raw milk consumers and we respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent,discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If theyprovide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly.At that level. State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Foodsafety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impactsand we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the Statefs. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flawswarrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Thank you so much.

Repectfully,

Traci

2777Shomper, Kris ;^KM -From:Sent:To:Subject:


OCT 4 2010





First Name: Richard and Mary Pat

Last Name: Henry

Company:


Subject: Proposed Dairy Regulation

Message:My name is Richard Henry, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected. Regards, Richard and Mary Pat Henry

Shomper, Kris2777

n ni



OCT 4 2010



RRCIndependent Regulaiiory Review Commission


First Name: Dawn

Last Name: Yasik

Company:


Subject: Milk Regulation Hearing


Shomper, Kris 2777T\ n



OCT 4 2010



RRCI n d e p e n d e n t Regolaiory Rev iew Commiss ion


First Name: Dennis

Last Name: WInstead

Company:

Email: winstead@ihu. edu

Subject: Raw Milk - Proposed Reg #2777

Message:My name is Dennis WInstead, I am a life-long raw milk consumer (milk from Pennsylvania the past 10 years)and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: MilkSanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor orlocal market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem theywill be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher levelpolicing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options.Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors butrather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex,problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is aproblem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Although some regulations on this latter group arenecessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the endproduct achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the Statefs.That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out,rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive,and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.Please help my family continue to have the nutritional advantages available only from raw milk.

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04,201012:54 PM i J ornftTo: IRRC I OCT 4 AMUSubject: Fw: IRRC Website - New Message




First Name: Maja

Last Name: Ruble

Company:


Subject: Dairy Regulation

Message:My name is Maja Ruble, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected. Sincerely, Maja Ruble

Shomper, Kris

2777



OCT 4 2010



IRRCIndepeoclefiit Regolafory Review Commissiori


First Name: ELENA

Last Name: NIKOLAEVA

Company:


Subject: PROPOSED REGULATION #2777

Message:Hello, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not needprotection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not andcannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and hasdirect enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are nolonger our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Although someregulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1


Shomper, Kris2777



OCT 4 2010



IRRCIndependent Regulafory Review Commission


First Name: Subramanyam

Last Name: Aryasomayajula

Company: SNA Inc


Subject: Reject the proposed Milk Regulation

Message:My name is Subramanyam Aryasomayajula, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent,discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If theyprovide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly.At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Foodsafety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impactsand we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simplerif they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result isachieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the Statefs. That would result in the Statefs role being to test forcompliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging theoperation. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Khamren [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:23 PM nrnpiurnTo: IRRC RECEIVEDSubject: reg #2777, DOA 2-160 IRRC

OCT -M P 2-- 25My name is Janine Williams, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request thatyou reject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: MilkSanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactoryproduct or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly.At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing;every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has directenforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliersor markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State.Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems havemuch more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there isa problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could bemuch simpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end productachieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers' responsibility,not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself inmicromanaging the operation.


Janine Williams

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Shomper, Kris• S * * *

From: Betsy Spivak [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:21 PMTo: IRRCSubject: Vote to Dissaprove Proposal Reg #2777 Dept of Agriculture 20160

My name is Betsy Spivak, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers* responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.


Thank you,Betsy Spivak

York StreetPhiladelphia PA 19125215-275-3033

2777Shomper, KrisFrom: Marco D. [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:20 PMTo: IRRCSubject: vote to DISAPPROVE "proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160."

Importance: High

My name is Marco Daversa, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation, I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they providean unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. Atthat level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer policesthat supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need governmentinvolvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations createdby the State. Food safety is not size neutral, Larger operations are more complex, problems have muchmore far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. Theregulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if theywere performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result How that result isachieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to testfor compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself inmicromanaging the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary, Theseflaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected,Marco Daversa

1237 south 13 streetPhsla, Pa. 19147

S 3

•0 g

2777Shomper, Kris ff^EHMl^IBlFrom: Miller, Sarah E. n r T A 9 n i n

Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:09 PM u u ^ u I U

To: IRRCSubject: Fw: IRRC Website - New Message INDEPENDENT REGULATORY

REVIEW COMMISSION


RRCIndependent Regolafory Review Coriirriisslori


First Name: Gabrielle

Last Name: Hart

Company:


Subject: regulation on raw milk production

Message:My name is Gabrielle Hart, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

2777Shomper, Kris


Hello,

Adam Haritan [[email protected]]Monday, October 04, 2010 1:13 PMIRRC#2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation

Ocr 4 20IO

My name is Adam Haritan. I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation.

I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, Stateregulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need governmentinvolvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rathercorporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral.Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we haveno direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desiredresult. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's.That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that couldeasily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous andunnecessary. These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,Adam Haritan

Shomper, Kris2777

PIP^PIMPIH)From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:16 PMTo: IRRCSubject: Fw: IRRC Website - New Message

OCT 4 2010



RRCIndependent Regulatory Review Commissiori


First Name: Lauren

Last Name: Heffher

Company:


Subject: Milk Sanitation

Message:My name is Lauren Heffner, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. If yourcustomers are unhappy and go somewhere else then you have no business. At that level, State regulation doesnot and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction andhas direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets areno longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Although someregulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1

responsibility, not the Statefs. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function thatcould easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, I view theproposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that theproposed regulation be rejected. Sincerely, Lauren Heffher

Shomper, Kris2777

fs^/f^fFrom:Sent:To:Subject:


OCT 4 2010



IRRCIindeperiderit Regtilaiory Review Commission


First Name: Sharon

Last Name: Heffiier

Company:


Subject: Regarding Regulaion #2777

Message:My name is Sharon Heffner, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected. Sharon Heffiier

2777Shomper, Kris



OCT 4 2010



RRCIndependent RegulMory Review Commission


First Name: Jennifer

Last Name: Smoker

Company: Concerned tax payer and mother

Email: j en. [email protected]

Subject: Please reject current Milk Sanitation regulation #2777

Message:Hello, my name is Jennifer Smoker. I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent,discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If theyprovide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly.At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Foodsafety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impactsand we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simplerif they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result isachieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test forcompliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging theoperation. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. Thehealth and nutrition of my family relies on my relationship with resonsible farmers and their high qualityproducts that the state should reward not hamper with costly and unhelpful regualtions. These flaws warrant thatthe proposed regulation be rejected. Most sincerly, Jennifer Smoker

2777Shomper, Kris R|g{T*lCTMf5rRFrom: Kaufman, KimSent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:25 PMTo: IRRCSubject: Fw: proposed reg. #2777 Dept of Ag. 2-160

QC1 4 20I0

REVIEW COMMISSION

Original MessageFrom: Michael White [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 01:21 PMTo: Kaufman, KimSubject: proposed reg. #2777 Dept of Ag. 2-160

My name is Sylvia White, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am anintelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor orlocal market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriatelycorrect a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation doesnot and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier withevery transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created bythe State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems havemuch more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is aproblem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desiredresult. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. Thatwould result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easilybe contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous andunnecessary. These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris


2777Miller, Sarah E.Monday, October 04, 2010 1:26 PMIRRCFw: IRRC Website - New Message

OCT 4 2010



RRCIndependent Ragulaiory Review Commission


First Name: Claudine

Last Name: Jones

Company:


Subject: Proposed Regulation #2777 Dept. of Ag 2-160: Milk Sanitation

Message:My name is Claudine Jones, my family and I are raw milk consumers and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent,discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If theyprovide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly.At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Foodsafety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impactsand we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simplerif they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result isachieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test forcompliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging theoperation. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

2777

Shomper, Kris nrr




IRRCIndependeint Regulatory Review Commission


First Name: Sylvia

Last Name: White

Company:


Subject: regulation 2777Dept.of Ag. 2-160

Message:My name is Sylvia White, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the Statefs. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

2777Shomper, Kris



OCT 4 2010


From: Independent Regulatory Review Commission [mailto:No-Reply@irrcstatespasiis]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 01:19 PMTo: HelpSubject: IRRC Website - New Message

RRCIndependent Regylafory Review Cammisslori


First Name: Sarah

Last Name: Kirkell

Company:


Subject: Raw Milk and Revised Dairy Regulation

Message:My name is Sarah Kirkell, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer with a college degree. I do not need protection from the small family farmer I work with to get mymilk. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out ofbusiness quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; everyconsumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we needgovernment involvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporationscreated by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have muchmore far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulationneeds to focus on those operations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulationcould be much simpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desiredresult. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in theState's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than insertingitself in micromanaging the operation. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some casesonerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected. Sarah Kirkell

2777 —Shomper, Kris _ I fg^^fr^nn nt=*= ̂ u=,u \y t s l LFrom: Miller, Sarah E. I nrrSent: Monday, October 04,20101:26 PM I UL' 4 2010To: IRRC ISubject: Fw: IRRC Website - New Message / ^DEPENDENT REGUUTORV

I ^lEWCOMMISSION


IRRCIndependent Ragolatory Review Comrnissioii


First Name: Mary

Last Name: Goetz

Company:

Email: marymary70@hotmaiLcom

Subject: Regulation #2777

Message:Hello: My name is Mary Goetz, I'm a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel,/State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected. Thank you, Mary Goetz

2777

Shomper, Kris ?/f^f W/7\J


balage [[email protected]]Monday, October 04, 2010 1:28 PMIRRCreject #2777 Milk Sanitation

OCT 4 2010


Our names are Balage Balogh and Pamela Mandell, we are raw milk consumers and we respectfully requestthat you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. We areintelligent, discriminating consumers and do not need protection from our farmer-neighbor or local market orstore. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out ofbusiness quickly. At that level State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; everyconsumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we needgovernment involvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporationscreated by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have muchmore far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulationneeds to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.Again, we view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flawswarrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Sincerely,Balage Baloghand Pamela Mandell

Shomper, Kris 2777






First Name: Holly

Last Name: Williams

Company:


Subject: Proposed regulation #2777

Message:My name is Holly Williams, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor, local market, or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant thatthe proposed regulation be rejected. Respectfully, Holly Williams

2777

Shomper, Kris OEH¥PIT5)From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:43 PMTo: IRRCSubject: Fw: IRRC Website - New Message

OCJ 4 2010



IRRCIndependent Regulaiory Review Comrriissiori


First Name: David

Last Name: Larson

Company:


Subject: Reg #2777 Dept of Ag 2-160

Message:I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department ofAgriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem I, and others, will go elsewhere. That entity would likely quickly go out ofbusiness. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level of policing; every consumerpolices that supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need governmentinvolvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by theState. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focuson those operations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How thatresult is achieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being totest for compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanagingthe operation. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected. I value the benefits of purchasing and consuminglocal milk products. Please do not take this option away from me by unnecessarily burdening the smallindependent farmer. Thank you.

Shomper, Kris2777

\W7



1111=3^^71^11 V7

OCT 4 2010



RRCIndependent Regulatory Review Commisslori


First Name: Frances

Last Name: Smith

Company:


Subject: Regulation 2777

Message:My name is Frances Smith, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem, they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris2777


Alberto Garcia Raboso [[email protected]]Monday, October 04, 2010 1:46 PMIRRCDisapprove proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160


My name is Alberto Garcia-Raboso and I am a resident of the city of Philadelphia. I am a rawmilk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Departmentof Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and donot need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out ofbusiness quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher levelpolicing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has directenforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or marketsare no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is notsize neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reachingimpacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needsto focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desiredresult. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. Thatwould result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easilybe contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.


2777Shomper, Kris BP^lgfiuieiF?From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:50 PMTo: IRRCSubject: Fw: IRRC Website - New Message

OCT 4 2010



RRCIndependent Regulatory Eeview Commission


First Name: nasiruddin

Last Name: syed

Company:


Subject: Dairy Regulation - Raw Milk

Message:My name is Nasiruddin Syed, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State?s. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris

2777


Kathleen Leatherwood [[email protected]]Monday, October 04, 2010 2:00 PMIRRCRegulation 2777

o c r 4 2010

My name is Kathleen Leatherwood, and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation # 2777 Department of Agriculture2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or localmarket or stone. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of businessquickly At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier withevery transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets areno longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral Larger operations are morecomplex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse .if there is a problem. Theregulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers' responsibility, notthe State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, ratherthan inserting itself in mkiomanaging the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary Tliese flaws warrant that theproposed regulation be rejected.

Thank you for consideration. .

Sincerely,

Kathleen [email protected]

Shomper, Kris

2777


Jessica Glorieux [email protected]]Monday, October 04, 2010 2:00 PMIRRCProposed regulation #2777

OCT 4 2010


My name is Jessica Morrow-Glorieux, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from myfarmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they willbe out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer policesthat supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where thesuppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is aproblem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.



Sincerely, Jessica

2777Shomper, Kris nrQcr * mFrom:Sent:To:Subject:

bleakbeak [[email protected]]Monday, October 04, 2010 2:02 PMIRRCDISAPPROVE "proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160


Hello,

I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If theyprovide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be outof business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higherlevel policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has directenforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or marketsare no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is notsize neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reachingimpacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needsto focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desiredresult. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. Thatwould result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easilybe contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.


Sincerely,Genevieve DeClerckIthaca, NY

Shomper, Kris

From: Heather L. Makar [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:35 PMTo: IRRC R£G

nt of*8Subject: Vote to DISAPPROVE proposed regulation #2777 Department oft(|Bft&CltWre 2-160

My name is Heather L. Makar, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request tharycfurey&G? proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store^ If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.



Thank you,Heather L. Makar

Shomper, Kris

From: The Allen's [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:37 PM RECEIVEDTo: IRRC jRRHSubject: proposed regulation #2777 m f U *

0CT-M P £33I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department

of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not andcannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and hasdirect enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are nolonger our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.



Respectfully,

Joanne Allen

2777Shomper, KrisFrom: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:53 PM RECEIVEDTo: IRRC IRRCSubject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message

2K0OCT-LJ p 2- 5M




First Name: Kathleen

Last Name: Sweeney

Company:


Subject: proposed regulations


2777

Shomper, Kris

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:52 PM of-nrivirnTo: IRRC iDOYi1

Subject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message IRRC

2010 OCT -M P ? 53




First Name: Deidra

Last Name: Noland

Company:


Subject: Proposed Regulation #2777 Dept of Agriculture 2-160


2777Shomper, Kris

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:45 PM

Subject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message RECEIVEDIRRC

ZDIOQCT-M p 2= 53




First Name: Kelly

Last Name: Fritz

Company:

Email: flight [email protected]

Subject: proposed revised dairy regulation

Message:My name is Kelly Fritz, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation#2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and donot need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory productor fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulationdoes not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transactionand has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or marketsare no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Although someregulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1

responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function thatcould easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, I view theproposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that theproposed regulation be rejected. Thank you, Kelly Fritz

2777

Shomper, Kris

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:45 PM

Subject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message i§Si^

OCT-M P 2=53


IRRCIndependent .Regulatory Review Commission



Last Name: Dabbondanza

Company:


Subject: raw milk regulation

Message:My name is Jennifer Dabbondanza, and I am a raw milk consumer. I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent,discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If theyprovide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly.At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement iswhere the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Foodsafety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impactsand we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations. Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simplerif they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result isachieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test forcompliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging theoperation. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary.These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected. Thank you, Jennifer Dabbondanza

2777Shomper, KrisFrom: Michelle McCurdy [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:14 PMTo: IRRCSubject: proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation

| | | | | § ^

|||§§§||^^

j::|||pil-||il|pip

27? 7Shomper, Kris

From: Arlene Foreman [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:10 PM _

TO: IRRC RECEIVEDSubject: Please reject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculti$ltf?0 60

2 i 0 0CT~L} p j ( ?My name is Arlene Foreman, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request xnat youreject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation, I am anintelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor orlocal market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriatelycorrect a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation doesnot and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier withevery transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvementis where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporationscreated by the State. Food safety is not size neutral.Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we haveno direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves adesired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not theState's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function thatcould easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging theoperation.


Sincerely,

Arlene Foreman, M.S.

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Nancy Whisker [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:14 PMTo: IRRCSubject: Vote to DISAPPROVE "proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160."

My name is Nancy Whisker. I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from myfarmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they willbe out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer policesthat supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where thesuppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is aproblem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.



Thank you.Nancy A. Whisker208 Tapeworm RoadNew Bloomfield, PA 17068(717)203-4132

fN3

8 =o—« m

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:10 PMTo: IRRC RECEIVEDSubject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message IRRC

•2TO0CT-U P 3: 12


IRRCIndependent Regulatory Review Cornmissiori


First Name: Marjorie

Last Name: Hitman

Company:


Subject: #2777 D of Ag: milk sanitation

Message:My name is Marjorie Hitman. I am a raw milk consumer when I can find it and I respectfully request that youREJECT proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent,discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If theyprovide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly.State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier withevery transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where thesuppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is notsize neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we haveno direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Althoughsome regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State?s. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the PROPOSED REGULATION BE REJECTED.I believe citizens have a right to have control of our foodand food choices. My choice of foods is VERY IMPORTANT to me. Thank you for this opportunity to speakout on behalf of food CHOICE. Marjorie Hitman

2777Shorn per, Kris

From: Soraya Howard [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:09 PM RECEIVEDTo: IRRC JRRGSubject: Reject Proposed Regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation!

20DOCT-M P 2 12My name is Soraya Howard, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request thatyou reject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: MilkSanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactoryproduct or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. Atthat level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; everyconsumer polices that supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcementoptions. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets areno longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is notsize neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem as wehave seen with the recent massive egg recall. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could bemuch simpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end productachieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers' responsibility, notthe State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a functionthat could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging theoperation.


Best regards,

Soraya Howard

2777Shomper, Kris


2TO0CT-U P 3=03


IRRCIndependent Regyfaiory Review Commission


First Name: Emily

Last Name: Lee

Company:

Email: emilyymleeffiyahoo.com

Subject: reject propse regulation #2777

Message:My name is Emily Lee, am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation#2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and donot need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory productor fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulationdoes not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transactionand has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or marketsare no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Although someregulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1


2777Shomper, Kris T. -it ?f Tf

€ i i •From: Shaun Pardi [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:27 PMTo: IRRC BECEIVFJ)Subject: proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160 IDpp

My name is Shaun T Pardi, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully reqiresf tftafyoB^jlfcct proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they providean unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. Atthat level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer policesthat supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need governmentinvolvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations createdby the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have muchmore far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. Theregulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if theywere performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result isachieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to testfor compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself inmicromanaging the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. Theseflaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Thank you,

Shaun T Pardi431 Brush Valley RoadBoalsburg, PA 16827814.466.3061

till2777

Shomper, KrisFrom: The Stahls [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:24 PMTo: IRRC RECEIVEDSubject: Raw Milk Legislation IRRC

20I0 OCT -Li p 3: 2bMy name is Deborah Stahl, I am a raw milk consumer when I have the opportunity, and I respectfully request tnaiyou reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. lam an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not needprotection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. Where we DO need government involvement is where the suppliers ormarkets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size-neutral. Larger operationsare more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts, and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem.The regulation needs to focus on those operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers' responsibility, notthe State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather thaninserting itself in micromanaging the operation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that theproposed regulation be rejected. Pennsylvania's raw milk industry sets a very high standard already for the few other states which dopermit the sale of raw milk; unnecessarily applying regulations which won't improve the safety of milk but WILL make it harder forraw milk farmers to do their jobs and serve their customers safely will only serve to hinder the exceptional job PA's raw milk farmersare doing. In other words: it isn't broken, so please, please PLEASE don't try to "fix" it.

Sincerely,Deborah Stahl

277? 7Shomper, Kris « f # /

From: Kaufman, KimSent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:19 PM -.^-«*^f%To: IRRC RECEIVEDSubject: FW: Milk Regulation #2777 Hearing IRRC

201 OCT -U P 3 22

From: Chris Bacon [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:19 PMTo: Kaufman, Kim; Wilmarth, Fiona E,Subject: Milk Regulation #2777 Hearing

Hello,

My name is Chris Bacon, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvementis where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State.Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reachingimpacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus ORthose operations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if theywere performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result isachieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test forcompliance, a function that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging theoperation.


2777 2777Shomper, Kris <> < i <From: Daniel McCurdy [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:32 PMTo: IRRC RECEIVEDSubject: Proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160 iDDQ

20I0 OCI - U P 3 : 3 3My name is Dan McCurdy, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully requesfthat you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.



2777 2777Shomper, Kris y

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:29 PMTo: IRRC RECEIVEDSubject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message f RRC

20!QOCT-Li P 332




First Name: Marianna

Last Name: Artemova

Company:


Subject: proposed regulation #2777

Message:My name is Marianna Artemova, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers Or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State?s. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

2777Shomper, Kris 2777

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:29 PM RECEIVEDTo: IRRC IRRf1

Subject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message m n b

2010 OCT - M P 3 = 3 1


RRCIndependent Regulatory Review -'Commission


First Name: Judith

Last Name: Mudrak

Company:


Subject: reject regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160:

Message:My name is Judith Mudrak, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected. Judith Mudrak

2777Shomper, Kris 2777

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:29 PM n r . r l u r n

To: IRRC R E C f i r>Subject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message IRRC

20I0OCT-U P 3*31




First Name: Angela

Last Name: Dunmire

Company:

Email: adunmire(o!gmail.com

Subject: #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation

Message:I am a raw milk drinker and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department ofAgriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem I will stop buying from them and they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. Regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and, in some cases, onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected. Thank you for your consideration. Angela Dunmire

^77 RECEIVEDmm

S . B R I A N M A G A R O ?nin n r T . ^ORGANIC PRODUCTION INSPECTOR*010 uu "^ P 3= 35

608 Magaro RoadEnola, Pennsylvania 17025-1912

717,732,7940, cell- 717.773.6236, [email protected]«n4>erintem«tionaiOr9antolrop«ctorsA»octat)on

Fwiiw, Uvwtocki Processor/ Handtar sispec tions

I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you rejectproposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: MilkSanitation, i am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not needprotection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they providean unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem theywill be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not andcannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices thatsupplier with 9vwy transaction and has direct enforcement options. Wherewe need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are nolonger our neighbors but rather corporations created by the 8tate. Foodsafety is not size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problemshave much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningfulrecourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, theregulation could be much simpler if they were performance standards,requiring that the end product achieves a desired result How that result isachieved is the producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would resultin the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easilybe contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging theoperation.

Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some casesonerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that the proposedregulation be rejected.

Gi) /J^2 to/iji0

Id WdS0:fr0 0102 P2 "l°Q '- 'ON XUd : WOdd

277?Shomper, Kris

From: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: MondTo: IRRCSent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:48 PM RFPFIY/Fn

Subject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message ?HRC

2010 OCT - M P 3: 5 0





Last Name: DeSeguirant

Company:


Subject: NO to regulation 2777

Message:I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777 Department ofAgriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protectionfrom my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail toappropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not andcannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier with every transaction and hasdirect enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where the suppliers or markets are nolonger our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations. Although someregulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they were performancestandards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved is the producers1

responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function thatcould easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, I view theproposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that theproposed regulation be rejected. Thank you.

Shomper, Kris 2777

From: [email protected]: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:47 PM RtCEIVEDTo: Kaufman, Kim; Johnson, Leslie A. Lewis; Cooper, Kathy; SflRR^r, Kris; Hoffman, Stephen

F.; Wilmarth, Fiona E.; Schalles, Scott R.; Miller, Sarah E.; [email protected]

20I0OCT-U P 3=50Good Afternoon,My name is Ralph Bradeen from Long Island New York. I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully requestthat you PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE reject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: MilkSanitation. Please be respectful of the people who desire choice and not government control... I am anintelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market orstore. The milk I am offered by large food stores is not at all healthy. Please realize and do due diligence tohonestly learn what a terrible product they try to push off as milk. This is not freedom, you forcing me to drinka profit motivated, poorer quality product. It is just wrong!If Local farmer selling raw milk provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problemthey will be out of business quickly. I grew up on Long Island, still live here and yearn for the quality of milk wegot delivered as a child. It is the same and the only place I can get it today is delivered here from your local

farmers and it is wonderful. Please realize we should have a choice.State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier

with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is thecorporations but they have lobbyist to push the government employees around. Why else do they exist?Honestly, look at it. If the corporate product was so good why do they need lobbyists? Larger operations aremore complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if theywere performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result isachieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's. Again, I view the proposed regulation as excessive,and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrant that the proposed regulation be rejected.

Please let me purchase the milk I grew up on. Is that really too much to ask for?Why would you remove our right to choose? This is our right!

Thank you for your respect, understanding, compassion and have a most wonderful day! Ralph Bradeen

2777Shomper, KrisFrom: Miller, Sarah E.Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:48 PM w _To: IRRC RECEIVEDSubject: FW: IRRC Website - New Message IRRC

2iO0C!-U P 3:50


RRCIndependent .Regulatory Review Commission


First Name: Steve

Last Name: Beiler

Company:


Subject: milk Regulations

Message:My name is Steve Beiler, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

2777Shomper, Kris


2010 OCT - U P 3= 50


RRCIndependent Kegylatory Review Commission


First Name: Natasha

Last Name: Hitchcock

Company:

Email: oceantash(% gmail.com

Subject: Dairy Regulations Hearing

Message:My name is Natasha Hitchcock, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers1 responsibility, not the Statefs. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected. Thank you for your time, Natasha Hitchcock

2777Shomper, Kris

From: Ed Gutfreund [[email protected]] DPPFiVFnSent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:43 PM Y D D PTo: IRRC m K t

Subject: rawn*regulations 2 » OCI -U P S US

fillip

! : | | | S | | | | | : ^

2777Shomper, Kris

From: eliana sekkidou [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:39 PM RECEIVEDTo: IRRC IRRCSubject: Milk Sanitation

210 OCT - U P 3s ^My name is Eliana Sekkidou, I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that youreject proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I aman intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighboror local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriatelycorrect a problem they will be out of business quickly. At that level. State regulation doesnot and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplier withevery transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need governmentinvolvement is where the suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rathercorporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Larger operations aremore complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no directmeaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on thoseoperations.

Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be muchsimpler if they were performance standards, requiring that the end product achieves adesired result How that result is achieved is the producers1 responsibility, not the State's.That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, a function that could easilybe contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation.


Shomper, Kris 277?


Miller, Sarah E.Monday, October 04, 2010 3:54 PMIRRCFW: IRRC Website - New Message OCT 4 20W


RRCIndependent Regulatory Review Cx>mmisslori


First Name: DEBORAH

Last Name: PARTLOW

Company:


Subject: Reject Proposed Regulation #2777 Dept of Agr. 2-160

Message:My name is Deborah Partlow. I am a raw milk consumer and I respectfully request that you reject proposedregulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminatingconsumer and do not need protection from my farmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide anunsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they will be out of business quickly. At thatlevel, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer polices that supplierwith every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is wherethe suppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety isnot size neutral. Larger operations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and wehave no direct meaningful recourse if there is a problem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.Although some regulations on this latter group are necessary, the regulation could be much simpler if they wereperformance standards, requiring that the end product achieves a desired result. How that result is achieved isthe producers' responsibility, not the State's. That would result in the State's role being to test for compliance, afunction that could easily be contracted out, rather than inserting itself in micromanaging the operation. Again, Iview the proposed regulation as excessive, and in some cases onerous and unnecessary. These flaws warrantthat the proposed regulation be rejected.

Shomper, Kris2777


katrina kingsley [[email protected]]Monday, October 04, 2010 3:50 PMIRRCDISAPPROVE proposed regulation #2777 Department of Agriculture 2-160.

^ e " O j INDEPENDENT REGULATORYREVIEW COMMISSION

My name is Katrina Kingsley and I am a raw milk consumer. I respectfully request that you reject proposed regulation #2777Department of Agriculture 2-160: Milk Sanitation. I am an intelligent, discriminating consumer and do not need protection from myfarmer-neighbor or local market or store. If they provide an unsatisfactory product or fail to appropriately correct a problem they wilibe out of business quickly. At that level, State regulation does not and cannot provide a higher level policing; every consumer policesthat supplier with every transaction and has direct enforcement options. Where we need government involvement is where thesuppliers or markets are no longer our neighbors but rather corporations created by the State. Food safety is not size neutral. Largeroperations are more complex, problems have much more far-reaching impacts and we have no direct meaningful recourse if there is aproblem. The regulation needs to focus on those operations.



Sincerely,Katrina [email protected]

2777 / - H5 - IRRC 10-04-10 FO… · 2777 / - H5 From: Sent: To ... If they provide an...

Documents

Transcript of 2777 / - H5 - IRRC 10-04-10 FO… · 2777 / - H5 From: Sent: To ... If they provide an...