Okay, I'll bite.

Here's a pie I made at home.

Trust me. It's good.

Gummint.

Serves her right for selling all those carb-laden cookies. She should be selling steamed asparagus and bun-less hamburgers.

"Trust me. It's good."

Thanks, Raddy. I will.

See how easy that was? If it's a bad pie, I won't buy another from you. Still real easy.

The thing is, the state of Minnesota could make it easy and cheap for her to have her kitchen inspected every few months. And it might be a marketing advantage because the she could advertise "Inspected by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture". But then the state would have to not get all uptight about stuff that doesn't matter, like whether or not a bar of soap is on the same shelf with some canned goods, or whether the proprietor and sole employee has a Minnesota-approved warning label stuck on the oven door to remind her that ovens are hot.

Back in the day, before the federal government felt it necessary to be involved in every minute of every citizen's life, bakers often paid the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to come to their state and inspect their premises. Why? Because Pennsylvania had a good reputation for maintaining thorough but reasonable inspection standards, and consumers had learned that seeing "Reg. Penna. Dept. of Agriculture" on packaging was a sign of a quality product.

See how easy that was? If it's a bad pie, I won't buy another from you. Still real easy.

You're assuming that Radwaste's secret ingredient isn't polonium 210. Sure, you won't buy another of his pies.

Or anyone else's, either...

What happens when the small time entrepreneur with a home kitchen makes a bunch of people sick or worse? what about the smaller commercial kitchens they're competing with who have to undergo mandatory inspections and code compliance? that costs them money and time, to meet the code and to be inspected.

I bet if I made the suggestion that we get rid those inspections and let the market take care of these things, someone would be along to raise hell and suggest that those commercial entities would be all too willing to make people sick or worse just to improve their bottom line. Ignoring, of course, the cost to reputation and the fall off in business due to that.

Sadly, there is a fine line between regulation in the public interest, and regulation as a barrier to entry into the market.

What happens when the small time entrepreneur with a home kitchen makes a bunch of people sick or worse?

What happens when some commercial gets e. coli in your bag of lettuce?

You sue the living shit out of them.

You're trying to make oranges into apples, when you should be comparing apples to apples.

A quote from your link, Crid. See the first line:

Because Jefferson was part of a special program for minority-owned small businesses, he could receive small contracts without going through the months-long competitive bidding process. By 2005 his company, which he named Worldwide Information Network Systems (WINS), had picked up several million dollars in contracts and had a couple of dozen employees.

“What happened to me and my company was built on my relationships,” he said.

And, largely, his skin color.

This type of "there oughtta be a law" thinking leads to endless and incomprehensible regulation and red tape that stifles entrepreneurs and protects the politically-connected establishment.

Yes, I can come up with some terrible scenarios where home-baked cookies, smoking in your own home, letting monks make pine caskets, allowing non-union carpenters on a job site, purchasing a gun, selling drugs over-the-counter, using exotic wood to make guitars, planting a garden in your front yard, eating too many sweets, driving while reading a map, importing candies from Canada that contain small toys in them, setting the temperature of your own thermostat or even buying an ad to declare how much you dislike your Congressman could lead to disastrous consequences.

But more disastrous are the unintended consequences.

Worse still: the loss of freedom and the quiet acquiescence as those freedoms are lost "for safety" or "for fairness."

Per the MN Cottage Food Law Facebook page, food safety certification is a reasonable requirement for potential bakers.

Personally, I am very excited about this. I'm the baker in my family, and it seems ridiculous that I can make cupcakes for my sister's baby shower, since I'm not charging any money, but if I charged money, it would be illegal.

what about the smaller commercial kitchens they're competing with who have to undergo mandatory inspections and code compliance?

Here in Calif, we now allow cottage food businesses as of last year, provided they don't make more than $35,000 or $45,000 per year. They must obtain a safety permit, but are allowed to self-inspect for hygiene.

If there are complaints about the product, inspections are forthcoming. Since they're so much smaller, I'm guessing that's why inspections are not as rigorous. Fo sho.

I made awesome shortbread today. I am experimenting with Christmas cookies. I did the thing where you cut out a shape from one of them then slap 'em together with jam and add glaze. Christmas will be cookilishious. I should start a cookie business.

This stuff pisses me off. I always thought if I lived in the US I'd have my kids join Spiral Scouts rather than Girl Scouts, and if they want to sell cookies, then they make them. Would that even be allowed though?

Store bought cookies are just not the same, with a few exceptions, they generally suck. I've never bought a CC cookie outside of a bake sale that were anywhere near as good as mine.

Small manufacturing means quality, in my anecdotal life.

causticf now has intestinal worms.

And no amount of suing or medical treatment will make that unhappen.

Commercial facility sanitary inspection is difficult – but that does not mean it should be discontinued. PREVENTION is the only effective safety measure where the consumer has no ability to determine food safety.

I'll chance it, Radwaste. Get this...I actually grew up milking a cow and drinking raw milk. We butchered our own hogs, plucked chickens, and ate fertilized eggs. We sold unpasteurized dairy products to people in the general area and never made anyone sick. We bought vegetables and baked goods from our neighbors and we didn't become ill. Why you ask? Because that wasn't in our or their best interest.

No, I am not terrified that I am going to be poisoned by every Mom and Pop outfit out there. Feel free to to be.

Sure, you'll chance it – and apparently you'll compel everyone else to "chance it", too.

Mighty nice of you.

Remember the Chinese petfood scandal? That was a big overseas conglomerate. Now, where do you draw the line between small and large commercial ventures? Examples have already been given in this thread.

Spiral Scouts!! THANK YOU! We've been looking for a GS alternative for a while, as has out GS troop leader. That organization is a nightmare. I hate them with a passion.

Where does one draw the line between food safety and the "right" to run a business?

Personally, I think that they were lucky to have run a business for so long without food safety inspections.

If they win the case, that just might be the end to ALL uninspected sold baked goods. (including baked-at-home goods). So, the old adage will apply: be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

The alternative would be to have NO inspections, allow anyone to sell food, regardless of its safety, expecting the free market to react to public safety. Might I suggest a re-reading of The Jungle by Upton Sinclair?

Sure, you'll chance it – and apparently you'll compel everyone else to "chance it", too. -- Radwaste at November 27, 2013 5:22 PM

No one is trying to force anyone to buy "unregulated" food. But as it stands now no one is allowed to buy it but at a farmer's market.

So if you never want to buy them, don't. But stopping others from buying them is the issue.

The fact that they let her sell at farmer's markets and community events gives away the fact that it's not about consumer protection, it's about competitor protection.

Look, you can work it out so that there's inspections. Huge places, as they affect the most people, would be inspected often, as they are now. Smaller venues could have rare, random checks. You'd never know when one was coming, so you'd stay clean, or you'd lose your license. If you poisoned people, you'd go out of business.

causticf now has intestinal worms.

And no amount of suing or medical treatment will make that unhappen.

Commercial facility sanitary inspection is difficult – but that does not mean it should be discontinued. PREVENTION is the only effective safety measure where the consumer has no ability to determine food safety.

So causticf then buys salad from a conglomerate that is inspected, and get e-coli and dies

So given the facility was inspected by the government that means causticf's family can sue the company and the government to use that magical "it was inspected so we can therefore resurrect him" to make it unhappen right?

Wait, you mean if he get sick from an inspected facility he cant make it unhapped then either?

Where does one draw the line between food safety and the "right" to run a business? -- Charles at November 27, 2013 7:53 PM

The same place that you draw the line for living: at the end of your nose.

If John Doe, your neighbor, is dumping crap into his chunk of stream that is effecting your crops then you have a right in court.

If The Town Diner sells you food that makes you sick then you have a right in court.

If the Joan the baker sells you a cake you have a right in court.

But as it stands now it is a law, as opposed to a suggestion. What should be happening is that there should be multiple associations like the BBB and such. Or in other words your membership with the Better Food Association or the Fantastic Foods Society would be the regulating agency. Or even a state agency allows you to make food. As mentioned above the "Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture" on a bag of food was a valued designation. It has been subsumed by the FDA, which I consider totally useless. Otherwise I wouldn't get 1M hits for e. coli warnings 2013.

luj - that's a fallacy.

A failure by an agency to inspect a facility for cleanliness absolutely does not excuse anyone for contaminating their product by not maintaining that cleanliness.

One more time: PREVENTION is the only means of preventing a safety violation from happening.

There is no logical position you can take that improves public safety by stopping the inspection of commercial food products.

I cannot believe anyone would be so stupid as to believe that a list of ingredients would be on the side of, say, a soda can, without the manufacturer being compelled to produce it.

So if someone chooses of their own free will to buy an unknown, unregulated, unlabeled product out of the back of some guy's van, whats the problem?

The know what they are getting into

"One more time: PREVENTION is the only means of preventing a safety violation from happening."

Except that prevention itself is a fallacy. As shown by others in this thread, all the regulations in the world do not prevent safety violations, illness, or, in the worst case, death.

You have to to look out for your self and be willing to litigate.

As LUJLP said, people know what they are getting into.