FDA persecutors block distribution of popular local juice; Good Flow owners vow to return soon
 AUSTIN -- It takes a long time to become an Austin institution, but Good Flow Honey & Juice Co. has certainly earned the title. For more than thirty years, Good Flow has provided honey and organic juices to many of Austin’s most successful independent restaurants. Whether you ordered an orange juice at Kerbey Lane, a lemonade at Threadgill’s, or a Mexican Martini at Trudy’s, you knew you were always getting some fresh-squeezed Good Flow juice in the deal.
Word spread fast last September when Good Flow shut down their operations following an order from U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks. Grocery shelves were left bare as Good Flow product was removed, and restaurants were no longer able to serve the juices and blends.
What was the reason for this disruption? Why was the U.S. government ordering Good Flow’s owners to cease producing and distributing their juice products? What was Good Flow’s big “violation”?
Quite simply, government “experts” (intelligent, computer-savvy people, with degrees in science and law from prestigious colleges) up in Washington, D.C. and Rockville, Md., had determined that Good Flow’s popular line of fresh-squeezed juices were unacceptably “adulterated” according to new Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations passed in 2001. It appears that the crackdown on Good Flow is part of an effort by FDA experts to ban wholesale distribution of real, fresh-squeezed orange juice and other juice blends, because they are too “high-risk” for the public to be taking their chances consuming.
U.S. government health experts’ main beef with Good Flow is the fact that they do not pasteurize their juices and blends. In the U.S. Attorney’s Dec. 10, 2007, complaint against Good Flow, prosecutors assert, “Unpasteurized, fresh-squeezed juice is a high-risk food that has been shown to be a source of Salmonella and other bacterial pathogens.”
The 2001 rewrite of the FDA statutes now requires that juice processors have a step that is scientifically proven to kill 99.999% of the bacteria in their juices (“a five logarithm step” – meaning only 1/105 or 1 in 100,000 bacteria will survive this step). Killing off bacteria is usually accomplished through “pasteurization,” high-heat cooking for a short period (usually less than a minute) that wipes out most living bacteria in food.
Good Flow’s owners contend that pasteurization (cooking) of the juices (while designed to kill dangerous bacteria like E. coli and Salmonella) will also destroy beneficial, naturally occurring bacteria and enzymes in the juices.
Co-owner Judy Crofut told the Daily Texan (9/9/08), “We have all our own processes in place to ensure that it’s good, safe juice … Pasteurization kills everything, all the enzymes that allow you to digest your food, so that was a big interest of ours.”
FDA interferes in Good Flow operations
FDA persecutors have been on Good Flow’s back at least since September 2003 when U.S. government employees first inspected their facility at 2601 E. Cesar Chavez.
It was then that FDA bureaucrats first discovered that this successful natural foods business was paying no heed to the burdensome new record-keeping and “food safety” regulations that had been recently approved by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Bush.
Inspectors noted, “that Defendants had failed to develop a written hazard analysis to determine whether there are food hazards that are likely to occur … and Defendants had no records documenting their monitoring and correction of sanitation practices … This inspection resulted in the FDA issuing a letter to the Defendants on May 24, 2004, outlining deficiencies observed and encouraging necessary improvements.”
The FDA demanded that Good Flow prepare a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan that would point out exact ways that they would be able to minimize the occurrence of dangerous bacteria in their juices, and “to include control measures in their HACCP plan that will consistently produce, at a minimum, a 5-log reduction in the most resistant microorganism of public health significance likely to occur in the juice.” This means killing 99.999% of the bacteria, and that means pasteurization.
For the first few years after the new FDA regulations, Good Flow operated using an exemption as a “juice bar.” But in 2006, on account of Good Flow’s successful wholesaling business with Austin restaurants and grocery stores, the FDA revoked this exemption.
The FDA “visited” Good Flow again to observe their operations for ten days in August/September 2006. It was during this ten-day inspection that federal regulators discovered that Good Flow’s record-keeping process was still not up to snuff with the new FDA code, and they still were not cooking their juices “to obtain the required 5-log reduction in pathogens associated with the various juices. … This inspection resulted in a Warning Letter being issued to Defendants on January 24, 2007.”
The complaint notes that, “In response to the August/September 2006 inspection, Defendant Judith Crofut promised to correct the noted deficiencies, but expressed concern about the “financial risk[s]” associated with equipment upgrades.
From March 12-21, 2007, FDA inspectors were allowed to observe the Good Flow production process again, and from their observations, inspectors determined that, “Defendants failed to include control measures in their HACCP plan that will consistently produce, at a minimum, a 5-log reduction in the most resistant microorganisms of public health significance …”
They also reported that Good Flow’s owners still failed to newly-required records to “document their monitoring and correction of sanitation conditions and practices.”
The Good Flow Model
The FDA is basically requiring Good Flow to purchase new processing machinery, but owners assert that FDA requirements would actually lead to a nutritionally inferior product that would appeal less to their customer base.
More than a decade ago, in a profile of the company in the Austin Business Journal, co-owner Tom Crofut explained the superior product that results from hand-juicing the fruit and vegetable ingredients: "Doing it by hand, you don't get any of the peel oil and rinds that you get with the big machines … It is more labor-intensive, but the quality is higher."
Mr. Crofut also pointed out the increased waste of industrial machinery, and the efficiency benefits of hand-juicing:
Tom Crofut says he has used larger, automated juicers in the past, but was not pleased with the quality of juice produced by the machines … Crofut notes that by hand juicing, he gets a half-gallon more of juice out of each box of oranges than he would using automated machinery. "The difference helps pay the labor costs," he says.
Plus, for many of Good Flow’s more inventive mixes, Mr. Crofut told the Business Journal, “certain produce, such as carrots, beets, celery, and pineapple, simply can not be thrown into a machine whole. ‘You need hands to prep and get juice out of them,’ he says.”
The Business Journal then described Good Flow’s self-contained distribution system for their high demand perishable goods: “The Crofuts' four refrigerated trucks stock shelves six days a week. Fresh squeezed juice is a perishable product that must be kept cold. The Crofuts say their juices typically stay on a store's shelves one to two days.”
Judy Crofut told the Austin Chronicle (9/12/08) that the regulations that the FDA claims Good Flow has been breaking were, “really designed for big corporate America. ... We've been keeping our juice safe for a long time – we buy from reliable sources, clean our fruit in a chlorine-sanitizing bath. We eyeball every single piece of fruit … We feel strongly that our process is a good process and a safe process, but that has nothing to do with our case.”
United States of America vs. Good Flow Honey & Juice Co.
It’s been an uphill battle for Mr. and Mrs. Crofut in the case of United States of America vs Good Flow Honey & Juice Co. Federal bureaucrats claim the Crofuts are violating portions of Title 21 of the United States Code (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act) by sending out food that government experts consider “high-risk” and “adulterated.”
Prosecution of Good Flow began in December 2007 when the office of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton filed a complaint against the owners of Good Flow, Tom and Judy Crofut, for violating the new FDA juice-processing rules and record keeping requirements.
Good Flow only sells their fresh-squeezed juices in Austin, but because they purchase some of their produce and containers from out-of-state suppliers, federal bureaucrats have determined that Good Flow is engaging in “interstate commerce.”
The U.S. Attorney’s complaint against Good Flow in December 2007, states that, “Defendants’ juices are made from a variety of fruits that are shipped in interstate commerce. For example, Defendants receive lemons and oranges from a supplier in California, apples from a supplier in Washington, and limes that are imported from Mexico. Additionally, defendants’ finished juices are packaged in plastic bottles made in Venezuela using bottle closures from Kentucky.”
Apparently, because Good Flow does business with suppliers from outside of Texas, federal regulators and attorneys assert that they have the authority to tell Mr. and Mrs. Crofut how to run their business, how to squeeze their oranges, etc. Bureaucrats at the FDA now insist that Good Flow’s owners comply with federal regulations, or the government shall not allow them the “privilege” of continuing to make a living by selling their juices to a willing public.
In May 2008, Good Flow’s owners signed a “Consent Decree” after several years of pressure from their federal persecutors. In this document, they pretty much promised to do everything the FDA was demanding, or face the consequences.
Under the consent decree, the FDA demands that Good Flow hire an approved “expert” to develop their Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point plan for juices. Once the plan is submitted and approved by FDA bureaucrats, Good Flow may try to recommence their business.
In addition, Good Flow is ordered to pay the wages of their persecutors. In the consent decree, Judge Sam Sparks indicates that the Crofuts must pay FDA inspectors’ hourly rate (starting at $81.00 an hour), lodging and travel expenses, lab testing expenses, and even a per diem for the inspectors’ daily meals while they oversee Good Flow’s operations to see if they can bust them on anything “unsanitary.”
However, it appears that Good Flow continued to process and distribute their fresh-squeezed juices even after the signing of this document, and on June 24, the FDA sent them a letter ordering them to immediately cease operations.
On September 5, 2008, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks found Tom and Judy Crofut in contempt of court, ruling that they had violated the Consent Decree. He also slapped them with a $10,000 fine plus $2,500 to pay the salaries of the government attorneys prosecuting the case. Judge Sparks wrote, “Defendants have deliberately and intentionally violated the terms of this Court’s injunction. Defendants have ignored a court order and their continuous operations show they lack any respect for the law or the authority of the United States District Court.”
In defense of natural food
In one legal filing from August 19, 2008, Good Flow’s lawyer, John L. Foster, responded to the government’s accusation that Good Flow’s products were legally defined as “adulterated,” and explained the history of the company and its time-tested supply, production and distribution process:
[Owners of Good Flow] produce, and have produced since 1978, fresh-squeezed unpasteurized and non-irradiated fruit juices from their facility in east Austin, for sale only in Austin through restaurants and high-grade retailers, as well as to direct customers. … The freshness and high quality their customers require is accomplished by avoiding the necessity of pasteurizing, or cooking, the juices, and achieving healthful juices in other ways. They produce their juices using table-quality fruit certified by their suppliers to be a 8 log (i.e., 108), reduction in significant organisms. That fruit is delivered in refrigerated trucks and is maintained by [Good Flow] at 41o from that time until the juice is delivered to customers or, if sold through a grocery store, until purchased by an ultimate user….
Prior to January of 2004, the regulations the United States here seeks to enforce (21 CFR, Part 120) were inapplicable to [Good Flow] … The juices [Good Flow] have produced over those 2-1/2 decades may be “adulterated” as that term is used in federal statutes and regulations, since they have not been produced in strict compliance with those regulations, but they are not unsafe or harmful to [Good Flow]’s customers….
 [U]ntil today [the owners of Good Flow] have never received a complaint about the quality of their product, or any report of adverse health consequences from consuming their juices. …
The case brought against Good Flow is by a government agency called the “Office of Consumer Litigation.” Yet, who are the consumer victims? There are no actual reports of illness from Good Flow juices, so how do U.S. government scientists, paper shufflers, and attorneys justify their use of force to shut down this business?
Although many people connate the company’s name to the waterfall of juicy flavors they’ve provided Austin beverage consumers over the decades, “Good Flow” is actually a beekeeper’s term referring to a high yield of honey. Production and distribution of Good Flow organic honey continues, as the FDA ban applies only to the juice production.
Who is blocking the public from drinking Good Flow?
Top figures in the Bush administration’s Department of Health & Human Services and Justice Department have led the charge in the persecution of the owners of Good Flow.
U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services
Daniel Meron, General Counsel
202-690-7741
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
James C. Stansel, Acting General Counsel
(202) 690-5400
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Food and Drug Administration
Gerald F. Masoudi, Associate General Counsel
301-827-1137
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Jeffrey Senger, Acting Associate General Counsel
301-827-1137
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Eric M. Blumberg, Deputy Chief Counsel for Litigation
301-827-1138
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Michael Shane, Associate Chief Counsel for Enforcement
301-827-2802
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks
(512) 916-5896, est. 233
U.S. Attorney -- Western District of Texas
Johnny Sutton
(210) 384-7400
Katherine E. Beaumont, Asst. U.S. Attorney
David Sullivan, Trial Attorney
Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General
 |
