36 replies to this topic

[kconf]

Now I get it. So you were viewing ICE team as a mock crisis scenario.

[TimG]

Now I get it. So you were viewing ICE team as a mock crisis scenario.

Specifically, the impact to food safety a regulatory visit/inspection of that magnitude could have.

Edited by TimG, 11 June 2025 - 06:59 PM.

[GMO]

Now I get it. So you were viewing ICE team as a mock crisis scenario.

 

Sensible to do.  Possible ICE enforcement agents marching into your plant ignoring rules.  Potential for key staff loss even if it's in error, that's likely to cause disruption.  Even before that, you may have concern even from legal employees that they could be caught up in error and may choose to leave.  Then the added stresses of the situation that's going on impacts peoples performance etc.  So there is an acute crisis to do a simulation on but potentially while unintended, a slow burn of risk which is already happening.  While not the same and far less aggressively implemented, Brexit had a huge impact on UK food industry in terms of the quality and availability of staff.  

[G M]

Sensible to do.  Possible ICE enforcement agents marching into your plant ignoring rules.  Potential for key staff loss even if it's in error, that's likely to cause disruption.  ...

 

More broadly there are government agencies that will have the authority to enter a property for jurisdictional reasons and potentially disregard our well considered food safety protocols for more eminent threats, whether that be in search of physical material or people. Drugs get hidden in things to attempt to circumvent detection, junior cyber criminals need day jobs, etc.  Plenty of things can be the cause, and several agencies have enforcement powers.

[GMO]

More broadly there are government agencies that will have the authority to enter a property for jurisdictional reasons and potentially disregard our well considered food safety protocols for more eminent threats, whether that be in search of physical material or people. Drugs get hidden in things to attempt to circumvent detection, junior cyber criminals need day jobs, etc.  Plenty of things can be the cause, and several agencies have enforcement powers.

 

Yep but it's SUCH a different mindset US vs UK.  I have always had this in my procedures around access in emergencies.  The mindset though in the UK is "that's likely to be an ambulance if there was an accident or someone had a heart attack" etc.  The mindset in the US is very different on who those official agency staff might be employed by.

 

A few years back, I was at a site where an awful case happened with modern slavery.  That's been my closest link with talking to police about something like this (albeit they had the right to work in the UK, they were being abused by a criminal gang sadly).  No blue lights, no charging in, just informing us at the time (as the person had by that point left) and talking to us about our controls against modern slavery.  Not in an accusing way, more about whether we were doing everything we could.  

 

It must be a stressful experience planning for all of this.  

[TimG]

 

 

It must be a stressful experience planning for all of this.  

Nah, not really. I don't overthink it. Just enough to a) do our best to make sure the food is still safe b) show an auditor we did all we could to make sure the food was safe. 

The first few times at the sugar bagging plant when the folks in the black SUV's showed up it was kind of 'exciting.' I have always been a bit heavy on 'righteous indignation,' especially if I think food I'm keeping safe is at risk. Was hard to sit there and keep my mouth shut as they stormed through and I was watching the cameras. I remember the plant manager saying to me "Tim, uhh..maybe don't even talk to them. You have a problem with authority, and they have a lot of authority." 

[GMO]

"Tim, uhh..maybe don't even talk to them. You have a problem with authority, and they have a lot of authority." 

 

Not just me then?  Is it a Technical trait?  Actually it's very much a British trait, we are not rule followers if the rules don't make sense on an individual basis, are you sure you're not an honorary Brit?

 

The stress is more I was thinking of the people who might have the right to stay who now might suddenly leave out of fear and then the good people you do lose through a raid like this.

 

It all looks very authoritarian from this side of the pond.  While Brits sometimes have more in common with the US than much of Europe this feels a bit bizarre and is making even the most Eurosceptic Brit (which I'm not) doff a beret and gilet jaune, grab a croissant and say "bof!"

[MDaleDDF]

No I am using the word correctly as they had to legal precedent that allows them to apprehend an individual that is currently at a courthouse, going through the legal process, because her lawyer had to use the restroom. Just because they are federal officers does not mean they have the authority to apprehend (abduct) people without due process. Additionally, if you are pointing at 1325, 1326 specifically a visa overstayer is LEGALLY distinct as those codes cover (1325) people caught coming over the border (misdemeanor) and (1326) those reentering the country post removal (felony). (my point about it being ruled as unconstitutional is that looking at things simply as legal vs illegal is a fault as the law isn't always a just system. Just because something is lawful doesn't mean it is moral and vice versa)

 

This has nothing to do with morals, or your feelings, and EVERYTHING to do with the law, which IS a system.   If you're in the country illegally, you should expect to be removed, just as I would personally if I was in Switzerland illegally, Canada illegally, or anywhere else illegally.....   

If you want to enter a country, ANY country, you either do it legally, or you are subject to the laws thereof.   It really is that simple.

And as far as legal precedent, I'll defer to a lawyer or officer, not a food scientist.....   "Due Process:  due process refers to the legal requirement that the government provide fair and impartial procedures before depriving someone of their life, liberty, or property. For undocumented immigrants, this means they are entitled to certain legal protections, such as being informed of the charges against them, the right to a hearing, and the opportunity to present evidence in their defense."   

 

Saying federal agents are abducting people is laughable.   Abduction = kidnapping, pretty much.   That's not at ALL what's happening.   When you get a DUI and the cops take you away, are you being 'abducted'?   No.

I applaud your will to want good for everyone, genuinely I do.   But the law is the law, and no nation has porous borders.    You want in, come in legally.   You want to work here, get a work permit or proper visa.   That's the law.   

[Seathalos]

And as far as legal precedent, I'll defer to a lawyer or officer, not a food scientist.....   "Due Process:  due process refers to the legal requirement that the government provide fair and impartial procedures before depriving someone of their life, liberty, or property. For undocumented immigrants, this means they are entitled to certain legal protections, such as being informed of the charges against them, the right to a hearing, and the opportunity to present evidence in their defense."   

 

Saying federal agents are abducting people is laughable.   Abduction = kidnapping, pretty much.   That's not at ALL what's happening.   When you get a DUI and the cops take you away, are you being 'abducted'?   No.

I applaud your will to want good for everyone, genuinely I do.   But the law is the law, and no nation has porous borders.    You want in, come in legally.   You want to work here, get a work permit or proper visa.   That's the law.   

 

Yes immigrants are entitled to Due Process. But that is why these deportations are being criticized as the admin is deporting people without said Due Process. And if one person does not have Due Process no one does. Honestly is one of the best parts of the US is having rights like Due Process enshrined.

 

Yes I understand what the word abducted means. I used it purposefully as the instance I was talking about was A PERSON GOING THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS THAT WAS TAKEN FROM A COURTHOUSE WHILE HER LAWYER WAS IN THE BATHROOM. She was there to progress through the system of immigration. In all reality the issue of undocumented immigrants really stems more from not having the proper resources to have these people documented in a timely fashion, which is unfortunately designed that way for a myriad or reasons. I am a person that uses words deliberately, as if they are used too often or liberally they lose all actual meaning. 

 

Many horrible things were legal under US and many other countries Law throughout their history, and just accepting something simply because it is the Law isn't something I can really do as personally all laws should be justified. Many things that are happening are very similar to how things were done in the Gilded Age, I would rather not have to repeat those issues again.

 

But on the original question: Make sure that your employees know that just because they are in Uniform does not mean they are allowed to disregard the Regulations and Laws that we in the food industry have in place, that it may be unlikely but is it something that can potentially happen and that they should inform upper management ASAP. They have to check in, follow protocols and GMPs like anyone else and just because they are Feds does not mean they get any special privileges.  

[TimG]

But on the original question: Make sure that your employees know that just because they are in Uniform does not mean they are allowed to disregard the Regulations and Laws that we in the food industry have in place, that it may be unlikely but is it something that can potentially happen and that they should inform upper management ASAP. They have to check in, follow protocols and GMPs like anyone else and just because they are Feds does not mean they get any special privileges.  

 

No, in quite a few instances they are both allowed to and do disregard food laws, including FDA's cGMP. I've seen it especially (several times a year) on port occupied locations with ATF or PA. If any manager decides he's going to block entry of ATF to a port facility until GMP's are satisfied I sure hope they've run that by the owner. And also has a few days free to sit in a holding cell.

I have run the Ice scenario by the owner, and we're cooperating fully.

[G M]

 

But on the original question: Make sure that your employees know that just because they are in Uniform does not mean they are allowed to disregard the Regulations and Laws that we in the food industry have in place, that it may be unlikely but is it something that can potentially happen and that they should inform upper management ASAP. They have to check in, follow protocols and GMPs like anyone else and just because they are Feds does not mean they get any special privileges.  

 

No, in quite a few instances they are both allowed to and do disregard food laws, including FDA's cGMP. I've seen it especially (several times a year) on port occupied locations with ATF or PA. If any manager decides he's going to block entry of ATF to a port facility until GMP's are satisfied I sure hope they've run that by the owner. And also has a few days free to sit in a holding cell.

I have run the Ice scenario by the owner, and we're cooperating fully.

 

 

 

What is the judicial standard for "reasonable and necessary" when it comes to property damage during a search?  Anyone familiar with a court ruling for a food company that had big losses because of a raid and tried to get compensated?

 

How much do standard insurance policies cover the losses associated with a warrant being executed?  I've dealt with utilities problems related claims, but not governmental immunity related claims.

[Seathalos]

 

But on the original question: Make sure that your employees know that just because they are in Uniform does not mean they are allowed to disregard the Regulations and Laws that we in the food industry have in place, that it may be unlikely but is it something that can potentially happen and that they should inform upper management ASAP. They have to check in, follow protocols and GMPs like anyone else and just because they are Feds does not mean they get any special privileges.  

 

No, in quite a few instances they are both allowed to and do disregard food laws, including FDA's cGMP. I've seen it especially (several times a year) on port occupied locations with ATF or PA. If any manager decides he's going to block entry of ATF to a port facility until GMP's are satisfied I sure hope they've run that by the owner. And also has a few days free to sit in a holding cell.

I have run the Ice scenario by the owner, and we're cooperating fully.

 

 

Port Occupied locations are technically under different jurisdictions, without a warrant they can ONLY go to places that are open to the public. And with the amount of "vigilantes" pretending to be ICE officers on the rise we should not just assume that everyone coming into the facility is an actual agent. And if I get detained because I asked a public servant for identification, it is our right under the 4th amendment an important one at that and one worth pushing back over. And in all reality them signing in will not decrease the efficacy of their raid and working with the employer ahead of time would more than like increase it. 

 

Being put in a cell because I invoked the rights provided to my by the constitution is far better than allowing them to be infringed upon