Ritchie v Director of Regulatory Compliance, Ontario Raw Milk Quality Program, 2006 ONAFRAAT 36

Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal

1Stone Road West

Guelph, (Ontario) N1G 4Y2

Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232

Email:appeals.tribunal@omaf.gov.on.ca

Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture,

de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales

1 Stone Road West

Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2

Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232

Email: appeals.tribunal@omaf.gov.on.ca

AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL

APPEAL:

Ritchie v Director of Regulatory Compliance, Ontario Raw Milk Quality Program

Ritchie v Director of Regulatory Compliance, Ontario Raw Milk Quality Program

2006 ONAFRAAT 36

STATUTE:

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act

HEARING:

September 5, 2006

DATE OF DECISION:

September 25, 2006

2006-36

NEUTRAL CITATION:

2006 ONAFRAAT 36

IN THE MATTER OF THE MILK ACT AND SECTION 16 OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS ACT:

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

An Appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by David Ritchie, Midland, Ontario from a decision of the Director of Regulatory Compliance, Ontario Raw Milk Quality Program, dated April 5, 2006 by which he confirmed the positive inhibitor test results on milk picked up at the appellant’s farm on October 8, 2005.

Before: Rod Stork, Chair; John Rudics, Member; Bill Schaefer, Member

Appearances:

Dave Ritchie, appellant

George MacNaughton, Director of Regulatory Compliance, respondent

Scott Hartle, DFO Field Services Representative, witness

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

This appeal was heard in Guelph, Ontario on Tuesday, September 5, 2006. Mr. Dave Ritchie appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) from the decision of the Director to uphold a positive inhibitor test on a milk sample collected on his dairy farm. The test results indicated the inhibitor was penicillin.

Statutory Context

Subsection 16(1) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act states:

Appeal to Tribunal

16. 1 Subject to subsection (4), if a person is aggrieved by an order, direction, policy or decision of the Commission or Director, made under the Farm Products Marketing Act or the Milk Act, that person may appeal to the Tribunal by filing with the Tribunal and sending to the Commission or Director written notice of the appeal. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.16, s. 16 (1); 2006, c. 19, Sched. A, s. 16 (3).

Subsection 4 allows the Tribunal to refuse to hear an appeal it finds to be frivolous, vexatious or trivial, or where the appellant does not have sufficient interest in the matter under appeal.

Section 52 of Regulation 761 under the Milk Act requires that the milk of Ontario milk producers be tested at least once each month for a number of quality parameters.

Section 54 of Regulation 761 under the Milk Act states:

54. (1) Where milk of a producer is tested under section 52 and found to contain an inhibitor, a field person shall place under detention all milk of the producer. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 761, s. 54 (1).

(2) Where a fieldperson places milk under detention under subsection (1), such samples of milk as are necessary shall be taken and delivered to a laboratory approved by the Director for testing for the presence of an inhibitor by an official method. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 761, s. 54 (2).

(3) The results of the testing of a sample under subsection (2) shall be made known to the producer within twenty-four hours of the time the milk was placed under detention. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 761, s. 54 (3).

(4) Where the testing of a sample under subsection (2) shows that the milk does not contain an inhibitor, the fieldperson shall release the milk from detention. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 761, s. 54 (4).

(5) Where the testing of a sample under subsection (2) shows the presence of an inhibitor, the fieldperson shall,

(a) notify the marketing board that the milk from which the sample was taken shall not be marketed;

(b) take such steps and make such orders as are considered necessary to ensure that such milk is not used for food, or in the preparation of food, for human consumption; and

(c) maintain the detention, sampling and testing of the milk of the producer until such time as the testing shows that the milk does not contain an inhibitor. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 761, s. 54 (5); O. Reg. 348/95, s. 9.

(6) Upon receiving notice under clause (5) (a), the milk marketing board shall notify the operator of the tank-truck that the milk from which the sample was taken shall not be marketed. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 761, s. 54 (6).

Section 55 of Regulation 761 under the Milk Act prescribes penalties for milk quality infractions. Subsection 55(3) and 55(3.1) are as follows:

(3) Where the milk of a producer is tested under section 52 and found to contain an inhibitor, the producer is, in respect of the milk marketed in the same month as the milk that was tested, liable to a penalty of,

(a) $6 per hectolitre where there has been no previous detention of the producer’s milk under subsection 54 (1);

(b) $9 per hectolitre where there has been one previous detention of the producer’s milk under subsection 54 (1); and

(c) $12 per hectolitre where there have been two previous detentions of the producer’s milk under subsection 54 (1),

(d) Revoked: O. Reg. 7/92, s. 2 (1).

within any twelve-month period. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 761, s. 55 (3); O. Reg. 7/92, s. 2 (1); O. Reg. 534/92, s. 1.

(3.1) If a truckload of milk cannot be marketed because of the presence of an inhibitor and the milk of a producer with milk in the truckload is tested under section 52 and found to contain an inhibitor, the producer is liable to the marketing board in an amount equal to the value of the milk damaged plus the cost, including transportation costs, of disposing of the milk. O. Reg. 406/96, s. 1 (1).

Preliminary Matter

The Director and the appellant agreed that the date of the pick up of milk which tested positive for the presence of an inhibitor was October 8, 2005, not October 7, 2005 as indicated in the Notice of Hearing.

The Evidence

Appellant’s Case

Mr. Dave Ritchie told the Tribunal he and his wife had a dairy farm in Simcoe County, milked 35 – 40 cows and cropped 300-400 acres. He said he was the principal milker and he was the only one, aside from his veterinarian, who administered drugs to the cattle. Mr. Ritchie said he had been active on his local Milk Committee for 10-12 years and was formerly the chairman of that committee.

Mr. Ritchie testified that when he purchased his dairy herd he inherited a Nocardia Mastitis problem from a previous owner and his veterinarian and a consultant who was brought in were able to trace the problem to a dry cow treatment. He said he learned valuable lessons through that experience and as a result he used somatic cell count (SCC) recording to identify herd health problems, treats dry cows only as needed and only uses antibiotics that are prescribed by his veterinarian.

Mr. Ritchie said he had long been a firm believer in the need to change the livestock medication system in Ontario so that medicines are only available through veterinarians. He stated he was an advocate and promoter of the Livestock Medicine Course as he believed it was important to have producers informed as to what they are using and how to administer the medicines. Mr. Ritchie pointed out that his veterinarian Dr. Joel Rumney, DVM had provided him with a letter of reference in which he expressed surprise about the positive inhibitor test.

Mr. Ritchie said the timing of events surrounding the positive inhibitor test was as follows:

• Late in the evening of Saturday, October 8, 2005 Scott Hartle left him a telephone message saying he had a positive inhibitor test on the load picked up that morning.
• He phoned Mr. Hartle back and told him he did not see how that was possible.
• Mr. Hartle visited his farm on the morning of Sunday, October 9, 2005 and the milk in the cooler tested negative.
• He later had a neighbour test milk that was taken to the house the night of Friday, October 7, 2005 and it tested negative on a Snap test.

Mr. Ritchie said this indicated that the problem occurred sometime between 7:00 p.m. Friday night and the following morning when the milk was picked up. Mr. Ritchie said he had stopped using penicillin as it had lost its effectiveness, and new and better drugs are available that are safer for both cows and humans and had better withdrawal times. He said he occasionally treated dry cows with Cefa-dri, but that it is not a derivative of penicillin. He said he was one of the first in his neighbourhood to purchase a Devlo P test, which was a precursor to the Snap test. He said he was aware that different cows metabolized drugs at different rates and there was no guarantee that drugs would be out of their system in the time indicated on the labels.

Mr. Ritchie told the Tribunal that ballots to vote for Board Members of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) were sent out on October 7, 2005 and he was a candidate. He said he had attended all candidates meetings in the summer and it was known that he was running in the election. He said he thought that an inhibitor had been added to his bulk milk tank as an act of vandalism. He said the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) monitored his milk house for 3-4 months after the incident. Mr. Ritchie explained that there was a group of individuals who work outside the marketing system in his area and he thought they might have vandalized his milk in order to hurt his chances in the election.

Mr. Ritchie testified that he did not take issue with the data put forward by the Director and did not dispute that the milk sample was from his bulk tank and the milk was contaminated. He said he objected to the test result because it was the result of an act of vandalism designed to discredit him as candidate for election to the DFO Board of Directors. Mr. Ritchie said he had no penicillin on the farm and only purchased livestock medicines from his veterinarian.

In response to questions by the Director, Mr. Ritchie indicated:

• He agreed the sample was taken correctly, handled correctly and tested correctly and agreed the sample tested positive for the presence of an inhibitor.
• He rarely treated lactating cattle. He dealt with high SCC problems with oxytocin combined with regular stripping of milk and by culling.
• His cow Laura had received a dry cow treatment.
• Black Mist was a lactating cow and had been treated two weeks earlier, but her milk was negative on a Snap test before it was put back into the bulk tank.
• He used SCC readings to identify problem cows, then cultured to find out the problem so that the veterinarian can prescribe the right treatment for each dry cow.
• He did not treat all dry cows, but any with SCC readings over 175,000 – 200,000 were treated.
• His Nocardia Mastitis problem occurred in 1989 and lasted approximately one and one half years.
• His bulk tank SCC level was about 600,000 at the time of the penalty. He had trouble due to a heat wave and difficulties with the installation of new milking equipment.
• Because of his reluctance to treat all dry cows, he did get flare ups at certain times.
• He paid penalties for high SCC and high bacteria counts in October 2005.
• He did get the inflations on his milking machines changed but not in time to prevent the problems.
• With SCC in the 175,000 – 200,000 range he would treat cows at dry off. He would skip milking for two days and after receiving culture test results segregate her and treat her for 2-3 days, milk her right out and give dry cow treatment, then test her milk before it is put back in the bulk tank.
• The high test result in his bulk tank – 30 mm – could not have been generated from a treated cow whose milk was accidentally put in the bulk tank; he believed it was from a direct injection of drug into the bulk tank.
• He did not keep permanent records of treatments but sometimes wrote them on a big calendar in the milk house. He also wrote the treatments on a bulletin board.
• Every treated animal – dry and lactating - is identified with a leg band.
• He and his wife milked the cows; a neighbour helped when he was away.
• He milked the cows on three of the four milkings that contributed to the shipment with the positive inhibitor test. His wife and neighbour did the milking on the evening of October 6, 2005 as indicated in Exhibit B, Tab 8.
• No cows were treated prior to these milkings.
• He agreed that Excenel had no withdrawal time on the label. He used it under the direction of a veterinarian for stomach displacements and pneumonia.
• The cow Black Mist was treated with Trivetrin. He did not have his written directions from his veterinarian when Mr. Hartle visited his farm. He did not think his veterinarian would have used penicillin on Black Mist as he knew that Mr. Ritchie did not like it.
• He could not explain a reference to infrequent use of penicillin in Dr. Rumney’s letter, as he had not used it in years.
• He had no proof of vandalism but believed the amount of penicillin in the bulk tank as well as the date of the incident suggested tampering.
• The milk taken from the tank on Friday night was negative for inhibitors; there was one more milking on Saturday, October 8, 2005 that was in the load that tested positive.

In response to questions from the Tribunal, Mr. Ritchie clarified:

• He received a telephone call from Mr. Hartle after his evening milking on October 8, 2005.
• His cattle were kept in tie stalls.
• He managed to get his SCC down by culling some cows, drying off others and replacing them with fresh cows.
• Hot weather stressed cattle and can lead to mastitis and SCC flare ups; animal husbandry also had an impact.
• The inhibitor reading on the tanker truck sample was lower than the reading on the bulk tank sample due to dilution by other producers’ milk.
• The milk he took to the house on the evening of Friday, October 7, 2005 was tested by a friend the following Sunday evening, October 9, 2005.
• There had been information meetings throughout the summer and it was known his name was on the ballot for the Region 6 DFO election.
• Producers would not have received the ballots by October 7, 2005.
• He received no threats either before or after the incident with the positive inhibitor test. He had not seen anyone come on the farm.
• He did not know if the OPP had discovered anything through its investigation.
• A penalty is assessed if SCC is over 500,000.
• Based on the laboratory results, he suspected an injection of 5 cc or 10 cc of penicillin straight into the tank.

Mr. Ritchie added that he was not disputing that the Director followed the letter of the law in upholding the test result. He said his dispute related to how the milk in his bulk tank was contaminated.

Director’s Case

Mr. Scott Hartle testified that he was the DFO Field Services Representative who investigated the incident in question. He gave an overview of the regulated milk testing process. Mr. Hartle said that he put the Ritchie milk under detention on October 8, 2005 as a result of a positive inhibitor test result. He said he sampled the milk in the bulk tank on the morning of Sunday, October 9, 2005 and it was fine so he released the milk from detention. He said the milk in the contaminated load was dumped, and as a result, Mr. Ritchie was charged for the cost of disposal of that milk, including the cost of paying for the milk of other producers on the load. He was also penalized at a rate of $6/hl, as per Regulation 761 under the Milk Act. He explained that since this was the first inhibitor offence for this producer in a twelve month period, he was not shut off from the market.

Mr. Hartle said a DFO Field Services Quality Report dated July 25, 2005 was completed by his colleague Grant Brownridge. He said that farm visit was triggered by high bacteria counts. He pointed out that the report identified rough inflations on milking equipment and said that could contribute to a high SCC. He said old dirt and build up could be responsible for high bacteria counts and if there were air leaks these could force bacteria into the udder and cause disease. He said improper cleaning of the tank could also lead to high bacteria counts. He noted that all the problem items identified by Mr. Brownridge on July 25, 2005 were fixed by August 18, 2005 when a follow up report was completed by Mr. Brownridge.

Mr. Hartle said he took the photographs that were included in the Director’s documentary evidence (Exhibit B, Tab 5). He said the first photo showed the top shelf of a cupboard where needles and light bulbs were stored; the second photo showed antibiotics and hormones; and the third photo shows the storage of antibiotics that require refrigeration. He indicated there was no separation between medicines used for lactating cows and those used for dry cows.

Mr. Hartle pointed the Tribunal to a DFO Report of Rejected Load (Exhibit B, Tab 7). He said he was contacted when the Ideal Depot detected beta-lactam positive milk in the front compartment of a tanker of milk using a Snap test. He said Mr. Bill Pepper took milk samples to the official laboratory and the load sample tested positive on the official test for Code 2, which indicated penicillin. He said the sample from producer number 602469 also tested positive. He explained that when this was reported to him, he logged onto a computer system and discovered that was the producer number for Mr. and Mrs. Ritchie.

Mr. Hartle said he then started his investigation on the farm, to try to discover the source of the problem so that future incidents could be prevented. He said his report was based largely on interviews with Mr. Ritchie but he also looks at expiry dates on medicines. He said there were no permanent records of treating cows and no temporary records that he could see. He said dry cows and springing heifers were housed at one end of the pipeline and were identified with a leg band on the pipeline. He said the protocol was to put these on the legs.

Mr. Hartle said he made a supplementary report when Mr. Ritchie called him the day after his farm visit because he had remembered that the cow Laura had been dried off on September 8, 2005 and was treated with Cefa-dri at that time. Mr. Hartle said he had not seen any Cefa-dri in the medicine stores on the Ritchie farm. He had not seen any penicillin on the farm either. He said he took Dr. Rumney’s letter to mean that penicillin was sometimes used on the Ritchie farm.

Mr. Hartle told the Tribunal the cost of disposing of the load of contaminated milk was $8,639.73, of which $8,131.48 covered the cost of paying other producers for their milk. He said in addition, the DFO would not pay Mr. and Mrs. Ritchie for milk shipped on the date of the positive inhibitor test and they were charged a penalty of $6/hl for all milk shipped in the month of October 2005. He explained they also had a second level SCC penalty of $4/hl on all milk shipped in October 2005.

Mr. Hartle said the provincial average SCC tended to reach a low of approximately 210,000 in February or March and a high of 270,000 in July or August. He said there were 18 to 35 or 40 SCC penalties each year. He explained that milk producers’ milk was randomly tested at least once per month and results were available to producers the next day. He stated that Mr. Ritchie was penalized for high bacteria in July 2005 and high SCC in September 2005 and October 2005. He said a milk sample collected on October 2, 2005 had an SCC reading of 566,000, and that the weighted average that month was 509,000.

Mr. Hartle testified that Mr. Mark Mitchell was the head scientist at the official milk testing lab at the University of Guelph. He said an e-mail from Mr. Mitchell said a test that found no procaine in the Ritchie milk sample could mean there was an intramammary infusion of penicillin. Mr. Hartle agreed that a 30 mm test result was high but said that this could be caused by milking a cow right after treating a teat with an intramammary infusion or direct contamination by a producer’s hands after handling the medicine.

Mr. Ritchie had no cross examination.

In response to questions by the Tribunal, Mr. Hartle clarified that:

• There were 4,758 milk producers in Ontario, of whom 18-35 received a SCC penalty each year.
• The Ritchie farm had poor milk quality results around the time of the inhibitor violation.
• If penicillin was metabolised for 5-6 days it would not yield an inhibitor test result in the 30 mm range. It was unlikely that an intramuscular injection caused the inhibitor violation on the Ritchie farm.
• He had seen other loads with inhibitor test results in the 30 mm range. He recalled that one was the result of a dry cow treated in the morning being milked that evening into the bulk tank.
• It was more usual to see inhibitor test levels in the 20-21 mm range.
• The vast majority of test results from the official laboratory are upheld by the Director.
• It was hard to say what might have caused the inhibitor penalty on the Ritchie farm due to the lack of records. If the cow Laura calved early she may have been treated too close to the milking. The Black Mist cow was also treated with something but there was no record of her treatment.
• He had not visited the Ritchie farm prior to his investigation of this incident.
• Most milk producers used a calendar of some sort to keep records; more and more were keeping records of drug use and particularly dry cow treatments. The Livestock Medicines Course helped in that regard.
• The Dairy Herd Improvement calendar had been designed in accordance with the quality assurance program so producers could keep track of medications as well as calving dates and other data
• It was very rare for milk producers to have locked milk houses and/or barns. Vandalism was not out of the realm of possibility.

Mr. George MacNaughton testified that:

• In about 20% of cases they never discover the cause of an inhibitor violation.
• There was a very secure milk testing system in use. Unique identification numbers are used so producers cannot be identified before the test results are known, vials are made tamper-proof with a lock tab and the sample containers are sealed.
• He upheld 100% of the official laboratory test results.
• Occasionally there are problems when a sample is not immediately refrigerated or there is evidence of tampering with a sample vial or there is evidence of water in the sample.
• In this case the math worked out that the volume of milk and the concentration of the inhibitor in the Ritchie bulk tank was proportional to that found in the load of milk that tested positive for an inhibitor.
• There is a high correlation between SCC counts and inhibitor penalties. This has been reported in studies conducted by researchers at the University of Guelph.
• Sabotage was certainly a possible cause of the positive inhibitor test result but there were other possibilities as well.
• The absence of treatment records is a red flag.
• If the OPP came up with proof of vandalism he would not have the authority to change the test result but the DFO Board could reconsider the charges related to the disposal of a load of milk.
• Producers are not required to keep records of the use of livestock medicines. The only requirement related to inhibitors is that there not be any in the milk.
• The DFO now has three or less inhibitor violations per month, 30-35 per year. At one time there were 200 violations per year.

Summations

Mr. Ritchie said he acknowledged that he had milk quality problems in the summer and fall of 2005. He explained this was due to the transition to new milking equipment and problems with his supplier, as well as unfavourable weather. He said the quality problems were a different issue than the inhibitor penalty.

On the issue of inhibitors, Mr. Ritchie pointed out the October 2005 penalty was the only time he had ever received an inhibitor penalty and he argued that the timing of the infraction, at the same time he was a candidate in the DFO Board election suggested vandalism. He said as a past Chair of the Simcoe Milk Committee he had made enemies of some disgruntled producers. He asked the Tribunal to overturn the penalty as he believed it was the result of vandalism.

Mr. MacNaughton told the Tribunal the samples of the producer’s milk and the load of milk were taken in accordance with DFO protocol and there was no allegation of any problems with the testing at the laboratory. He pointed out the Ritchie farm had high SCC and bacteria counts at the time of the infraction. He said the veterinarian’s letter indicated that penicillin was one of the medicines used on the farm, albeit rarely. Mr. MacNaughton said he did not know the exact cause of this inhibitor penalty but asked the Tribunal to let the penalty stand.

The Findings

There was no disagreement between the parties to the hearing regarding the procedure for sampling the producer’s milk, transporting the sample, testing the sample and reporting the results. Mr. Ritchie and the Director agreed that the milk picked up on the Ritchie farm on Saturday, October 8, 2005 contained an inhibitor.

The question before the Tribunal was - should the test results, and the associated penalty and liabilities, be set aside on the grounds that the milk in the Ritchie bulk tank on October 8, 2005 had been sabotaged.

Mr. Ritchie took the position that a Code 2 inhibitor could not have been the result of his farming practices because it was indicative of penicillin and he had not used penicillin products for many years. Mr. Hartle did not find evidence of penicillin on the Ritchie farm on October 9, 2005, but he also noted the absence of Cefa-dri, a product that Mr. Ritchie acknowledged he uses, and the absence of permanent or temporary treatment records. A letter provided by Mr. Ritchie’s veterinarian indicated that he was “shocked and surprised to hear of his residue violation, especially for a drug such as penicillin which is infrequently used on his dairy operation”.

Mr. Ritchie also took the position that the level of inhibitor – 30 mm – in the test result could not have been caused by normal farming practices and must instead be the result of a direct deposit of penicillin into the bulk tank. This was refuted by Mr. Hartle who testified that he was familiar with loads of milk that had tested in the 30 mm range where the cause had been traced to on-farm practices. Mr. Hartle acknowledged that 30 mm was an exceptionally high level of inhibitor.

Mr. Ritchie theorized that because he was running for election to the DFO Board, and had made some enemies in his role as chair of his local Milk Committee, he was the target of a disgruntled milk producer who vandalized his milk on the day that election ballots were mailed out.

The Director, Mr. MacNaughton, pointed out that there were undisputed milk quality problems, including high SCC test results, on the Ritchie farm in October 2005 and the preceding months. He argued there was a high correlation between high SCC results and inhibitor penalties and that while sabotage could not be ruled out, it was also possible that the positive inhibitor test was caused by milk from a treated cow.

The Tribunal finds that there was no evidence presented that the milk picked up from the Ritchie farm on October 8, 2005 was sabotaged. Mr. Ritchie clearly suspected the milk in his bulk tank had been tampered with, in light of the positive inhibitor test that pointed to penicillin and in light of the timing of the infraction, and the Tribunal cannot completely rule out the possibility that sabotage occurred.

However Mr. Ritchie had the responsibility to prove to the Tribunal that sabotage was the cause of the problem and he did not meet the burden of proof. The Tribunal was not persuaded that, on the balance of probabilities, the inhibitor in the milk was the result of sabotage or vandalism.

It was clear from the high SCC counts that Mr. Ritchie had some problems with milk quality and illness in his herd. The Tribunal heard evidence that there is a link between quality factors and the need to treat cows with livestock medicines. The letter from Mr. Ritchie’s veterinarian suggests that penicillin products were used on the Ritchie farm on occasion. The lack of treatment records made it impossible to determine which cows were treated with what and when.

The Tribunal accepts that no definitive cause of the positive inhibitor test on the milk picked up on October 8, 2005 can be determined. The possibility that there was an error in the use of an animal health product, or an error in putting the milk of a treated cow in the bulk tank is at least as likely as the possibility of sabotage.

The Tribunal notes that it is the responsibility of the milk producer to ensure the quality of milk in his bulk tank. The undisputed evidence is that the milk picked up from the Ritchie farm on October 8, 2005 contained an inhibitor.

Decision and Reasons

After careful consideration of the evidence filed and the submissions made the Tribunal dismisses the appeal by Dave Ritchie.

The reasons for this decision are:

1. There was no clear evidence presented by Mr. Ritchie that the milk in question had been sabotaged.

2. Milk producers bear the responsibility to ensure the quality of milk in the bulk tank.