A Food Co-op Raid

[Alaskagain]

Didn't know whether to put this in the Preparedness section or here, but it is a current event, so here it is.

Local food cooperative searched by state Morning Journal: Serving Lorain, Erie, Huron and western Cuyahoga counties

Local Food Cooperative Searched by State

This happened in Ohio, and the article fails to report what appears in the blogosphere - that a full-scale armed SWAT team held the family (including children and infants) in the living room of their home while it was searched, for several hours. And, included in the material seized, the family's one-year supply of personal food storage. (They are not LDS, by the way.)

And this, the result of an inquiry from the Ohio Department of Agriculture?

What is this country coming to? I just don't see this kind of military-style response being necessary for a standard licensing/inspection matter. Unless maybe they were gun-runners or stashing packets of cocaine in the grain containers, which there is no mention of ATF or DEA officials being involved, so I rather suspect that is NOT the case.

Do any of you belong to food co-ops? Or order from them? Or participate in group bulk food orders from similar organic distributors?

Should we be worried? Will our canneries be next on the "raid" list?

[rampion]

Scary.

[MarginOfError]

Sounds like the DOA suspected they were running the co-op and trying to turn a profit. The raid appears to be valid, but executed under a gross over-reaction.

Individuals maintaining their own food supply will not be next, unless you're routinely selling your food storage for a profit. The Church also won't be affected as they tend to maintain the proper licensing.

Before flipping out about rights, perhaps we should consider that both parties were in error on this one.

[austro-libertarian]

Will our canneries be next on the "raid" list?

You raise an important question, and that is one of the many problems with an increase in govt power--you never know who's next.

[MarginOfError]

You raise an important question, and that is one of the many problems with an increase in govt power--you never know who's next.

Can you really be that paranoid? The DOA had a warrant. To get that warrant they had to show sufficient evidence that something was amiss. The only thing more dangerous than an over reaching government is a citizenship that believes citizens can do no wrong and government can do no right.

[austro-libertarian]

Can you really be that paranoid? The DOA had a warrant. To get that warrant they had to show sufficient evidence that something was amiss. The only thing more dangerous than an over reaching government is a citizenship that believes citizens can do no wrong and government can do no right.

I am not paranoid! I didn't mean for it to come across that way...

But I do stand by my statement. Your premise that the DOA had a warrant and is therefore justified in entering assumes that the DOA and its warrants are somehow good or just. I do not see it that way; I do not think there should be a DOA. I do not think govt should have anything to do with licenses on such things.

These DOA folks entered a person's property (assuming the SWAT team thing in the OP is valid only makes this case that much worse) and confiscated "hundreds of pounds of processed beef and large amounts of lamb, turkey and other perishable products in addition to office files, a computer, two cell phones and other electronic devices" all because they were "believed to be unlicensed." This sounds like a joke to me. And this was after they wrote declaring they wanted nothing to do with licenses.

If anything, govt under Bush has proved warrants can be obtained faster than you can say "take away our liberty."

[MarginOfError]

I am not paranoid! I didn't mean for it to come across that way...

But I do stand by my statement. Your premise that the DOA had a warrant and is therefore justified in entering assumes that the DOA and its warrants are somehow good or just. I do not see it that way; I do not think there should be a DOA. I do not think govt should have anything to do with licenses on such things.

These DOA folks entered a person's property (assuming the SWAT team thing in the OP is valid only makes this case that much worse) and confiscated "hundreds of pounds of processed beef and large amounts of lamb, turkey and other perishable products in addition to office files, a computer, two cell phones and other electronic devices" all because they were "believed to be unlicensed." This sounds like a joke to me. And this was after they wrote declaring they wanted nothing to do with licenses.

If anything, govt under Bush has proved warrants can be obtained faster than you can say "take away our liberty."

What a great idea. Let's get rid of all the licensing for agencies/companies from which be buy our food. Let's get rid of all the government agencies that control this stuff, like the DOA and the FDA. And then when mad cow disease breaks out, we'll have no idea where it started, where it's going, or who has the contaminated beef. It won't matter. Under this plan, we won't even know that mad cow has really broken out until we've seen several deaths.

Or perhaps we can license these agencies so that we can track the source of these foods, minimize the contamination of our food source, and handle it appropriately. This co-op appeared to be operating outside of the legal bounds surrounding this type of activity, and there appears to be justification for investigating if what they are doing poses a risk to the food source. If it doesn't, great...they can then implement the procedures to ensure that it never happens.

Again, this was not a personal food stock. This was a stock of food intended for redistribution.

And I reiterate that the methods employed were excessive. Did I not say that both sides were in error?

[Hemidakota]

I can see some serious monetary litigation for hungry lawyers going after both the DOA and the state in this 'knee jerk reactionary' mistake .

[Alaskagain]

It has been reported that yes, their personal food supply was taken, not just co-op supplies. I'm concerned about the apparent over-reaction of a government agency, using a SWAT team in this instance.

If I want to buy or barter eggs from my neighbor (or a co-op) who has free-range chickens, or unpasteurized milk from my other neighbor (or a co-op) who has a cow, and I am willing to assume the health risks, weighing it against the health risks of chemicals added to chicken feed and milk, why shouldn't I and the neighbors (or a co-op) be able to do that? How far should the government go in protecting us from the products we raise and consume ourselves?

[MarginOfError]

I can see some serious monetary litigation for hungry lawyers going after both the DOA and the state in this 'knee jerk reactionary' mistake .

But the good news for this family is they won't need to run the co-op anymore!

[rameumptom]

The laws of Ohio require any co-op to be licensed, especially if selling/reselling perishable foods. From the article, it looks like they were in it for a profit, while not following the laws.

Licensing means they are subject to safety and health inspections, etc., in order to ensure foods and other stuffs are properly handled, etc.

I've belonged to co-ops before that were licensed, and never had such a problem. Seems to me they were trying to make an illegal buck, and needed to be closed down.

Imagine an unlicensed company selling stuff from China. How would problems of contamination be found out and dealt with? Licensing doesn't make things perfect, but helps ensure safety issues.

[Hemidakota]

Before we are accusing anyone here of profiteering, reread the article again.

A health district sanitarian and two other inspectors visited the cooperative on Nov. 30, 2007, to make observations and were told to leave. Jacqueline Stowers wrote in a December 2007 letter to the sanitarian that the inspectors never had permission to be on their property and that the Manna Storehouse is not operating a retail food establishment that requires a license.

"We declare now that we do not want to be a 'licensed retail food establishment' or a 'food service operation' and we do not plan to become one in the future and that we will not knowingly conduct any activities that would require that type of licensing," she wrote.

Isn't our country founded on a simple principle: "Innocent until proven guilty"? :)

[MarginOfError]

Sure, the Manna Storehouse says it doesn't want to be a food service operation. The ODA wanted to look around to see if they were engaging in any activities that required a license and were refused. So they came back with a warrant. If indeed Manna Storehouse was doing nothing wrong then they will get all their stuff back. Nobody has said that they are guilty...they're being inspected.

[Hemidakota]

ME [MoE] , however, reread Rams [11] posting again and perhaps yours [3].

[Moksha]

If you're running competition to your local grocery store, you've got to be prepared to be busted. Can't have regular citizens and minors trying to score a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk illegally!!!

.

[Guest DeborahC]

The fed gov and many states have laws against food hoarding.

I'm not sure where this puts LDS folk... but it's true.

Here is one website.. there are many others:

Millennium-Ark: Executive Orders and Storing-Is It Lawful?

[Alaskagain]

From what I have been able to deduce from the blogosphere, and we all know we have to pick through to hopefully glean some facts . . . . .

This did not involve an "agricultural cooperative", which is required to be licensed, and there are no Ohio laws requiring licensure for a "food cooperative", or "grocery co-op" or "buyers' club" that I could find.

Although the Manna Storehouse website does mention a "retail store" run by the Stowers family, I think the intent of that "retail store" is not to sell to the general public, but only to the members of the co-op, accumulating orders for food from its members, and providing a place for short term storage of the items until they were picked up by the buyers.

Not unlike a group bulk food order in our ward.

But maybe this membership rule is what got the Ohio Department of Agriculture's dander up:

"Members agree that by joining Manna Storehouse you state that you are not an employee of any federal, state or local government agency. Any transaction, communication or observations by you and/or anyone with you cannot be reported or communicated in any way to any federal, state or local government agency; nor used in a court of law against Manna Storehouse or any member of the Stowers family. "

[Wingnut]

But maybe this membership rule is what got the Ohio Department of Agriculture's dander up:

"Members agree that by joining Manna Storehouse you state that you are not an employee of any federal, state or local government agency. Any transaction, communication or observations by you and/or anyone with you cannot be reported or communicated in any way to any federal, state or local government agency; nor used in a court of law against Manna Storehouse or any member of the Stowers family. "

Yeah, because that doesn't sound suspicious.

[foodstr2]

I think this use of government force against us will worsen under the incoming administration.

Government is NOT--and never has been--the FRIEND of people. It has ALWAYS been the oppressor of people. It's just a necessary evil.

Read the writings of our Founding Fathers.

[rameumptom]

I have read the Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton, major author of the Federalist Papers, wanted us to have a king, not a president. He also wanted a centralized bank and more centralized power. He and Jefferson didn't get along. Still, we can see that there were a variety of opinions, and we need to be careful not to pick just the things that agree with us.

Personally, I go with D&C 134,

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign. ...

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men show respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

It sounds like government is instituted of God for man's good! It isn't a necessary evil as some insist.

[MarginOfError]

I think this use of government force against us will worsen under the incoming administration.

Government is NOT--and never has been--the FRIEND of people. It has ALWAYS been the oppressor of people. It's just a necessary evil.

Read the writings of our Founding Fathers.

Child Labor Laws

Workers Compensation

OSHA

yeah, none of those have ever benefitted any American citizen.

[austro-libertarian]

I have read the Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton, major author of the Federalist Papers, wanted us to have a king, not a president. He also wanted a centralized bank and more centralized power. He and Jefferson didn't get along. Still, we can see that there were a variety of opinions, and we need to be careful not to pick just the things that agree with us.

Personally, I go with D&C 134,

It sounds like government is instituted of God for man's good! It isn't a necessary evil as some insist.

I agree--there are no necessary evils. One of Satan's greatest deceptions is to lead individuals down an evil path and present a fork in the road--between two "evil" decisions; the decision then becomes which is less evil. We choose between things that are good and evil, even if some are relatively good (good, better, best) and some are relatively evil. But there are no necessary evils we must choose. It is always a choice between good and evil, even if the degrees are relative.

However, the broad brush of "government is instituted of God for man's good" is all too open to critique. The scripture technically says "Governments were . . . " and not is/are. And surely the nature of the government matters; the following verses make that clear--as to what type of government it must be to be a government instituted of God. I do not know of any government in the world that meets those requirements.

[foodstr2]

Remember, in the book of I Samuel, when the Israelites asked for a king to rule over them? They didn't want Samuel's corrupt sons to judge them, they wanted a king to rule them.

"And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." I Samuel 8:7 KJV

And He goes on to tell them that the ruling king (government) will take their sons for his army (the draft), take their daughters for bakers and cooks, institute an income tax, take a portion of their servants and flocks, and make the Israelites his servants.

"And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day." I Samuel 8:18 KJV

That was the beginning of HUMAN GOVERNMENT of the Israelites ... when they rejected God's government. Read the context.

According to Daniel's prayer of praise, when God revealed to him that he would not perish with the men of Babylon, "[God] removeth kings, and setteth up kings" Daniel 2:21 (see also Daniel 4:17) which gives man's government legitimacy ... but that doesn't change the fact that--had man not rejected God as his Governor--there would be no need for *man's* government.

Hence, it's a necessary evil.

Bruce

[austro-libertarian]

Remember, in the book of I Samuel, when the Israelites asked for a king to rule over them? They didn't want Samuel's corrupt sons to judge them, they wanted a king to rule them.

"And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." I Samuel 8:7 KJV

And He goes on to tell them that the ruling king (government) will take their sons for his army (the draft), take their daughters for bakers and cooks, institute an income tax, take a portion of their servants and flocks, and make the Israelites his servants.

"And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day." I Samuel 8:18 KJV

That was the beginning of HUMAN GOVERNMENT of the Israelites ... when they rejected God's government. Read the context.

According to Daniel's prayer of praise, when God revealed to him that he would not perish with the men of Babylon, "[God] removeth kings, and setteth up kings" Daniel 2:21 (see also Daniel 4:17) which gives man's government legitimacy ... but that doesn't change the fact that--had man not rejected God as his Governor--there would be no need for *man's* government.

Hence, it's a necessary evil.

Bruce

I appreciate your use of the scriptures, but I do not see how they back up your conclusion. The Lord allowed the Israelites to have a king after they were warned of the evils of having a king. He let them ultimately use their agency, i.e., they were free to choose, knowing what the Lord had warned. We learn that the Lord allows us to choose, even though we will make wrong choices. This does not mean the Lord endorses wrong choices, or is responsible for them.

If we read in D&C 134 that governments were instituted of God, then how can we say that God institutes necessary evils into the world? If God is the paragon of all that is good, noble, and perfect, how could He institute (as opposed to allow, due to agency) necessary evils? Indeed, He would cease to be God.

[foodstr2]

I'm not sure you're thinking through the Scripture I quoted. It doesn't really apply to what God ALLOWED, it applies to what man DID.

As to the D&C reference, when D&C conflicts with Bible Scripture, I side with the Bible.

Bruce