Why is the FDA using swat teams on raw milk?

[JEDIYoda]

if you want unpasteurized, you should grow it yourself.... but not sell or distribute it.

please explain how you grow milk???

Also you must be a nim wit---show us articles where people have gotten sick from drinking raw milk???

 

[DominionSeraph]

Once you've had your friend's home raided by federal marshals with guns because they are selling cheese, I think it's hard to tell that story without sounding a little tinfoil hat. Unfortunately.

If you can't afford a recall, you shouldn't be selling food to the public.
The FDA is there to protect the consumer against corporations selling contaminated food. The safety of our food supply is extremely important, and I have no problem with the government treating it as such.

 

[zinfamous]

The FDA saying you don't have the right to consume raw milk is like the FDA saying you don't have the right to consume medium-rare steak or eggs over-easy. I bet the country would be up in arms if that happened...

good point, and it's funny that only ~1 month ago, they "officially" deemed it safe to cook pork to 145F, which has always been the proper temperature, and very, very safe.

I wonder what took them so long? It's not called "pork," for nothing.

:hmm:

 

[zinfamous]

Sure is tin-foil hat in here.

facts are facts, jabronie.

 

[MotF Bane]

Yet it took the fda how long to do something about cargill?

t

 

[linuxboy]

If you can't afford a recall, you shouldn't be selling food to the public.

This is not what happened. It was a seizure of all product regardless of condition or probability based on threat vector, and without evidence of contamination from specific product lines, and without much recourse based on a court order founded in biased writing and lack of fact, to the point of describing a common practice of quality control (sensory trials) as something unhygienic. Moreover, their own internal rules of notification or administrative procedure were not followed.

 

[ElFenix]

If you can't afford a recall, you shouldn't be selling food to the public.
The FDA is there to protect the consumer against corporations selling contaminated food. The safety of our food supply is extremely important, and I have no problem with the government treating it as such.

there is no raw milk danger with hard cheeses.

if there is no danger then the FDA's actions were arbitrary and capricious. they're not protecting consumers in that instance.

 

[DominionSeraph]

good point

No it's not. The FDA regulates sale, not consumption.
You can eat your own shit and it ain't a FDA issue. You try to sell it as chocolate fudge and that's when you're gonna have problems.

 

[linuxboy]

there is no raw milk danger with hard cheeses.

Safe to a ridiculous degree. There has never been, in any country or place, for as long as records have been kept, any incidence of illness from consuming hard, aged cheese made from raw milk.

 

[AreaCode707]

If you can't afford a recall, you shouldn't be selling food to the public.
The FDA is there to protect the consumer against corporations selling contaminated food. The safety of our food supply is extremely important, and I have no problem with the government treating it as such.

They did a voluntary recall of all the cheese that could potentially have been contaminated. THEN the FDA insisted that they recall everything they had out there and stop selling indefinitely. You tell me ONE business that can continue running while being told they may not sell their product. How is that supposed to work, in your brain?

Hard aged cheeses are not at risk for listeriosis. Go look it up. Then come back here and tell me how exactly you think the FDA was protecting the consumers by insisting on a recall on a food that cannot carry that type of contamination.

You are backing the FDA without being willing to evaluate the validity of their actions. The first recall in this situation was perfectly valid, the second was not.

 

[zinfamous]

No it's not. The FDA regulates sale, not consumption.
You can eat your own shit and it ain't a FDA issue. You try to sell it as chocolate fudge and that's when you're gonna have problems.

someone didn't read the thread, I see.

 

[linuxboy]

No it's not. The FDA regulates sale, not consumption.
You can eat your own shit and it ain't a FDA issue. You try to sell it as chocolate fudge and that's when you're gonna have problems.

This is absolutely 100% not true. If you look at the 2011 FSMA, it grants the FDA broad, sweeping, and what I consider to be plenary powers to regulate production, sale, transportation, etc, to the point where the place of consumption has specific stipulations and exemptions (as part of the expansion of the BPRA of 2002). The FDA has said publicly that no person has a right to consume as they choose, and that the FDA has a mandate to control what people consume. And this is not the only authority, there is also the commerce clause and decades of (poorly decided IMHO) case law. Did you even read this thread?

[edit] And it's not limited to interstate commerce. That's the point, there are cases where completely private consumption is regulated.

 

[DominionSeraph]

They did a voluntary recall of all the cheese that could potentially have been contaminated. The FDA insisted that they recall everything they had out there and stop selling indefinitely. You tell me ONE business that can continue running while being told they may not sell their product. How is that supposed to work in your brain?

If they can't run a clean shop they should't be in operation. There's no fundamental right for a business to exist that forces the government to allow them to sell contaminated food so as not to abridge it.
The government is allowed to perform actions that will shut down a business.

 

[linuxboy]

If they can't run a clean shop they should't be in operation.

Dude, you're missing the point. There's no recourse because due process is skipped. Administratively, the FDA can come in and shut down production. Just because they feel like it. Without evidence, or with a laughable standard of evidence. And they can seize your goods. And they can shut you down and leave you to bleed fighting in court for a year. And what if someone with an agenda crafts a finding that misconstrues facts, paints a narrative that does not represent reality, and refuses to answer inquiries for how to proceed?

There were outright lies in the petition for in rem seizure. And guess on whom rests the burden of proof?

In this case, it's even more ridiculous because Listeria by itself is present everywhere. You likely have some on your skin right now. Only some select strains are pathogenic. And having the technology, those strains were never even tested for. It was like "we have the bare minimum we need, let's go with guns drawn" And all this happened because of self-reporting, someone trying to be proactive and follow best practices.

 

[Cogman]

If they can't run a clean shop they should't be in operation. There's no fundamental right for a business to exist that forces the government to allow them to sell contaminated food so as not to abridge it.
The government is allowed to perform actions that will shut down a business.

Sounds to me like they were running a clean shop. In fact, I'll bet you that the fact that their partial recall was what triggered the FDA demanding a full recall. Had they not done this, they probably wouldn't have been shut down.

The FDA is a bureaucracy to the highest degree. What they choose to regulate and ignore is staggering and based more on how many lobbyists have complained and less on actual public health. (see, bottled water).

 

[AreaCode707]

If they can't run a clean shop they should't be in operation. There's no fundamental right for a business to exist that forces the government to allow them to sell contaminated food so as not to abridge it.
The government is allowed to perform actions that will shut down a business.

Every single dairy producer and cheesemaker will encounter listeria in their environment eventually. It is part of the business. That is why there are protocols for handling it, including issuing a recall on all possibly affected food. They did this, and the FDA arbitrarily mandated that they recall all food that could not possibly have been affected.

They were not selling contaminated food and they took every measure the government asked of them to ensure that. The FDA overstepped its bounds and they would win in a court case to prove that, but they cannot afford to fight and winning would gain them nothing since all the product the FDA confiscated would already be worthless.

That gives the FDA basically unlimited power to shut down a business on a whim even if they are in the wrong and gives the business no recourse. Those are mafia-style tactics right there.

Nobody is in support of selling contaminated foods, and we all believe the FDA has a very important part to play in consumer protection. However, the FDA as it is currently designed is not adhering to worldwide scientifically proven food standards, is motivated more by corporate ties than by public good, and there is no control over what the FDA chooses to do. We basically have a government agency with no oversight or accountability. Is that what you want?

 

[Genx87]

If they can't run a clean shop they should't be in operation. There's no fundamental right for a business to exist that forces the government to allow them to sell contaminated food so as not to abridge it.
The government is allowed to perform actions that will shut down a business.

So because one production line is contaminated in your brain the govt has a right to shut down an entire business without any proof what so ever the rest are contaminated? It is scary how people are willing to allow a govt agency this type of broad abusive power and support it to the end.

 

[busydude]

Dude, you're missing the point.

You need to tell him everything My Little pony style.. he just just not seem to understand when people are talking the normal way.

 

[DominionSeraph]

This is absolutely 100% not true. If you look at the 2011 FSMA, it grants the FDA broad, sweeping, and what I consider to be plenary powers to regulate production, sale, transportation, etc, to the point where the place of consumption has specific stipulations and exemptions (as part of the expansion of the BPRA of 2002). The FDA has said publicly that no person has a right to consume as they choose, and that the FDA has a mandate to control what people consume. And this is not the only authority, there is also the commerce clause and decades of (poorly decided IMHO) case law. Did you even read this thread?

LOL, the argument just went over your head.

If I want to eat Martian soil, do the restrictions that the Universe places on me in regards to obtaining it violate my rights? No, because I have no fundamental right to consume Martian soil. So, restrictions of access are allowed. So, if the FDA places hurdles to you obtaining certain foods, it also does not violate your rights, for you have no fundamental right to have access to them.

The government can regulate commerce. Don't like that interfering with your food choices? Buy a farm.

 

[AreaCode707]

Sounds to me like they were running a clean shop. In fact, I'll bet you that the fact that their partial recall was what triggered the FDA demanding a full recall. Had they not done this, they probably wouldn't have been shut down.

The FDA is a bureaucracy to the highest degree. What they choose to regulate and ignore is staggering and based more on how many lobbyists have complained and less on actual public health. (see, bottled water).

It's hard to pick the best ridiculous accusation from the FDA complaint but I like the one where they were upset that the cheeses were being aged on wood boards.

http://www.google.com/search?q=agin...&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1366&bih=622

HOLY SHIT GOOGLE IS COVERED IN FDA TERROR GERMS!

Wood boards are used everywhere, in Europe, in Wisconsin, in Washington state... but the FDA told the Estrellas they had to replace their wood with metal. That is part of the changes they made when they mortgaged their farm to comply.

Now how fair is that, that the FDA can basically make up a rule for a single producer?

 

[linuxboy]

The other crazy part about dairy is that often, inspectors have zero dairy training. They rise through the ranks as paper pushers, and then go through a checklist. And if the next day their checklist has an exact opposite statement than the one before, they will penalize a producer for it (have seen this happen, arbitrary procedural changes after obtaining approval on material use in production). So the people on the ground passionate about food at times know more than the inspectors. And have no way to appeal of be heard because the dairy depts are really small in most states.

 

[Genx87]

LOL, the argument just went over your head.

If I want to eat Martian soil, do the restrictions that the Universe places on me in regards to obtaining it violate my rights? No, because I have no fundamental right to consume Martian soil. So, restrictions of access are allowed. So, if the FDA places hurdles to you obtaining certain foods, it also does not violate your rights, for you have no fundamental right to have access to them.

The government can regulate commerce. Don't like that interfering with your food choices? Buy a farm.

Just make sure not to produce too much food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Filburn

 

[DominionSeraph]

Dude, you're missing the point. There's no recourse because due process is skipped. Administratively, the FDA can come in and shut down production.

And the cops can put suspected murderers in jail, and the judge doesn't have to set bail.
Doesn't violate due process.

Safety of the public comes first.

 

[AreaCode707]

LOL, the argument just went over your head.

If I want to eat Martian soil, do the restrictions that the Universe places on me in regards to obtaining it violate my rights? No, because I have no fundamental right to consume Martian soil. So, restrictions of access are allowed. So, if the FDA places hurdles to you obtaining certain foods, it also does not violate your rights, for you have no fundamental right to have access to them.

The government can regulate commerce. Don't like that interfering with your food choices? Buy a farm.

We own a damn farm. And we cannot invite a friend over for a meal using the food we produce and eat every day because it would put us in legal violation.

 

[linuxboy]

LOL, the argument just went over your head.

If I want to eat Martian soil, do the restrictions that the Universe places on me in regards to obtaining it violate my rights? No, because I have no fundamental right to consume Martian soil. So, restrictions of access are allowed. [/quote]

The thing is, what you just said there... this level of control is a very modern invention of the courts. This interpretation did not exist until the last.. oh... 80 years. And if it's just a legal theory, shouldn't opposing legal theories be allowed in a free country? Why should theory determine the level of liberty and pursuit of happiness that one enjoys?

So, if the FDA places hurdles to you obtaining certain foods, it also does not violate your rights, for you have no fundamental right to have access to them.
The government can regulate commerce.

Right, but the degree of that and even the meaning of the word "regulate", the way authority interprets it now is a 180 turn from the historical understanding.

Don't like that interfering with your food choices? Buy a farm.

I wish it were that simple. Now, with the developments over the past decade, if you buy a farm and grow what you want, it does not guarantee that you can eat it. Also, aren't you contradicting yourself? First you say we have no inherent right, and then you say if you want to have the right, then buy a farm?