Do we ban sushi and steak tartare, too? What’s the difference?

Sorry to disappoint, but the 2012 presidential election may prove to be anti-climatic, since it appears the federal government has solved all its problems, from illegal aliens to drug smuggling, from energy independence to protecting the environment.  They must have even found a way to eliminate the $14 trillion debt.

Why? Well, based on all the resources the feds are putting into the eradication of a mammoth problem, one that strikes fear in the heart of all citizens, it would seem that all its other troubles have been solved.   It’s an issue of such importance that pollsters surely find it at the top of every survey:

The production, sale and voluntary consumption of raw milk.

The threat is so great that armed federal officials find it necessary to routinely raid farms which produce that product. And rightly so, since the incidence of bovine malfeasance has obviously surpassed that of drug dealers, rapists, child predators, and murderers.

                                                                                     *****

The latest saga involved armed federal who, after months of “investigation,” raided an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, whose owner was allegedly selling raw milk across state lines.  After assessing civil penalties, the government is now trying to shut down the farmer’s operation in federal court.

It’s another example of a government out of control, with gun-toting storm troopers swooping down on a farmer's property.  And there’s little doubt it came about because the extremely powerful dairy lobby once again flexed its political muscle, demanding that this increasingly popular practice be squashed.  Given that there are over ten million raw milk drinkers in the U.S., why else would so much attention be given to such an innocuous business?

At issue is whether raw milk is dangerous for human consumption because of the potential presence of E. coli, salmonella and other bacteria, as opposed to the pasteurized milk that kills such germs and is common on store shelves.  Raw milk advocates, both producers and consumers, claim that milk in its raw, natural form, free of chemical treatment, helps the human body maintain an overall level of healthiness.  They state that during the pasteurization process, key proteins are destroyed that help promote digestion and improve the immune system.

Even though federal officials counter that the bacteria in raw milk can be deadly, people across the country go out of their way to obtain such milk, sometimes paying in excess of three times the price of regular milk. Not only have they lived to tell their story, but most claim they and their children are significantly healthier. In the past decade, only two deaths have been officially linked to raw milk, and even they were suspect, as the contaminated substance in question was Mexican cheese.

Given that raw milk is legal to sell in 29 states, and in the other 21, there are many legal loopholes to do so, such as labeling the milk for animal consumption, and selling “cow-shares” so that owners are entitled to a percentage of the cow’s yield as opposed to buying milk outright, such heavy handed conduct on the part of federal officials is troublesome.

Be Consistent

Here's the rub.  If government is going to interfere in people's lives and threaten their livelihoods, then they should be consistent.  It certainly wouldn’t make their decision right, but at least they would avoid the appearance of favoritism.  If the major issue in the consumption of raw food is the possibility of it containing “harmful” bacteria, then many more businesses should be concerned about being shut down by government agents.

Fair is fair.

So why aren’t the feds not closing all restaurants that serve sushi, or at least banning it from the menu?  Sushi, a delicacy loved by millions, is simply raw fish.  And the best sushi is categorized as being from the “highest grade” fish.

Sounds like class warfare in the pelagic community. 

The reality is that the “highest grade” fish is still served raw, and can contain both bacteria and parasites.  As an added bonus, the concentration of mercury in many of these fish is quite high because of their status as apex predators, meaning that, since they are at the top of the food chain, they often have the highest concentration of mercury.

Isn’t mercury bad for us, too? 

And what about the significant risk of contracting hepatitis from eating raw seafood?  It is a very real possibility, even when eating in a five-star restaurant.

While we're at it, let's ban steak tartare (made with raw beef) from all restaurants, as well as Caesar dressing concocted with raw eggs.

Come to think of it, the citrus and vegetable industries have problems too, given the occasional presence of E. coli on those products, due in part to manure laden irrigation water and fertilizer.

So let’s ban tomatoes, too. Oh wait, the FDA did exactly that several years ago after announcing a salmonella outbreak, throwing countless Americans out of work.  Only one problem.  There was absolutely no evidence that tomatoes were the offending food, and, after completely decimating an entire industry, the FDA (Federal Destruction Administration) cavalierly announced that it didn’t actually know what caused the outbreak.

If only the FDA was red-faced and apologetic after its misstep, willing to make amends, some of the animosity towards government would have been mitigated.  But it was as arrogant as ever.

The specter of bureaucrats who are 52 cards short of a deck yet hold the power to destroy Americans’ lives --- with no repercussion when they are wrong --- is simply un-American. And the fact that Congress and presidential administrations allow such intrusion to go unchecked simply makes the sin mortal.

                                                                             *****

Government clearly has more important priorities than trying to put raw milk producers out of business, especially when it operates in such a frightening manner.  If people want to drink raw milk for its perceived health benefits, they should be able to do so without fear, and without being forced to act like rumrunners during Prohibition.  And if government is so concerned about the safety of these individuals, it could make them sign a waiver of liability.

Of course, then we would be sifting through pages of litigious material every time we entered a restaurant, which would just thrill the bureaucrats.

Or maybe our taxpayer-funded government could actually try to hold up its part of the bargain by enforcing the laws that are designed to keep us safe and secure, but are routinely ignored. Spending no more than it takes in and sealing the border are just two that come to mind.

A wise man once wrote that Government should be “...of the people, by the people, for the people”. 

Well-funded lobbies controlling an ever-intrusive government is not what Mr. Lincoln had in mind.
   

 Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

(This column first appeared in Philadelphia Magazine online)

Without question, Avalon is one of the best beach towns on the South Jersey coast. Jutting a mile further out in the Atlantic than other shore points, its cool ocean breezes and pristine beaches make for a fantastic family vacation.

That is, unless you happen to cross the Avalon Beach Patrol, who seem to relish acting like storm-troopers.

A case earlier this month illustrates just how out-of-control the Beach Patrol --- and by extension, Avalon itself--- has become.

As is the case with most shore towns, beach tags are required. This policy has long irked the vast majority of beach-goers, who believe they more than pay the cost of beach preservation by the many taxes and fees levied on them.  And they also believe, not unjustifiably, that the beach belongs to everyone, and no one should have to pay to use it.

Disdain aside, most comply.  Incredibly, though, that wasn’t good enough for the Avalon Patrol.

Most days, beach tag inspectors guard the entrances to beaches, checking to ensure that beachgoers have tags.

On a recent weekend, a woman with three young children --- including one with a broken arm --- was entering the beach. Asked for her tags, she informed the 14-year old inspector that her husband had them on the loaded beach cart. He was 50 feet behind her, in clear view. The woman’s two youngest then sprinted to an open spot near the life-guard stand, where they always set up camp for the day.

No problem, since the woman and her husband had seasonal tags --- just as they had for the past 11 years.

Or so it seemed.

As the husband approached, he showed his tag, and started onto the beach.  The checker asked if he was with “that other woman.” Having no clue to what she was referring, he inquired what she meant. After discerning it was his wife, he showed the second tag (children under 12 do not need tags).

He had no issue showing the beach tags at the entry point, but stated his frustration over continually getting harassed throughout the day by teams of roving tag inspectors. These teams work the beaches, routinely awakening people, interrupting conversations and even demanding swimmers leave the water to show tags (many people have their tags affixed to bags or chairs.)

The point the man was making was simple.   Logic dictates that if tags are inspected upon entry, then inspectors walking the beaches aren’t necessary.

At that point, the inspector snapped, “That’s enough out of you.  Keep quiet. I don’t want to hear another word.” 

This, from a 14 year old girl!

That attitude should be grounds for dismissal for any employee, but for a minor to speak to an adult in that manner is utterly unacceptable. This fresh-mouthed child was completely out of line as a representative of Avalon.

The man asked who she thought she was to speak to anyone like that, whereupon she made a beeline to the lifeguard stand and reported that someone actually had the “gall” to speak back to her.

Within minutes, four guards showed up in trucks, and began interrogating the husband and wife, while Little Miss Personality was high-fiving one of the lifeguards.

The Lieutenant --- yes, they take that army title way too seriously --- then proceeded to demand answers from the man, asking, “Do you think it was right to talk to a 14-year old girl like that?  That’s harassment!”

The man replied that the Lieutenant had not been there, took the word of one of his own as gospel, and didn’t even ask what had actually occurred.  So much for due process.

At this point, the Lieutenant’s “backup” --- a Captain, and obviously the real brains of the group --- stated that he could have the man “arrested for harassment.”

How so?  Because the husband had his arms folded while he was talking.  This, he was told, “…was harassment.  It’s a defensive posture, and I know about these things, because I deal with bad people like you all the time.”

How’s that for incoherence?

The end result was that the wife was issued a citation for $80.  The “crime?”  Failure to have beach tags.

Even though she had a seasonal tag.

Go figure.

And the icing on the cake?  The husband asked for the names of each Beach Patrol member as well as the 14-year old girl, but was told by the Lieutenant, “No.  You don’t need that information. I am the issuing ‘officer.’  That’s all you need.”

Interesting that he could issue the citation at all, since he wasn’t even there when the woman met the beach inspector.  That’s like getting a speeding ticket from an officer who didn’t pull you over for the violation.

The woman took off a morning of work to fight the ticket, arriving at Avalon Court at 9:00 am, yet after two hours, she was told her case wouldn’t be heard until the afternoon.  With a two-hour drive ahead of her, and a morning of lost productivity behind her, she reluctantly decided that principle would have to fall victim to practicality, and paid the citation.

Several questions come to mind:

1) If one doesn’t have a beach tag while on the beach, standard procedure is for inspectors to sell them a tag. How then is it possible to EVER issue an $80 citation to someone not having a tag?  Do you fine black people but not whites?  College kids but not “well-to-do” older folks?  Where do they draw the line?

There is nothing worse --- and more dangerous --- than selective enforcement.

2) What ever happened to the “customer being right?” Avalon would be nothing without the people who patronize businesses, buy and rent houses, and recommend the town to friends.  So how could the town’s “bread and butter” be treated so poorly?

And as proof that this wasn’t an isolated event, there were at least five other incidents with this particular beach-brat inspector that day, including one woman who had to give her pocketbook to the inspector as collateral while she fetched her tag on her chair.

Avalon, like most governments, has laws and regulations on the books that make darn near everything a violation.

Games on the beach?  Can’t do it.  Throw a ball in the ocean?  Nope.  Have a gas grill on your deck?  Don’t even think about it.

All against the law, but virtually never enforced. 

Government should never have ordinances which are selectively enforced.

This breeds contempt for the system and leads to widespread abuse by overzealous wannabes on a power-trip.

There are many good things about Avalon, but, as is always the case, they are overshadowed by the bad.  The city fathers would be wise to eliminate all but the necessary ordinances, and start remembering who makes the town what it is.

The forgotten taxpayer.

Author’s Note: I have NEVER been one to use the media pulpit for personal reasons, which is why I chose not to reveal that it was Yours Truly who was involved in Beachtag-gate, and why I waited until AFTER the court date to write about an issue to which so many relate.  In the weeks since the event, I have been (anecdotally) swamped by similar tales from Avalon patrons. The only way for governments to change is for people to voice their concerns, so please email me with concerns or thoughts.
 
Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it