EPA classifies milk as oil, forcing costly rules on farmers
Monica Scott The Grand Rapids Press
Update: State Senate calls for EPA to change rule classifying cow’s milk as oil
GRAND RAPIDS — Having watched the oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico, dairy farmer Frank Konkel has a hard time seeing how spilled milk can be labeled the same kind of environmental hazard.
But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is classifying milk as oil because it contains a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil.
The Hesperia farmer and others would be required to develop and implement spill prevention plans for milk storage tanks. The rules are set to take effect in November, though that date might be pushed back.
“That could get expensive quickly,” Konkel said. “We have a serious problem in the Gulf. Milk is a wholesome product that does not equate to spilling oil.”
But last week environmentalists disagreed at a Senate committee hearing on a resolution from Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, calling for the EPA to rescind its ruling.
“The federal Clean Water Act requirements were meant to protect the environment from petroleum-based oils, not milk,” he said. “I think it is an example of federal government gone amuck.”
But Gayle Miller, legislative director of Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, said agricultural pollution probably is the nation’s most severe chronic problem when it comes to water pollution.
“Milk is wholesome in a child’s body. It is devastating in a waterway,” Miller said. “The fact that it’s biodegradable is irrelevant if people die as a result of cryptosporidium, beaches close for E. coli and fish are killed.”
…
Also, the International Dairy Foods Association said it has learned the EPA will exempt the industry from the rule. But state lawmakers say they won’t let up until that is official.
…
“This is an example of where we have overreach by the department that defies common sense,” said Matt Smego, legislative counsel for Michigan Farm Bureau.
Smego said its an unnecessary regulatory burden that creates additional costs. He said it could cost $2,500 for a certified engineer to safeguard milk, plus more to construct secondary containment structures.
…
“The federal government has gotten out touch what’s going on in rural America,” said Konkel. “This is our livelihood.””
More at http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/06/epa_classifies_milk_as_oil_for.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What? Milk kills fish, how so? Does that mean I have to stop feeding the Rhincodon typus named Joe who lives in my fish tank milk? He is quite hooked on the stuff, and if I am not careful enough to see that he gets his daily gallon, he’ll terrorize me by singing “Old MacDonald had a farm.. ” over and over again and horribly out of tune, until I have rectified my error, and he will most surely drive me insane if I tell him he has to stay off the milk because it will kill him , he will never believe it.
in the case that this is a joke, what does this really say about the track record of the EPA when people believe them capable of something this ridiculous?
on the other hand. what does it say about the EPA if they are actually capable of something this ridiculous?
old construction worker
As anyone that has read my comments at WUWT will know I am not a starry eyed green. Ian H is correct and I have personally seen the impact of a milk product tanker spill causing depression of DO and a major long term impact on a resident trout population. That said- milk is not E. coli and certainly not a crypto problem- nor a potable water issue- nor how you would go about protecting a supply from these sources. (I am always amazed at how clueless Sierra Club spokespeople are). Agriculture is our most serious water quality and habitat threat and is often fueled by the perverse incentives of subsidies. Like growing rice in a desert) We have known that some Ag practices are indefensible- but EPA has known it for 40 years and done little, the NGOs keep silent because it deflects from their themes and this regulation seems far down on the priority list if you were really worried about non-point sources.
Sierra Club and other NGOs choose what environmental issues are financially rewarding by test marketing the public. Direct mass mail campaigns use multiple environmental scare scenarios and those that result in higher donations are chosen for development and coordination with EPA and the mail marketing consultant that takes a peice of the donations. One could argue our entire environmental agenda has been set by direct mail consultants. (And you probably thought that there was some scientific logic involved.) The entire industry changed when it was found that linking politics to a particular environmental threat caused response rates to skyrocket. Dairy farming is not the type of issue that would trigger big cash for the Sierra Club—something is going on. Or an intended distraction or threat on some other “issue.” This reg. begs the question if some interest other than the environment will benefit? Wait a minute- that’s been true for a while now.
Milk can be a serious pollutant, especially if it finds its way into waterways. It is a particular problem at Dairy factories where infrequent breakdowns or stoppages can leave them with huge tanks of rotten milk …………..
I can remember it happening. I’m talking a while ago you understand and I’m not a young man. It hasn’t happened recently as all the large milk processing plants where I live now have adequate contingency plans including secondary containment and on site treatment facilities. And they are closely monitered for possible leaks and breaches. But there have been some quite serious spills in the past. I live in New Zealand and one thing we know all about is the dangers of dealing with milk in large quantities.
Here is a link that discusses the effects of milk as an environmental pollutant, including emergency contingency plans for safe disposal in the event of supply chain disruption. Yes we have such plans where I live. They are very necessary let me assure you. Let me quote …
(emphasis added)
It goes on to list safe disposal methods.
All you people who seem to think that milk pollution just a joke are clueless and should think again. It can be a very serious problem indeed. People with huge milk tanks who refuse to build secondary containment and treatment facilities to deal with a possible breach are acting very irresponsibly. We don’t let such people operate in New Zealand. It seems that you still do in the US.
The fact that their “expert” is with Sierra Club tells you all you need to know. Probably left the imprint of her berkenstocks on the poor farmers head for being so backward as to produce a healthy and sustainable product that has been the mainstay of many cultures around the world for millenia. He’s lucky she didn’t have a hemp rope handy.
Tallbloke is right, “What chew cud imagine is a situation where it’s udderly freisian outside. A mixture of spilt milk and bovine excrement might release methane clathrates. The explosion risk needs to be calf-ully assessed. We need a steer-ing committee, and some large research grants. The steaks are high.”
This is a matter of considerable Angus-iety!
We are mighty be-Holstein to those here on WUWT who have warned that it could get colder. And somehow we have lived on the horns of our dilema without benefit of the EPA since 1620. That woman who said milk polutes water and kills fish is really out standing in the field, in my opinion.
Not to sound like a conspiracy nut or anything, but I’ve had this nagging feeling for some time now that this kind of thing is designed to get ordinary people pissed off enough to start rampaging thru the streets looking for heads to chop. The idea being that if the peasants become sufficiently aroused it provides an excuse for even more control being imposed.
Something like this: ” Can’t have rioting now, can we? So in order to protect all you nice folks we ( the government ) have no choice but to declare martial law, disband Congress, nationalize all essential business, confiscate all private property, and suspend all elections. And we’re really sorry about that, and I’m really a nice guy with nothing but love for you. But you did elect me to fundamentally transform the country; so here it is, I say here it is.” Sincerely, BHO.
“That could get expensive quickly,”
Thats the idea…
ok, when will this insanity stop?
Ian H,
A simple regulation requiring secondary containment vessels would completely fix the problem. Insurance companies would require the tanks in order to provide coverage. Problem solved, no need for the EPA.
But the EPA does not want the problem solved, because the problem, minor as it is, is job security for the EPA, which is currently on an empire-building tear.
It is also hard to believe that dumping thousands of gallons of milk is commonplace. Dairy farmers might just as well compost their excess hundred dollar bills and feed them to the worms, as throw away excess milk.
And when there is excess milk, it can very easily be made into cheese; home cheese making kits only require milk and a straining cloth [cheese cloth, get it?]. It may not be the best brie, but a billion people live on less than $1 a day, and they would certainly appreciate some high fat calories.
But as usual, the worst possible solution is an expanded government bureaucracy.
Henry chance says:
June 24, 2010 at 1:10 pm
The crazies are trying to take over.
Not trying my friend, have!
D. Caldwell says…
If we don’t correct our course and work on becoming a better business environment, millions of working Americans will suffer greatly.
Umm 35million unemployed as of last week. Over 10 million of us are 99’rs…
not will suffer greatly…. are suffering greatly.
My unemployment ran out last week, and I can’t find a job for nothing and I’m a network admin with an education, and I’m going to school to get a BS and an MBA.
I repeat are suffering….
Gary Hladik says:
June 24, 2010 at 2:28 pm
This is a gag post, right?
Right?
Say it ain’t so, Anthony!
This isn’t April 1st and he’s not kidding.
I’ve googled this and found at least 3 items to back it up.
I also found a real interesting pdf brought to lite under the FOI where the FDA, Dept. of AG are going after farmers to prosecute farmers who sell unpasteurized milk.
“All you people who seem to think that milk pollution just a joke are clueless and should think again.”
We KNOW our EPA. The EPA wants to regulate milk production just as much as the MMS wanted to regulate off shore drilling. You’ve seen how effective big government is in regulating one field — why do you think that a different organization will be any better?
biddyb says:
June 24, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Wow, it sounds as though you are going the same way as the the daft rules emanating from the EU, expanded upon by all our various government departments in the UK. Welcome aboard!
This is all coming from the UN and the WTO… google Codex Alementarius
but be careful when you do it…. Big Brother is watching…
Mooooo
Brad says:
I also found a real interesting pdf brought to lite under the FOI where the FDA, Dept. of AG are going after farmers to prosecute farmers who sell unpasteurized milk.
Brad- I commented that this smelled like something else was going on. Sierra Club has close links to a powerful DC marketing/lobbying firm that also represents the “organic” food sector. This may be a shot across Dept of Ags bow for the unpasteurized milk campaign.
I use reconstitute milk from powdered milk every morning to consume with my cereal. Is powdered milk an oil? I buy the biggest size box they have because it lasts “forever”. So do I need a secondary containment structure, just in case?
Rhoda R says:
June 24, 2010 at 7:59 pm
“All you people who seem to think that milk pollution just a joke are clueless and should think again.”
We KNOW our EPA. The EPA wants to regulate milk production just as much as the MMS wanted to regulate off shore drilling. You’ve seen how effective big government is in regulating one field — why do you think that a different organization will be any better?
………..The USDA haS pressure to intimidate dairy farmers and discourage milking. The MMS is NOT out to regulate drilling. We found out recently their mission was to promote wind turbines and they naturally neglected drilling. It is a problem internally.
Guys (and Gals), I think the explanation is a lot more simple than this discussion is assuming. If you hire and pay a bunch of people to write new rules and regulations, that is what they will do. Every single bloody day. And every single bloody night. Our problem is mission. The EPA has been given the mission to move the amount of pollutants to zero. As we are on the far end of the curve, they have to get more and more extreme in their rules and regulations to demonstrate any improvement at all.
One solution would be a complete defunding of the EPA along with repeal of the Clean Water and Clean Air acts as unconstitutional. Transfer everything to the many states to administer as they see fit.
We are long past the point of diminishing returns for EPA efforts, yet those employed keep on pushing for more clean and more clean.
Perhaps it is time to turn them to the Dark Side of the Force by financially rewarding them to come up with straightforward, defensible, guidelines for pollutants and set those numbers – whatever they end up being – in stone via congressional action. Force every single one of the 535 vermin to make a vote on what is real and what is not. If we are successful, we put the EPA and Big Green out of business for a very long time to come. Cheers –
@Smokey:
From my reading of the articles a “simple regulation requiring the building of secondary containment vessels” seems to be pretty much exactly what the EPA is trying to achieve here. The “classification as oil” thing is just a talking point that those fighting this requirement seem to have latched onto. My guess is that this is probably just some meaningless bureaucratic internal classification scheme that the EPA has for pollutants.
I agree that farmers don’t like to dump milk and will only do so in exceptional circumstances. The problem is however that cows don’t have taps and can’t just be turned off. If there is some exceptional problem that means you can’t use the milk, you are going to have to milk them regardless and then get rid of the milk somehow. A strike at the processing plant will do it easy. As will a bridge outage due to a flood which cuts off farm access. As will any number of other unforeseen circumstances.
Farmers don’t like to dump milk, but sometimes they have no option. The important thing is that when they do have to dump it, they have a contingency plan which includes a place to put it that will keep it out of the waterways.
The EPA is crying over spilt milk… isn’t that special.
*sigh*
This would mean that in every maternal hospital floor or wing, we would have a hazmat problem.
Ian H – you are absolutely correct from an environmental perspective. However, EPA is a politically motivated agency and they just wouldn’t mobilize on this level using Sierra Club as a spokesmen if there was not something more going on. I realize that you are from NZ– so as an example the NGOs and regulatory agencies promote farmland preservation programs especially in environmentally sensitive areas here in the US. Taxpayers pay to buy out the development rights in perpetuity. These new green acres are then sold back into farming without a single restriction- no buffer strips to protect tributaries, no need for cover crops etc. Understand that someone building a home must submit a soil management plan, erect soil fences, reseeding plan and as long as 5 years of progress planting reports for perhaps a few thousand square meter disruption. Contrast this where nothing is required for a thousand of hectres of farmland often being paid to plant crops no-one wants or needs. So when EPA and Sierra Club spend political capital and use this as its major thrust into agricultural impacts- it may be right but probably not why they are doing it nor what they should be doing first.
A fast fact for you- one cow is the equivalent of ~27 people in terms of daily BOD loading- and don’t ask me what I had to do to find that out.
Some excellent comments here. A truly large spill of milk certainly can have catastrophic consequences. But this is has nothing to do with its fat content and everything to do with it being an excellent growth medium for bacteria. The same can be said for the huge vats of blood collected at slaughter houses.
Michigan may be a unique case in regard to risk. You literally cannot swing a dead cat in that state without encountering a creek, stream, river, pond or lake. But is the EPA addressing a real problem or a “potential problem”?
BTW…E. coli is ubiquitous. This is a gram-negative aerobe that is abundant in the bowels of almost all mammals, including humans. Only specific strains are pathogenic via contaminated food.
Does this mean that salmon are no longer allowed to return to freshwater streams to spawn? What struck me when I went to watch a salmon run on one of the local streams a few years back was the astounding number of dead fish in the water that had fulfilled their biologic imperative and Gaia no longer had any use for them. A feast for the local bear population but salmon is a very oily fish and there’s probably more than 5% oil left in the carcasses that are in the water and thus in violation of EPA guidelines. The salmon are causing untold ecologic devastation and here the EPA is worried about spilled milk.