PDA

View Full Version : USDA Raids Farmers Market Over Chili



Ethereal
10-09-2016, 04:44 PM
USDA Wrongly Targets Wyoming's Food Freedom Act (http://reason.com/archives/2016/10/08/usda-wrongly-targets-wyomings-food-freed)

A raid last month targeted a vendor who was selling chili at a farmers market.

Baylen Linnekin | October 8, 2016

Earlier this week, in one of several related announcements, the USDA proudly declared that its MyPlate, MyState program, which the agency bills as "an effort to celebrate homegrown pride, foods and recipes and bring communities together around healthy eating," was entering a new phase.

"Through MyPlate, MyState, USDA is working to make the connection between healthy eating and more than 160,000 farmers and ranchers nationwide that are selling into local markets through... farmers markets, farm stands and community supported agriculture (CSA) programs," reads an agency release the USDA emailed to me and others this week.

You'd have to forgive some folks who sell their food at a small farmers market in Wyoming if this USDA self-promotion rings a bit hollow. That's because late last month, agents from the USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) showed up at a farmers market in Gillette, Wyoming, and ordered a food vendor at the market to destroy his food.

Specifically, the FSIS agents ordered John Thompson, who makes Big John's Chili and sells it at the market, to dump out all of his jars of chicken green chili. Thompson complied, despite the fact the inspectors failed to respond to at least one request to identify themselves, and ordered at least one person at the farmers market who was taping the raid to cease filming, lest FSIS cite him for intimidating federal agents.

...

Brave USDA agents interdict rogue chili vendor at local farmer's market. Americans breath a collective sigh of relief.

Green Arrow
10-09-2016, 04:56 PM
If it's not already a law, it needs to be written in stone that they have to pay him back for the loss of product.

exploited
10-09-2016, 04:57 PM
Why did they order the product be destroyed?

Peter1469
10-09-2016, 04:58 PM
The jack boots go after raw milk often.

Ethereal
10-09-2016, 05:17 PM
If it's not already a law, it needs to be written in stone that they have to pay him back for the loss of product.

That would be good. Even better would be a law forbidding federal agencies from interfering with intrastate commerce.

Ethereal
10-09-2016, 05:39 PM
The jack boots go after raw milk often.

They have to protect us from the less than one percent chance that something bad might happen. It's for our own good.

Tahuyaman
10-09-2016, 05:41 PM
Brave USDA agents interdict rogue chili vendor at local farmer's market. Americans breath a collective sigh of relief.

Your tax dollars at work.....

Peter1469
10-09-2016, 05:42 PM
They have to protect us from the less than one percent chance that something bad might happen. It's for our own good.

Raw milk causes less sickness than processed milk. And it is actually good for you unlike the processed stuff. Come back down. I know where to get some without the government getting in the way.

decedent
10-09-2016, 05:47 PM
That would be good. Even better would be a law forbidding federal agencies from interfering with intrastate commerce.

Impossible. The Constitution states that Congress can regulate commerce with foreign nations, states in the Union, and indigenous tribes.

Ethereal
10-09-2016, 05:50 PM
Impossible. The Constitution states that Congress can regulate commerce with foreign nations, states in the Union, and indigenous tribes.

That clause was intended to apply to interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce. And it was never meant to give the federal government the power to restrict or prohibit commerce. Rather, it was intended to prevent the states from erecting barriers to trade across state lines. Put another way, the interstate commerce clause was meant to promote free trade within the USA, not restrict it.

Peter1469
10-09-2016, 05:50 PM
Impossible. The Constitution states that Congress can regulate commerce with foreign nations, states in the Union, and indigenous tribes.

The hard left ought to not pretend that they give a damn about the Constitution.

Tahuyaman
10-09-2016, 05:51 PM
Didn't they once go after some kid with a lemonade stand in his front yard? A local farmers market stepping it up a bit.

decedent
10-09-2016, 05:57 PM
That clause was intended to apply to interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce. And it was never meant to give the federal government the power to restrict or prohibit commerce. Rather, it was intended to prevent the states from erecting barriers to trade across state lines. Put another way, the interstate commerce clause was meant to promote free trade within the USA, not restrict it.

Nope.


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The term commerce as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely socialcommunications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause


It's black letter law that this clause refers to trade between states.

Which is good, because if somebody in one state rips off somebody in another state, there are federal authorities who can easily handle it. I've had clients in several states and I've experienced this first hand.

Ethereal
10-09-2016, 06:06 PM
Nope.

It's black letter law that this clause refers to trade between states.

Which is good, because if somebody in one state rips off somebody in another state, there are federal authorities who can easily handle it. I've had clients in several states and I've experienced this first hand.

Just as I said, it refers to trade between states, not within them.

And its original intent was meant to facilitate trade, not to prohibit it.

You will not find a single reference, express or implied, to prohibitory power in the federalist papers or the constitutional conventions.

Ethereal
10-09-2016, 06:16 PM
Hamilton and Madison envisioned the interstate commerce clause being used to create a unified free trade zone within the USA and to promote interstate infrastructure projects that would facilitate national trade. It was never imagined or intended as a restriction or prohibition on commerce within the USA. The founders were almost exclusively favorably disposed towards trade, commerce, business, etc. But the courts have perverted the original intent of the interstate commerce clause which is why legislation is needed to fix the problem.

Peter1469
10-09-2016, 07:22 PM
Hamilton and Madison envisioned the interstate commerce clause being used to create a unified free trade zone within the USA and to promote interstate infrastructure projects that would facilitate national trade. It was never imagined or intended as a restriction or prohibition on commerce within the USA. The founders were almost exclusively favorably disposed towards trade, commerce, business, etc. But the courts have perverted the original intent of the interstate commerce clause which is why legislation is needed to fix the problem.

Right. The Commerce Clause is a shield, not a sword.