December 10, 2022

Sensationalism is Destroying Us

Tucker Carlson lifted the struggle between Amish farmer Amos Miller–of Miller’s Organic Farm–and the USDA to the top of the news-cycle and institutionalized punditry. Unfortunately, Tucker and his guest got it wrong in this particular story.

How do I know? I was there.

I’ve witnessed this struggle for years and have personal experience with Amos both on his farm and in the courtrooms. I was on his farm during at least one of the alleged raids. There was no raid then, and there hasn’t been during the entire course of this investigation. It’s not how Tucker tells it. Simply, Tucker got suckered.

Amos is likely to be back in court December 16, unless he settles beforehand.

This story is too important to the overall efforts of the national small farm and local food movement to be ignored. In this movement, the vast majority of us work hard to live our values. As individuals, we take honesty and integrity seriously. We value clean, healthy food, and our personal autonomy. We learn from each other. We rely on relationships within our local communities. Our freedom of choice works if we have these local relationships established. With choice, comes responsibility. We value our responsibility to be participants in a community, or in a local food system. We value a local food system that is integrity-driven rather than solely regulatory or profit driven.

Amos Miller’s actions and public persona do not represent our values. Miller is being molded into the face of our movement by interests that are not our own. There is a huge discrepancy between what people expect and what they are getting. Because of Amos’ choices to pursue financial gain over clean practices and fair prices to diet-specific and health-conscious clientele, he has drawn unwanted attention to a food movement that is already in a precarious place.

The story that Tucker was fed and then conveyed to a wide audience is made up of falsities that serve to bury the truth of what is happening and ignite an already polarized country. Tucker–and others who followed his lead–either knowingly or unknowingly are manipulating crucial segments of the local food movement. They are misdirecting our attention. Are they encouraging fear and misguided action? Our collective justifiable and righteous outrage over regulatory restrictions to local food avenues is too valuable to be focused on this case. Taking a militant stance in Amos Miller’s defense is in our least best interest.

From what I understand, in November of 2015, Miller’s Organic Farm transported large amounts of food across the country to a conference in CA, knowing that they would be engaged in selling to the public outside of their “Private Membership Association (PMA).” During that event, complaints from other farmers and circumstances surrounding representatives from Miller’s farm and PMA led to the confiscation of his raw dairy products. Subsequent testing of his dairy products were purportedly linked to 2 Listeria illnesses, at least one said to cause a death.

It is also my understanding that at this point, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) became involved. While the PDA emphatically supports their farmers, understandably, they cannot ignore reports of repeated violations of safety standards and PA regulations, especially if reports indicate these violations result in illness or death. It was at this time that the USDA via the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) “sought to assess whether L. mono might be contaminating Miller’s meat and poultry products.” (Source)

However, “Mr. Miller refused to grant FSIS entry to the farm’s meat-and-poultry-related facilities, even after the agency served him with a subpoena. He erroneously contended that, as a self-organized private membership association, Miller’s is beyond the reach of federal food safety regulation.” (Source)

Miller’s deeply thought out choices led to a court hearing on June 28, 2016 to determine if the court would grant FSIS access to the farm for inspection. During the June 28, 2016 hearing, Judge Smith determined that after an initial inspection, if Amos corrected  violations, the matter would be dismissed.

The case could have been over then. However, Miller’s continued violations of subpoenas, court injunctions, food safety laws, and his own consent decrees, have led to the escalating conflict in this case.

Is Tucker ignoring the mountains of evidence showing Amos Miller’s true character? Or is he, again, inadequately informed? Amos Miller’s actions and choices are tarnishing the image of many good Amish farmers, businesses, and churches. It is heartbreaking.

Amos’ apparent nonsensical defiance is at the expense of his customers, the people working to help him, and the overall local food movement. His actions set back years of toil and sacrifice by producers and those organizing marketplaces for small farm products throughout the US. Amos Miller’s actions make it nearly impossible to deny that his personal movement is all about him, a single individual and his own net worth.

Would a hero, during a procedural court appearance, offer several months of unredacted customer and buying club invoices to the courts and enforcing agencies in exchange for personal leniency? Said invoices contained full customer information including names, phone numbers, dates, and all products purchased, including those not related to the court proceedings. Apparently Mr. Miller did this contrary to good advice, and as a means to save himself from further court proceedings. He threw the paying members of his PMA under the bus to fend for themselves. This is a betrayal of trust placed in him. He had a moral and fiduciary obligation to protect private information. Are these the actions of a hero or poster boy for food freedom?

Thankfully, it appears that Judge Smith recognized the potentially devastating consequences to Miller’s customers and buying clubs and allowed enough time for Miller to redact his customers’ critically private information on the invoices.

Contrary to what Tucker publishes, agencies–both state and federal–have worked closely with Amos to resolve a 6-year saga and turn it into a win-win scenario, with Amos and his ilk seemingly sabotaging every act of leniency.

The USDA and Judge Smith have offered Miller every opportunity to resolve this outside of court and without conflict. By all indications, it is obvious that the agencies and courts chose a civil pursuit as opposed to a criminal one.

The most obvious solution that the USDA suggested early on in this investigation was for Amos to build a new USDA or custom slaughter facility on his property. (Perhaps in the neighborhood of $30,000-50,000?). This route would provide both the public buyers and agencies assurance that trichinosis infected meat was not crisscrossing the country. A slaughter facility on his property would give Amos full control over his own meat processing. A new slaughter facility in Lancaster represented a critical resource and a major step for the local, small farming community. For whatever reason, Amos Miller could not bring himself to consider this solution, even for the interests of the families consuming his products and the local farming community. The lead FSIS investigator, Paul Flanagan, encouraged and supported this approach.

It’s as though Amos is working on the side of massive meat industry conglomerates by demonstrating to the USDA that they can’t possibly work with small farms. USDA small farm naysayers can now point to small farm revival advocacy inside the agency as a failed policy perspective. Miller’s selfishness must not be translated into martyr status. It is the opposite.

Don’t be fooled by sensationalism. There are good folks inside the USDA who want to see small, family producers succeed. Miller single handedly is responsible for his misfortune. Hopefully, he hasn’t extinguished the spark inside the USDA to understand our small farm movement.

Did Tucker unknowingly harm the hard fought momentum of our cause? Did he unwittingly reinforce many within the USDA that it’s simply easier dealing with larger corporate interests? If so, not all is lost if we communicate effectively across our networks. The truth of this matter is of public importance. Can we take any negativity Miller may have spawned at the agency and reform that energy into fruitful efforts to reinvigorate access to local food? I believe we can!

Amos Miller states that he operates as a Private Membership Association. In Amos’ opinion, his participation in a PMA makes him exempt from all food laws and regulations.

As Judge Smith notes to Amos during a court proceeding, “‘I think your position is, you are not subject to the laws of the United States.’”

Amos claims that he can freely sell all meat products to his customers through a hodgepodge PMA consisting of a Texas Joint-Stock Company and Revocable Living Trust combination using Pro-Se Litigation under a Common Law umbrella. But, the Department of Justice disagrees, noting that “for years, Miller’s has been illegally slaughtering and processing livestock and poultry, and commercially selling substantial quantities of the resulting products for human consumption.” (Source)

Amos’ “members” should ask, “Which of Miller’s Organic Farm’s advertised products do not originate from ‘his farm’?”

Which begs the question, “If some of his product does not, what amount is sourced out of state?” And, “Do his customers ‘know’ this?”

Would Amos’ customers approve of the outsourcing of their products from farms of unknown origin and quality?

But perhaps they do not ask these questions because they are afraid of the answers they might get and what it might mean for their “Private Membership Association.” Even worse, are those who work with him afraid of retaliation?

The Department of Justice notes:

Could it be that Miller uses an avalanche of paperwork generated by his PMA “advisors” to–they hope–inundate the courts and agencies and paralyze them? But, of course it wouldn’t. The court case proceeds…

In Miller’s February 2022 court hearing, a local journalist, Dan Nephin with LancasterOnline, notes that “early on in the hearing, Miller asked [Judge] Smith if he would consider a court filing he made. Smith told him the filing, marked as a writ of habeas corpus, didn’t make sense and asked Miller if he knew what habeas corpus was. [Judge Smith] proceeded to explain it was to seek a hearing on the legality of a person’s imprisonment. ‘You’re not in prison, sir, and I don’t wish to imprison you,’ Smith said.”

 

Miller’s PMA position does not work.

The larger problem is that the attention focused on this case, and the false hopes of the “PMA,” are distractions from the real efforts to change our approach to food policy and the revival of local food systems in America.

A wealthy businessman is soliciting help from values-driven people, some barely able to afford the high-profit food he offers.

Miller does not need your funds. It’s always striking when someone who is purchasing land and building new facilities puts their hand out to people who are struggling financially during the height of inflationary pain.

Here are the facts directly from the court documents:

Does this sound like a poor, struggling farmer to you?

It is appalling that Tucker, and now other news outlets, and YouTubers are giving a platform to and advocating for donating to this wealthy businessman just because he is using his Amish culture and clothing to be viewed as a poor victim. 

He clearly has more than enough financial resources to cover his court case and fees on his own. But apparently he chooses not to? Rather, he fundraises on the pretense of being a struggling Amish farmer under attack by the US government. As of this writing, his fundraising coffers appear to be reaching or surpassing $500K.

His solicitation of funds makes it harder for the many honest, hardworking farmers who are providing good, clean food to their communities–with the additional costs for safety. It redirects important resources that could go towards local solutions and a change of policy for the benefit of all small farmers and those who depend on them.

The “fees” that the court imposed are, in part, to cover Amos’ court-appointed inspector and legal fees. Has he refused to pay fees to one or more of his own attorneys’ services? Is it possible that Amos dismissed any of his attorneys or advisors because they advised him to reverse some of the behaviors that have gotten him quagmired in the court system?

Is this what donors thought their hard earned money was going towards?

If we want change in our food systems, sensationalism is not the answer

I can only hope that the major news and talk personalities who–knowingly or not– egregiously covered Amos’ self imposed drama can be passionate enough to peel back a few more layers of this “small humble farmer’s” story. It is time to expose the truth. Truth shall set us free, and truth can unite all of us seeking food freedom.

The focus must remain on those doing the good work. Unsubstantiated or un-vetted sensationalism triggers people into impulsive action that doesn’t last. This siphons resources and energy away from those working to rebuild our food systems. Unfortunately, farmers like Miller, and the sensationalist news outlets that give them a platform are making the problems worse, not helping to solve them.

Telling sensational tall tales about the “bad guy” government v. a “good guy” farmer triggers our outrage and works to get clicks, views, and donations. It does not work to change our food systems for the better. If Amos Miller’s goal with this case (and the subsequent media attention) is to change our food policy and enforcement policy in America, he is showing us what not to do. Is this possibly by design?

Perhaps a better approach is to focus on interpersonal relationships at the local level–including strengthening relationships, whether we agree on a topic or not, with policymakers and enforcers within our communities. We assuredly CAN work together towards a safe, secure local food supply chain. These efforts will inherently change food production practices and food policy in America built on an emphasis of personal responsibility on all sides. We must hold these truths to be self-evident: that it is our duty to maintain our freedom to access clean, healthy food by not allowing sensationalism to obfuscate our rights, nor absolve others of their responsibilities in a just and food-secure future.