4 ms·

I like where these cottage food laws are going. I'm just thinking out loud, but I'd be interested in seeing a system where smaller outfits would simply be requi

I like where these cottage food laws are going. I'm just thinking out loud, but I'd be interested in seeing a system where smaller outfits would simply be required to post some kind of notification that they are unlicensed/uninspected. This might also be accompanied by a higher cap on claims resulting from food poisoning lawsuits or something similar.

roel_v 16y ago
From a policy maker point of view this would be saying 'we are going to allow unsafe goods to be sold'. While I personally agree with the sentiment, it's never going to happen.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  What? Your Mom bakes unsafe cookies?
  - roel_v 16y ago
    Huh?
    - sokoloff 16y ago
      Joe's point was that your mom's kitchen is neither licensed nor inspected by the state. Yet, she served you baked goods out of that kitchen. The false implication that unlicensed == unsafe is what he was commenting on. If they were safe enough for you to eat, they're probably safe enough for me to eat, regardless of whether she has a seal from the state.
      - roel_v 16y ago
        Oh I see. But that's unrelated to the discussion. Fact is that to produce and sell food outside of the 'home' setting requires a license, for food safety reasons. While we (or rather, other people - myself I'm not so much interested in that discussion) could argue about whether or not that's warranted, fact is that such regulations exist and they are very unlikely to go away. Now, while technically 'unlicensed' does not equal 'unsafe', the existence of 'licensed' outfits, for safety reasons, does mean that 'unlicensed' means 'we cannot verify the safety'. Which, realistically, is as good as 'unsafe' in terms of pressure against it. (This is not a discussion about actual food safety, this is about processes and pressures on policy makers and perceptions of control.) (edit: add 'un' to 'likely')
        JoeAltmaier 16y ago
        Of course its going away; folks have commented on this - allowing church bake sales etc. Agreed on other points however. There are Mom's Kitchens I would definitely NOT want to eat out of. And licensing means (or used to mean) inspecting.

roel_v 16y ago

From a policy maker point of view this would be saying 'we are going to allow unsafe goods to be sold'. While I personally agree with the sentiment, it's never going to happen.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
What? Your Mom bakes unsafe cookies?
- roel_v 16y ago
  Huh?
  - sokoloff 16y ago
    Joe's point was that your mom's kitchen is neither licensed nor inspected by the state. Yet, she served you baked goods out of that kitchen. The false implication that unlicensed == unsafe is what he was commenting on. If they were safe enough for you to eat, they're probably safe enough for me to eat, regardless of whether she has a seal from the state.
    - roel_v 16y ago
      Oh I see. But that's unrelated to the discussion. Fact is that to produce and sell food outside of the 'home' setting requires a license, for food safety reasons. While we (or rather, other people - myself I'm not so much interested in that discussion) could argue about whether or not that's warranted, fact is that such regulations exist and they are very unlikely to go away. Now, while technically 'unlicensed' does not equal 'unsafe', the existence of 'licensed' outfits, for safety reasons, does mean that 'unlicensed' means 'we cannot verify the safety'. Which, realistically, is as good as 'unsafe' in terms of pressure against it. (This is not a discussion about actual food safety, this is about processes and pressures on policy makers and perceptions of control.) (edit: add 'un' to 'likely')
      - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
        Of course its going away; folks have commented on this - allowing church bake sales etc. Agreed on other points however. There are Mom's Kitchens I would definitely NOT want to eat out of. And licensing means (or used to mean) inspecting.