Milk Ruling Has Obscure Board on a Visible Spot

The Los Angeles County Milk Commission is a little-known panel with an obscure mission: regulating the production, distribution and sale of raw or unpasteurized milk.

Its commissioners are paid $25 per meeting, but what has been a low-profile job turned public this week when a Northern California judge accused the six-member county panel of kowtowing to the lone company it regulates--Alta-Dena Certified Dairy.

In strongly worded ruling against Alta-Dena, the nation’s largest raw milk producer, Alameda County Superior Court Judge John Sutter claimed the company has run a “misleading and sometimes downright dangerous” advertising campaign touting the health benefits of unpasteurized milk.

Warnings Ordered

Concluding a 54-day trial over the firm’s advertising claims, Sutter ruled that Alta-Dena must place warnings on its raw milk products for the next 10 years, a decision that the company’s attorneys say they will appeal.

At the same time, the judge excoriated the commission, contending there is “considerable evidence” that the panel and its parent organization--the American Assn. of Medical Milk Commissions--are “captives” of Alta-Dena.

Those harsh words not only prompted vehement denials from both Alta-Dena officials and commission members, it also puzzled some county officials who were unaware that the county even had a milk commission.

One who did remember was Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, who sought to abolish the commission in 1974 when similar complaints were made that the panel was not independent enough.

“I feel the same today as I did then,” Hahn said Tuesday. “The commission is comprised of members of the same industry they are supposed to regulate. It’s all stacked, and there’s no objective reporting.”

In his ruling, Judge Sutter claimed the county commission was hamstrung in enforcing its own regulations against Alta-Dena because the panel owes its total financial support to the company. He added that 84% to 100% of the parent group’s expenses were also borne by the company and that Alta-Dena secretaries even typed up the minutes of the commission meetings.

Sutter described the chairman of the county commission, Dr. Paul Fleiss, as a paid consultant for Alta-Dena’s attorney. The judge said Fleiss was nominated by the company to serve on the panel and warned that such cozy relationships compromised the commission and weakened its effectiveness.

Fleiss, however, insisted that he and his fellow members are independent. “We want the safest milk to be produced. I certainly don’t want any milk to be sold that will be unsafe to anybody,” he said Tuesday.

Fleiss, a pediatrician who has chaired the commission for several years, said he has worked as a consultant for Alta-Dena’s attorney, Raymond Novell, reviewing medical literature and cases that sometimes included lawsuits filed against the company. But Fleiss said he never listed the payments--$1,000 to $2,000 a month in consulting fees--in his annual statement of economic interests.

The commission’s conflict-of-interest code states that members must disclose, among other things, “all investments, business positions, and income from businesses that produce or distribute milk or milk products.”

But Fleiss said he did not think it was necessary to list his consulting job with Novell because his work did not involve any cases that came before the commission. Novell, who said he has occasionally appeared at commission meetings as a representative of Alta-Dena, said he saw no conflict and added that Fleiss stopped working for him when the judge first raised the issue last fall.

Consumer Charges

The county commission is funded through consumer charges Alta-Dena imposes on each carton of milk, Fleiss said. In addition to the money that goes to the county, some of that revenue also is sent to the parent commission, which Fleiss said has paid for business trips he and other commissioners have taken to Chicago, Atlanta and other cities. But he said that he saw nothing wrong with that arrangement.

“I have never compromised my position,” he said.

One allegation raised by Judge Sutter was that a laboratory hired by the commission had “isolated salmonella on numerous occasions” but failed to notify state health officials. Both Fleiss and Jack Michelson, whose laboratory handles testing for the commission, said that they could recall only one such occurrence, which they blamed on a bureaucratic mix-up.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Ed Edelman, however, said that the judge’s comments were serious enough to warrant an investigation. “We certainly will ask that CAO and health department gives us a report on the milk commission on whether it is working properly in an impartial, effective manner,” he said.

The commission--which includes four doctors, one veterinarian and a public member nominated by the Board of Supervisors--was created by the Legislature in 1968 as a watchdog group over the unpasteurized milk industry. But by 1971, Alta-Dena was the county’s only certified raw milk producer. Today, it produces about 8,000 gallons of raw milk a day.

While the county commission only oversees raw milk production and sales, state and federal authorities are chiefly responsible for pasteurized milk.