By Carey Wedler
Government has long been characterized as inept. It’s easy to forget that sometimes it can be downright cruel.
The latest example comes from Missouri, where the Kansas City Health Department is under fire after employees bleached food intended for the homeless because the people supplying it did not have the proper permit.
On Sunday, officials from the health department, accompanied by armed police officers, stopped volunteers with Free Hot Soup Kansas City from feeding the homeless at four locations, claiming the food had not been inspected.
“Officers and health inspectors demanded we destroy our food and we were violating health code violations by sharing meals with our friends,” said Nellie McCool, who has participated in efforts to feed the homeless for years.
The health department has defended its crackdown, claiming officials had previously informed the volunteer group that they needed to obtain a permit.
“They were notified back in a meeting in September that they needed to get a permit, and they just outright said they refused to do that,” said Dr. Rex Archer, Director Of Health for KCMO, according to KSHB, a local Kansas City outlet.
McCool denies this. “We never had any kind of government official ever come and speak with anybody at any of the public parks,” she said.
Contraband Charity
Regardless, according to the department’s write-up of the Sunday incident, officials destroyed the food, citing the lack of a permit, and insisted the action was taken to protect public safety.
“This operation claims to care about folks, but if you care about folks, you want to prepare food safely,” Archer said, confirming that using bleach to destroy contraband food is standard policy.
In a tweet elaborating on the agency’s position, officials claimed they blocked the volunteers because their gatherings are “open to the general public,” and the food is not stored at the “required temperature for food safety” when it is transported to serving locations throughout the city.
McCool claims that Free Hot Soup Kansas City should be exempt from the regulations, arguing that they are not an official organization and were simply sharing food with friends in a picnic-like manner.
“As far as I know, picnics are not regulated by the same laws as organizations and vendors, so by using our public parks to have a picnic with our friends, I don’t believe we were breaking any rules,” she told local outlet KCUR. Archer disputed her position. “If it’s a family picnic, it’s for the family, and it’s at one location. So it was pretty clear that this was an operation that was operating illegally,” he said.
McCool believes government officials disapprove of their efforts and have sought “to bully [them] into becoming an organization.”
Hurting Those Who Need Help Most
It seems counter to the basic tenets of liberty for a government entity to assert it can restrict others from engaging in acts of charity—or receiving it—because there may be a risk involved. Freedom involves risk, and when people are living on the streets, it seems reasonable to assume they might like the option to take their chances on food donated to them.
Though this incident has sparked heated debate in Kansas City, it is hardly unique. Local governments nationwide have been restricting well-meaning citizens from feeding the homeless for years.
In 2014, a 90-year-old veteran in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was cited and arrested multiple times for feeding the homeless without a permit in an ongoing ordeal that ultimately led a circuit court to temporarily halt the policy. Earlier this year in San Diego, California, a group of activists was arrested for the same offense. Following Hurricane Michael, a viral video circulated of health department officials in Panama City, Florida, apparently shutting down food donations because those distributing it, once again, did not obtain the proper permitting from the health department. (The Florida Department of Health in Bay County did not return FEE’s email seeking to confirm the video’s authenticity.)
In a positive development, the Supreme Court ruled in August that feeding the homeless is protected under the First Amendment after Fort Lauderdale activists sued over the city’s permit requirement.
At a broader level, however, similar nanny state measures have produced everything from regulations restricting what types of beverages can be listed on children’s restaurant menus to banning people from feeding pigeons. Violations of such rules come with hefty fines and even jail time.
Restrictions against feeding the homeless, and in multiple cases outright destroying what is likely perfectly safe food, seem particularly misguided and harmful, as do measures preventing Good Samaritans from providing them with shelter.
As is so often the case with intrusive government policy, those most in need end up the victims. “[G]rown men and women [were] crying as they watched good, hot food made with so much love be destroyed right in front of them,” one of Free Hot Soup’s administrators said of the incident.
#1: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
If Free Hot Soup Kansas City will pay for it, then they should be allowed to serve whatever they want without a license or inspections. This is called "taking personal responsibility".
misterwhite posted on 2018-11-12 09:55:03 Reply Private Reply
#2: GrandIsland To: Deckard (#0)
Feeding the animals causes dependency. Simple, provable SCIENTIFIC FACT.
If someone is starving and their family, friends or religious group doesn’t feed them, then being the weakest link, they should die. It’s how EVERY species on this rock has survived. Not everyone deserves a trophy.
GrandIsland posted on 2018-11-12 11:54:08 Reply Private Reply
#3: A K A Stone To: misterwhite (#1)
It's people like you who crucified Christ.
If Jesus was feeding the people. You would come with Roman Legionnaires and harm jail or kill them.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-11-12 12:07:00 Reply Private Reply
#4: misterwhite To: A K A Stone (#3)
No need. The Roman taxpayers were not forced to pay for the care of the poor when someone else poisoned them.
misterwhite posted on 2018-11-12 13:07:19 Reply Private Reply
#5: Hondo68 To: misterwhite (#4)
Jesus didn't poison anyone you moron.
Go suck on a Trump Grill Taco Bowl!
Hondo68 posted on 2018-11-12 13:58:38 Reply Private Reply
#6: Vicomte13 To: GrandIsland (#2)
Are you a Republican?
Vicomte13 posted on 2018-11-12 14:02:15 Reply Private Reply
#7: nolu chan To: Deckard (#0)
Right, they are just having Sunday picnics with family and friends.
They are preparing and delivering food to the public, and violating required safety standards. They claim to be exempt from training required by the Kansas City Health Department "for anyone that works directly with the preparation or cooking of food."
Their legal theory of said exemption appears to be wishful thinking.
http://kcmo.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2013/09/Kansas-City-Mo.-Food-Code.pdf
Kansas City, MO. Food Code
http://kcmo.gov/health/food-handler-and-manager-training/handler-and-manager-class-information/
One may buy from a selection of their T-shirt stylings on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Official-Free-Hot-Soup-T-Shirt/dp/B07G2TCDNJ
https://www.amazon.com/Official-Free-Hot-Soup-Shirt/dp/B07FYW64CQ/ref=sr_1_5?s=apparel&ie=UTF8&qid=1542062669&sr=1-5&nodeID=7141123011&psd=1&keywords=free+hot+soup
For those who prefer, there are hoodie stylings, also on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Official-Free-Hot-Soup-Hoodie/dp/B07FSY747F/ref=sr_1_3?s=apparel&ie=UTF8&qid=1542062669&sr=1-3&nodeID=7141123011&psd=1&keywords=free+hot+soup
nolu chan posted on 2018-11-12 17:48:45 Reply Private Reply
#8: GrandIsland To: Vicomte13 (#6)
GrandIsland posted on 2018-11-12 19:23:13 Reply Private Reply
#9: A K A Stone To: misterwhite (#4)
I kind of get your point. But take it a step further.
The people who made those rules are not the ones giving and receiving aid. So why be hard on them for doing something that you might be in favor of yourself if the law was different?
A K A Stone posted on 2018-11-12 19:28:28 Reply Private Reply
#10: A K A Stone To: GrandIsland (#2)
We are not animals though.
You should show compassion for weaker people. That is a good trait. Helping the truly needy doesn't mean you agree with the welfare sham system we have today.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-11-12 19:30:42 Reply Private Reply
#11: GrandIsland To: A K A Stone (#10)
1) We actually are animals.
“an·i·mal /ÈanYmYl/Submit noun 1. a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.”
We just happen to be higher on the food chain than all others. Sometimes, the liberal tree huggers and PETA assholes forget that fact.
2) If someone “truly needs” help, than I expect their family, friends or religious peers to pay for it. If they don’t have that... then I agree. That would remove 90% of the sheep from the welfare lines.
GrandIsland posted on 2018-11-12 22:19:28 Reply Private Reply
#12: misterwhite To: A K A Stone (#9)
Because giving and receiving aid is not the issue. The issue is what happens if the receiver becomes ill.
IF the giver agrees to take responsibility, then I have no problem with that. But if the giver and receiver expect the taxpayers to pay for their recklessness, then the taxpayers should be allowed to set some basic ground rules.
The people complaining about "too many laws and regulations" are the same ones who demand immunity from personal responsibility and expect the rest of us to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives.
misterwhite posted on 2018-11-13 09:35:41 Reply Private Reply
#13: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#7)
misterwhite posted on 2018-11-13 11:10:58 Reply Private Reply
#14: Stoner To: misterwhite (#13)
Stoner posted on 2018-11-13 12:01:40 Reply Private Reply
#15: misterwhite To: Stoner (#14)
misterwhite posted on 2018-11-13 12:42:58 Reply Private Reply
#16: Hondo68 To: Stoner, Reverend Jim Jones (#14)
The Statist Kool-Aid inspector, Reverend Jim Jones.
Drink up, it's Government approved.
Hondo68 posted on 2018-11-13 12:52:10 Reply Private Reply
#17: nolu chan To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#9)
Ideally, it would not be illegal. But those who vote for a nanny state get the nanny laws and regulations that come with it.
Free Hot Soup Kansas City (or Portland, Oregon), or wherever else they may have "franchises," may have been better served by just serving the hot soup and not drawing attention to themselves by branching out, or selling t-shirts on Amazon.
When the agency responsible for enforcement of the Food Laws loses any possible plausible deniability of the unauthorized and non-compliant food operation, it must enforce the code or it will be subject to liability. The same litigators who defend the supposed "family picnics" will be just as happy to litigate against the agency for culpable negligence should the non-compliant food service operation cause a few dozen or more sick consumers and maybe a few deaths.
nolu chan posted on 2018-11-13 14:21:36 Reply Private Reply
#18: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#17)
How dare you allow me to operate in such a careless manner!
misterwhite posted on 2018-11-14 10:41:28 Reply Private Reply
#19: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#17)
You know, that's probably how the law came about. People got sick or died from these vendors and someone sued the city for not regulating and inspecting them.
misterwhite posted on 2018-11-14 10:44:17 Reply Private Reply