organicchoice

STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Selling Food From Home Should Be Legal But It’s Not
By Daily Bell Staff - February 17, 2017

Make It Legal to Sell Home-Cooked Food … As food delivery becomes ever more popular in the U.S., some innovators have been looking to do for meals what Uber and Lyft have done for rides. Good cooks or even professional chefs working at home can produce tasty food for people nearby, income for themselves, and tax revenue for cities and states. Or they could if it were legal to sell home-cooked food. In most states, it’s not. – Bloomberg

Have you ever been sickened by home-cooking? We’ve had problems sometimes with food bought elsewhere but never with food that is prepared at home. Never that we can remember anyways.

We’d venture to say that food prepared at home is probably as safe or safer than any other food.

But that’s not what regulators think. For them, food cooked at home is subject to myriad difficulties and dangers.

Regulators have all but banned food cooked at home from being sold commercially.

More:

In some states, it’s simply illegal to sell most food that’s been prepared at home, no matter what technology is in the kitchen.

… Even if the risk from home-cooked food were as high as or higher than that from restaurant-cooked food, the danger would have to be extraordinarily great to justify a ban.

Some home-cooking startups have tried to get around the present ban by using shared cooking spaces that meet restaurant-grade safety standards. But food prepared in such kitchens may run afoul of other legal requirements.

The article gives examples of the many kind of requirements that confine food to the home. It goes over licenses an ice-cream maker might need. You have to get a license from the Department of Public Health to sell to consumers.

But if you want to sell directly to restaurants, you have to get a license from the Department of Agriculture & Markets’ Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services.

But this license doesn’t actually exist. You can sell to consumers directly but not indirectly to a restaurant. That’s just one example.

Old laws, the article says, were established for hub-and-spoke distribution. But now we want a more flexible market.

We tends to think this is not true entirely. We believe it is the Internet itself that is giving rise to discontent about what can be sold and from where.

It’s one reason top elites are so set on reconfiguring the Internet so that it avoids controversial topics.

We’ve been right about the Internet. The ‘Net began by suggesting certain changes and is now suggesting changes to almost everything.

Additionally, despite suggestions that parts of the Internet are run by the alt.right, many important and influential sites are still libertarian oriented. This is driving top elites nuts.

Their idea is to virtually ban all but properly approved concepts, but even if this ban goes into effect, it won’t last. Inventions like the Internet are not static and tend to be used, one way or another until their innovations have been exhausted. That could take a long time.

The article also states that, “To determine what safety requirements are most appropriate for home kitchens, states need to build on our existing knowledge about food safety — including data gathered by the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control — to put together a clear picture of the risks involved.”

No it doesn’t. The market simply needs to do away with this “knowledge about food safety.” Leave it up to individuals. That’s what is going on anyway. You’re simply punished after-the-fact for any kind of food poisoning.

And chances are there won’t be any. Do you get food poisoning from food you cook at home? If you are trying to build a business you are going to be pretty careful about what you give customers to eat.

Conclusion: It is the market itself that disciplines you and makes sure you provide what is timely and necessary. If you do not do not deal with food in this manner, you go out of business. Regulations have little or nothing to do with it.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Calcinor Jones

    Yup it is always for the greater good of the population. I used to have a small business where I made gourmet meals and delivered them to busy professionals. I had a sanitation certificate, nutrition degree, chef school certification and 30 plus years of experience working in a variety of foodservice positions from fast food to gourmet. What the govt is saying is that we do not have the competency to roll forward with this type of minimal footprint to service those in need and earn a living. What if I went into the home of the customer? Same logic. Everything the govt touches turns to caca

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      It’s never really about ensuring safety, good sanitation, and competence.

      It’s really all about control and the arrogant, mistaken presumption of the law-enforced “right” to bully, rule, and treat civilians as if they were their slaves to which those in government–sociopaths all–eagerly and self-righteously subscribe.

      It’s long past the time that these aspiring dictators get some deadly shove-back, as an assertion of one’s right to self-ownership, personal liberty, and rightful act of self-defense.

  • autonomous

    If I was satisfied with the way my toilet flushes, or with the safety of my municipal water supply, or of the sorry state of government education, or anything that results from government regulation, I just might accept further regulation of what I choose to eat. I’d be hard pressed to find anything that has improved by regulation.

  • Praetor

    Stupid Government can’t see the forest for the trees. These things are the reason the collectivist mind set is for fools. The first person to think up cities should have been terminated on the spot. Collectivists like to make everything a collection. What is a collection? Its, ‘Look what I own.’ I say do what ever you want. To heck with them.!!!

  • Ochie

    I’ll go you one further. Our church holds dinners for parishioners and feeds the homeless. We are not allowed to let people take leftovers. Department of health has stopped such action from us and other area churches. Not even allowed to let the people make there own takeout container. Nope if they find out the first time is a fine, the next time they will shut you down and huge fine.

    • Ephraiyim

      This might be avoided by getting rid of the church’s government oversight through 501c3 rules. As a church directly under the constitutional provisions for religious groups they could not be threatened as easily as when in order to keep their option to offer tax incentives to parishioners they must kowtow to government agencies.
      As a private group they might not have any more authority than say a family picnic where leftovers are shared between those who attend.
      Maybe worth looking into anyway.
      Besides, my take on scripture is that people receive an eternal blessing for giving, especially to the poor and needy. If the reward comes from the govt., through some sort of tax reduction do they lose the heavenly one?
      Now that would be an interesting discussion at the next church board meeting.

  • Ephraiyim

    In Iowa, where I live, there are so few food service inspectors that most restaurants barely concern themselves since the likelihood of inspection more than every 3-5 yrs is is small.
    The only exception is upon opening a new or remodeled one or if people actually get sick and that restaurant seems to be the cause. Rare are they heavily fined or closed so long as they fix the issue that caused it.
    But, if a person feeds people from home as a business without the state’s license they generate revenue through very high fines.
    Just like traffic laws most are about stealing money for the use of the state.

  • Jim Johnson

    Add to my Bill of Rights: I can contract anything with anybody. Just how is it gov’t inserted itself into this most private affair?

  • rahrog

    Another clear case of using regulations to kill off competition, and clear the market for the politically connected “big boys”.

    This is FASCISM.

  • Mary

    We Merikans are simply pathetic whipped dogs to let these overweening bureaucracies take over and control our lives. In Mexico, everybody has two or three ways of earning income, and usually only one is “on the books.” There are people making food on the sidewalks everywhere. The food markets would make most Merikans sick even to look at, but where are the health inspectors? Where are the raids by SWAT teams? Better yet, where is the widespread illness???

    Like most regulation, these food regs likely came into existence at either the request of competitors and unions, or due to the need for expanded fiefdoms in govt., or both.

    In the 1800s and early 1900s, single women could support themselves by cooking for workers (look up the story behind the name Buda, TX), renting rooms (my grandmother rented rooms to merchant marines, who at the time had schedules of something like one month on, one month off.), and piece work. In more modern times, women babysat for other working women. All these ways of surviving have been wiped out by regulations.

    Where, oh where is the women’s movement and why aren’t they protecting the rights of women to earn a living from their homes? Don’t answer that…

  • IsraelReader

    No need for regulations.

    Sellers: You sell bad food, you’ll be out of business faster than you can say “Jack Robinson”.

    Customers: Customers should know that they’re buying food at their own risk. Limited liability. Don’t expect any type of compensation (other than a refund) if you get a stomachache from food that was bad when it was sold to you.

    Tax Man: The only one who has a problem is the tax man, who also wants his cut.

loading