Rawesome Foods Raided... Again!

Submitted by: hookskat 6 years ago in

Armed agents lock up owner for selling raw milk to satisfied customers. What do you think, I-A-B? Is The Man wrong?
There are 80 comments:
Male 5
Anyone who`s worked in the food services industry knows how impossible it is in some states to fulfill all the regulations required to get the license. The regulations multi-million dollar corporations lobbied to have put in place because they can afford to meet them and they know alternative, arguably better forms of emergent business, have no chance. The regulations make sense when you go into a factory farm in Indiana but not when you have a farmer milking 100 head of cattle to sell to his community. It`s like taking the rules for football and applying them to hockey; they`re different games and it doesn`t work. If we`re going to argue for regulations there needs to be 2 tiered regulations; a set for farms pushing out genetically modified products and another set for those who farm differently.
0
Reply
Male 2,384
dont worry its just cargill and monsanto taking back control, back to work sheeple
0
Reply
Male 798
Damn, madest is almost as bad as Crakr now.
0
Reply
Male 5,626
"Get your head out of your ass."
If you look at that again, you`ll see the source of the
milk was not a professionally maintained dairy farm.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
And dairy farmers don`t? Get your head out of your ass.
0
Reply
Male 5,626
"...butcher and buy chicken and meat...."
"...docks and buy fish right off the boats..."
Butcher - likely trained, almost certainly >>certified,<< and the store is licensed.
Fisherman - requires a gaming license and puts up with inspections.
Ask each.

So, when I asked about a regulation lacking, rural lifestyle,
it seems like the answer was `yes.`

But norm is that each of those people has fees to pay and standards
to maintain in order to stay licensed.
Or is that raw chicken lukewarm when you buy it?
Was it laying in a pile on the floor or hanging
before it was cut?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]Raw poultry, fish = Meat packaging - highly regulated
Eggs - One of the citations in the very article was inadequate
temp in the area the eggs were kept.[/quote]
-------------
I can go to the local butcher and buy chicken and meat. I can go to the docks and buy fish right off the boats. The meat and fish isn`t treated or even packaged. I can`t go to the local dairy and buy raw milk. You think that`s acceptable CodeJockey, I don`t. Don`t know what I can do, other than write my congressman and send him a few benjamins. I`m sure my words and contribution would pale against an industry requirement. You can`t argue in favor of this without questioning why the government doesn`t demand that all chicken be precooked before purchase.
0
Reply
Male 5,626
"...Don`t need a license to sell raw chicken, eggs, fish or vegetables..."
Madest, WTF are you talking about?

Is it that you`ve lived a rural life style, somewhere that
you`ve been able to buy unregulated because there`s
no one there that cares to enforce regulations?

Raw poultry, fish = Meat packaging - highly regulated
Eggs - One of the citations in the very article was inadequate
temp in the area the eggs were kept.

You are on the net and have access to news.
When someone detects salmonella, how do you think
they track down and isolate the source and other
vectors?
People are following regulations, keeping required records, performing test.

There is a whole infrastructure in place for managing
info shipping food and another regarding food handling.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Well said NoHandleAdam, Great idea as well. Because of that it will never happen.
0
Reply
Male 21
I think this is what you get for letting big business control your country.
0
Reply
Male 282
This really is not surprising considering that California is broke and we have a fascist government.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Well... he would be responsible if people died as a result of his innappropriate actions of food handling. But alas...
0
Reply
Male 5
Anyone who`s worked in the food services industry knows how impossible it is in some states to fulfill all the regulations required to get the license. The regulations multi-million dollar corporations lobbied to have put in place because they can afford to meet them and they know alternative, arguably better forms of emergent business, have no chance. The regulations make sense when you go into a factory farm in Indiana but not when you have a farmer milking 100 head of cattle to sell to his community. It`s like taking the rules for football and applying them to hockey; they`re different games and it doesn`t work. If we`re going to argue for regulations there needs to be 2 tiered regulations; a set for farms pushing out genetically modified products and another set for those who farm differently.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Don`t need a license to sell raw chicken, eggs, fish or vegetables. Scientists have discovered that children who drink raw milk are less susceptible to allergies and asthma. Pasteurization may kill the bad bacteria present but it also kills the nutrients and diminishes the flavor. If you get the chance to try it you will look at milk in a whole new way. It`s really delicious.
0
Reply
Male 5
@Likewise384

I did realize after posting the comment that I should have included the qualifying tag; something that carriers a risk only to yourself and seems unnecessary to police. I see that you believe the raw food movement has the potential to be harmful to others as well as those partaking in. I would agree with you if raw foods were sold wholesale by large corporation across the counrty but raw food purveyors, in most cases are small trustworthy businesses who do have an interest in the health of their customers. I would not trust a man who owned a 20,000 cattle ranch from vermont to sell me raw milk but I would trust my neighbour.
0
Reply
Male 22
@NoHandle

They already do have licensing for something I love. Driver`s license, Racing License, etc.

These guys need to be stopped. The state requires one, anyone can get one if they apply and have the proper equipment to sell the products. They license raw foods because of the diseases and illness that come from raw food and can be spread to other non-raw food consumers, similar to the infamous typhoid mary outbreak.

This is not about the right to choose, its about the right of the community and public as a whole to be protected from your choice to take the risk of eating raw.
0
Reply
Male 1,284
License is a proof that the producer as done everything in is power to control the quality of is product. If he cant get a license then there is something fishy with is production.

here a link with some disease outbreak from raw milk consuption
Raw Milk GS
0
Reply
Male 5,626
"...Doesn`t it concern you that the FDA is raiding farmers markets and Amish stores..."

No, it doesn`t.
FDA didn`t raid the place. Looks like the LA County Sheriff`s office did.
When raids occur, that`s what they look like.
In fact, I`m fairly certain that the "armed force entering with the element of surprise" is why it`s called a "raid."

Can you say the gentleman and/or lady were not warned about licensing?

They don`t look at what type of operation is going on. They bring "equipment for a raid."
If it had been illegal bingo involving Social Security checks and senior citizens, they still would have come in with weapons.
0
Reply
Male 5
For all those saying, "well it`s the law to have a license, so get the license." It amazes me how you can step on another persons right to chose as long as it`s not something you value. What if the government required you to have some form of license for something you valued? At that point you`d be screaming foul. How do you feel right about agreeing with, and propagating a government that that trample on the right of others. The government and the industry want sole authority over and that`s what this is about. It`s about monopolizing the market and the government is the tool of the industry to minimize the rights to decide so that they can in the end make money. Money is the end of it all. Greedy industry execs pushing out choice and, more than that, knowledge that there are even other options.
0
Reply
Male 328
This is the same exact thing that`s been going on for the last 70 years with Marijuana. Prosecution of an alternative lifestyle...
0
Reply
Male 39,929
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Well Rick, Why do you think the FDA is enforcing a state permit requirement? With guns drawn. Come on man. You`re smarter than this.
0
Reply
Male 3,332
Boo friggin` woo. You know the law. You break it. You get busted. If the law is wrong, protest to have it changed, but don`t just break it and expect it to change and not get busted.
0
Reply
Female 6,381
We`ve had similar conflicts in the Vancouver area over the years (there`s a sizable dairy industry to the east of us). The answer has been to form co-ops in which a small membership fee makes you a part owner of the dairy. Presumably, people who go to the trouble of driving out there and signing up are aware of the risks.
But the flip side - and it`s so easy to envision - is that should there ever be an outbreak of some illness as a result of drinking unpasteurized milk, people would soon be demanding the heads of the government representatives who failed to prevent it.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>You all are sheeple. Jesus. Doesn`t it concern you that the FDA is raiding farmers markets and Amish stores with guns drawn? Shutting down commerce and in some instances closing dairy farms. You think they`re protecting you from salmonella when in fact they`re merely doing the bidding from some pasteurization lobby.<<<


Or the green lobby, or the right wing nut job lobby, or the Green Peace Lobby, or the safe schools lobby, etc. etc. etc.

Of course someone lobbied and someone benefits from regulation.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
You all are sheeple. Jesus. Doesn`t it concern you that the FDA is raiding farmers markets and Amish stores with guns drawn? Shutting down commerce and in some instances closing dairy farms. You think they`re protecting you from salmonella when in fact they`re merely doing the bidding from some pasteurization lobby.
0
Reply
Male 663
So all you raw food folks support reducing government regulations...right?
0
Reply
Male 1,526
The raw foods eaters as just as bad as the pot smokers.
Thinking they own their own bodies, pff. The insolence!
0
Reply
Male 1,397
As the Manic Street Preachers sang....`if you tolerate this, then your children will be next`.
0
Reply
Male 1,871
This time I think the raid was justified, given the lack of cooperation with the law in the past. California allows raw milk to be sold with a license requirement, exemptions are available.

Read more here:
realmilk.com post for california
0
Reply
Male 530
If you can`t beat them join them.
Instead of going head first against the law, work with them.
You may sell raw products with the right licenses? make sure you have them.
If people who buy these raw products should have proper licenses, start a cooperation and make every customer a member/employee/whatever of this cooperation.

Perhaps they can start a church and declare the consuming of raw products a sacred ritual.

But instead of those possibilities they have to gather people for a protest so the police has to come in armed because they could be attacked.

On the other hand, how many raw milk related robberies have taken place and how many people became homeless after eating raw products?
If the government would only spent more time bringing down gun related incidents and bringing down the enormous debt the US has they could address this issue later on when they have some time left.
0
Reply
Male 19
raw milk provides you with enzymes that your body would love to have and cannot find elsewhere. These enzymes are pathogen killers as well as despirately needed helpers in assisting to digest foods. Only draw back is that raw milk must come from a healthy, strong cow.. not from a cow crammed in a dung filled 2x2 cage.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]Raw milk carries a significant risk of infections by E. Coli, Salmonella, Bovine TB, and Listeria, among other dangers.[/quote]
--------------
That`s a straw man argument. The same risk of infections can be found in any raw foods we buy. Raw milk is tasty. If you haven`t travelled out of the United States you probably haven`t had it. You don`t read of Europeans dropping dead from drinking milk so the fear the government has placed on raw milk has been working on you apparently.
0
Reply
Female 2,761
For all you people saying it has health risks... why does that mean someone can`t CHOSE what they want to put in their body? You need a membership to buy things here, I`m sure they are aware there could be health risks... Don`t tell me what I can and can`t put in my body!
0
Reply
Male 1,735
Anyone notice that they said people volunteer at this store, that`s like offering to work for free at Wallmart.

If they bust little kids for not having permits, than adults should know better, specially if you have been busted before. Hippies, not the brightest bunch.
0
Reply
Female 833
the restriction comes because Listeriosis can kill children, the elderly and can cause miscarriage and death to pregnant ladies. this article is wierd to me for one reason only, and it`s nothing to do with the man`s lack of permit. most raw enthusiasts (and I know a lot) tend to be vegan so why drink untreated milk?!
0
Reply
Male 798
[quote]If even one kid got sick from the raw milk guess how many stupid people would be protesting and yelling and demanding the authorities do something and WHY DIDN`T THEY STOP HIM SOONER!

People are stupid.[/quote]

[quote]They said they can sell the raw milk, but they were doing so illegally.
If a restaurant sells liquor without a licence, they are going to be shut down. Doesn`t matter how many customers they have, or how delicious their drinks are.[/quote]

Thank you Gerry and the_windy for injecting some rational thinking into this debate.
0
Reply
Male 2
Steak and eggs are sold with the intention of being cooked, thus killing any bacteria. Not to mention that those things are inspected (and salmonella is found in less than 1% of raw eggs). Plus any restaurant selling anything with meat in it is required by law to warn customers of the dangers of undercooked meat. If someone wants to drink raw milk then so be it, I understand the risk of getting sick is small. But it`s a matter of proper labeling. People have a right to know all the risks involved with putting anything in (or on) their body.
0
Reply
Male 798
Also, the fact that he spent 30-40,000 dollars on produce yet chose not to buy the permit for barely anything that would allow him to sell it legally just goes to show that he knew exactly what he was doing and that the situation he`s in now isn`t unjust at all.
0
Reply
Male 798
What a bunch of hypocrites. Liberals are known for voting in sweeping government social regulations, yet scream in bleeding-heart agony when it bites them in the ass. I`m all for small government, but don`t be a drating hypocrite and pick and choose the regulations that only benefit you.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
DSully, so does steak and raw eggs but I haven`t heard about armed raids on fitness centers selling raw eggs in protein shakes or on Outback Steak House for serving rare (which by the Outback where I live standards that means the meat was briefly in eye-shot of the grill).
When the process was first started it was needed but with knowledge comes improvement. Farms are cleaner and that alone has reduced risks exponentially.
Think for a moment also that farmers have to submit crops etc. for analysis as is to be sure they are up to standards. How hard, really, would it be to allow farmers to submit raw milk. If it doesn`t meet standards so be it but if it does then why restrict it? I would say it would have to meet the same level as meat as far as E. Coli goes. Otherwise as I said it only makes sense to make it illegal to serve under-cooked meat (which is ludicrous).
0
Reply
Male 1,239
All that said, if the buyers are warned and aware of any risks that health officials prove exist then this boils down to overbearing government control of our lives. Many people feel the risks of raw foods are far less than the risks with pesticides and that should be their right. The only thing the public "Needs" from government regulation is that sellers are telling us the whole truth. This means they tell us all the risks if any, and of course that the sellers products are what they say they are. (For example that a organic seller isn`t using pesticides)Beyond that it should be our choice.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
There`s more to consider such as the labeling and making buyers aware of the risks involved. I can understand not allowing them to sell un-warned people off the streets things that may carry a greater risk than elsewhere but even so not in the extreme manner they did it.
There was no need for guns drawn. In the AF police and once upon a time in normal police guns were not to be drawn unless you fully intended to shoot to kill. This prevented accidents as well as ensured that guns were not used solely to incite fear.
Second. Whether the laws are stupid or not if they were breaking them they have the right with a warrant to collect evidence and such but destroying their milk was personal. They could have at the very least pasteurized it, obtained the appropriate licenses, etc. Destroying all of it was, imo, beyond the scope of their duties to make a message.
0
Reply
Male 1,231
This is BS and it`s sad that it has come to this. Here are some people in the UK who sell `raw` milk` and have been drinking it all their lives.
0
Reply
Male 2
Raw milk carries a significant risk of infections by E. Coli, Salmonella, Bovine TB, and Listeria, among other dangers. Even if milk loses "some" nutrients due to pasteurization, which isn`t even proven with any solid evidence, I`d still make that sacrifice for safer milk.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]It`s good for you, but it has too many health risks.[/quote]
-------------
Raw milk has no more health risks than any other raw food you buy.
0
Reply
Male 621
Don`t sell RAW milk. It`s good for you, but it has too many health risks. And you cannot relate this to alcohol. Alcohol`s problems come from overuse. Where as thi can be drated from the start.
0
Reply
Male 96
In Latvia we can bay RAW milk in regular stores.
0
Reply
Male 514
So alcohol is clearly okay and raw milk is not. We have only been pasteurizing for the last 160 years or so. Drinking alcohol has always caused health issues. Hmmmmm, I smell pockets lined with cash.
0
Reply
Male 4,902
Did they really need to go in there with guns drawn? Fracking stupid.
0
Reply
Male 5,626
He IS wrong for selling bottled milk that had not been pasteurized. It does not matter if it was marked as such.

Did she have a license to run a commercial milk plant?

The label thing is iffy but,
it`s fairly easy to tell if an area meets temp standard.

That is food and there is a whole inspection process involved in getting and keeping licenses and that process exists to manage public health.
To complain about food license enforcement is to take a several steps back to the pre-Depression Era.
0
Reply
Male 59
In Oz, we have a product called "Cleopatra`s Bath Milk" (Unpasteurised milk for your "bath", wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
0
Reply
Male 219
He shoulda got the dratin permits easy as that... IDIOT, stupid movie
0
Reply
Male 527
From fda.gov: Federal regulation prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of any unpasteurized milk product in final package form, intended for human consumption (21 CFR 1240.61). In promulgating this regulation in 1987, FDA made a number of findings relative to raw milk, including that "raw milk, no matter how carefully produced, may be unsafe." However, some states do permit the intrastate sale of raw milk intended for human consumption.
0
Reply
Male 527
And, according to Maddux, and confirmed by several accounts (including fda.gov), it is legal for states to sell raw milk. In California`s case, a permit must be required to do so. However, I cannot find any information as to who is responsible for distributing these permits, whether it is at a city, county, state, or federal (or more than one) level. Still a lot of questions that should be answered on this topic.
0
Reply
Male 527
Forbes Article on Raid
That`s pretty much the only neutral article I could find on the topic. Everything else is so slanted it reads sideways. The only agencies I can be certain that were involved with this raid were the LA County Dept of Health and the sheriff`s office. It is possible that the FDA was also involved, but it`s extremely difficult to confirm that, given the slant of the other sources.

That being said, I would suspect the FDA would be very interested in determining whether this milk was being transported over state lines, so would probably have been a significant presence on this raid. And usually, in an issue of permits, the business gets a fine and/or closed until one can be procured, not the wholesale destruction of their inventory, which is, by multiple accounts, what happened her
0
Reply
Male 926
@Madest

It is important to understand what you are watching. There is hundreds of years of case law on this issue specifically, the commerce clause. The FDA obviously believes that what they are doing is legal, and that they further have the authority to impose these federal regulations under statutes already legislated upon the states. These protesters are arguing that they do not have this right, and moreover, the federal legislation is unconstitutional. This will wind up in the Supreme Court in the next 2-3 years and they will ultimately decide the matter. According to what the constitution says and the case law limiting congressional power of the commerce clause, I`m simply predicting that the FDA will not be able to get away with this. This is different from Marijuana, this is different from a national distribution of illegal commerce, this has to do with local farmers selling products to local customers. The most recent case law is in the farmers favor. Just sayin`
0
Reply
Male 469
An easy example of "liberal news". Spend 2 seconds talking about how they didn`t have a license (the REASON they were arrested), but all the rest of the time make it look as if the gov`t is trying to take them down and oppress them. No, this jerkwad probablly using this raid crap as an excuse to lull people into a cult like frenzy to back his store. Would anyone really just not get a license?
0
Reply
Male 926
@Madest

You and everyone else can believe what you want to believe, and go by what media heads on fox think the law is. I gave you exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States and the Constitution says on the matter. You`re welcome to disagree, attempt to argue within those contexts, or let people on Fox tell you what the law is.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
maddux32, You`re wrong.
0
Reply
Male 926
Taken straight from the Supreme Court in United States vs. Lopez

"The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution`s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

The key rule, "Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained."

So in other words, the states have discretion of whether or not they want to legislate laws against local producers of raw food products that are not placed into the stream of interstate commerce.
0
Reply
Male 926
@mvangild "And when the federal government steps in, no one can say otherwise. It`s the same as with marijuana: just because California thinks it`s okay to sell doesn`t mean it`s okay because it`s illegal per the federal government."

That is completely wrong. Marijuana presents a very important distinction as to the regulation of Raw Foods.

This is straight from Raich v. Gonzalez which is the Case that extended congressional commerce power to Marijuana in California...

"Case law firmly establishes Congress` power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Lopez and Morrison limit congressional power to those matter not so attenuated as to stretch Congressional authority beyond constitutional bounds.


0
Reply
Female 1,589
Sorry, but I see no problem in the government forcing people to get a licence to sell food.
They said they can sell the raw milk, but they were doing so illegally.
If a restaurant sells liquor without a licence, they are going to be shut down. Doesn`t matter how many customers they have, or how delicious their drinks are.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Thank you mvangild. Raw milk isn`t any less safe than is anything else raw we eat. From fish to chicken we are made aware of the dangers and proceed on our own accord. Something bigger is going on here and I`m pretty sure it has to do with money and political donations.
0
Reply
2,842
so, i cant drink raw milk but i can smoke 2 packs a day and drink till i throw up? thanks for making sense America.
0
Reply
Male 362
*cough* hippies *cough*
0
Reply
Male 527
From the FDA website:
"From and after twelve (12) months from the date on which this Ordinance is adopted, only Grade "A" pasteurized, ultra-pasteurized, or aseptically processed milk and milk products shall be sold to the final consumer..."

And when the federal government steps in, no one can say otherwise. It`s the same as with marijuana: just because California thinks it`s okay to sell doesn`t mean it`s okay because it`s illegal per the federal government.
0
Reply
Male 926
@ Madest - The FDA does not make law, and they have no legal right to enforce federal regulation on the states. The issue of intrastate commerce is not of their concern. (Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution). United States v. Lopez established limits as to the previously broad reach of the Commerce Clause in the constitution. Congressional power through the commerce clause extends to intrastate matters "substantially" affecting intrastate commerce; but only to the extent that the inferences linking intrastate activity to substantial economic effects are not so attenuated as to attempt to stretch the congressional powers to levels the constitution never intended it to go.

The debate as to whether or not the Federal Government has the right to enforce federal regulations upon sovereign states as to the matter of Raw Foods intended for intrastate transport is a matter for the Supreme Court.

Also see, United States v. Morrison; and Gonzalez
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Hey Wikipedia is wrong on this. The FDA regulates food and has outlawed the sale of unpasteurized milk. I know that you probably believe Wiki before me but I know I`m right. States have no say in the matter.
0
Reply
Male 612
every time a hipster is sent to jail and angel gets its wings.
0
Reply
Male 662
@madest no it`s not
0
Reply
Male 1,284
Twenty-eight U.S. states do not prohibit sales of raw milk.

Prohibited in Canada.

Wiki definition of raw milk
0
Reply
Male 600
Excuse me, sir. What exactly is raw milk? I worked in a milking parlow for much of my young life and have found absolutely nothing with the milk straight from the pail. Please explain, yes.
0
Reply
Male 1,284

0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]So, if I`m understanding this correctly, all they had to do was get the proper license and this would all have been avoided? Is there something inherent in the license required that would not allow them to operate as a carrier of raw foods?[/quote]
-------------
It`s against the law to sell unpasteurized milk in America.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

If even one kid got sick from the raw milk guess how many stupid people would be protesting and yelling and demanding the authorities do something and WHY DIDN`T THEY STOP HIM SOONER!

People are stupid.
0
Reply
Male 2,344
welcome to the nanny state ladies and gents.

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to decide for yourself how you want to live and how you want to conduct your life. you ARE NOT ALLOWED to spend your money on what you want to spend it on.

the idea that if he had applied for a license it would all be okay is total BS. If you apply for a license they will DENY it everytime, trust me.

look around you people, aren`t you tired of the feds and the state always telling you what is safe and what isn`t? aren`t you tired of being kid gloved all the damn time. you cannot consider yourself FREE when you live in a country that makes every decision for you and arrest if when you try to take back your decision making rights.

It is time people to decide, do you want to continue to hand over your rights to the gov each day or fight like hell to tel the gov baby sitters to go F*** themselves?

it is and always will be your choice until it isn`t...and that time isn`t far of
0
Reply
Female 109
Um, no. Lacking the proper license would just mean a fine, and maybe a shutdown until that license was procured. This is the government making an example out of a company and people who choose a different lifestyle.
0
Reply
Male 926
So, if I`m understanding this correctly, all they had to do was get the proper license and this would all have been avoided? Is there something inherent in the license required that would not allow them to operate as a carrier of raw foods?
0
Reply
Female 7
Link: Rawesome Foods Raided... Again! [Rate Link] - Armed agents lock up owner for selling raw milk to satisfied customers. What do you think, I-A-B? Is The Man wrong?
0
Reply