How Misguided USDA Regulations Harm Consumers and Restrict Food Freedom

Unnecessary regulations force a popular food entrepreneur to close its doors.

Earlier this week I was disheartened to learn about the imminent closure of Il Mondo Vecchio, an acclaimed Denver, Colorado-area salumeria that has been producing a wide variety of artisanal cured meats—including Italian-style dry sausages and whole muscle salumi—since 2009.

Il Mondo Vecchio’s owner, Mark DeNittis—who’s followed the group I lead, Keep Food Legal, for some time on Twitter—reached out to me about his company’s plight after I tweeted about the pending closure of a Scottish bangery. (I don't know if that's what a Scottish sausage plant is called, but there's no doubt that's what it should be called.)

In the case of the Scottish sausage plant, Freshlink Foods, EU bureaucrats decided that the 30-year-old producer would have to comply with new EU cold-storage regulations.

One plant worker speaking to the British website Food Manufacture—presumably one of the 144 workers who will lose their jobs over the new regulation—characterized the costly new requirement as akin to mandating “a Rolls Royce engine in a Ford Escort.”

Il Mondo Vecchio's problem is a similar one—regulations run amok—according to a release prepared by DeNittis and his co-owner, Gennaro DeSantis, last week.

"In August, the USDA imposed additional requirements on Il Mondo Vecchio’s production methods. After two months of sharing information and collaboration back and forth between Il Mondo Vecchio and the USDA as well as various attempts to modify the production methods," the owners announced, "Il Mondo Vecchio has determined that the impact of the regulatory requirements on dry cured sausage products was detrimental to the quality of the product and therefore, Mark and Gennaro are forced to close the[ir] doors."

This conflict between modern regulations and traditional methods is something DeNittis thought for a time he could navigate.

"We adhere to Old World techniques of natural process while following New World regulations,” Il Mondo Vecchio’s website states.

When it comes to Old World methods, I think it would be hard to find a better example of a traditional, conscientious, sustainable, and local producer than Il Mondo Vecchio.

For example, Il Mondo Vecchio used pigs from Cure Organic Farm in nearby Boulder to make many of its products. Il Mondo Vecchio's website also boasts that it hand crafts salumi from “age old family recipes.” Its products are all natural, “minimally processed, and contain[] no artificial ingredients.” Il Mondo Vecchio even cares about its salt—obtaining “ancient sea salt from Utah (just west over the Rocky Mountains)” and using “the lowest allowable salt content of today’s producers nationally.”

While he could have altered his recipe—say, by adding nitrates or nitrites—in order to bring Il Mondo Vecchio’s product into compliance with USDA regulations, that would have turned his product into something he wasn't comfortable selling.

"Our name literally means ‘Old World,” DeNittis told me by phone. And how did they cure meat back in the old world? With a discrete, short list of ingredients: “Sea salt, meat, quality spices, and time.”

Paul Cure of Cure Organic Farm tells me the loss of that sense of care and artistry will resonate.

"He's so rare in regards to our area," says Cure. "When he leaves next month it'll be felt for sure. It's an enormous loss for the food community here."

While DeNittis is obviously serious about quality, Il Mondo Vecchio is just as serious about food science and safety.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ted S.||

    Which of their competitors ratted on them?

  • SIV||

    I had some nice cecina imported from Mexico a few days ago.

    The USDA never laid their grimy paws on it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    the report urges states to replace process-driven regulations—which require a farmer or vendor to follow particular steps—with results-driven regulations that simply require food to be safe.

    One of the fundamental problems with government action in general is that it is always process driven. The process becomes its own rationale with actual results being irrelevant.

    You can see this play out in everything from the formulation and enforcement of regulations, education, policiing, the court system, etc.

  • C. Anacreon||

    So true. Hospitals get regular certification visits from CMS and the Joint Commission. On these surveys you could basically kill every person who sets foot in your lobby, but if your staff snack refrigerator shows a consistent temperature every day for the past year (yes, you are required to record) you will likely pass with flying colors. It is all about having the correct useless paperwork filled out and never about the actual treatment you provide. In the last 5-10 years a typical patient chart for a single visit has likely tripled in sheets of paper so we can be "in compliance".

    And the electronic health records we are all implementing are far worse. At least now all you will have to do is click a check box instead of signing most of the birdcage-liner.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Imagine how different regulation would be if they simply mandated maximum bacterial levels as measured after 30 minutes transport after buying product near the end of the day on its sell-by date. The regulations themselves would be just a few pages. Everyone could understand them. You could have high school biology classes make field trips to pick up food and take it back to class to measure bacteria levels. Everyone involved would understand the regulations, the kids would learn a bit of independence and confidence in the system, and the stories they told their parents would pass the confidence around.

    But creating process regulations creates all those jobs, from the years-long initial effort to create the regulation to the thousands of inspectors poking their grubby hands into every aspect of production, shipping, and storage. The regulations themselves are so full of mystery that everyone treats food safety as voodoo magic and thinks they could never do such a hard job, it must be terribly difficult, we need more government to make it even safer.

    Of course the bureaucrats will choose process regulation. They may be statists, but that doesn't make them stupid.

  • Robert||

    Fortunately cosmetics regulation in the USA is still almost entirely free of these process-(input-)regarding regs and fairly sane, although there are people trying to change that. However, in the other areas FDA regulates, mucho process. My understanding is that the FCC has a much more results-driven orient'n than it used to. In the states you see careering back y forth between results and process orient'n when it comes to education.

    I think law would be much better focused on outcomes than on process, but many libertarians would disagree.

  • sloopyinca||

    OT: thoughts on Patraeus resigning? It's no coincidence.

    And I've got an inside line on the real story behind Benghazi that will bring Obama down. I wonder if it will come to pass.

    /tinfoilhaton

  • John||

    They can still call him to testify. So I don't see how getting him to resign helps. The reality is that there is no way they just found out about it. The FBI and the White House knew about this affair and decided to drop it on him now for a reason.

    One possibility is that Petraeus was going to be honest and say some very bad things to Congress. So the administration blackmailed him and said play ball or we will reveal your affair and Petraeus called their bluff.

    They could have ignored this. They didn't for some reason. I am not sure what.

  • sloopyinca||

    Looks like they are all saying Mike Morell is gonna testify in his place. Bret Baier, Andrea Mitchell and Politico have all said he will not testify.

  • John||

    But Congress can subpoena him just like they can you and me. They can call private citizens. It just means he won't testify next week. But eventually he will. The Republicans own the House. They can vote for a subpoena.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    What's Congress going to do if he refuses to testify as a private citizen?

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    First off, the blackmail angle is gone now that they have outed his affair.

    Second, why would a compliant Congress want to take testimony from a disgraced private citizen?

  • Generic Stranger||

    IIRC, refusing to respond to a congressional subpeona is Contempt of Congress (a very...poor phrasing, considering that most people view congress as being just above ambulance chasers and right below pedophiles), which is like Contempt of Court. They can arrest your ass and haul you in.

  • John||

    One other thing. Petreus knows all of the ins and outs of the drone program. So there is that floating around. Maybe this is not about Bengazi. Maybe they have been misusing the drone program. That is possible too.

  • sloopyinca||

    See below (and we'll make tat the only subthread we'll use on this).

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Maybe they have been misusing the drone program.

    Maybe? Greenwald has argued pretty persuasively (with evidence) that we are now starting to drone people just because we can. That many of the "terrorists" we now hit would NEVER have been targets in any way before drones; they just aren't dangerous targets who pose any kind of threat to the US. That a minuscule segment of those we have killed are the high level terrorist threats we claim the drone program is reserved for. The entire program is nothing but a misuse.

    The drone program is a sham to make Obama look tough on terror.

  • Robert||

    Sort of a quantitative theory of violence? X number of "our" friends have been killed, so now "we" get to kill that many people anywhere for any reason? I guess that makes "us" even: X bodies in, X bodies out. If "our" targets don't like it, they can kill somebody else.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    OT: thoughts on Patraeus resigning? It's no coincidence.

    And I've got an inside line on the real story behind Benghazi that will bring Obama down. I wonder if it will come to pass.

    I wonder if there was no affair and it's just a way to prevent his testifying.

  • MJGreen||

    Isn't it interesting that both this resignation and all this talk of the 'fiscal cliff' came in the latter part of this particular week? What a coincidence!

  • John||

    In better news, robot prostitutes by 2050

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....lp00000008

  • Bardas Phocas||

    I was hoping for sooner.

  • John||

    Me too. But I should live to see it. And that is something.

  • sloopyinca||

    John, you're a military man. What are your thoughts on Patraeus stepping down after the election and before the subpoenas on the Benghazi disaster came out?

  • John||

    See above.

  • John||

    The bottom line is that you will never convince me that the White House would have demanded his resignation because of this and this alone. Powerful man fucking around on his wife? Yeah that never happens. If the White House wanted to, they could have just quietly told him to be careful and stop talking to her on government equipment. But they didn't. Why they didn't is the real story. But one thing is for sure, you can bet they are not telling the truth.

  • sloopyinca||

    The affair was ongoing and was an open secret in military circles when he was tapped to head the CIA, according to my source. They put him in that position because of the affair, apparently. It was a chit they figured they could use in a pinch.

    We'll see if the House plays ball and doesn't call him, but if they are concerned with finding the truth, they'll call him anyway.

  • John||

    If for some reason they don't, he becomes the dog that didn't bark. He was the head of the CIA. His name is going to come up. People are going to wonder what he has to say. I don't see how they can get out of him talking.

    I think your source is probably right. That makes me wonder if they thought they could use the affair to get him to lie to Congress and he told them to fuck off. Patreus is a tough SOB. He was once accidentally shot in the chest by one of his own soldiers and almost died. He is a killer not a guy who would be intimidated by Obama. And he already is set for life.

    Why keep the affair just to make him resign? You can just fire him if you want to. Thinking they could use the affair to get him to lie would be just like these amateur thugs.

  • sloopyinca||

    He was the head of the CIA. His name is going to come up. People are going to wonder what he has to say.

    Yeah, they ought to get somebody to do a biography.

    (the rest is from my reliable source-I'd give it "three stars" if you know what I mean)

    Well, apparently his underlings were the ones that pushed for the whole protests as the meme the WH would push because of the refusal to intervene when General Carter Ham said he was sending troops in. Apparently, the people at the station called in a request for support on the 10th and when the attacks started. General Ham put in a request for support on the 10th and just after the attacks and the WH directly forbade it. As to the one after the attacks started, he personally called the WH and was told to stand down. He told his second in command to give the order for a C130 gunship to deploy and also for a rapid-response team of SEAL's to go in, which would have taken about 2 hours to complete. Within 30 seconds, his second in command called the WH and relieved General Ham of his command, prompting the retirement.

    So, we had the assets in place and a theatre commander that was willing to use them in defiance of an order that came directly from the WH, which the WH claims is still untrue.

    Somebody is lying, and if my guy is telling the truth, it isn't Carter Ham.*

    *By the way, the WH still has not set the effective date of his retirement or relieved him of duty, which keeps him locked down as far as testifying goes.

  • John||

    The number 2 guy called the WH directly? OMFG. That is the worst thing I have ever heard.

    What you are saying makes perfect sense. And if I had to bet my life, I bet that is what happened. I don't see how they can keep this secret. Eventually it will come out. Don't you agree?

    What is going to happen when it comes out the President let Americans die to win an election? I know a lot of Obama's supporters are just brain dead. But a good number of them are not. The ones I know are very defensive to the charge that they will support him no matter what he does.

    I firmly believe that what you wrote is probably the truth and that it will come out over the next year or so. But I don't honestly know what will happen. It is going to be infuriating. But also delicious watching Obama and his supporters squirm over this.

  • sloopyinca||

    If you see the Obama talking heads and media spinsters go on a full-court press over the next week and call for an end to the hearings so Congress can get back to the business of running the country, then you'll know it's all true.

    And follow Carter Ham in the news when anything comes up on his retirement timeline. Even money says it takes at least 6 months to process...enough time to keep him from testifying because he's overseas somewhere.

    Hell, look at General Sinclair and how he was treated after it looked like he was raising a stink on the failed surge and policy in Afghanistan. They went balls-out after him even though his sexual exploits were well known inside the military for a decade. Most of the women under him (he-he) requested the jobs so they could get more easily promoted after they slept with him. All of a sudden, the brass goes after him, under WH pressure, because he said a few potentially disparaging things about the Obama policy IRT the pullout and the surge.

    This is thuggery, you were right about that above. But to call them amateurs is pretty naive. They are experts at this shit, and have surrounded themselves with shady people because you can blackmail a shady person a lot easier than you can a righteous one. Hell, that's why the put Patraeus, who was wholly unqualified, in charge of the CIA to begin with.

  • John||

    The Sinclair thing stinks to high heaven. Those women were officers not privates. No fucking way did he force them to do anything. They are just as guilty as he is.

    And yeah, Petreus is an infantry officer. He knows nothing about the CIA. At some point the shit will hit the fan over this. This is Nixonian. Nixon was a smart thug too. But it all came out in the end. And so will this.

  • Redmanfms||

    "This is Nixonian. Nixon was a smart thug too. But it all came out in the end. And so will this."

    Nixon was a Republican, Obama isn't.

    FDR was a shady, dirty dealing SOB to a degree that would make even Nixon blush, but he has a monument on the Mall that covers 7.5 acres.

    No Bob Woodward is going to expose Obama (because even ol' Bob is carrying Zero's water), and any intrepid reporter that does expose Zero for the piece of shit he is (both personally and professionally) they'll be painted as "right-wing" and their reporting will be summarily dismissed as partisan bickering.

  • sloopyinca||

    The number 2 guy called the WH directly?

    Honestly, if you overheard a superior officer disobey a legal (even if unwise or immoral) order, wouldn't you have done the same thing?

  • John||

    In that case no. Not if it meant leaving people to die like that.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I firmly believe that what you wrote is probably the truth and that it will come out over the next year or so. But I don't honestly know what will happen. It is going to be infuriating. But also delicious watching Obama and his supporters squirm over this.

    This really should be Obama's watergate or Iran-Contra.

    But it probably won't be.
    The media hated Nixon before Watergate and never liked Reagan. As opposed to their worshipping Dear Reader.

    The best case is that Fox and a few other conservative outlets report the story, everyone else yawns and people that keep harping on it get painted as conspiracy nuts.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What is going to happen when it comes out the President let Americans die to win an election?

    This: "Do I still get my Medicare/EBT/WIC? Yes? Carry on then."

  • tarran||

    Now, as the commander of the forces in that region, Ham would have gotten the same intel updates Panetta and the WH had, meaning the only plausible reason to delay or stand down could be political reasons.

    There's another possible scenario: Obama froze up.

    IIRC Obama is known to blow off the war/anti-terrorism stuff. So this thing falls on his lap in the middle of a routine meeting, and he has 0 experience in making this sort of decisions because he's always farmed it out.

    Now it was inevitable when the attack is being considered, one of the questions that comes up is whether this is a trap. The attack on the ambassador could have been designed to lure a hast reaction force to attempt a landing in the area into a kill-zone where it could be destroyed.

    So I can see someone bringing up this possibility, and Obama seizing on it and deciding that sending more troops to get killed would be worse than doing nothing. Unsure what to do, with no practice at this sort of decision-making, but in a situation where he couldn't shove the decision on anyone else, and desperately desiring to maintain a semblance of normalcy, Obama said do nothing.

    And Ham says "fuck this" because he has confidence in his men and equipment. And he essentially disobeys an order directly from the president, which puts his second in command in a pickle, because civilian control of the military is not to be lightly cast-off.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There are only two ways to leave a job like that. You either jump off or you get pushed.

    If your boss wants someone else in there, then you either leave or you get fired. Patreus knows that.

    I think they just used this as an excuse to get rid of him. The Obama Administration wanted him gone--they may have wanted him gone for a long time--but they couldn't fire him for performance reasons. So, they just used this as an excuse.

    If they were worried about him testifying against them in some damaging way, they'd have kept him. Whatever he has to say must not be very damaging; either that or they have little in they of consequences to fear from whatever he says.

    Most people care about Benghazi about as much as they care about Obama's birth certificate.

  • John||

    If they wanted him gone, they could have just fired him. And people will care about Bengazi if the facts are as they tell sarcasmic. Jesus Ken I know people are stupid, but a President telling to military to stand down while Americans die? That is a bit beyond the pale.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I once saw a president embezzle taxpayer money meant to reimburse people who lost their savings accounts in S&Ls;--and pilfer it for his campaign election fund.

    No one cared.

    I wish it were otherwise.

    No one is going to impeach Obama for refusing to fire on--what he says he thought was a group of protestors.

    If we want to make progress in the mid-terms, we should work on opposing his tax increases and his spending. Swing voters are not going to buy that their much beloved president left Americans to die out of laziness or callousness.

    That charge plays well to committed Republicans, but what plays well to committed Republicans makes swing voters rally around the president.

    I wish it were otherwise.

  • John||

    I don't care about the elections Ken. You can't let this pass. You have to pursue it. You can't adopt the standard of "we only care about what wins elections". Sorry but that is immoral and wrong.

  • sloopyinca||

    If we want to make progress in the mid-terms, we should work on opposing his tax increases and his spending. Swing voters are not going to buy that their much beloved president left Americans to die out of laziness or callousness.

    This isn't political, dumbass. It's lying to the American people about why you personally let Americans die because you personally refused a request for support.

    Take your politics and shove them up your asshole, you cunt.

  • PapayaSF||

    I once saw a president embezzle taxpayer money meant to reimburse people who lost their savings accounts in S&Ls;--and pilfer it for his campaign election fund.

    No one cared.

    ???

  • John||

    Ken,

    If they wanted to fire him and he had nothing bad to say, you let him testify and then ask for his resignation. Firing him now, makes it look like you are hiding something. Why do that? Why not just wait a week, let him testify and then ask him to resign between now and the inauguration. Administrations always turn over after re-elections. No one would have cared. Why do it now and make it look like you are hiding something? Maybe they are that incompetent. But I doubt it. The timing is too weird.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Firing him now, makes it look like you are hiding something. Why do that? Why not just wait a week, let him testify and then ask him to resign between now and the inauguration."

    Because either:

    1) He doesn't have anything damaging to say.

    or

    2) Because the negative consequences of him saying whatever are minimal.

    There is a chance that he wanted to testify against Obama in Congress, and being the stand up guy he is, they knew he'd tell them the terrible truth. So, they told him if he testified, they'd tell everyone about his affair. So, then, in boy scout like defiance, he resigned and told the world himself about his affair...

    However, because people a) would be extremely unlikely to believe the truth if it were terrible and because b) there are no negative consequences likely to befall Obama even if it the truth is terrible?

    It won't matter anyway.

    If Republicans are hoping to damage Obama with this, they're walking into a trap.

  • John||

    Because either:

    1) He doesn't have anything damaging to say.

    or

    2) Because the negative consequences of him saying whatever are minimal.

    That is retarded Ken. If he had nothing damaging to say, you let him say it and then fire him. That makes no sense. You are basically saying they have chosen to look bad when they could have waited a week, let him say nothing and not looked bad.

  • sloopyinca||

    Right, Ken. People in high-ranking politically-appointed positions regularly retire just days after an election and just days before a potentially explosive House hearing they are slated to give important testimony in, and whose testimony will now be replaced by a person with no knowledge about the issue at hand.

    And it usually happens over a sex scandal that was well known for some time within military and political circles.

    And it usually happens to a person with intimate knowledge about all the major players both from his department (the CIA) and the military (where his connections are still intact).

    Did you wake up and take retarded pills instead of your vitamins this morning, or are you willfully making these statements because everything is political with you?

  • sloopyinca||

    The Obama Administration wanted him gone--they may have wanted him gone for a long time--but they couldn't fire him for performance reasons.

    Those jobs, which are all appointments, are at the President's discretion. They could have sent him packing any time they wanted to...including one day after they nominated him and got him confirmed for th job.

    Remember, Obama put Patraeus in the position. He wasn't promoted. He was no longer in the military. He was in a politically appointed position.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Those jobs, which are all appointments, are at the President's discretion. They could have sent him packing any time they wanted to...including one day after they nominated him and got him confirmed for the job."

    They'd get some criticism for getting rid of someone like Patreus without a reason.

    It might look like some kind of admission of failure on the Obama Administration's part. If Benghazi is like Waco? Clinton refused to accept Reno's resignation over Waco because it might have made Waco look like the Clinton Administration had made a mistake--and we can't have that!

    Did someone make a mistake in Benghazi? Not according to the Obama Administration. They made the right decision--as far as they're concerned--if with the information they had at the time, they'd do the same thing again. That's their line...

    So why is Patreus leaving? Well it's not becasue of Benghazi! It's becasue he had an affair! Even Patreus says so--that's their line.

    ...and if, in the meantime, they're getting rid of someone they didn't want there for whatever reason? Then that's why we're going though this exercise. I'm not saying they didn't want to get rid of Patreus. I'm saying that I don't see why any of this necessarily has to do with any fear that Patreus can hurt the Obama Administration over Benghazi in some way.

    That's just wishful thinking.

  • John||

    Then that's why we're going though this exercise. I'm not saying they didn't want to get rid of Patreus. I'm saying that I don't see why any of this necessarily has to do with any fear that Patreus can hurt the Obama Administration over Benghazi in some way.

    Timing Ken. The day after the election and a week before he was to testify. As sloopy says below, he is the one guy who can say what happened.

    If they wanted him gone and he had nothing bad to say, they would have waited a week and let him testify and avoided all of this. You can leak the affair and fire him in December just as easy as now.

    It is not wishful thinking. It is true.

  • sloopyinca||

    ...and if, in the meantime, they're getting rid of someone they didn't want there for whatever reason? Then that's why we're going though this exercise. I'm not saying they didn't want to get rid of Patreus. I'm saying that I don't see why any of this necessarily has to do with any fear that Patreus can hurt the Obama Administration over Benghazi in some way.

    Seriously, you don't see anything peculiar about the timing? Right after the election and right before the hearing? They know about his affair when they put him n charge of the CIA. They knew about it all along but held it until they needed it. He was pressured into resigning, knowing that he probably lied somewhere in the confirmation process which could come back and bite him legally, since lying on a security clearance application is a serious felony. He knew this and he's resigning to avoid testifying and being raked over the coals for lying about the affair, which could get him sent to prison if Obama's DoJ decided to prosecute him-and I'm sure they would if he just implicated the WH of lying about everything that had happened over in Libya.

    Christ on a stick. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a fucking conspiracy.

  • sloopyinca||

    If they were worried about him testifying against them in some damaging way, they'd have kept him. Whatever he has to say must not be very damaging; either that or they have little in they of consequences to fear from whatever he says.

    Are you retarded? If they had kept him, he would have been subject to the subpoena as the head of the CIA, meaning if he lied under oath he would burn. Keeping him would have meant he would either willingly lie about what happened or he would tell the unadulterated truth. Him being what is considered an honorable military man, my guess is they got rid of him so another person with no knowledge about the case would testify as the (interim) head of the CIA.

    Look, Ken, now the (interim) head of the CIA cannot say anything that contradicts the WH talking points. All of the people at State who have made claims that they weren't listened to are either out of office now or are still overseas and are unavailable to testify. And General Ham and his subordinates are still overseas and unavailable. Patraeus was the whole hearing boiled down to one man, and his voice has just been silenced.

  • John||

    Patraeus was the whole hearing boiled down to one man, and his voice has just been silenced.

    That is just it sloopy. The timing is too obvious. The day after the fucking election? Are you kidding me? He clearly had bad things to say or this would not have happened.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The only chance of that being true is that if Petraeus is such a boy scout--that he wants to spill the beans on what the CIA and the Obama Administration were really doing.

    And that just reeks of wishful thinking.

  • sloopyinca||

    Patraeus may or may not be a boy scout. But one thing is for sure: he's a career military officer that is not happy when soldiers are sacrificed (the SEAL's in Benghazi) for political expediency and then the politicians lie about it.

    He also, being a career officer, doesn't like seeing a fellow officer that he had served with for years (General Carter Ham) get destroyed because he relayed good intel to the WH and the WH refused to let him do his job and protect American lives...then see those same destroyers lie about what happened.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If they had kept him, he would have been subject to the subpoena as the head of the CIA, meaning if he lied under oath he would burn."

    Oh, for cryin' out loud.

    Why can't they subpoena him now?

    Why isn't perjury a charge anymore now that he's no longer in government?

    If they'd kept him on staff, it probably would have been easier for the president to claim executive privilege.

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

    I think you guys are seeing what you want to see. I wish it were the way you see it.

  • John||

    Why can't they subpoena him now?

    They can. But they have to vote in the House to do it. And it won't happen before next week. And that gives them time to change the subject and get the media to pressure the REpublicans to shut up about it.

    Next week's hearing will now be a big nothing thanks to this. The media and people like you will say "nothing to see here lets move on". And they hope the whole thing will go away.

    And claiming executive privileged would have been a political disaster. It would have been them admitting they fucked up and are hiding something. And it doesn't apply here. You use that to cover administrative deliberations. This is not that. It would be like claiming EP for reports on a battle in Afghanistan. That would be so ridiculous even the media wouldn't buy it.

    You don't know how this shit works Ken.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Here's what I think really happened.

    I think the Obama Administration didn't want there to be a terrorist attack in the news in the weeks right before the election. So, they downplayed what was happening in Benghazi as the actions of an angry mob, and associated it with that stupid YouTube video...

    I think the Obama Administration was probably pretty reluctant to use force in Libya right before an election, too--because they didn't want the perception that they were getting involved in Libya again right before the election either.

    Whether that decision involved Obama himself is beside the point--there isn't any way you're ever going to get anyone in his inner circle to finger him as the one who decided out loud to sit back, watch Americans die, and do nothing. It just isn't ever gonna happen.

    And there's no way anybody from inside the White House called up Petraeus and said, "Yeah, we COULD use force, but we don't want to--becasue of the election ramifications".

    That's not the way shit works.

    There are millions of government employees out there who know both how to write a CYA memo--and that you don't say anything stupid if you don't want to get in trouble. Your suggestion about the way this works would mean that either Obama and/or his inner circle are so stoopid that they don't know how to communicate with Petaeus smarter than a GS grade 1 file clerk?

    That's not the way shit works.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Ken, I'm really not seeing the difference in your scenario and theirs.

  • Ken Shultz||

    1) What really happened is one question.

    2) What the Obama Administration is going to say happened is another.

    3) How anybody can counter what the Obama Administration says is yet another question.

    4) Whether it's in the Republicans' or libertarians' best interest to pursue this is yet another question entirely.

    Sloopy, John, and I may agree a lot on question 1--although the reluctance to engage becasue of an election, on the one hand, and purposely choosing to do nothing, on the other, when you know Americans are dying? There's still a difference there, too!

    Meanwhile, what about questions 2 through 4? I don't think Sloopy and John have considered those questions very well at all. And that's the stuff I'm thinking about.

  • sloopyinca||

    2) What the Obama Administration is going to say happened is another.

    3) How anybody can counter what the Obama Administration says is yet another question.

    2. What the Obama admin has said and how that relates to the truth in a case where their inaction led directly to the deaths of four Americans is going to be big news.

    3. David Patraeus can. And so can General Carter Ham, who is the man that was on the phone with the WH asking for the support that was denied.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The chances of someone from the White House calling up Petraeus or Ham and saying, "There's an election coming up--just let the Americans die".

    Are extremely remote.

    Even if someone did call them up and say that? The chances of them testifying to that effect are also remote.

  • sloopyinca||

    I never said they game them their reasons for standing down...even though Panetta has gone on record as telling Ham to stand down:
    “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

    Now, as the commander of the forces in that region, Ham would have gotten the same intel updates Panetta and the WH had, meaning the only plausible reason to delay or stand down could be political reasons. Or perhaps that a general with 40+ years in the military didn't know how to effectively use the forces at his disposal nearly as well as an appointee (Panetta) who was in military intel for 2 years and left in 1966 and a President (Obama) that never served a day in his life, and who were also 10,000 miles away and one was campaigning when the attacks occurred.

  • sloopyinca||

    And there's no way anybody from inside the White House called up Petraeus and said, "Yeah, we COULD use force, but we don't want to--becasue of the election ramifications".

    That's not the way shit works.

    Sounds like that's exactly what happened when Carter Ham called them directly and asked if he could intervene both on the 10th and the 11th. And he was forced to retire when his second-in-command relieved him of duty when he refused to follow the order to stand down.

  • sloopyinca||

    Why can't they subpoena him now?

    They can subpoena him now, but it would not be for this round of hearings, which is for CIA and WH staff only. It would have to come later, and it wn't have nearly the impact because the WH can just keep everyone that would corroborate Patraeus's testimony either overseas or safely behing the wall of existing (false) testimony from the WH higher-ups.

    Why isn't perjury a charge anymore now that he's no longer in government?

    Once someone resigns from their government position, they are never called in on perjury charges. It's a perk of being an insider. You fall on the sword to avoid those type of things.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're blind men in a dark room looking for a black cat that probably isn't there.

    If the Republicans really go after this, they're going to end up squandering what tiny little bit of credibility they have left with swing voters...

    ...over a black cat that probably isn't there?

    If the Republicans in power want to make gains in the midterms, they should hold a hearing and quietly let it go away. Even if the president is guilty. Sometimes, in a criminal trial, you don't have enough evidence to convict. And we have plenty of other things we can convict the president on--with stuff that he's doing in plain sight.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    If the Republicans in power want to make gains in the midterms, they should hold a hearing and quietly let it go away. Even if the president is guilty.

    Holy shit. You're evil.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm not saying they should let him go free if they can prove he's guilty--I'm saying that they should let it go away if they don't have enough evidence to prove he's guilty.

    You inconveniently left off the next part of what I said...

    "Sometimes, in a criminal trial, you don't have enough evidence to convict."

    The world is not better off because OJ was acquitted. Trying someone you can't convict just makes Marsha Clark look like an idiot. If they want to make themselves look like Marsha Clark--or birthers--and if they want to see Obama acquitted of any wrongdoing, then they should absolutely pursue Obama without sufficient evidence.

  • sloopyinca||

    OJ Simpson was acquitted because the LA Sheriff's Department tried to frame a guilty man.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, that's what I'm trying to get across here.

    That should tell you something.

    And if our evidence in the court of public opinion consists of hoping the former CIA director has something important to say, and that he'll testify against the president?

    Then I can see Michael Moore on the Daily Show dressed up like a pilgrim and yukking it up at the witch hunt already.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, that's what I'm trying to get across here.

    That should tell you something.

    It does. It tells me that you, like the President, are more concerned with politics than with finding out if/why the WH and likely President himself told a General with assets at his disposal not to intervene on behalf of an American ambassador and his staff when they had credible intelligence saying they were were in serious danger (on the 10th) and again when they were in mortal danger and under attack (on the 11th) and that we knew who the attackers were and what their intentions and motivations were as well.

    Stay classy, asshole.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't need to know why!

    I already think I know what he did.

    You don't think they're really gonna impeach him over this, do you?

    You're hoping this will get a lot of press and maybe hurt Obama's image with the public--right?

    I'm all for that, too.

    But there's no way Obama is about to get impeached over this. So, we should hurt the incompetent bastard as much as we can, and try not to make ourselves look like birthers in the process.

    You want to look like birthers? Then we should keep hammering on the idea that Petraeus resigning over an affair proves that Obama watched Americans die for fun--long after people are over it...

    And people will perceive us like birthers in no time--I promise!

  • sloopyinca||

    You're hoping this will get a lot of press and maybe hurt Obama's image with the public--right?

    I'm all for that, too.

    No, I'm hoping that the facts surrounding the reasons why the WH refused to let a General with assets in the area do his job and protect these people after he asked to do so the day before the attacks as well as during the attacks. I'm also hoping the facts about the cover-up. But none of my motivations are political like yours. That's why you're an asshole and I'm not.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Your hoping the facts get out and me being concerned that this doesn't help Obama--are pretty much the same thing.

    I mean, when you say you hope the facts get out, you're saying that you hope people find out about this and think less of Obama for it, right?

    P.S. That doesn't make you an asshole.

  • sloopyinca||

    No, I'm hoping the fact get out period and anyone involved in this fiasco and cover-up are removed from office, whether they are affiliated with Obama or they are CIA agents (not political appointees) or they are military officers.

    Your motivations are political, period. And I hate to sound smug, but I believe mine are a lot more pure.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Your motivations are political

    I don' think there's any way that anyone is going to be removed from office becasue of this.

    That seems like wishful thinking to me.

    And I'm concerned that if we go charging in and come up short, we're just gonna end up helping the people you're trying to hurt.

    That's all there is to it.

    I'm all for people being held responsible for what they did too, but since I don't think that's ever gonna happen...

  • sloopyinca||

    There's where I take issue with you. I have no wish to hurt anybody in this. I just want the truth to come out and the responsible parties taken to account. If that's Obama, and I think it is, then so be it. If it's some WH staffer that didn't notify Obama and said he did, then that's fine as well.

    I do not want to bring Obama down for this. I merely want the responsible parties identified and dealt with appropriately. If it turns out that that's Obama, so be it. But my motivation here is not to use impeachment to pervert the democratic system. That's bordering on fascism and it's wrong.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're right.

    I want to get rid of Obama.

    My primary concern is to limit Obama's ability to harm our economy and our country.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    OJ Simpson was acquitted because the LA Sheriff's Department tried to frame a guilty man.

    Well put.

    And the fact that they lied their asses off and the jury was sophisticated enough wrt how the police operate to realize that the cops were lying.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You're saying that, if he's guilty but it's hard for them to prove, they should let a man who let Americans, on American soil, die for political gain go free, because it might hurt them politically. That's evil.

  • Ken Shultz||

    No, I'm saying that IF IF IF they can't prove the charges, they don't have enough evidence...then they should try to refrain from making fools of themselves.

    Justice was not served by acquitting OJ, and acquitting Obama won't serve justice either. ...and if we end up making ourselves look stupid in the process of vindicating Obama, too?

    Then that's something we should probably try to avoid.

  • sloopyinca||

    You're blind men in a dark room looking for a black cat that probably isn't there.

    Have you not read the outline of events I've posited above? I'm not guessing at this, Kendall. I've got a pretty good source of information that knows all of the non-WH players in this drama as well as many of the particulars that I've relayed.

    Does my analysis not seem like the most realistic explanation, or does the WH's ever-changing story? It's as simple as that.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Next up: Now that Ken has rhetorically painted himself into a corner, Ken will lash out by accusing sloopy of being a racist. The argument will go as follows.

    1. "sloopy" is a slang term for 'the point of being beyond 'sloppy' drunk.'
    2. He will misread "in ca" as "Inca"
    3. He will accuse sloopy's forum name as being a slur against Native Americans and the stereotype of the "alcoholic Indian".
    4. Ken will ignore any evidence that disproves his assertions about sloopy
    5. Ken claims GLORIOUS ETERNAL VICTORY!.

  • sloopyinca||

    Question: does anybody on here know what my screen name actually stands for? You're on the right track, HM...at least on part of it.

    Also, it's days like these that I wish my name wasn't also Ken. I'm afraid some passers-by will come on here later and confuse me with some asshole just because we both have the same name.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I just remember some dude kept calling you "sloopy the Inca" and you had to correct him by pointing out it was "in CA".

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You only post when drunk, and from California?

  • sloopyinca||

    Nope. Ooooh, I'm dying to tell. Oh wait, nobody really cares...

  • Ken Shultz||

    Does it have anything to do with Sloopy's in Manhattan Beach?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Nope. Ooooh, I'm dying to tell. Oh wait, nobody really cares...

    Is it this?


    The feeling you have when you like a brown haired girl; Who is from a bad part of town, and she can dance.

    That girl gives me a sloopy feeling.

    Or this?

    The year is 1965 and an almost unknown rock band from Ohio called The McCoys recorded a song called "Hang On Sloopy."

    "Hang On Sloopy" was inspired by a woman named Dorothy Sloop who was a native of Steubenville, Ohio. Apparently she had a career as a singer in the 1950's and used the name "Sloopy" as a stage name.
  • sloopyinca||

    You got it with the second one. Being a Buckeye, and the fact that they play that song at all of the games. It makes me think of home...

    By the way, and I'm sure nobody cares, it has gone from sloopyinva to sloopyinpr to sloopyinva again to sloopyinga to the latest incarnation. Your place of residence may change, but if you're raised a Buckeye you're a Buckeye for life.

    O-H...

  • nicole just can't even!||

    Sweet, so happy it is the song! Love that one.

  • sloopyinca||

  • SIV||

    Hang on...

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yes, I think we're probably right about Obama's incompetence regarding what he did and didn't do in Benghazi.

    I think how he tried to cover up his incompetence makes it look even worse for him.

    I'm just not sure what we can do about it at this point--and I'm hoping that whatever political forces there are out there that oppose Obama will coalesce around things that are likely to actually weaken his power in the mid-terms.

    I certainly don't want to see us do things that might actually make him more powerful--and if we end up barking up an empty tree, that's gonna hurt. I do not want to look like a bunch of birthers.

    About the most important thing we can do right now to further the anti-Obama cause--in my opinion? Watch what Boehner does in regards to the fiscal cliff--and then get rid of him for it. The Republicans in the House should have gotten rid of Boehner as speaker back when the Tea Party took over the House.

    I was calling for them to dump his ass back then.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You know what we typically call people who refuse to charge people they know to be murderers because it will hurt their own public opinion/reputation/future leniency? dunphy's coworkers.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm not refusing to charge Obama.

    Obama will never be impeached over this.

    But it isn't up to me.

    I'm talking about how we should present ourselves to the American people.

    Seriously, this won't be the first time a president has done something awful--and rational people don't think he'll ever be impeached for it.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    'm talking about how we should present ourselves to the American people.

    I'm not a republican.

    rational people don't think he'll ever be impeached for it.

    And I don't care. If he did it, the only morally right thing to do is impeach. I don't care if it's hard or makes you look bad. If you don't try, you might as well be an accomplice.

    (using the generic 'you').

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I'm not a republican."

    I'm not a Republican either.

    But I'm tired of listening to libertarians and capitalists talk about what Lenin should do.

    Lenin should do this. Lenin should do that.

    We should be talking about getting rid of Lenin. We can worry about the other stuff once Lenin is no longer in charge of the economy.

    Some things are more important than others, and tilting at windmills never made anybody more free. If we can't do anything about Lenin with this--and barking up the tree actually make Lenin smarter, than it would be silly to make Lenin stronger.

    Even if you aren't a Republican.

  • Robert||

    And what Ken Shultz wrote applied equally to voting for Romney to get rid of Obama.

  • Robert||

    Which makes you out to be like Rorschach in Watchmen. I'm not necessarily saying that's bad, only that this sort of issue has been confronted in fiction because it's been known to come up in fact.

  • Robert||

    I wasn't using a generic "you", I meant specifically Auric Demonocles, but the threading doesn't nest that deep here.

  • Robert||

    The closest case I can think of to this was Pearl Harbor. The Republicans eventually did get their hearing over it, but it's hard to say whether they benefited much, and the subject remains controversial to this day.

  • Thelma Lenore||

    Yep, the US is becoming more libertarian every day.

  • Mario||

    So, let me get this straight. The USDA would rather that these Chefs use nitrites, an unnatural food additive, instead of all-natural ingredients? Too bad they don't live in New York. Mayor Bloomberg could outlaw unnatural additives and put the USDA out of business!

  • Ken Shultz||

    From a consumer point of view, too, I don' think you can import a lot of this stuff.

    http://tinyurl.com/a64dvnm

    If it can't be made by locals, you often just can't get it, so if the FDA won't let locals make it, we can't get it.

    I understand the U.S. government will let you import only one form of PDO/PGI/TSG prosciutto now from Italy, and I think it has something to do with the purity laws in Italy not allowing the use of nitrates...

    I know the penalties for smuggling prosciutto aren't as bad as they are for cocaine, but working so hard to save American consumers from stuff like gourmet prosciutto--as if it were cocaine--is pretty ridiculous.

    It used to bug me more than it does now, though, back before we installed Obama's Progressive Taliban. I kinda got double whammied in California, too, with The Party asserting total control in Sacramento. So, I'm worried that my biggest food issue in the near future might be getting my wheelbarrow of cash to the grocery store early enough to beat the mid-morning price increases.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "So, I'm worried that my biggest food issue in the near future might be getting my wheelbarrow of cash to the grocery store early enough to beat the mid-morning price increases."

    I give you people gold.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Over/under on "1/20/17" bumper stickers?

  • sloopyinca||

    If Obama and Biden both go down in this, are we ready for a President Boehner?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I was talking independently from the Benghazi stuff, but:

    If it turns out that they let Americans die so they could get reelected, then covered it up, I don't care who gets the Presidency or who it helps in the next election. They need to be impeached, and if possible, brought up on treason charges.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'd settle for an impeachment and removal from office and a re-examination of the power structures in Washington and how they need to be more transparent (which I'm sure would happen especially if the WH was taken over by Boehner).

    I'll say this loud and clear: if they put every person against a wall that were involved in allowing these people to needlessly die and to cover it up for political reasons, I'd be happy to hand out the bullets.

  • robc||

    They wouldnt go down at same time. And Im sure Biden can play it off, no one expects much from him anyway. Do you assume he is in the loop on anything at all? Me neither.

    Who would Biden appoint as Veep?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    You guys are trying to pretend this Benghazi fiasco matters in a country where the overwhelming majority of elected officials, not to mention the general population, cannot even comprehend simple addition and subtraction (as evidenced by the election results).

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Apparently, the people at the station called in a request for support on the 10th and when the attacks started. General Ham put in a request for support on the 10th and just after the attacks and the WH directly forbade it. As to the one after the attacks started, he personally called the WH and was told to stand down. He told his second in command to give the order for a C130 gunship to deploy and also for a rapid-response team of SEAL's to go in, which would have taken about 2 hours to complete. Within 30 seconds, his second in command called the WH and relieved General Ham of his command, prompting the retirement.

    Taking this as true, which of these two men is guilty of mutiny?

  • sloopyinca||

    Taking this as true, which of these two men is guilty of mutiny?

    I'd have to say General Ham technically would be. There have been many times in history an officer was told not to intervene when that intervention may have saved lives. (Usually those are military lives sent on a mission as part of a larger strategy and that request would have compromised that strategy)

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Who would Biden appoint as Veep?

    Pelosi.

  • sloopyinca||

    Either her or Warren. Pelosi is probably too old.

    Although, I could see Clinton get the nod if she's not implicated in the scandal.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Fascinating profile of Petraeus in the NYT (sorry, no linkee).

    Fascinating especially in that any mention of the events in Benghazi is conspicuously absent. Just a run-of-the-mill tale of marital infidelity and indiscretion; greatness laid low by hubris. Nothing to see here, move along.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It's almost as if the NYT is the President's public relations firm.

  • Entropy Void||

    Can't one of you well-heeled Commentariat auction off a small portion of your hand-polished monocle and spat collection to cover the cost of that stupid EPA challenge and keep this guy in business?

    It's a perfectly Reasonable challenge.

    (Drink! some raw milk Brandy Alexanders in celebration)

  • mtrueman||

    Freedom? Make sausages or make money, your choice. Nobody is stopping this guy from making sausages. If he wants to make a living at it, he can get a job with one of the real meat processing outfits, one with enough savvy and political clout to deal with the bureaucrats.

  • RonRonDoRon||

    So, he shouldn't be able to be an independent, small-business sausage maker? Screw the small entrepreneur food producer - that's your position?

    He should just get on the payroll of a "real" (I guess you mean "big") meat processor.

    Did you read the article? None of his products were unsafe - it was a problem of bureaucratic regulations

  • mtrueman||

    I understand what you are saying. My point is that these bureaucratic regulations don't come ex nihilo (out of nothing) but are formulated with heavy input from lobbyists, funded by the more successful meat processing outfits. The regulations, as they stand, suit them, and most consumers, just fine.

  • sloopyinca||

    Holy fuck. I actually was thing you were being sarcastic. It turns out you really are a troll. Or one that doesn't want people to have the right to trade or purchase goods and services at their own discretion.

    Thanks for making sure people aren't free.

  • Mr Whipple||

    The regulations, as they stand, suit them, and most consumers, just fine.

    Half right. Free and fair competition suits consumers the best. These meat processing outfits you speak of seek regulations to gain unfair economic competitive advantage over smaller, more efficient and innovative competitors.

    These regulations may, in some cases, start out with good intentions by consumer advocate groups, but once the regulations are in place, the advocacy group moves on to the next issue leaving the enforcement up to the politicians and government agencies. Ultimately, the regulated become the regulators.

    http://www.investopedia.com/te.....z2Bvm7Rgmf

    http://web.missouri.edu/~podgu.....lation.pdf

  • mtrueman||

    I don't disagree with anything in particular you've written here. And I think we might agree that it isn't the regulations themselves, but that "the regulated become the regulators" is the crux of the matter.

    Another factor that deserves a look is how our economic system incentivizes the modern, the cheap, the chockful of chemical goodness. Regulation is only tangentially related here. This structure of incentives will always doom our friend the artisanal sausage maker to a marginal role.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Consumer demand is what should incentivize production.

  • mtrueman||

    That's an arguable point. What I'm getting after here is the nature of the production system. Consumers can demand Pepsi or Coke, but no consumer is demanding a system where only two brands dominate the market; a system which tends toward giganticism, where the most important choices have already been made, before the consumer even goes to market.

  • mtrueman||

    Just to add to my previous comment, if you believe in "free and fair competition," then surely you must have no trouble with the concept of free and fair regulation. Again, it's not the regulations themselves, but that the regulated become the regulators. (If they've got the money to buy their way in.)

  • Mr Whipple||

    The problem, as I see it, is the monopolistic creation and enforcement of regulations. Not to mention the pro-active application of regulations.

    Here's a little something I threw together a while back

    Let me use a simple and basic example that can be scaled up.


    Let's say you decide to open a restaurant. You desire to serve you community by offering a quality product at a reasonable cost. This is what any responsible entrepreneur wants to do. It is in your own best interest that people do not become sick and/or die from eating your food. How long do you think you will stay in business if word got out that your food was killing people?

    But, accidents happen, right? You get busy, you cut some corners because you don't want to turn away customers, right? One of your employees accidentally cuts some fresh greens on a cutting board that was used to cut raw poultry. BAM! A few people get Salmonella. Then what? You get sued.

  • Mr Whipple||

    (cont)

    Well, as a responsible business owner, you purchased liability insurance for just such an emergency. The same way a responsible homeowner purchases home owner's insurance. The underwriter of your liability insurance has a "vested interest" in the safety of the food you serve. The bank that you borrowed money from also has a vested interest. That means, if you fuck up, they are fucked. So, the insurance company sends its own inspectors to your restaurant to make sure that you are practicing safe food handling techniques. If you are not, they will raise your rates, cancel your policy or shut you down (it's in the contract you made when you signed the policy/loan).

    These insurance company inspectors can be hels responsible for any mistakes they might make if they overlook something. They could be fired, or worse. Government employees can't be fired for most mistakes unless they are caught taking bribes, or something major. Also, the government itself can not be sued by the damaged party.

    When you break it down to it's foundation, government inspectors and regulatory agencies are only doing the job that the insurance company should be doing, at taxpayer expense, of course.

    And you always have a right to demand to see proof of liability insurance before eating.

  • mtrueman||

    A good example, and I can appreciate your message. Let's change things around a little. Instead of restaurant, how about a bank? Rating agency for insurance company, mortgages for food. And let's say you were operating this bank 5 or 6 years ago. See where I'm heading? We don't need to consider hypotheticals, we have real examples at hand, more recent and of greater import.

  • sloopyinca||

    I smell either sarcasm or a troll. And it smells like **sniff* shit.

    Don't feed it, people.

  • RonRonDoRon||

    This reminds me of something that happened when I lived in San Francisco (late '70s - early '80s).

    Some folks in the city or government (or county, I'm pretty sure it was local gov) decided they had to stop Chinese roast meat shops from letting roast duck hang in the window at room temperature (this is in a city where 75 degrees is considered an unbearable heat wave).

    They finally gave up their proposed regulation when enough people forcefully pointed out that the Chinese had been doing this for hundreds of years (a thousand?) without making anyone sick.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Me duck you long time.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Inb4

    RACIST!

  • Todd Walton||

    Uh... what exactly was the conflict? A whole 2 page article and I never saw where it explained what the conflict was. The producer's press release said the USDA "imposed additional requirements" that were "detrimental to the quality of the product", but that could be any number of things. This article is incomplete.

  • sloopyinca||

    The producer's press release said the USDA "imposed additional requirements" that were "detrimental to the quality of the product", but that could be any number of things. This article is incomplete.

    FTA (emphasis mine):

    This conflict between modern regulations and traditional methods is something DeNittis thought for a time he could navigate.

    "We adhere to Old World techniques of natural process while following New World regulations,” Il Mondo Vecchio’s website states.
    -and-
    While he could have altered his recipe—say, by adding nitrates or nitrites—in order to bring Il Mondo Vecchio’s product into compliance with USDA regulations, that would have turned his product into something he wasn't comfortable selling.

    Looks like the USDA would have been happy if he would have altered his product and manufacture it in a way that would have made it less natural and against tried and true methods.

    In other words, the USDA is sure adding chemicals is better than letting people make things naturally (using modern standards of cleanliness) the way they have been made for centuries without incident. Busybody asshats.

  • foodscientist||

    As PhD food scientist I wholly support the mission of Keep Food Legal, but object to the "organic" foods as a "better" food option stance of the organization. The fact is, individuals such as Il Mondo Vecchio’s owner, Mark DeNittis are the SAME people who choose to support the draconian legislations of Michelle Obama and Michael Bloomberg and seek every opportunity to sanction what they deem as "processed food."

    This is the same anti-science, anti-logic which leads voters the Obama and the big-government left - ANY effort to restrict food choices (including Prop 37, CSPI, the organic/natural cult, and various frivolous lawsuits, etc.) impact everyone and now that the "leftist" food movement is feeling the pain hopefully they will rethink their stance.

  • ||

    To my knowledge, Keep Food Legal takes no stance on what food people should eat or what sorts of food are "best". They don't advocate for organic foods over other foods (or vice verse). They've even opposed mandatory labeling of GMO foods in California. Hardly the stance of an organization that only cares about organic food.

    Besides, do you have any evidence Mark DeNittis or his associates have supported "draconian legislation", or are you just stereotyping?

  • Baylen Linnekin||

    darius404 gets it exactly right. Keep Food Legal has not taken a stance that "'organic foods a[re] a 'better' food option" than any other food option. Nor have we taken the converse stance. We advocate in favor of food choice rather than in favor of any particular food choices.

  • Bradley Strider||

    Want to make libertarianism irrelevant? I can't think of a better way to than to reject potential single-issue allies on the mere suspicion that they might fail the purity test.

  • tagtann||

    This makes a lot of sense dude.

    www.Geek-Anon.tk

  • Mr Whipple||

    Italian-style dry sausages

    They got sopressata? Sopressata, done properly, is the shit.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    EPA has an "EPA fugitives" web site:
    http://www.epa.gov/fugitives/#pluimers

    Among the "fugitives" are a couple of guys named Giordano who are wanted for "importing cars that do not meet U.S. emissions standards"- from Italy.

    And a guy who circumvented federal fuel excise taxes.

    Seriously, fuck the EPA.

  • pradaguccioutlet@gmail.co||

    This conflict between modern regulations and traditional methods is something DeNittis thought for a time he could navigate.

    "We adhere to Old World cheap nfl jerseys techniques of natural process while following New World regulations,” Il Mondo Vecchio’s website states.
    -and-
    While he could have altered his recipe—say, by adding nitrates or nitrites—in order to bring Il Mondo Vecchio’s product into compliance with USDA regulations, that would have turned his product into something he wasn't comfortable selling.

    Looks like the USDA would have been happy if he would have altered his product and manufacture it in a way that would have made it less natural and against tried and true methods.

    In other words, the USDA is sure adding chemicals is better than letting people make cheap MLB jerseys things naturally (using modern standards of cleanliness) the way they have been made for centuries without incident. Busybody asshats.

  • pradaguccioutlet@gmail.co||

    Half right. Free and fair competition suits consumers the best. These meat processing outfits you speak of seek regulations to gain unfair economic competitive advantage over smaller, more efficient and innovative competitors.

    These regulations may, in some cases, start out with good intentions by consumer advocate groups, but once the regulations are in place, the advocacy group moves on to the next cheap nfl jerseys issue leaving the enforcement up to the politicians and government agencies. Ultimately, the regulated become the regulators.

  • Mr Whipple||

    WTF? A new spambot?

  • Chmee||

    The head of the agency is an ex Monsanto exec. That about says it all.

  • hello@eatthepig.com||

    I responded to this and other articles to the similar. The article is great but leaves a lot to question from my perspective.

    http://www.eatthepig.com/2012/.....en-letter/

  • Laura@FermentaCap||

    The reason for the change is simple. The company announced their intention to begin nationwide distribution. The USDA actually had NO jurisdiction prior to that decision. Selling in-state is not within USDA jurisdiction. Once you cross state lines though, they have full jurisdiction, and their goal at that point is NOT to encourage compliant new business. It is to protect existing businesses. No, they do not want a "natural" company going nationwide. That has to be stopped.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement