I think that this thread is a great example of how conflicting this is for all of us all the time as a group. We are all mere mortals hashing this out, going 'round and 'round -- so too are the people slicing and dicing the rules & regulations. Some of them are legalistic, no grey area goes unprocessed, some of them let the non-essentials go.
That's for sure. Things would be much easier if there was some kind of cottage food law at the federal level that would take precedence over the mishmash of state, county, and municipal regulations and specifically allow home businesses up to a certain income level with a base level of food safety inspections from the FDA.
[ But another law ain't gonna fix that. That's all at the state and local levels where it should be. Washington can't handle Washington much less what happens in kitchens across the land.
It would fix the problem if it trumps all other existing laws, as many federal laws do. For example, I can't think of a good reason for a municipality to deny a low-volume home-baking business on zoning grounds as long as there is no significant impact to the residential neighborhood, smart federal guidance on issues like this would help inject some common sense into the approval process.
This doesn't have to be managed centrally either, current employees at the state and local level could be moved into FDA or USDA to improve coordination, increase efficiency, and eliminate redundancy. States, counties, and municipalities would love this, as they could cut those positions from their budget. They could be paid for at the federal level with home-baking permit fees, inspection fees, and additional tax revenue from income that used to be off the books.
The will to enforce trumps a gaggle of mumbo jumbo words on paper. For example, not to debate this issue, but just for an example of how a federal law means zip nada to trump state and local--the mess in Arizona over who's watching the hen house of immigration. The state laws are in line with the federal laws and the feds are trying to strike down the state laws--I am not debating that issue--I'm pointing out, agh no it's not about laws it's about people and what those people believe.
There's two camps (at least) so my point is laws (in this scenario) do not unite, laws divide.
If the feds do a cottage law thing they twist a knife in the heart of those like SCP for example who invested deeply to do what they're doing. It puts the hammer on viable businesses. It would benefit me personally and I am NOT in favor of it. No.
Think of it from this angle then.
"I was actually going to use selling drugs as an example. Both are illegal after all. And in the eyes of the law they are not going to be any less lenient because it was cake and not drugs. They do not work that way."
Actually drugs are a decent example. If you go through the proper channels and get your drug approved by the FDA, you can sell it legally through pharmacies (as long as they are licensed).
If you make your own drugs at home and stay under the radar by only sharing with friends and family, the risk is pretty low, but once you start selling homemade drugs to a wider circle of people you'll probably start running into trouble.
The will to enforce trumps a gaggle of mumbo jumbo words on paper.
With local food safety in the hands of the FDA (or USDA) and clear-cut, consistent rules, I would think the will to enforce would be greater, especially since there would be a chain of command leading to federal authorities who do have said will and can step in if the local FDA staff drops the ball.
If the feds do a cottage law thing they twist a knife in the heart of those like SCP for example who invested deeply to do what they're doing. It puts the hammer on viable businesses.
That's why the federal law should include low limits on annual income for home bakeries, a relatively high barrier of entry in terms of fees, and stepped up enforcement with escalating fines to deter unlicensed businesses.
The net result would be a shakeout of unlicensed bakers who enter the industry at a whim, replaced by bakers who are ready to commit to a home-based business (and presumably have a better idea of how much to charge, which could be part of the discussion during initial inspection in conjunction with local small business development centers).
I personally feel that whenever the federal government gets involved, things start to go wrong.
How so?
I personally feel that whenever the federal government gets involved, things start to go wrong.
How so?
JasonKraft I'm sure you're an awesome person, but I find you DISAGREE with people more often than you agree on these forums....
But then I could be wrong....
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with kelleym, just trying to understand the specifics of her point. I'm interested in gathering constructive feedback on a federal cottage food initiative in case I decide to pass it up the chain to Congress and/or FDA.
The will to enforce trumps a gaggle of mumbo jumbo words on paper.
With local food safety in the hands of the FDA (or USDA) and clear-cut, consistent rules, I would think the will to enforce would be greater, especially since there would be a chain of command leading to federal authorities who do have said will and can step in if the local FDA staff drops the ball.
If the feds do a cottage law thing they twist a knife in the heart of those like SCP for example who invested deeply to do what they're doing. It puts the hammer on viable businesses.
That's why the federal law should include low limits on annual income for home bakeries, a relatively high barrier of entry in terms of fees, and stepped up enforcement with escalating fines to deter unlicensed businesses.
The net result would be a shakeout of unlicensed bakers who enter the industry at a whim, replaced by bakers who are ready to commit to a home-based business (and presumably have a better idea of how much to charge, which could be part of the discussion during initial inspection in conjunction with local small business development centers).
The words clear-cut, consistent and government agency in the same sentence become an entire herd of oxymorons spiralling in all directions.
The words clear-cut, consistent and government agency in the same sentence become an entire herd of oxymorons spiralling in all directions.
It can't be any worse than thousands upon thousands of conflicting rules imposed by states, counties, and municipalities. The basic facts around food safety don't change from county to county, so why are the rules different?
I agree that the current state of food safety at the federal level is a mess, and consolidating responsibility is a political challenge (which wasn't even addressed in the latest food safety bill), but I think it's worth a shot. At a bare minimum a streamlining of FDA and USDA/FSIS would be required.
I agree that the current state of food safety at the federal level is a mess, and consolidating responsibility is a political challenge (which wasn't even addressed in the latest food safety bill), but I think it's worth a shot. At a bare minimum a streamlining of FDA and USDA/FSIS would be required.
"Consolidating responsibility" sounds like taking the authority away from the states, where it rightly belongs. It sounds like a federal power grab. This is not a federal issue, the feds do not belong in our kitchens. Be careful what you wish for.
"Consolidating responsibility" sounds like taking the authority away from the states, where it rightly belongs. It sounds like a federal power grab. This is not a federal issue, the feds do not belong in our kitchens. Be careful what you wish for.
Why does authority for food safety rightly belong with states? The FDA and USDA are both already tasked with food safety on a federal level.
If there were significant differences in food safety from state to state, I would agree that state-level enforcement is the way to go, but that's not the case. In most cases, the same people would be inspecting your kitchens, there would just be a different chain of authority and a basic level of standardized rules for all states.
But would it really be better?
Or would it dumb down and thin out bakery business even more?
The way I see the current state of affairs is that for the most part in the more populated areas, the restrictions are greater against home businesses in residential areas. Cities need the tax base generated by bigger businesses with employees plus control of food safety.
I can't see them really going for it. I mean all they have to do is tie you up in some more red tape--like zoning--like increased taxes.
Tennessee has new rules that allow for farmer's market type food produced from homes. In my county, decorated cake comes under catering not farmer's market. In other counties, cakers are baking merrily away legit. It's too easy to circumvent state law, adding a federal layer is just one more layer.
I for one am strongly for states' rights...theoretically, if you don't like one state...move somewhere else.
Trans Fats would be a good example....for instance that ban really REALLY hurts bakeries. Right now in Philly area trans fats are banned EXCEPT bakeries...but if the feds got ahold of that and banned all trans fats, regardless....they don't care about the mom and pop shop that has to take off two months to rework all their recipes.
Local governments best know the needs of their people.
I vote no. Me no likie--doesn't 'feel' good.
(ix-nay on a unified federal 'law')
The way I see the current state of affairs is that for the most part in the more populated areas, the restrictions are greater against home businesses in residential areas. Cities need the tax base generated by bigger businesses with employees plus control of food safety.
Erosion of the tax base from more established businesses is a valid concern, studies would need to be done to see if the increased fees and taxes from a larger number of smaller businesses would make up for it.
I can't see them really going for it. I mean all they have to do is tie you up in some more red tape--like zoning--like increased taxes.
That's the whole point of a federal law, to establish a "bill of rights" for small businesses so they can thrive. If a home-based business would legitimately and significantly impact a neighborhood (for example, if 100 customers were to come by every day), then the local zoning commission would be justified in denying the business license, but otherwise there's no reason not to grant the license as long as the business remains small.
Tennessee has new rules that allow for farmer's market type food produced from homes. In my county, decorated cake comes under catering not farmer's market. In other counties, cakers are baking merrily away legit. It's too easy to circumvent state law, adding a federal layer is just one more layer.
Again, the federal layer would not be one more layer, it would be THE layer. One of the fundamental concepts of capitalism is a level playing field, and as you've illustrated that doesn't exist today in this industry.
Trans Fats would be a good example....for instance that ban really REALLY hurts bakeries. Right now in Philly area trans fats are banned EXCEPT bakeries...but if the feds got ahold of that and banned all trans fats, regardless....they don't care about the mom and pop shop that has to take off two months to rework all their recipes.
In CA, trans fats are banned, including bakeries. It only took us a few days to rework, and all of our existing ingredients that had trans fats already had zero trans fat versions immediately available.
That said, I agree that banning trans fats is ridiculous. I would rather have a federal law enacted that allowed a certain amount of trans fats but with strict labeling requirements so customers know what they are buying.
Tennessee has new rules that allow for farmer's market type food produced from homes. In my county, decorated cake comes under catering not farmer's market. In other counties, cakers are baking merrily away legit. It's too easy to circumvent state law, adding a federal layer is just one more layer.
Again, the federal layer would not be one more layer, it would be THE layer. One of the fundamental concepts of capitalism is a level playing field, and as you've illustrated that doesn't exist today in this industry.
It is a level playing field for those who want to establish a business.
For those who want to dabble, it's a lumpy playing field but doable. I can bake a few cakes here ant there. If I was in a less populated area I could bake from home as a business--but there's less market. The way I try to spin it in my brain is I am glad there are regulations that prevent my neighbor from having a pig farm on his front lawn.
For those who want to dabble, it's a lumpy playing field but doable. I can bake a few cakes here ant there.
That's what the cottage food law (at both the state and federal level) is trying to address, leveling the playing field for people who are a little more serious than "dabbling" but do not yet have the client base to support the added overhead of existing licensing and inspection requirements.
Yes, it's doable, but IMHO it's needlessly difficult for startups.
The way I try to spin it in my brain is I am glad there are regulations that prevent my neighbor from having a pig farm on his front lawn.
That's an example where the local zoning board would be justified in denying a permit, a lawn full of pigs would obviously disrupt the neighborhood with noise and smell issues. Baking cakes indoors with a customer dropping by every 2-3 days would cause no disruption.
For those who want to dabble, it's a lumpy playing field but doable. I can bake a few cakes here ant there.
That's what the cottage food law (at both the state and federal level) is trying to address, leveling the playing field for people who are a little more serious than "dabbling" but do not yet have the client base to support the added overhead of existing licensing and inspection requirements.
Yes, it's doable, but IMHO it's needlessly difficult for startups.
Building client base is part of doing it. Difficult startup is part of the risk. Reducing risk does not make it easier to succeed. It makes it easier to start but no quarantees going forward
Restaurants and food type businesses have the greatest turn around. Making it easier for folks to dive in unprepared is not a good idea to me.
You are for more homogenation. I am for less.
Building client base is part of doing it. Difficult startup is part of the risk. Reducing risk does not make it easier to succeed. It makes it easier to start but no quarantees going forward
Standardizing on rules for home-based bakeries and making them more accessible reduces liability risk, as fewer people will be operating under the table without proper insurance. It certainly does not reduce business risk, as the business would still need to pay its bills and find a customer base in order to succeed. There would still be barriers to entry (in terms of a reasonably high up-front inspection fee -- not to mention passing the inspection -- and a lower annual fee).
Restaurants and food type businesses have the greatest turn around. Making it easier for folks to dive in unprepared is not a good idea to me.
I'm for making it easier for folks to make informed decisions about opening food service businesses. As it stands, people dive in all the time with unlicensed businesses because the rules are confusing and there's not much communication about the need for licenses in the first place. Stepping up enforcement and putting a consistent message out there would go a long way toward fixing that.
You are for more homogenation. I am for less.
I am for more homogenization -- in the rules for starting a food service business. If anything, clear rules will increase the number of legitimate home-based food service businesses out there. More competition results in more pressure to create competitive advantages that set your business apart from the rest. Businesses that succeed in creating competitive advantages will thrive (whether they are home-based or not), and those that don't will fall by the wayside. As successful home-based businesses grow they will hit the income cap, and at that point they will need to either expand to a traditional licensed commercial kitchen or turn away orders for the rest of the year.
Building client base is part of doing it. Difficult startup is part of the risk. Reducing risk does not make it easier to succeed. It makes it easier to start but no quarantees going forward
Standardizing on rules for home-based bakeries and making them more accessible reduces liability risk, as fewer people will be operating under the table without proper insurance. It certainly does not reduce business risk, as the business would still need to pay its bills and find a customer base in order to succeed. There would still be barriers to entry (in terms of a reasonably high up-front inspection fee -- not to mention passing the inspection -- and a lower annual fee).
Restaurants and food type businesses have the greatest turn around. Making it easier for folks to dive in unprepared is not a good idea to me.
I'm for making it easier for folks to make informed decisions about opening food service businesses. As it stands, people dive in all the time with unlicensed businesses because the rules are confusing and there's not much communication about the need for licenses in the first place. Stepping up enforcement and putting a consistent message out there would go a long way toward fixing that.
You are for more homogenation. I am for less.
I am for more homogenization -- in the rules for starting a food service business. If anything, clear rules will increase the number of legitimate home-based food service businesses out there. More competition results in more pressure to create competitive advantages that set your business apart from the rest. Businesses that succeed in creating competitive advantages will thrive (whether they are home-based or not), and those that don't will fall by the wayside. As successful home-based businesses grow they will hit the income cap, and at that point they will need to either expand to a traditional licensed commercial kitchen or turn away orders for the rest of the year.
I don't understand how more laws reduce liability risk....only proper food procedure reduces liability risk (theoretically), as it reduces the chances of being sued. Of course in this day and age...not much reduces the chance of being sued.
I don't care if you are a legit business with insurance....it's your operating method that makes you a liability. You could be a high class restaurant with insurance out the wazoo and still put out a dirty, germ-infested product.
Building client base is part of doing it. Difficult startup is part of the risk. Reducing risk does not make it easier to succeed. It makes it easier to start but no quarantees going forward
Standardizing on rules for home-based bakeries and making them more accessible reduces liability risk, as fewer people will be operating under the table without proper insurance. It certainly does not reduce business risk, as the business would still need to pay its bills and find a customer base in order to succeed. There would still be barriers to entry (in terms of a reasonably high up-front inspection fee -- not to mention passing the inspection -- and a lower annual fee).
Restaurants and food type businesses have the greatest turn around. Making it easier for folks to dive in unprepared is not a good idea to me.
I'm for making it easier for folks to make informed decisions about opening food service businesses. As it stands, people dive in all the time with unlicensed businesses because the rules are confusing and there's not much communication about the need for licenses in the first place. Stepping up enforcement and putting a consistent message out there would go a long way toward fixing that.
You are for more homogenation. I am for less.
I am for more homogenization -- in the rules for starting a food service business. If anything, clear rules will increase the number of legitimate home-based food service businesses out there. More competition results in more pressure to create competitive advantages that set your business apart from the rest. Businesses that succeed in creating competitive advantages will thrive (whether they are home-based or not), and those that don't will fall by the wayside. As successful home-based businesses grow they will hit the income cap, and at that point they will need to either expand to a traditional licensed commercial kitchen or turn away orders for the rest of the year.
I don't understand how more laws reduce liability risk....only proper food procedure reduces liability risk (theoretically), as it reduces the chances of being sued. Of course in this day and age...not much reduces the chance of being sued.
I don't care if you are a legit business with insurance....it's your operating method that makes you a liability. You could be a high class restaurant with insurance out the wazoo and still put out a dirty, germ-infested product.
Building client base is part of doing it. Difficult startup is part of the risk. Reducing risk does not make it easier to succeed. It makes it easier to start but no quarantees going forward
Standardizing on rules for home-based bakeries and making them more accessible reduces liability risk, as fewer people will be operating under the table without proper insurance. It certainly does not reduce business risk, as the business would still need to pay its bills and find a customer base in order to succeed. There would still be barriers to entry (in terms of a reasonably high up-front inspection fee -- not to mention passing the inspection -- and a lower annual fee).
It's their choice to do so. Overal it's very complicated to open up but obtaining insurance is one of the easiest things to do.
Restaurants and food type businesses have the greatest turn around. Making it easier for folks to dive in unprepared is not a good idea to me
I'm for making it easier for folks to make informed decisions about opening food service businesses. As it stands, people dive in all the time with unlicensed businesses because the rules are confusing and there's not much communication about the need for licenses in the first place. Stepping up enforcement and putting a consistent message out there would go a long way toward fixing that.
A federal law would not streamline any of this--it would add another layer, top layer bottom layer another layer--there's no way to step on that many toes across each state and make it better. It's a mini mine field best left alone. You're gonna piss off established businesses--you're gonna piss off local jurisdictions--and don't even think about getting the federal hand in that piggie bank of fees and sales tax and etc.
You are for more homogenation. I am for less.
I am for more homogenization -- in the rules for starting a food service business. If anything, clear rules will increase the number of legitimate home-based food service businesses out there. More competition results in more pressure to create competitive advantages that set your business apart from the rest. Businesses that succeed in creating competitive advantages will thrive (whether they are home-based or not), and those that don't will fall by the wayside. As successful home-based businesses grow they will hit the income cap, and at that point they will need to either expand to a traditional licensed commercial kitchen or turn away orders for the rest of the year.
The rules are not especially crystal clear but they are similar enough to have gotten us (as a country) going this long and will continue to get businesses going. They are ok as is.
The problem is trying to do something that the municipality has already decided is not allowed. I'm ok with that--kinda sorta.
It keeps me out of the loop but I could open up a place if I wanted to. I don't want overhead. I can be a consultant for others to open up here in my area--I know exactly how to proceed. 
I personally feel that whenever the federal government gets involved, things start to go wrong. This is something best left to the states, and to those of us in the states we live to petition our legislators to pass the laws we need.
I don't understand how more laws reduce liability risk.
An umbrella federal regulation would simplify laws, leading to more home bakers opting to get legal. If you're not legal, you can't get liability insurance, that's where liability risk comes in.
Overal it's very complicated to open up but obtaining insurance is one of the easiest things to do.
I doubt any liability insurance underwriter will cover an unlicensed business. You may be able to buy a policy, but any claim would likely be denied.
A federal law would not streamline any of this--it would add another layer, top layer bottom layer another layer--there's no way to step on that many toes across each state and make it better.
Granted that it would be a big change, but again there would be a federal mandate for basic guidelines that local authorities cannot override without cause. This would make the federal guideline the prevailing one.
It's a mini mine field best left alone. You're gonna piss off established businesses--you're gonna piss off local jurisdictions--and don't even think about getting the federal hand in that piggie bank of fees and sales tax and etc.
Again, established businesses already face unlicensed competition. Stepped up enforcement would reduce this, with a measured increase in legit competitors.
The fed would collect fees and income tax from home-based bakers, but they would not collect sales tax. The fees go towards paying for inspectors and overhead. State and local govts would see a net gain from this, as they would no longer have to pay for food safety inspectors (but they would still collect income and sales tax).
I am going to say something that will probably be unpopular, but this is the only industry I can think of that tolerates unlicensed vendors.
I can think of a few others -
catering
hair styling
home health care
Theresa
I am a licensed esthetician/nail tech. In our state, we are required by law to have our license on display for the public to view. I know of no esthos/designers who operate w/o being licensed. They may do some "side business" out of their home, but they are all licensed.
The biggest threat to business is bigger business, not smaller.
For example...the biggest threat to local bakeries is Sam's Club...not the home baker down the street.
Not in the baking business--a handful of Suzy Homemakers could do some serious damage to existing businesses.
Quote by @%username% on %date%
%body%