<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: California Raw Milk &#8211; Temporary Restraining Order against AB1735</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wewantorganicfood.com/2008/03/22/california-raw-milk-temporary-restraining-order-against-ab1735/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wewantorganicfood.com/2008/03/22/california-raw-milk-temporary-restraining-order-against-ab1735/</link>
	<description>Organic food information and tips and gadgets for healthier living</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=We Want Organic Food</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Diane Vigil</title>
		<link>http://wewantorganicfood.com/2008/03/22/california-raw-milk-temporary-restraining-order-against-ab1735/#comment-496</link>
		<dc:creator>Diane Vigil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:51:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wewantorganicfood.com/2008/03/22/california-raw-milk-temporary-restraining-order-against-ab1735/#comment-496</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Lynn. We aren&#039;t out of the woods yet, though. The judge issued the temporary restraining order based on the argument that &quot;the two dairies would both be irreparably harmed if the coliform standard imposed by AB 1735 continued to remain in effect, noting that existing testing data proves the dairies cannot meet the standard.&quot; That&#039;s why it&#039;s temporary.

What I&#039;m pleased about is that an outside party --- the Court --- will be hearing the issues, rather than the same-old-same-old parties who have so given raw milk (and Californians who drink it) a hard time.

Light of day, light of day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Lynn. We aren't out of the woods yet, though. The judge issued the temporary restraining order based on the argument that "the two dairies would both be irreparably harmed if the coliform standard imposed by AB 1735 continued to remain in effect, noting that existing testing data proves the dairies cannot meet the standard." That's why it's temporary.</p>
<p>What I'm pleased about is that an outside party &#8212; the Court &#8212; will be hearing the issues, rather than the same-old-same-old parties who have so given raw milk (and Californians who drink it) a hard time.</p>
<p>Light of day, light of day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lynn Cameron</title>
		<link>http://wewantorganicfood.com/2008/03/22/california-raw-milk-temporary-restraining-order-against-ab1735/#comment-495</link>
		<dc:creator>Lynn Cameron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:46:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wewantorganicfood.com/2008/03/22/california-raw-milk-temporary-restraining-order-against-ab1735/#comment-495</guid>
		<description>This is hopeful news for farm-fresh milk in the marketplace, as in &quot;for both producers and consumers&quot; - strangely similar to free-market economy principles.  Good going, WWOF, for staying on top of this story so we might know of it right away.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is hopeful news for farm-fresh milk in the marketplace, as in "for both producers and consumers" &#8211; strangely similar to free-market economy principles.  Good going, WWOF, for staying on top of this story so we might know of it right away.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
