Raw Milk Sting
- DiningDiva Apr 29, 2011 12:51 PM
This is just silliness. Doesn't the Federal government have something better to do with their time, money and resources?
Does the Federal government have something better to do with their time, money and resources other than enforcing federal laws (i.e. Doing their job)?
Person broke (food safety) law. Person was told to stop. Person didn't stop. Person is charged.
I'm actually in favor of raw milk and just about every potentially dangerous food items - Let the consumer take the risk. But, there are laws. If you don't like it, contact your local politician. Don't go on breaking the law.
You know, I don't necessarily disagre with you on the fact that laws were broken. I find it mildly amusing (yes, in a perverse sort of way) and fairly ironic that the violator was Amish, a community know for being peaceful and law abiding.
It's okay for Wall St. and the financial industry to rape and pillage the economy but it's not okay for the Amish to sell raw milk. Somehow one does not equal the other. But then the Amish probably aren't contributing massive amounts of money to the ensure the re-election of their local politicians. Okay, NOW, I'm being cynical.
I do agree with your point, laws were broken, there needs to be some recourse. I'm wondering if this couldn't have been handled a little differently and why such a concerted effort was made to nab them compared to other laws that are broken and go unpunished
I do agree with your point, laws were broken, there needs to be some recourse. I'm wondering if this couldn't have been handled a little differently...
If I read the article correctly, the farmer was given several last chances. He didn't help himself by turning the feds away the first time and when he received notice to stop the first time he chose to intentionally try to skirt the law.
I'm not pro- or anti-raw milk. People drank it for decades. But...
If something happened and one or more of those consumers got sick, or worse, there would be an investigation. If it were found out the FDA had investigated them and "let them off," despite their protestations to the contrary, everyone would scream. If the FDA wasn't involved and something happened everyone would be screaming, "Where was the FDA, and why ..."
The article doesn't say why the FDA signed up on Facebook, but it could have been from a tip/complaint. If they HAD been put on notice, and didn't follow up, they would have been in violation of the law, whether or not anyone got sick.
So what it comes down to is that the FDA is damned if they do and damned if they don't. I vote for them erring on the side of safety...and the law.
Another thing to consider. No matter what they signed, if one (or more) of the consumers got seriously sick I am sure they would find a "good lawyer" and sue the farmer. Part of the suit would surely include the part where he intentionally skirted federal law.
last summer, a local raw foods coop here in LA was raided and temporarily shut down...
i personally thought that was worse because they were never given a warning or a chance to get the necessary permits before the feds just barged in, seized everything, and slapped a closure notice on the door. granted the owners *should* have taken initiative to make sure everything was in order and above board, but they had already been operating for more than a decade, so i thought raiding them out of nowhere was a bit much.
fortunately for the members they reopened within a week.
"Agencies that participated in the raid on Rawesome included the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture."
note the last 2 agencies mentioned.