I don't feel like they are, they actually are. From the sounds of that paragraph, they are taking a black and white issue (operating legally/illegally) and trying to make it an issue full of gray areas. For example, saying that cottage food businesses are forced to operate "under the table" because of "the very high barrier to entry" to traditional food surface operations is just making excuses. Also, saying that you can try to turn them in, but most health inspectors are overworked, and probably won't do anything about it . . . what kind of b.s. is that?
I live in one of the most liberal cottage food law states there is - Iowa. There are virtually no barriers to entry. So I am not against the CFL, but trying to sweep all cottage food providers under the same rug, whether they are properly licensed or not, isn't the right tact to take. And cottagefoods.org should not be characterizing legal cottage food producers as "being forced to operate under the table" - talk about insulting if you are legally operating under a cottage food law.