Showing posts with label Cottage-food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cottage-food. Show all posts

Thursday, January 30, 2014

California Legalized Selling Food Made At Home And Created Over A Thousand Local Businesses

A government official appears at a man’s door.  The man has been breaking the law: He has sold bread baked at home.
This isn’t a page from Kafka—it happened to Mark Stambler in Los Angeles.
For decades, Stambler has followed traditional methods to bake loaves of French bread.  The ingredients are simple: distilled water, sea salt, wild yeast and organic grains.  Stambler even mills the grain himself.  To make it easier to steam loaves, he built a wood-fired oven in his own backyard.  Stambler’s loaves came in first place at the Los Angeles County Fair and the California State Fair.
Soon after that, Stambler got the idea to expand his hobby into a home business, which became Pagnol Boulanger.  Word of mouth spread.  In June 2011, The Los Angeles Times profiled Stambler and his bread in a full-page feature.
Mark Stambler
Mark Stambler (Photo by Dustin Hughes.)
Unlike his bread, that profile was bittersweet.  He was busted the very next day.  As he described it, the health department “descended like a ton of bricks on the two stores that were selling my bread…they could no longer sell my bread.”
An inspector from the health department even showed up at his doorstep to make sure “no bread baking was taking place.”  For the next 18 months, Pagnol Boulanger was forced to go on hiatus.
That’s when he “became an activist,” Stambler said in an email interview.
He started researching other states’ cottage food laws, which allow homemade food to be sold.   To qualify as a cottage food, it must be designated by the state as “non-potentially hazardous,” meaning it has a low risk of spreading bacteria.
Out of the blue, he got a call from his Assemblyman, Mike Gatto, who read The Los Angeles Times profile, and wanted to help him and other small businesses.
Stambler helped Assemblyman Gatto draft the California Homemade Food Act (AB 1616) to legalize cottage food.  AB 1616 was overwhelmingly popular with lawmakers, passing the California State Assembly 60 to 16 and unanimously passing the state Senate in August 2012.  Upon signing the bill, Gov. Jerry Brown praised AB 1616 as a way to “make it easier for people to do business in California.”
In January 2013, just a few days after the law went into effect, Stambler became the first person in Los Angeles County to sell homemade food legally.  Since he’s re-started his business, he hasn’t received a single complaint from consumers.
More home bakers have followed.  In Los Angeles County, there are almost 270 cottage food businesses.  Statewide, over 1,200 homemade food businesses have been approved.
Under the California Homemade Food Act, local governments cannot ban cottage food businesses based in private homes.  Instead, home-based entrepreneurs can sell their goods after passing a “food processor course” (which can be done online), properly labeling their goods and practicing common-sense sanitation when cooking and baking.  Those who want to start their own cottage food business legally need only register or obtain a permit, as either a Class A or Class B operation.
The two permits distinguish between the types of cottage food business an entrepreneur may want to run.  Class A businesses are exempt from routine inspections, but can only engage in “direct sales,” i.e., straight to the customer.  That includes farmers’ markets, bake sales and from the home business itself.  Meanwhile, Class B operations require inspections, but also allow “indirect sales” to third-party retailers, like restaurants, bakeries, delis, groceries and food trucks.
Both Class A and B businesses can directly sell throughout the entire state. Yet indirect sales are still limited to the county where the Class B operation is based.
Stambler predicts the act will help boost his sales in the long-run.  “As of now, though, they’re not back to where they were before I was busted,” he said.
In California, bread, biscuits, candy, chocolates, churros, coffee, cookies, cupcakes, dried pasta, tortillas, trail mix, popcorn, vinegar, tea, nut butters, mustard, dried fruits and some jams and jellies all qualify as cottage food.  But selling homemade food that contains meat, seafood or dairy is still verboten.
So far, cottage food businesses appear to be safe.  A dozen county public health departments report they have yet to receive a single complaint about them.  Nor did these departments have to revoke any permits.  (Other county departments of public health either do not track that information or did not return comment.)
Not only can cottage food laws free entrepreneurs from Kafkaesque government inspections, using their own kitchens to bake means they no longer have to rent out commercial kitchens, which can be expensive and not available in every city.
Take Patricia Kline.  Her “ipies,” mini fruit pies about the size of a cupcake, have been featured in O magazine and The Wall Street Journal.  Yet before AB 1616 was enacted, Patricia was forced to pay $25 an hour to rent space from a commercial kitchen to bake them.
“The biggest barrier to starting a food business is finding and keeping a commercial kitchen,” she remarked.  “And once you do have a kitchen, you have to compete with other food producers who also want to use the space.”  In the middle of her busiest season, Kline once lost her spot at four different commercial kitchens.
But thanks to the cottage food law, she can instead use her own kitchen at her apartment in San Francisco, slashing her costs.  She’s also gained “flexibility in baking:”  “The law has enabled me to take advantage of last minute orders.”
In addition to whipping out ipies and cookies, Kline offers baking classes, helps guide other budding food artisans on legal compliance and donates a portion of her proceeds each year to the Alzheimer’s Association, since Alzheimer’s afflicted her mother.
Baylen Linnekin, executive director of the nonprofit Keep Food Legal, praised the law as a “tremendous success”  for “unshackling small food entrepreneurs.”  But other small business owners feel left out by the law.
One such owner is Debra Baretta, who runs a baking company, Mama Baretta, in Penngrove. She bakes gluten-free and organic cookies, breads and pastries and uses sites like the Non-GMO Project to source her ingredients.  But California caps how much people can earn as a cottage food business.  So by the time the law went into effect, Mama Baretta had already passed the sales cap.  The law is “good if you don’t want to ever grow into a larger company,” she said in an interview.
In 2013, the cap was set at $35,000 in annual gross sales but rose to $45,000 for 2014.  From 2015 onward, that number will rise and then top out at $50,000.
Since the cottage food law does not apply to Baretta, she still has to rent out a professional kitchen.  Even though she bakes just two nights a week at a kitchen owned by a nonprofit, her rent is $2,200 a month.  Baretta earned over $100,000 in revenue in last year but now growth has “pretty much stalled.”
So she recommends scrapping the cap entirely.  According to a report by the Harvard Food Law & Policy Clinic, 20 states have no sales cap whatsoever on selling homemade food.  That’s almost half of all states that have a cottage food law.
Then there are other reforms homemade food entrepreneurs want enacted.  Kline would like to see the state expand indirect sales for the entire state (as direct sales currently are) and permit third-party delivery of cottage food products.  Stambler has called for expanding the list of “non-potentially hazardous” approved foods.  He also cannot use his backyard oven to bake bread he wants to sell, since the state law only applies to kitchens.
But as that Harvard study makes clear, California is still one of the better states for homemade food producers.  On the opposite spectrum for cottage food freedom are states like Minnesota.  The Land of 10,000 Lakes has one of the lowest sales caps on cottage food in the nation, banning people from selling more than $5,000 in a year.  That’s less than $100 a week.
In addition, cottage food entrepreneurs in Minnesota can only sell at farmers’ markets and special events.  Unlike California, online orders and indirect sales are banned.  That greatly limits their growth.  Renegade bakers can face fines of up to $7,500 or three months in jail.
Minnesota’s law is so restrictive, it triggered litigation.  Last November, two home bakers in Minnesota teamed up with the Institute for Justice to sue their state for its “arbitrary and unreasonable” cottage food law.
“If you have a recipe and an oven, you should be able to start a business,” quipped Katelynn McBride, IJ attorney and lead counsel on the case.
The contrast between the two states is striking.  By liberalizing its food regulations, California has fostered a cottage industry of cottage food.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/01/29/california-legalized-selling-food-made-at-home-and-created-over-a-thousand-local-businesses/3/


Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Revolutionary “Cottage Food” Law Proposed in Virginia


Bill would exempt ALL homemade foods from regulation, including perishable foods
imagesA proposed cottage-food law in Virginia attempts to go farther than any cottage-food law has gone before. If passed, it would exempt virtually all homemade – or small-farm-made – foods from regulation, provided the foods are sold directly from producer to consumer, in face-to-face transactions.
Cottage food laws typically exempt only non-perishable homemade goodies, like jams, jellies, cakes, cookies, candy and other novelty items that can be stored at room temperature. But the “Virginia Food Freedom Act” would exempt all homemade foods – including meat, dairy, partially cooked foods like chicken pot pie, and other foods requiring refrigeration – from licensing laws, health inspections, sales limitations and basically all government interference of any kind.images-1
Small farmers with 10 or fewer employees would be included in the definition of homemade-food producers.
Delegate Robert Bell (R-Charlottesville), the chief spokesman and sponsor for the bill, says the only requirement would be for such products to be labeled “not inspected by the state.” And let’s be honest, that’s probably a good thing.
Free the market

By removing regulatory burdens on small farms and producers of homemade goods, food producers can quickly adapt to a changing market, giving customers what they need, without waiting for government to give them the permission to do so. The people of Virginia may finally have the option of being in charge of, and responsible for, their own food.
As opposed to GMO labeling laws, which force private businesses to do something against their will, this bill puts food producers at the mercy of their customers. It’s the customer’s choice and responsibility to determine what ingredients are in their food and how they are produced.
If the producers make a bad product or someone gets sick, then consumers simply can choose to go elsewhere or take them to court for damages. However, it’s not really in the best interest of local-food producers to make inferior products, because they’re answering directly to their customers, unlike the faceless farmers who work for mega-food processors like Tyson or Kraft or General Mills.
My new local farmer grows, processes and delivers her pasture-raised eggs, chicken, pork, beef and dairy herself, and informs customers of seasonal price fluctuations due to changes in the cost of her locally grown, locally milled, organic feed. Her standards for “organic” are higher than the USDA’s, and she proudly offers farm tours to demonstrate. She refuses to grow or raise food she wouldn’t feed her own child. Even her animal feed is of such high quality, she has no problem letting her young daughter snack on it. How many concentrated-animal-feeding-operation farmers can say that? How Monsanto executives feel safe feeding their kids the foods they produce?
This is how I envision a true free-market operating – with no middlemen or government weighing people down. Both parties are free to engage in a mutually beneficial exchange. And if there’s a need not being met, the producer can quickly change how he operates in order to satisfy the demands of his customer.
We don’t need more food safety laws; we just need more small farms and more food freedom.
I’m tired of the mega-food producers hiding behind the cloak of food safety laws, licensing laws, zoning laws, patents and subsidies and a host of other government interventions that make us more dependent upon their services, rather than upon ourselves and our neighbors’ services.
If this law passes, it will make small farmers lives easier, strengthen communities and improve access to real, clean food.  Stop worrying about health department ratings, GMO labeling, and the validity of USDA “organic” certifications. Certify it yourself, by going to the farm and talking to your farmer.
Another food freedom bill in Virginia
A related food freedom bill in Virginia – HB 268 – gives farmers the opportunity to earn more income by allowing on-farm activities like farm dinners, hay rides, parties, sales of local farm products, and other special events.
The bill was written after Martha Boenita was fined thousands of dollars for alleged “unpermitted activities” on her farm: selling agricultural items, advertising an on-farm pumpkin carving event and hosting a private birthday party for her friend’s child. Fauquier County officials were outraged that eight 10-year-old girls picked veggies, wore hats, and made goat’s milk soap.
“This is a win-win-win for farmers, consumers and the state. Farmers get the income they need, while consumers have a one-stop shop option and the state gains additional sales revenue. We are all so happy we’ve found a winning compromise,” explains Martha Boneta, a member of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.
Sign the petition here to support this legislation.
http://foodriotradio.com/2014/01/revolutionary-cottage-food-law-proposed-in-virginia/