Commissioner of Licensing and Consumer Affairs Andrew Rutnik said Wednesday the enforcement of a V.I. law prohibiting the sale of milk with a pull date more than 10 days from its pasteurization applies to milk only.
Even so, a Virgin Islands senator is reportedly looking into amending the law, the sudden enforcement of which has sparked grumbling among consumers and supermarket owners across the territory.
Signs began appearing in local supermarkets this week informing customers that the law, which has been on the books for more than a decade, meant stateside milk with a 14- to 18-day shelf life would no longer be sold.
Rumors and questions flew about whether other products containing pasteurized milk would be affected, but Rutnik said no — only pasteurized milk.
According to a statement from Rutnik's office, "DLCA would like to make it clear that this law refers to pasteurized milk only and not milk products containing pasteurized milk … such as yogurt, cream, sour cream, buttermilk, skimmed milk, reconstituted or recombined milk and cream, milk beverages, skimmed milk beverages, butter and cheese." Those products are not subject to the V.I. law.
"The V.I. is the only place that has a law like this," according to Rutnik, who said with current technology pasteurized milk has a shelf life of 14 to 18 days.
Rutnik said that he was "pressured" by the owner of Trans-Caribbean Dairy Corp., David Schuster, to start enforcing the law.
"I was against it," Rutnik said. "I think it's anti-consumer."
Rutnik gave the stores until Oct. 1 to comply with the law. He said he hoped legislators would move to amend the law.
At least one senator reportedly intends to do just that.
Sen. Roosevelt David is considering drafting an amendment to the law, according to a spokesman. But he had yet to do so.
In the meantime, Fred Hintz, president of Trans-Caribbean, said, "My personal position is the code date on milk sold in the V.I. should be the same as the date code at the plant where it is pasteurized."
Hintz explained when milk is marked for export it is sometimes given a longer pull date than is legally allowed in the market where it was pasteurized. "I think it's only fair that the pull date be the same as where it is produced," he said.
One of the problems affecting local competition with stateside companies, according to Rutnik, is during the summer months when schools are out, stateside dairies slash their prices.
Hintz agreed, saying some of those companies practice "unfair predatory pricing," meaning they sell milk at unfairly low prices, just to "dump it."
Schuster said some of the dumped milk is sold for as little as 50 cents a half gallon.
"The true cost of a product," he said, "must include transportation and shrinkage," meaning spoilage or outdating. "With a perishable product like milk, the shrinkage is very high."
Schuster added that unlike stateside milk companies, if the product becomes outdated, "We have to take it back. There are hidden costs in putting milk on the shelves."

Licensing and Consumer Affairs Commissioner Andrew Rutnik said Wednesday the enforcement of a V.I. law prohibiting the sale of milk with a pull date more than 10 days from its pasteurization applies to milk only.
Even so, a Virgin Islands senator is reportedly looking into amending the law, the sudden enforcement of which has sparked grumbling among consumers and supermarket owners across the territory.
Signs began appearing in local supermarkets this week informing customers that the law, which has been on the books for more than a decade, meant stateside milk with a 14- to 18-day shelf life would no longer be sold.
Rumors and questions flew about whether other products containing pasteurized milk would be affected, but Rutnik said no — only pasteurized milk.
According to a statement from Rutnik's office, "DLCA would like to make it clear that this law refers to pasteurized milk only and not milk products containing pasteurized milk … such as yogurt, cream, sour cream, buttermilk, skimmed milk, reconstituted or recombined milk and cream, milk beverages, skimmed milk beverages, butter and cheese." Those products are not subject to the V.I. law.
"The V.I. is the only place that has a law like this," according to Rutnik, who said that with current technology, pasteurized milk has a shelf life of 14 to 18 days.
Rutnik said he was "pressured" by the owner of Trans-Caribbean Dairy Corp., David Schuster, to start enforcing the law.
"I was against it," Rutnik said. "I think it's anti-consumer."
Rutnik gave the stores until Oct. 1 to comply with the law but said he hoped legislators would move to amend it.
At least one senator reportedly intends to do just that.
Sen. Roosevelt David is considering drafting an amendment to the law, according to a spokesman. But he had yet to do so.
In the meantime, Fred Hintz, president of Trans-Caribbean, said, "My personal position is the code date on milk sold in the V.I. should be the same as the date code at the plant where it is pasteurized."
Hintz explained that when milk is marked for export, it is sometimes given a longer pull date than is legally allowed in the market where it was pasteurized. "I think it's only fair that the pull date be the same as where it is produced," he said.
One of the problems affecting local competition with stateside companies, according to Rutnik, is during the summer months when schools are out, stateside dairies slash their prices.
Hintz agreed, saying some of those companies practice "unfair predatory pricing," meaning they sell milk at unfairly low prices just to "dump it."
Schuster said some of the dumped milk is sold for as little as 50 cents a half gallon.
"The true cost of a product," he said, "must include transportation and shrinkage," meaning spoilage or outdating. "With a perishable product like milk, the shrinkage is very high."
Schuster added that unlike stateside milk companies, if the product becomes outdated, "We have to take it back. There are hidden costs in putting milk on the shelves."

Annette Shuck, a professor in the Division of Education at the University of the Virgin Islands, will present a paper entitled "Suggestions in Education" at the International Congress of Hypnosis of the International Society of Hypnosis at Ludwig Maximillians University in Munich, Germany.
The conference, which will take place Oct. 2-7, is only the 15th held on hypnosis since the society was founded in 1889.
Shuck's presentation is compiled from her pioneering, ongoing research, which was first published in Psychological Reports, April 1984, entitled "Effects of Suggestibility on Learning by Retarded and Non-Retarded Students." In addition, Dr. Shuck is the author of the chapter "Suggestion in Education," in "Human Suggestibility," by John F. Schumaker.

As the St. Croix Chapter of the American Federation of Teacher evaluates whether to join their St. Thomas counterpart in a strike, I wanted to share my thoughts on the plan proposed by Governor Turnbull.
The government's proposal to the local AFT provides Virgin Islanders with the first real opportunity to move the islands forward and beyond the economic doldrums the islands have been facing for quite sometime. Whether you are on the administration's side, or on the AFT side, or none at all, this moment is one that calls for an unemotional evaluation of the proposal.
But before we do that, we must ask ourselves whether we will we continue acting like in the past or will we device new courageous ways and make the sacrifices necessary that will put us back on the road to progress. We must realize that progress without sacrifice in this scenario is not going to happen. There are no magical, painless solutions.
It is time for we as a people to face the mistakes of the past by admitting our share of the responsibility. It is true and we can say that government's mismanagement is partly responsible for our economic situation, but it is also true that "we the people" elected those responsible for the situation. Not only that, we failed to correct our mistakes throughout the years by electing ineffective leaders.
Now, here comes a man, Gov. Turnbull, elected by the whims of fate, or should I say the people's rejection of Gov. Schneider's style, who in his political naivete proposes something that is considered political suicide by any self-preserving politician; he offers a deal to the AFT that would require them to forgive the government's outstanding debt in exchange for much-deserved pay raises.
This proposed deal would help erase almost half of our current debt with the teachers now, while establishing a mechanism that would in time help eliminate the entire debt, a brilliant idea if you want to solve the problem, but a lousy one for those who are owed retroactive wages. Governor Turnbull has made bad political decision, which without a doubt could undermine his re-election possibility; nevertheless he must be applauded for his boldness, courageousness and vision. Action is the only road to a solution, while posturing, criticizing, attacking and striking only postpones our day of reckoning. And for this reason we must analyze and take the side of reason and compromise over emotion.
However, I could not support Gov. Turnbull's proposal without adding three crucial elements necessary to the potential success of his plan: 1) public recognition of the union's sacrifice, 2) government reform that would prevent such a situation from happening again and 3) the possibility of future compensation for today's sacrifice.
First, a proper gesture would be to publicly recognize AFT's sacrifice by erecting a monument for perpetuity with the names of every single member who gave up their duly entitled back pay to improve the financial soundness of the territory. This monument would serve as a reminder to future generations that members of the AFT, when push came to shove, placed country, honor and sacrifice above financial gain. This monument could be a marble wall, just like the one erected to commemorate Vietnam War veterans in Washington, with the names of all AFT members. Also a torch could be lighted for posterity and as an example to future generations that in the year 2000, AFT members carried out a heroic deed on behalf of our children and their future.
Secondly, and a more substantial part of the bargain must be a serious reform package that would restructure government operations in such way that proper fiscal administrative procedures are enacted to prevent such a situation from happening again in the future. This reform package must include safeguards and provide for the necessary checks and balances. This package must also include across-the-board salary cuts for top government officials and staffs, because everyone must share the burden equally.
Transparent bidding policies in theory and practice.
Elimination of the so-called unclassified government employee designation and the establishment of a merit system based on performance, productivity, education, experience, punctuality, attendance and attitude.
Elimination of all government vehicle purchase or leasing with the only exclusion of emergency or vital personnel(fire, police, medical), because government officials who are assigned vehicles can afford to purchase their own. And the list could go on and on.
And the third element necessary for the agreement must be the inclusion of a clause that stipulates that future negotiations will always consider AFT's sacrifice by granting special concessions, as long as these are reasonable, and as long as government has the means to uphold its side of the bargain.
If in the future we manage to turn around our economic situations, the AFT must be first in line to reap the benefits that their sacrifice will generate. Finally, the AFT and the administration can set the example and lead the way in this our darkest moment of self-government history. We cannot afford to have anyone look at the situation and think that we are not capable of handling our own affairs. Not doing anything will only make matters worse, and who knows, self-government could become the next victim of our failure to solve our economic situation.
Robert Acosta, a Crucian and a former Government House spokesman for Gov. Roy Schneider, works in Washington, D.C., as an automotive and aftermarket industries lobbyist. He is pursuing postgraduate studies in public policy at Georgetown University.

Although the U.S. Interior Department has plans to increase protection of coral reefs in the waters surrounding the Virgin Islands, federal officials have yet to fully explain how it will be done.
During a trip to Buck Island Reef National Monument off of St. Croix on Tuesday, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt discussed the need to protect the coral reef resources at Buck Island and around the V.I. National Park on St. John, both of which Interior manages. Babbitt said Interior and other federal agencies have been considering for more than two years how to further protect coral reef resources and fish spawning areas as part of President Clinton's Coral Reef Initiative.
While local officials have been briefed on Interior’s proposed protection plan, the public will have to wait for hearings set for Sept. 18 on St. Croix, Sept. 19 on St. Thomas and Sept. 20 on St. John.
What is known at this point is that Interior has identified some 37,000 acres of submerged lands around the U.S. Virgin Islands that it wants to better protect, most likely by imposing no-fishing zones.
According to Delegate to Congress Donna Christian Christensen, Interior has its eye on some 12,000 acres of submerged lands to the north and south of St. John. What is proposed for Buck Island, however, is unclear.
But with Babbitt’s tour there Tuesday, which included a snorkel tour of the barrier reef and the discovery of illegal fish traps, speculation has it that Interior plans to extend its existing no-fishing boundary around the island.
After his snorkel trip, his third at Buck Island in the last four years, Babbitt said he was encouraged by the regrowth of elkhorn coral on the reef, which has been ravaged by hurricanes and disease over the last 10 to 15 years.
"But the decline of the reef fish is noticeable," he said. "There aren't nearly as many fish on the reef as there used to be. It’s basically a fishing problem."
The problem was illustrated by an illegal fish trap that National Park Service personnel hauled out of the water. The trap contained about two dozen blue tang fish and a few other species. All the fish were undersized.
Joel Tutein, superintendent of the Park Service on St. Croix, said overfishing is affecting the overall health of the reef.
"Fish are one component of what the reef needs," he said.
But neither Babbitt nor Tutein would reveal the management plan proposed for Buck Island. Babbitt hinted that it would have to do with more stringent fishing regulations.
"It’s not just coral reefs," Babbitt said. "We’ll have more fish. The idea behind good management and sustainable fishing will be more fish at the Saturday fish market."
While much of the submerged lands that Interior wants to protect are already under federal jurisdiction, some are under the purview of the V.I. government and would require a transfer to accommodate a new federal management plan. With that in mind, Christensen submitted a bill in the House last July seeking local control of all submerged lands between St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John.
The bill, she said, is primarily a message to the federal government to consider local residents, particularly the fishing industry, when it passes down mandates like the proposal to strengthen coral reef protection.
While the 37,000 acres of submerged land that Interior has identified represents just 2 percent of the total in the territory, Christensen said, "The question is, what does that 2 percent represent to the people of the Virgin Islands? Is that the best fishing?"
Babbitt said he was aware of Christensen’s concerns but contended the proposed protections aren’t a federal land grab.
"The issue isn’t who has title," he said. "The issue is how we’re managing the resources together to ensure sustainable fishing and the protection of coral reefs."
The memorandum of understanding signed by Babbitt and Gov. Charles Turnbull almost a year ago contained language aimed at protecting the territory’s natural resources because of their tourism value.
"The economy is the water and the water is the economy," Babbitt said. "We need to take steps to proctect these . . . resources."
The memorandum set forth a plan to establish a V.I. Conservation Fund to provide money for protection efforts. The fund, however, hasn’t been established, Babbitt said.
"The V.I. Trust is an issue we’re still talking about," he said. "We’re not there yet. We’re still working on it."

As the St. Croix Chapter of the American Federation of Teacher evaluates whether to join their St. Thomas counterpart in a strike, I wanted to share my thoughts on the plan proposed by Governor Turnbull.
The government's proposal to the local AFT provides Virgin Islanders with the first real opportunity to move the islands forward and beyond the economic doldrums the islands have been facing for quite sometime. Whether you are on the administration's side, or on the AFT side, or none at all, this moment is one that calls for an unemotional evaluation of the proposal.
But before we do that, we must ask ourselves whether we will we continue acting like in the past or will we device new courageous ways and make the sacrifices necessary that will put us back on the road to progress. We must realize that progress without sacrifice in this scenario is not going to happen. There are no magical, painless solutions.
It is time for we as a people to face the mistakes of the past by admitting our share of the responsibility. It is true and we can say that government's mismanagement is partly responsible for our economic situation, but it is also true that "we the people" elected those responsible for the situation. Not only that, we failed to correct our mistakes throughout the years by electing ineffective leaders.
Now, here comes a man, Gov. Turnbull, elected by the whims of fate, or should I say the people's rejection of Gov. Schneider's style, who in his political naivete proposes something that is considered political suicide by any self-preserving politician; he offers a deal to the AFT that would require them to forgive the government's outstanding debt in exchange for much-deserved pay raises.
This proposed deal would help erase almost half of our current debt with the teachers now, while establishing a mechanism that would in time help eliminate the entire debt, a brilliant idea if you want to solve the problem, but a lousy one for those who are owed retroactive wages. Governor Turnbull has made bad political decision, which without a doubt could undermine his re-election possibility; nevertheless he must be applauded for his boldness, courageousness and vision. Action is the only road to a solution, while posturing, criticizing, attacking and striking only postpones our day of reckoning. And for this reason we must analyze and take the side of reason and compromise over emotion.
However, I could not support Gov. Turnbull's proposal without adding three crucial elements necessary to the potential success of his plan: 1) public recognition of the union's sacrifice, 2) government reform that would prevent such a situation from happening again and 3) the possibility of future compensation for today's sacrifice.
First, a proper gesture would be to publicly recognize AFT's sacrifice by erecting a monument for perpetuity with the names of every single member who gave up their duly entitled back pay to improve the financial soundness of the territory. This monument would serve as a reminder to future generations that members of the AFT, when push came to shove, placed country, honor and sacrifice above financial gain. This monument could be a marble wall, just like the one erected to commemorate Vietnam War veterans in Washington, with the names of all AFT members. Also a torch could be lighted for posterity and as an example to future generations that in the year 2000, AFT members carried out a heroic deed on behalf of our children and their future.
Secondly, and a more substantial part of the bargain must be a serious reform package that would restructure government operations in such way that proper fiscal administrative procedures are enacted to prevent such a situation from happening again in the future. This reform package must include safeguards and provide for the necessary checks and balances. This package must also include across-the-board salary cuts for top government officials and staffs, because everyone must share the burden equally.
Transparent bidding policies in theory and practice.
Elimination of the so-called unclassified government employee designation and the establishment of a merit system based on performance, productivity, education, experience, punctuality, attendance and attitude.
Elimination of all government vehicle purchase or leasing with the only exclusion of emergency or vital personnel(fire, police, medical), because government officials who are assigned vehicles can afford to purchase their own. And the list could go on and on.
And the third element necessary for the agreement must be the inclusion of a clause that stipulates that future negotiations will always consider AFT's sacrifice by granting special concessions, as long as these are reasonable, and as long as government has the means to uphold its side of the bargain.
If in the future we manage to turn around our economic situations, the AFT must be first in line to reap the benefits that their sacrifice will generate. Finally, the AFT and the administration can set the example and lead the way in this our darkest moment of self-government history. We cannot afford to have anyone look at the situation and think that we are not capable of handling our own affairs. Not doing anything will only make matters worse, and who knows, self-government could become the next victim of our failure to solve our economic situation.
Robert Acosta, a Crucian and a former Government House spokesman for Gov. Roy Schneider, works in Washington, D.C., as an automotive and aftermarket industries lobbyist. He is pursuing postgraduate studies in public policy at Georgetown University.

Although the U.S. Interior Department has plans to increase protection of coral reefs in the waters surrounding the Virgin Islands, federal officials have yet to fully explain how it will be done.
During a trip to Buck Island Reef National Monument off of St. Croix on Tuesday, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt discussed the need to protect the coral reef resources at Buck Island and around the V.I. National Park on St. John, both of which Interior manages. Babbitt said Interior and other federal agencies have been considering for more than two years how to further protect coral reef resources and fish spawning areas as part of President Clinton's Coral Reef Initiative.
While local officials have been briefed on Interior’s proposed protection plan, the public will have to wait for hearings set for Sept. 18 on St. Croix, Sept. 19 on St. Thomas and Sept. 20 on St. John.
What is known at this point is that Interior has identified some 37,000 acres of submerged lands around the U.S. Virgin Islands that it wants to better protect, most likely by imposing no-fishing zones.
According to Delegate to Congress Donna Christian Christensen, Interior has its eye on some 12,000 acres of submerged lands to the north and south of St. John. What is proposed for Buck Island, however, is unclear.
But with Babbitt’s tour there Tuesday, which included a snorkel tour of the barrier reef and the discovery of illegal fish traps, speculation has it that Interior plans to extend its existing no-fishing boundary around the island.
After his snorkel trip, his third at Buck Island in the last four years, Babbitt said he was encouraged by the regrowth of elkhorn coral on the reef, which has been ravaged by hurricanes and disease over the last 10 to 15 years.
"But the decline of the reef fish is noticeable," he said. "There aren't nearly as many fish on the reef as there used to be. It’s basically a fishing problem."
The problem was illustrated by an illegal fish trap that National Park Service personnel hauled out of the water. The trap contained about two dozen blue tang fish and a few other species. All the fish were undersized.
Joel Tutein, superintendent of the Park Service on St. Croix, said overfishing is affecting the overall health of the reef.
"Fish are one component of what the reef needs," he said.
But neither Babbitt nor Tutein would reveal the management plan proposed for Buck Island. Babbitt hinted that it would have to do with more stringent fishing regulations.
"It’s not just coral reefs," Babbitt said. "We’ll have more fish. The idea behind good management and sustainable fishing will be more fish at the Saturday fish market."
While much of the submerged lands that Interior wants to protect are already under federal jurisdiction, some are under the purview of the V.I. government and would require a transfer to accommodate a new federal management plan. With that in mind, Christensen submitted a bill in the House last July seeking local control of all submerged lands between St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John.
The bill, she said, is primarily a message to the federal government to consider local residents, particularly the fishing industry, when it passes down mandates like the proposal to strengthen coral reef protection.
While the 37,000 acres of submerged land that Interior has identified represents just 2 percent of the total in the territory, Christensen said, "The question is, what does that 2 percent represent to the people of the Virgin Islands? Is that the best fishing?"
Babbitt said he was aware of Christensen’s concerns but contended the proposed protections aren’t a federal land grab.
"The issue isn’t who has title," he said. "The issue is how we’re managing the resources together to ensure sustainable fishing and the protection of coral reefs."
The memorandum of understanding signed by Babbitt and Gov. Charles Turnbull almost a year ago contained language aimed at protecting the territory’s natural resources because of their tourism value.
"The economy is the water and the water is the economy," Babbitt said. "We need to take steps to proctect these . . . resources."
The memorandum set forth a plan to establish a V.I. Conservation Fund to provide money for protection efforts. The fund, however, hasn’t been established, Babbitt said.
"The V.I. Trust is an issue we’re still talking about," he said. "We’re not there yet. We’re still working on it."

Gov. Charles W. Turnbull and his financial team will discuss talks with the American Federation of Teachers and the government's overall financial condition in a live hourlong broadcast at 7 p.m. Wednesday on WTJX-TV, Channel 12.
After the broadcast, they will field questions from the public on Addie Ottley's "Face to Face" talk show.
Joining the governor will be Finance Commissioner Bernice Turnbull, Education Commissioner Ruby Simmonds, Office of Management and Budget Director Ira Mills, V.I. Government Chief Negotiator Karen Andrews, and Paulette Rabsatt, deputy assistant for Fiscal Policy and Economic Affairs.

Gov. Charles W. Turnbull and his financial team will discuss talks with the American Federation of Teachers and the government's overall financial condition in a live hourlong broadcast at 7 p.m. Wednesday on WTJX-TV, Channel 12.
After the broadcast, they will field questions from the public on Addie Ottley's "Face to Face" talk show.
Joining the governor will be Finance Commissioner Bernice Turnbull, Education Commissioner Ruby Simmonds, Office of Management and Budget Director Ira Mills, V.I. Government Chief Negotiator Karen Andrews and Paulette Rabsatt, deputy assistant for Fiscal Policy and Economic Affairs.

Gov. Charles W. Turnbull and his financial team will discuss talks with the American Federation of Teachers and the government's overall financial condition in a live hourlong broadcast at 7 p.m. Wednesday on WTJX-TV, Channel 12.
After the broadcast, they will field questions from the public on Addie Ottley's "Face to Face" talk show.
Joining the governor will be Finance Commissioner Bernice Turnbull, Education Commissioner Ruby Simmonds, Office of Management and Budget Director Ira Mills, V.I. Government Chief Negotiator Karen Andrews and Paulette Rabsatt, deputy assistant for Fiscal Policy and Economic Affairs.