There's a store in California, next door to a huge Whole Foods store that sells food without the usual permits issued by the local public health department. I'm sure that Whole Foods has the necessary permits. Now Rawsome is crying because they got raided for operating without a food facilities permit. Not surprisingly, there are people who are defending them --- without asking, what's the logical reason that they should be able to operate without proving that they're meeting public health standards.
Typically, the only problematic issue is the sale/distr
They got raided by a group of local, state and federal authorities. Under California law, the locals have primary responsibility for enforcing the law, but the state can step in when it chooses to do so.
The only unusual group are the Feds. They're probably there because the store was selling raw milk or raw milk products from outside of California. And that the Feds won't allow.
This story got picked up by Huffington-Post under the title What's the FBI Doing in My Milk? What's sad, but not surprising, is that very little was said about the reason for the raid. Instead, we get the usual diatribes.
A lot of the comments were from Rawsome customers who felt that they should be able to opt out of public health measures by signing a piece of paper. To me, that sounded ridiculous.
I got lazy in posting comments. My usual policy is to properly research before commenting. I didn't do that here. Instead, I just stated what should have been obvious to anyone who thought about it for a minute --- that it isn't very likely that you can avoid public health regulation of a business that sells food, just by organizing your business in an unusual way.
The operator of the store is a bit of nut as can be seen if you read what he has to say He also thinks there were Canadian government officials in on the raid.
I'm Canadian. I'm certainly not an expert on California public health law. There's a chance I'm wrong. But I think Rawsome is caught, as it should be.
Public health laws are written very broadly to prevent organizations like Rawsome from thumbing their noses at the law, which everybody else has to follow. If you're distributing food to people outside of your family, you're almost certainly going to have to prove that you can do so safely.
It is all a matter of definitions. I've picked out the relevant sections of the California retail code. You can also download it is a pdf file, courtesy of Sonoma County.
---------- start definitions -----------
117357 Consumer
"CONSUMER" means a PERSON who is a member of the public, takes possession of FOOD, is not functioning in the capacity of an operator of a FOOD FACILITY, and does not offer the FOOD for resale.
113895. Retail
"RETAIL" means the storing, preparing, serving, manufacturing, packaging, transporting, salvaging, or otherwise handling FOOD for dispensing or sale directly to the CONSUMER or indirectly through a delivery service.
113789. Food facility
(a) "FOOD FACILITY" means an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides FOOD for human consumption at the RETAIL level, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) An operation where FOOD is consumed on or off the PREMISES, regardless of whether there is a charge for the FOOD...
[sections left out ]
(c) "FOOD FACILITY" does not include any of the following:
(1) A cooperative arrangement wherein no permanent facilities are used for storing or handling FOOD, a private home, church, private club, or other nonprofit association that gives or sells FOOD to its members and guests, and not to the general public, at an event that occurs not more than three days in any 90-day period, or a for-profit entity that gives or sells FOOD to members and guests for the benefit of a nonprofit association, if the for-profit entity receives no monetary benefit, other than that resulting from recognition from participating in an event.
Article 2. Enforcement
114390. Enforcement responsibility; evidence; inspection report
(a) ENFORCEMENT OFFICERs shall enforce this part and all regulations adopted pursuant to this part.
(b) (1) For purposes of enforcement, any authorized ENFORCEMENT OFFICER may, during the facility's hours of operation and other reasonable times, enter, inspect, issue citations to, and secure any sample, photographs, or other evidence from a FOOD FACILITY or any facility suspected of being a FOOD FACILITY, or a vehicle transporting FOOD to or from a RETAIL FOOD FACILITY, when the vehicle is stationary at an agricultural inspection station, a border crossing, or at any FOOD FACILITY under the jurisdiction of the ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, or upon the request of an incident commander.
[sections left out]
(d) It is a violation of this part for any PERSON to REFUSE to PERMIT entry or inspection, the taking of samples or other evidence, access to copy any record as authorized by this part, to conceal any samples or evidence, withhold evidence concerning them, or interfere with the performance of the duties of an ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, including making verbal or physical threats or sexual or discriminatory harassment.
[sections left out]
114393. Impoundment
(a) Based upon inspection findings or other evidence, an ENFORCEMENT OFFICER may IMPOUND FOOD, EQUIPMENT, or UTENSILs that are found to be unsanitary or in such disrepair that FOOD, EQUIPMENT, or UTENSILs may become contaminated or ADULTERATED, and inspect, IMPOUND, or inspect and IMPOUND any UTENSIL that is suspected of releasing lead or cadmium in violation of Section 108860. The
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER may attach a tag to the FOOD, EQUIPMENT, or UTENSILs that shall be removed only by the ENFORCEMENT OFFICER following verification that the condition has been corrected.
-------- end quotes from statute---------
So it makes no difference what goobldegook their lawyer dreamed up, at most a private club can give away or sell food to its members and guests no more than 3 days in each 90 day period.
And that's how it should be.
Posts
So why the guns drawn? Isn't that a little extreme, when the penalty is usually a fine, delivered by a lone official on a piece of paper? And then why were producers of raw milk products, like Morningland Farms, hunted down and forced to discard hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of product, when none of it was found to be contaminated? This farm has been in operation for more than 30 years and has not broken any rules. Its cheese has been tested and has been found to be clean. Consumers should have a right to eat this for the health benefits. It's alternative living, but since when is that illegal as long as it has been proven safe? Sure, the owner of that place sounded like an idiot, but it doesn't mean that the FDA had a right to do what it did with that kind of force. This is the same organization that hasn't approved my multivitamin but did approve the heart medication that killed people.
ReplyDelete