California Slowly Unshackling Some Small Food Entrepreneurs

Do California's statewide cottage food law and the possible lifting of the regulatory burden on some farmers markets in the state signal a trend?

(Page 2 of 2)

One county that’s chosen to enforce regulations above and beyond those required by the state is San Diego.

The county requires individual vendors at each certified farmers market to go through a licensing process.

But that may be changing.

County Supervisor Dianne Jacob calls the requirement “time-intensive and onerous” and has suggested instead that only a market manager be subject to the permit requirement, reports ABC 10 News.

That might be but a small victory in the greater scheme of food regulation in California. But along with the state’s cottage food law, it shows that the state is capable not just of recognizing the needless regulatory encumbrances that strict food laws place on its entrepreneurs but also of relieving some of those burdens. That’s a trend that’s noteworthy anywhere—but especially so in California.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Once everything is sold on the black market, everyone will be making the black market premium. STIMULUS!

  • Ted S.||

    Take the Saturday Pledge!

    Pledge not to respond to any trolls who try to turn the Saturday threads into their own person playground for talking about abortion, circumcision, or deep-dish pizza!

  • Nazdrakke||

    I thought that was what the Saturday food thread was for.. kind of a troll-trap.

  • SIV||

    Blue Tulpa tried for the animal rights troll. Even if you think it is arguing in good faith and not trolling Bo is most definitely a sockpuppet.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Look, do you want to be protected from decisions with possible bad consequences or not?

  • Not an Economist||

    OT but this article contains vital information of interest to all Reasonoids.

    Even if this article has been posted before it deserves to be posted again.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    I was just reading that before getting online. Also the one on "greatest inventions" that left out hay.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I wouldn't mind getting my hands on some of that Jefferson's Ocean. This may calls for pirates!

  • RBS||

    I posted this in the am links yesterday because I thought some the H&R lawyers might find it interesting.

    Someone responded to one of my comments pointing out that the Court does have the authority to punish her...

    "What a complete pompous ass you are! My point was that our Supreme court should not be ruling at all on matters that do not directly effect them. If they want to keep a lawyer from arguing in front of them, that's one thing, but to make such a repulsive and egotistic ruling, argues to my point. Perhaps, if your reading skills were sharper, you would have gleaned that. But having read some of your comments, I suppose that is too much to expect."

    I should add that I also insinuated this particular commenter didn't know what he was talking about, which is obviously true based on this response.

  • RBS||

    Also, if any of you are interested read the actual order from the Court because this is about much more that simply not having an email.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Read it. Looks to me like it's about email.

    By letter dated September 9, 2013, respondent again stated she is retired "as there have been no clients in over thirty (30) years" and she does not have Internet access.

    Also, I love the email address she provided,

  • RBS||

    "Respondent has repeatedly refused to comply with the explicit directives, orders, and rules of this Court and of requests by the Clerk of Court by refusing to maintain and monitor an operational email account. Moreover, in spite of the Court's order of June 19, 2013, specifically prohibiting her from filing additional motions with the Court until the underlying disciplinary matter has been considered by the Commission, respondent has nevertheless attempted to submit further motions with the Court. As a result of her persistent refusal to comply with this Court's directives, the Court finds respondent poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public and to the administration of justice. "

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Yeah, like I said, I read it.
    She's been retired for 30 years. She doesn't have internet. Without internet she cannot have an operational email account. The rest amounts to the court wanting to force her to get internet and use her email.
    Maybe next the court will require a teletype, telegraph, Morse proficiency, and the full set of 40 International Maritime Signal Flags.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    All of the measures discussed in the post are fairly straightforward violations of the NAP, except for the ban on foie gras. Somewhat like a fetus I think libertarians could reasonably differ on whether animals (or at least certain animals) might deserve some protections from cruelty and so some prohibitions in that area could be allowed.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Translation - Bo thinks geese deserve better legal protection than human infants.

  • Snark Plissken||

    I don't think that animal protection from cruelty is a black and white issue. Foie gras is an ironic contender for this, though, as it is simply replicating with some exageration a goose's natural impulse to bulk up and store fat including the liver. These geese simply aren't the tragic victims the PETA mafia makes them out to be.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -as it is simply replicating with some exageration a goose's natural impulse to bulk up and store fat including the liver

    Some of the methods used to obtain this exaggeration strike me as quite cruel.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    A lot of husbandry practices appear cruel and in fact may be.

  • Libertarius||

    Yes--the "NAP" is transparently rationalistic and goofy. These Rothbard types act like they're on Star Trek, boldly deducing from the a priori directive that it is only in a state of anarchy that men will finally be free from force and coercion lol.

    Rationalization ain't just a word in a book! Their true desire is project their childish subjectivism onto reality. The "NAP" was Rothbard stealing one principle of the Objectivist ethics, taking it as an out-of-context dogmatic commandment, and then deducing a bizarre theory of market anarchy from it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course, that is exactly what I said. Are you incapable of good faith argument?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I was being a dick - but there is some truth to the point that lefties care more about the welfare of animals than they do the unborn,

  • Jquip||

    Humans are a certain animal. So your argument is that libertarians could reasonably disagree on whether food should fall under the NAP, while humans do not.

    I won't argue the point, but just say that the solution then would be to eat people.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Pledge not to respond to any trolls who try to turn the Saturday threads into their own person playground for talking about abortion, circumcision, or deep-dish pizza!

    Can we talk about what an incoherent smirking dimwit Melissa Harris Perry is?

    I tuned in for about two minutes, and was treated to an outraged diatribe about the hateful mouthbreathing racists doing their damnedest to ruin the Great Works of the Empathizer-in-Chief.

    It's like a Greek tragedy, it is.

  • Ted S.||

    Can we talk about what an incoherent smirking dimwit Melissa Harris Perry is?

    Sure, if it's properly threaded!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's shocking (actually not really) that a race-baiting, irrational pos like her is a university professor - molding young minds.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Of course, removing one regulation from tens of thousands counts as "deregulation" and will be reported accordingly.

  • R C Dean||

    California is home to the best and worst of food laws in America.

    What's an example of a CA good law that is one of the "best"?

    Can't be the cottage food law; the linked article says 30 other states have those.

    So, what's an example? Of course the best kind of food law is generally one that isn't on the books. Is there anything other states tend to regulate that CA doesn't?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You can buy wine, beer and spirits at grocery stores; wine & beer at gas station mini markets and convenience stores.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Sure, if it's properly threaded!

    That would depend on one's definition of "proper" I suspect.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    It likely includes nothing you post.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I watched Alec Baldwins show on MSNBC last time to witness the train wreck live. And was shocked that I actually liked the format and his prime guest - Chrissy Mathews was mostly rational and didn't lose control in the 45 minutes or so that he was on.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I saw a couple of snippets of the Russel Brand "Profits iz EEEEEVUL" interview.

    What a fucking imbecile. Give all your money and possessions away and go live in a hole in the ground, you dirty hippy.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's even worse when you watch the interview.

    He's a complete moron, a raving loon.

    At one point he says profits are evil because they lead to deficits. I can't tell what the fuck that is even supposed to mean.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    At one point he says profits are evil because they lead to deficits. I can't tell what the fuck that is even supposed to mean.

    I suspect he is caught in the lefty logic trap of either not seeing or willfully ignoring the exchange of value in every fucking business transaction. All he sees is money flowing from the customer (deficit) to the evul business profiteer.

    "OMFG taking all teh munnys out of teh COMMUNITEEE, shame shame shame."

  • Paul.||

    California! Libertopia is upon you! DUCK!

  • sheakim11||

    what Antonio replied I cant believe that a mother able to earn $9155 in a few weeks on the computer. visit site

  • juliajuli7||

    ==========I quit working at shoprite and now I make $30h - $ I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job


    Go to website and click Home tab for more details.
    Have a bright future....

  • SIV||

    You couldn't steal more than $30h -$72h from shoprite?


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.