USDA raids Bayless, North Pond

Mike Sula is reporting that Rick Bayless' complex of restaurants was visited today and North Pond expects to receive a similar visit tomorrow by USDA inspectors, apparently as a result of his story on homemade charcuterie:

I happened to mention both in my story about a pair of suburban stay-at-home dads who make and sell bacon and sausage without having proper USDA certification.

Mind you, I didn't say either restaurant was using products cured or smoked by the underground charcutiers, E & P Meats—they don't. I just said they shared a supplier—a farmer who raises his pigs naturally and has them slaughtered by a government-certified processor.

That's right-- because they bought from the same farmer, they're under suspicion.

Your tax dollars at work, enforcing food monoculture and industrial crap.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/ar ... nd-is-next

Perhaps a few high-profile busts/hassles will convey the impression that the USDA is doing a fine job of protecting us from nasty meat: http://food.theatlantic.com/nutrition/w ... -rules.php

My experience is that reminding the overground of the underground is a self-defeating exercise.

Santander wrote:My experience is that reminding the overground of the underground is a self-defeating exercise.

Agreed. Not to impugn The Reader or Mr. Sula, but my first thought upon reading the original article about the charcuterie producers was "Hope these guys did not give up their day jobs." I had a similar thought upon reading about the garage taco stand, though, and I do not recall hearing or reading about anything bad befalling those folks. So perhaps the suburban bacon dads can escape censure as well, but this does not bode well.

Does not change the fact that the USDA action vis-a-vis Frontera and North Pond is pretty ludicrous on its face.

Reminds me of my friend Richard at Double-H Farm in Virginia who got raided a few years back. Technically speaking, he was doing some things he shouldn't (on-site slaughter at his farm), but the whole thing was an overblown raid of his farm, raid of the restaurants who had his meat, etc. It became front-page news not just in Charlottesville papers, local blogs, but also the Washington Post.

Richard, who was never really quiet about what he was doing, ended up settling with the state for a small fine, got way more publicity than he could ever buy, and now sells 2-3X as much pork as he did before. He does now have his pigs slaughtered off-site, but still does on-site butchery.

-Dan

dansch, I'm glad the "raids" worked out well for your friend, poetic justice.

The more I think about the rationale and nature of the attack (and that's what this was) upon Bayless (and, allegedly, the one forthcoming on the almost-as-high-profile Sherman), however, the more this whole kerfuffle smells like USDA-certified bologna, a PR strategy designed to make this supposed protector of the public health appear to be doing its job.

Well, yeah. I mean, what is the logic of raiding a restaurant because they share a supplier with somebody doing illegal things? Does the USDA believe that illegal charcuterie is a disease that can be transmitted? Up the supply chain? I hear Bayless gets his electricity from the same place as these guys, too!

With their limited staff the USDA should concentrate more on the major slaughter houses and processing plants that manage to poison thousands of people every year.

LTH,

E & P/The Charcuterie Underground has abruptly ceased operations. They, according to an email I received, will work diligently to "make our company legally operational."

I never got a chance to try E & P's product, but heard nothing but praise. I plan on being first in line when they restart.

Enjoy,
Gary

David Hammond wrote:The more I think about the rationale and nature of the attack (and that's what this was) upon Bayless (and, allegedly, the one forthcoming on the almost-as-high-profile Sherman), however, the more this whole kerfuffle smells like USDA-certified bologna, a PR strategy designed to make this supposed protector of the public health appear to be doing its job.

Interesting. Cynical as I am about regulators' motives, this explanation for the "raids" (is it really a raid if they tell you they're coming?) wouldn't occur to me. If you suggested that the "attacks" were motivated by a desire to please donors from the Chevy's Fresh Mex chain , I'd be more inclined to buy it. So far, all the public discussion seems to be emanating from apparent enemies of the USDA, not from the USDA itself. Dumb as government regulators sometimes seem, I find it hard to believe that they thought "attacking" popular chefs and TV personalities would be a good publicity move.

Kennyz wrote:Dumb as government regulators sometimes seem, I find it hard to believe that they thought "attacking" popular chefs and TV personalities would be a good publicity move.

The USDA comes under a lot of fire (see link, above) and gets a lot of bad publicity.

And you don't think this action sent a message to, for instance, E&P Meats? In that sense, this very public move was effective.

David Hammond wrote:

Kennyz wrote:Dumb as government regulators sometimes seem, I find it hard to believe that they thought "attacking" popular chefs and TV personalities would be a good publicity move.

You don't think this action sent a message to, for instance, E&P Meats?

Oh sure, and no doubt put some extra fear in the minds of other local restauranteurs as well. If that's what you meant by a PR strategy, then I agree.

I don't see anything where anyone at the restaurants or the farmer (or the USDA) actually says what the USDA's stated rationale was for its raid or expected raid. Not saying it's not as assumed, I just don't see anyone saying it, not even the sources for the Reader article.

David Hammond wrote:And you don't think this action sent a message to, for instance, E&P Meats? In that sense, this very public move was effective.

My thinking was more that the USDA was sending a message to the supplier that E&P and Bayless had in common. "We can't stop you from supplying meat to E&P, but we can take away two of your very best customers (Bayless and Sherman) if you don't stop." That's the only way I can figure it.

Although the grounds for their taking away these two customers are shaky, to say the least. Perhaps they know their action "will not stand," but did it purely for message-sending purposes.

So basically this thread is a bunch of speculation about Mike Sula's article in which he speculates on a possible motive for a possible USDA action against the named restaurants? Not a bit of "real" new on the subject anywhere to be found. Maybe we should reserve judgment until actual facts appear?

spinynorman99 wrote:So basically this thread is a bunch of speculation about Mike Sula's article in which he speculates on a possible motive for a possible USDA action against the named restaurants? Not a bit of "real" new on the subject anywhere to be found. Maybe we should reserve judgment until actual facts appear?

Amen to this. I know there is a knee-jerk reaction to assume a certain set of facts. But rather than speculate and assume, I'd prefer to wait until I know what really happened before passing judgment.

My thinking was more that the USDA was sending a message to the supplier that E&P and Bayless had in common. "We can't stop you from supplying meat to E&P, but we can take away two of your very best customers (Bayless and Sherman) if you don't stop."

Which would be a serious violation of their regulatory authority, and possibly merit prosecution of the agents involved if they're trying to use their authority to run a farmer out of business.

Laurence Mate (who runs a charcuterie club in central Illinois) has a good comment on the original Reader story.

I have to say, the moment I saw the original story I knew E&P was doomed. You give somebody that much attention, it's going to get the government interested. And to be honest, certain things about the blithe manner with which they violated the laws gave me pause; Mate has been much savvier about structuring his business within the limits of the law.

On the whole, I'm for meat inspection. But that doesn't mean I have to assent to a bad meat inspection system which allows all kinds of nasty things on the industrial level while helping raise the barriers to entering the business in a way that probably, in fact, lowers the overall level of quality and safety by reducing competition and innovation.

But of course, it could all just be a delightful coincidence that the USDA started intensively investigating high-profile natural meat buyers the week before Christmas.

Two updates posted on Sula's story. The first says that E&P is ceasing operations and issued this statement:

"In the next months we promise to work diligently to make our company legally operational. We will keep you informed of any new developments."

While I am sure others feel differently, I think it is good when business are operating legally.

The second update says:

The folks at Frontera just told me the feds only made them get rid of one box of bacon that was missing its shipping label. They say there will probably be no fine.

Now let's all continue to blow this out of proportion, talk about the nanny state, etc.

Wow, this is interesting news! I'm a big fan of Bayless and also artisan charcuterie. A couple thoughts to share:

1. The fact that the USDA raided a small operation like Xoco does not mean they also arent out there inspecting and or raiding the big feedlots and producers of crappy meat. One would assume that they can do more than one thing at a time.

2. Why on earth did these bacon dads allow someone to write a story about them? Sorry that was the root stupidity in this whole story, not big govt picking on Bayless. The bacon dudes brought this whole thing on themselves. They might as well have been growing and selling high-end artisan marijuana for goodness sake. The minute I read that original article in teh Reader, the other week, I thought theat those guys had some very poor judgement publicising their operation like that. One could argue that the government raiding as opposed to making polite inquiries or a phone call to Bayless was justified by the brazen openness of this "underground" operation.

Ah. The FDA. I have a newfound (lack of) appreciation for them after reading about the food industry and seeing a few documentaries. In fact, I just saw "Food Inc" last week and just kept shaking my head in disbelief.

It's ironic that the FDA allows us to ingest cows and turkeys pumped with syntethic hormones that no other western country would dare allow into their farms, and allow the sale of "downer" cows for slaughter and consumption (until Obama did something about it), and still have the audacity to go after those who practice basic slaughter and farming as humans have done for millenia.

Where was the FDA last night when IHOP served me a grey piece of red meat?

Maybe the lesson being taught is that sometimes it is better to keep things on the "down-low". I, for one, think the city, state, feds etc. have been rather lenient enforcing certain laws around Chicago. I think they understand that we are a city of immigrants, and old ways die hard. I also think they fully realize that when an 80 year old woman from the old country dry cures a sausage the way her family has done for generations, it hardly presents a hazard. When said woman sells a little of her product to fellow a countryman, the authorities are likely to turn a blind eye. Through the years, I myself, and I am fairly sure Mr. Sula, have sampled many sausages and cured meats of "don't ask, don't tell" origin. Take the Korean dish, which is made with raw meat and raw egg or the raw Armenian Kibbe sold on certain days by diminutive nanas at their local church hall, can those dishes be legal?

When, however, the USDA has their faces rubbed in it, in such a high-profile way, they have to take some sort of action. They need to make an example (right or wrong) before selling meat cured in suburban garages becomes pandemic. The fact that the agents were looking at boxes of bacon, no doubt ties the inspections to Mike's story. I also suspect that is specifically the sort of reaction that Mike and E&P meats were trying to elicit, in an effort to expose unnecessary over-regulation. I happen to like Mike Sula quite a bit, both as a writer and as a person. I suspect many fellow LTH'rs feel about him the same way, but I do find it a little disingenuous to slap the Baron in the face then act surprised when he shows up for the duel.

d4v3 wrote:I do find it a little disingenuous to slap the Baron in the face then act surprised when he shows up for the duel.

I didn't read Sula's piece as challenging authority so much as informing the food community about another interesting effort to bring a higher quality of chow to the table. Of course, that's my perception, and it's possible that the Baron (is that the USDA or the Cattlemen's Association or Cargill...maybe all three) is a little more touchy about this kind of thing.

At any rate, Sula wrote the article with the cooperation of the underground meat magicians, and if they didn't want it written, they could have stopped it cold. There are issues of journalistic responsibility here, but if a writer finds something interesting, and the subject has no problem with being written about, then I say publish it. I think.

This bears directly on a project I'm working on. Few days ago, I met with a cheese maker who prepared illegal raw milk cheese that we ate it at a restaurant. Both cheesemaker and restaurateur said, on more than one occasion, that I could use their names, no problem. If they change their minds now, I will definitely not use their names...but if they're still fine with it, do I unilateraly decide not to use their real names? Maybe, as perhaps with the E&P guys, they may actually want the publicity. This is a decision I am wrestling with.

David,
That is pretty much my point. If the "underground" guys really wanted to stay "undergound" they would not have consented to use their name in an article (or the article itself). I see it it more along the lines of Hot Doug challenging the Fois Gras ban.You are right, Mike was just being a journalist looking for an interesting story. I find the reaction to the so-called "raids" to be disingenuous, not the story itself.

But, now that we know they are paying attention, I would think twice about using that cheesemakers name (at least in association with unpasteurized product).

On the whole, I'm for meat inspection. But that doesn't mean I have to assent to a bad meat inspection system which allows all kinds of nasty things on the industrial level while helping raise the barriers to entering the business in a way that probably, in fact, lowers the overall level of quality and safety by reducing competition and innovation.

But of course, it could all just be a delightful coincidence that the USDA started intensively investigating high-profile natural meat buyers the week before Christmas.

Am I the only one who thinks this has devolved into wacky and paranoid speculation on top of speculation (where is Paul Krassner when we need him)? I must admit that adding the anti-Christmas implication (those bastard Grinches!) is a nice touch, but seriously do you think the inspection would not have happened if this all played out in March, for example? If so, then maybe this was a plan all along and they were just going to do it at Christmas anyway (dirty rats!), and Mike's article was the coincidence?

Or maybe I am trying too hard to make sense of this line of "reasoning".

Before I put myself further in the line of fire here, let me briefly state - I get my organic farm share year round, frequent my local farmer's market regularly, and with every year spend less time and money at my local food stores. I like to know the people who make my food and have made the acquaintance of quite a few.

But I really, really, really have lost all patience with these paranoid, knee jerk, usually vicious and irrational, counter attacks on anyone who questions the benefits of natural/local/organic foods, or otherwise creates obstacles to their production and distribution. My guess is that the USDA got a tip, someone stuck a bee up their butt that they were not doing their job, and they acted quickly and a bit excessively to cover that same butt. On the other hand, if you find the grand conspiracy theory more plausible, have at it since we both have exactly the same amount of evidence to support our theories, and it seems a lot more reasonable that a regulatory body would have a grand conspiracy up their sleeves than a desire to keep their jobs and avoid public embarrassment. Or not.

Merry Christmas to all!

d4v3 wrote:David,
That is pretty much my point. If the "underground" guys really wanted to stay "undergound" they would not have consented to use their name in an article (or the article itself). I see it it more along the lines of Hot Doug challenging the Fois Gras ban.You are right, Mike was just being a journalist looking for an interesting story. I find the reaction to the so-called "raids" to be disingenuous, not the story itself.

But, now that we know they are paying attention, I would think twice about using that cheesemakers name (at least in association with unpasteurized product).

Let me also comment on the more reasonable side of this discussion.

The USDA is in the business of enforcing the current regulations. They are created through a process that is heavily influenced by highly paid lobbyists and scientists, whose job is to assure that their bosses get as much of a competitive advantage from the regulations as possible. It is a tried and proven tactic to use the press and public sentiment to sway the regulators in a way that the lobbyists do not support. So, yes, it seems plausible that there is a real effort to increase public awareness of how the regulations may be denying us what we want, and to create controversy with that in mind.

Given that, David, I do not think you have the right to second guess your sources if they said you can use their names. You have the right to point out that this stuff just happened and that you want them to know you think they are exposing themselves to a real risk here, but if they want to take that risk, for whatever reason, it is not your job to override them.

My two cents, and as you will note from my recent dairy post, my default position is not to name names publicly, but I do not see where I have the right to withhold the name of someone who wants their name used.

d4v3 wrote: Take the Korean dish, which is made with raw meat and raw egg or the raw Armenian Kibbe sold on certain days by diminutive nanas at their local church hall, can those dishes be legal?

Yes, If they have been prepared in an approved commisary or kitchen as long as somebody certified in food safety and sanitation is present.

dicksond wrote:Given that, David, I do not think you have the right to second guess your sources if they said you can use their names. You have the right to point out that this stuff just happened and that you want them to know you think they are exposing themselves to a real risk here, but if they want to take that risk, for whatever reason, it is not your job to override them.

My two cents, and as you will note from my recent dairy post, my default position is not to name names publicly, but I do not see where I have the right to withhold the name of someone who wants their name used.

Not to divert this conversation to matters that are probably of interest to only a few of us: it's not a question of the journalist's right but of his or her responsibility. However, it is certainly no one's right (aside from the editor's) to tell the journalist what they want in or out of a story. If I think a subject will be hurt by the publication of information, then I might very well opt to leave that information out, whatever the subject wants or doesn't want.

David Hammond wrote:

Kennyz wrote:Dumb as government regulators sometimes seem, I find it hard to believe that they thought "attacking" popular chefs and TV personalities would be a good publicity move.

The USDA comes under a lot of fire (see link, above) and gets a lot of bad publicity.

And you don't think this action sent a message to, for instance, E&P Meats? In that sense, this very public move was effective.

Turns out the USDA wasn't behind the "raids" at all. Current emphasis is on the "details are sketchy" line in the Reader piece. In the insta-media Twitter age, what do facts, details and their sort have to do with anything?

I would be willing to bet these "raids" were from the city health department.

And this is all I will comment about this.

Turns out the USDA wasn't behind the "raids" at all. Current emphasis is on the "details are sketchy" line in the Reader piece. In the insta-media Twitter age, what do facts, details and their sort have to do with anything?

Guess I should have said "Mike Sula is reporting" rather than "I know for an absolute, take-it-to-the-bank fact." Oh wait, I did! And Twitter had nothing to do with it, though an actual journalist actually employed by an actual paper paper that's been around since the LBJ administration did, therefore... the Internet is bad!

Quote:
The folks at Frontera just told me the feds only made them get rid of one box of bacon that was missing its shipping label. They say there will probably be no fine.

Now let's all continue to blow this out of proportion, talk about the nanny state, etc.

So the fact that it's now been verified to have happened in some form is a reason we shouldn't be talking about why it may have happened? Curious.

The USDA is in the business of enforcing the current regulations. They are created through a process that is heavily influenced by highly paid lobbyists and scientists, whose job is to assure that their bosses get as much of a competitive advantage from the regulations as possible. It is a tried and proven tactic to use the press and public sentiment to sway the regulators in a way that the lobbyists do not support. So, yes, it seems plausible that there is a real effort to increase public awareness of how the regulations may be denying us what we want, and to create controversy with that in mind.

So what you're saying is... the poor little food multinationals are the victims of a campaign run by the mighty home charcuterie cartel?

D4v3 says what I would have said, if I hadn't done a million things today in the meantime. I do think they wisely apply different rules here and there (I've often joked that there are two sets of health regs for restaurants, the regular and the Chinatown one). Bully for that. On the other hand, I could name one well known place that, when I talked to the guy a year ago, felt he was being pushed out of the charcuterie business by the health dept. and wouldn't be in it much longer. So all this is real, no matter that there are some who find it freakishly outlandish to imagine that raiding maybe the most famous chef in town could possibly have anything to do with Sula's story a week or two earlier.