Home Kitchens Are Under Attack by Regulators
Americans are turning to home-cooked meals, but state regulators are making it harder for small food businesses to survive.

Inflation is one of the key issues for voters heading to the polls in November. And yet, despite sustained high food costs, Americans are actually eating out more than ever before. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that close to 60 percent of American food spending is now outside the home—the highest it has ever been.
Part of the explanation for these trends is the COVID-19-initiated rise of delivery and takeout options, as well as the surging popularity of fast-casual dining. The USDA notes that "the pandemic led to shifts in how consumers bought food away from home, which lasted longer than the policies that initiated them."
One of the most noteworthy food-related innovations to come out of the pandemic was the rise of platforms like Shef, which allows Americans to cook meals in their own kitchens and have them delivered directly to nearby customers. Platforms like Shef offer budget-conscious Americans home-cooked meals at the push of a button, often cheaper than traditional restaurants.
Despite the benefits, Maine regulators are cracking down on home-based culinary entrepreneurs with surprise inspections.
Rhiannon Deschaine of Kenduskeag, Maine began making and selling meals from her home-based business, Kenduskeag Kitchen, in April 2022—sourcing many ingredients from the family garden or homesteading neighbors. In July 2022, an official from the Maine Department of Health and Human Services dropped by Deschaine's house to conduct an unannounced inspection. While the inspector didn't find anything unsanitary or problematic about Deschaine's food preparation or meals, Deschaine was informed that Kenduskeag Kitchen needed to have a "food establishment license" to operate, which would, in turn, require her to install a full commercial kitchen in her home.
A letter of enforcement followed in October of 2022, and by December 2022, Deschaine shut down Kenduskeag Kitchen in the face of potential fines and enforcement action. Shutting down a business like Kenduskeag Kitchen is especially ironic in Maine, a state that recently passed a Food Sovereignty Act and enshrined a Right to Food in its constitution.
The Food Sovereignty Act is supposed to ensure that the state government recognizes and defers to local ordinances that govern direct producer-to-consumer food pathways; in fact, the town of Kenduskeag has been supportive of Deschaine's business. The constitutional Right to Food asserts that individuals have the right to grow, produce, and consume the food of their choice, which again would seem to protect the very activity Deschaine and other home-based cooks are engaged in.
Deschaine, with the help of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, is suing the state of Maine over the shutdown. Regardless of how the legal arguments shake out, it is a wild overreach for regulators to demand that home cooks install commercial kitchens to sell food to neighbors. Even predating the pandemic, home cooking businesses have grown in popularity as the so-called cottage food movement has taken hold.
However, as entities like the Institute for Justice (IJ) have tracked, many of these reforms remain limited to shelf-stable products like baked goods, thereby excluding perishable items like meat, vegetables, and many types of home-cooked meals. The problem is hardly relegated to Maine either as many states score even worse in terms of food freedom according to IJ's scorecard.
Concerns over home cooking leading to more food-borne illnesses or food poisoning on account of potentially improper food preparation methods have thus far been unfounded. To date, there does not appear to be a single publicized complaint that has made its way to mainstream media regarding food poisoning from a meal obtained on platforms like Shef.
As we hit the home stretch of the election, politicians across the country and political spectrum are replete with bad ideas for how to solve our nation's high food costs. Protecting home kitchens could help Americans stretch their food budgets while supporting local entrepreneurs.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Bidenflation is a major cause of people turning to alternatives to brick and mortar food establishments to save some money.
Maine does have food sovereignty law that restricts government interfering with an individual’s right to food. In the way of that freedom is the DHHS of Janet Mills (D). Government demands to be funded and restaurant chains seek to be protected via costly regulatory hurdles.
Some local Amish sell baked goods. Not sure whether Disgusta goes after them too or have at least enough intelligence to avoid a 1A showdown.
Amish people make the best chicken fried steak I've ever had. May be the breading, may be the gravy. Might be both.
Never vote for a democrat.
No, bro. The article clearly states “regulators” are to blame, which means boff sidez must be equally at fault here. After all, Reason singles out Republicans/Trump by name every time they can, so I’m sure they would do the same with Democrats.
I know every time the Democrats are caught doing something horrific, Reason is very quick to blame “both sides”. They’re quite fair that way. So I’m sure it must go the other direction too.
Even her charity is fake.
Post
See new posts
Conversation
Collin Rugg
@CollinRugg
NEW: The NC National Guard allegedly loaded an entire C17 with supplies just so Kamala Harris could stage a photo-op for Hurricane Helene without the intention of the supplies being used.
The accusation came from Aerial Recovery members Jonathan Howard and Charlie Keebaugh on
@ShawnRyan762
's show.
"I had a squadron commander from North Carolina reach out to me... They had to a C17, full of supplies just to take a photo op for Kamala… and they never sent the bird."
"They did a photo op and with the intention of never sending [aid]... it was just a photo op."
Aerial Recovery is a nonprofit organization focused on disaster response and humanitarian aid which has been active in North Carolina after Hurricane Helene.
Video
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1844533781065056564
And turns out she was a pretty terrible lawyer based on her Government ratings as a SF attorney.
https://x.com/charliespiering/status/1844714607790731277
I'm sure her reviewers were just jealous, or Trump supporters with a time machine.
On the other hand, did she ever argue before a judge either as a lawyer or prosecutor? I thought she only practiced law on her back with her legs in the air.
Once this went viral, somehow the Guard announced there had been 'a mechanical issue' with the bird, and the stuff was sent on its way the next day.
Pick who you will believe.
I find it hard to think the commander wasn't aware of a mechanical issue.
He was once he ran down to the plane and took a 76 mm wrench to the avionics.
When it comes to team d always assume malice
Another example of the Nanny State trying to micromanage our lives.
I appreciate standards but not a Gov-Gun packing Nanny State.
Standards Organizations should be private companies that come with a stamp of approval allowing INDIVIDUALS choice to what kind of standards they demand.
This whole "I want this" so EVERYONE has to have it BS in endless Gov-Gun usage is a curse and the very reason the nation is so divided.
Miami Herald - Reasons why Trump voted worst POTUS ever:
Miami Herald
You really think Donald Trump was a good president? Look at his record
On the economy, Trump left the biggest deficit in U.S. history.
....
Under Trump, the national debt grew much faster than during his successor Joe Biden. Like most populists, Trump cut taxes and spent as if there were no tomorrow, leaving a national debt that will have to be paid by our children and grandchildren for decades.
....
The national debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion to $28 trillion during Trump’s four years in office, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The debt has kept growing since, but at a significantly slower pace.
....
As for the country’s economic growth, the U.S. economy under Trump grew by an overall 6.8%. By comparison, it grew by 8.4% in the Biden years.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/really-think-donald-trump-good-141226513.html
Goes on and on. His nut-nuzzling of dictators is among the most offensive of his faults.
The list of Trump administration failures goes on and on. So if you are planning to vote for Trump because of something specific he has promised, and you are willing to believe a compulsive liar, go ahead. But please don’t tell me he was a good president: he was a disaster on virtually all fronts.
Bottom line for Trump Cultists
How are you not embarrassed by posting this leftist opinion piece as worthwhile?
The MAPedo posted links to cp so posting political garbage is small potatoes for the diddler.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
And which part of those statements isn’t just a flat-out BS LIE?
The only one that even could muster a case is cherry-picked economic growth % post-entire economic shut-down from COVID. Sure it grew 8% from the starting point of 0%.
We’ll just excuse the fact that his deficit record setting was only $0.3T above Bidens and that the Cares Act was written by a Democrat and not a single Democrat objected only Republican Thomas Massie. We’ll just excuse the fact besides that ONE SINGLE deficit every deficit was almost 1/2 Biden’s. Biden ran more deficit and debt than Trump according to the treasury dept and every source online. Saying Trump spent more is just 100% a blatant lie.
Lies and Deception.
Not CNN Español host Andres Oppenheimer! He is the first opinion I turn to each morning!
This is getting embarrassing shrike.
turd is simply not intelligent enough to experience embarrassment.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Lots of words. Are you back on the payroll again?
Now do Joetato Biden....
On the economy, Trump left the biggest deficit in U.S. history.
Dude, that's all the fault of Democrats. Neither Trump who signed it nor the majority of Republicans who voted for it bear any responsibility. It's all Democrats. Will you ever learn?
"it" being The CARES Act.
Say Sarc. Trump did indeed sign CARES, but who conceived, wrote, published, advocated for, and enacted it? Can you help? Do you know?
Also, what was Trump's record for the first three years before Covid, compared to say... maybe Bush, or Obama, or Joe? Any guesses for us?
You admit that he signed it without blaming Pelosi! Wow, that’s a first.
Will you admit that a majority of Republicans voted for it?
Will you admit that that veto-proof majority you lamented about in the past included a majority of Republicans?
Will you admit that Trump, in his signing statement that I’ve posted a dozen times, besides fawning over how wonderful the bill was, admonished Republicans who failed to support it?
Likely not.
"You admit that he signed it without blaming Pelosi!"
No, I admitted he signed it (as I always have) while explicitly blaming Pelosi (and Schumer).
Did you miss the "who conceived, wrote, published, advocated for, and enacted it?" while you were drunkenly running cover for the Democrats, retard?
Now answer the question: Who conceived, wrote, published, advocated for, and enacted it, shillbilly?
Who conceived, wrote, published, advocated for, and enacted it, shillbilly?
Same people who wrote the bill that Republicans found the stones to halt as soon as their guy wasn’t the president anymore. Principles shminciples.
Had he won the election and said that bill was great, like he did with the CARES Act that he signed, it too would have passed with a veto-proof majority.
The difference is Trump’s whims of the moment. Whatever gets the crowd going. It’s all about him. No principles whatsoever.
Who wrote the bill? The majority party did. Duh. That’s how Congress works. The majority party offhandedly rejects all bills that originate from the minority party. So the only bills that stand a chance of becoming law must originate from the majority party.
"Who wrote the bill? The majority party did. Duh"
Who was that "majority party" that conceived, wrote, published, advocated for, and enacted the CARES Act?
What was their name? Does it have a (D) in it? Does it rhyme with Bemocrat?
Sarc will never criticize his team.
sarCARESmic
You seemed to be confused that one single politician pitches a 'plan' / bill to congress. It makes no difference which party has the majority. Any politician can pitch a 'plan' before congress.
Democrats thought it up and pitched it.
How much responsibility do you think a President should get for not vetoing it?
Especially when Democrats just up and pulled a second “Cares Act” (ARPA) just as soon as Biden got elected where the entire Republican Senate voted against it
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00110.htm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00110
Oh never-mind that bill huh? Only ‘Trumps’ not veto-ing matters even though there’s only a couple Billion difference between the two.
In addition to being deliberately ignorant of economics, you're also proud of how little you know about civics.
How was he being "ignorant of economics", drunky? What did he get wrong about civics?
I'm interested in learning the formerly-homeless, child-beating, alcoholic, fry-cook perspective on what constitutes erroneous economics and civics.
Your mom must be proud of you.
as soon as Biden got elected where the entire Republican Senate voted against it
You mean Republicans were on board with spending when Trump was president, and then pretended to grow some balls when Biden took office?
How principled of them.
*swoon*
But, But, But … They didn’t STOP US … so it’s ALL THEIR FAULT!!! /s
Is that not the so called BS ‘principle’ your stance sits-in.
Did you somehow miss that Democrats supported both bills 100%.
Did you somehow miss that Republicans supported the one Trump supported 98%?
Pitcher, [D][R]Congress-Vote, Presidential Sign-off on two bills.
1st Bill: 1[D], 1[R], 1[D], 1[R]
2nd Bill: 1[D], 0[R], 1[D], 1[D]
Total Score: On 8-Votes/Pitches – R’s=2, D’s=5.
[R]’s are 1/4 (2/8) Responsible. Trumps total responsibility 1/8th.
Yet all you can talk about is that 1/8th and nothing else.
Civics isn't baseball. What the fuck dude. Go learn something.
An opinion piece by a Democrat political analyst with CNN en Español, Pluggo?
Lazy trolling like this is never going to get you back your job with Open Society.
Uhhhhh …. question.
sourcing many ingredients from the family garden or homesteading neighbors
What is homesteading, now? It used to mean claiming unclaimed land, putting up a fence and building a house, as in any time up until 1900 or so. This is Maine. Surely all that land was claimed by the early 1800s.
That's one of the dictionary definitions of homestead. The current definition as used in US laws is something like:
"Homestead: The dwelling house and its adjoining land where a family resides. Technically, and pursuant to the modern homestead exemption laws, an artificial estate in land, created to protect the possession and enjoyment of the owner against the claims of creditors by preventing the sale of the property for payment of the owner's debts so long as the land is occupied as a home."
What the actual fuck. I really don't hate corporate media enough.
A former CBS employee told Fox News Digital the broadcast network's Race and Culture Unit vetted "basically every story" that could potentially be considered culturally sensitive.
The former employee said show producers were "required" to send drafts of show scripts to an email chain with members of the Race and Culture Unit as well as the standards and practices unit and could only proceed if they signed off.
CBS News’ Race and Culture Unit has emerged as a hot-button issue in recent days after a report that "CBS Mornings" co-host Tony Dokoupil found himself in hot water for asking questions that were not cleared by the network’s Race and Culture unit.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cbs-journalists-need-race-culture-unit-approval-basically-every-story-former-staffer-says
Did the CBS Race and Culture Unit edit Kamala’s interview to make it less like something Hank would say?
The next interview will be with an AI version of the Kalallalala.
The questions will be printed out on paper for only those "journalists" who are allowed into the studio to ask as they have been preprogramed into a computer which matches the AI kaamalala lip movements with the answers. The vocal portion will be created using sampled recordings of Harris.
That way CBS or PMSNBC can make sure everything goes as planned with no ugly surprises.
Why do you want to put grievance studies majors out of work?
You're assuming they do any actual work. Sorta like how they actually studied anything in college.
Athletic scholarships used to be laughed at. Now any degree requiring actual study and learning is racist.
Sullum to do story on how CBS's DEI Chief ran a scientific study that found 99% of stories that didn't pass muster by Race and Culture Unit were in fact, racist.
TL;DR but I don't think they've made it any harder than it used to be, say, 50 years ago. The laws on the books made it hard enough. People are just noticing.
...
Why didn't she contract with someone who could provide the facilities locally. instead of insisting on running it out of her own kitchen?
So she could actually make some money?
She could've expanded faster and made more money by contracting for facilities.
I don’t think she wanted to expand, she wanted to keep doing what she was doing as she was doing it. Guvnah Mills (D) and her foos inspectors had other ideas.
Kenduskeag has a small population and lower population density; this isn’t some NYC borough. There aren’t vacant, state-approved commercial kitchens waiting for a tenant. There might not be any restaurants there absent of a gas station that serves pizza. Has been a couple years since I rolled through there. You are relocating to Bangor if you need those facilities.
If the population’s that small, all her neighbors know about it and she can keep on operating while denying it officially. No need to be public about it. Actually if her operation is that small, she probably doesn’t make money and won’t suffer any great loss if she just has her neighbors over for dinner at no charge. Or they can just pay for her expenses, in their name.
Freedom in an unfree world is still a thing.
I don’t think she contacted the DHHS food inspection program and demanded they regulated her. Someone already ratted her out and now the govt employees are aware of her. She will have a bad day in court if she restarts her home business.
I don’t know how small her operation is, just that she was doing it from home and had no desire to spend additional resources to do exactly what she is doing. I don’t know what her sales were since it sounds like people were coming to her. Kenduskeag is rural but there are some bigger towns within a drive. Plus, with few options in the immediate area, there may have been frequent regulars.
Anyhow, way to carry the water for big government.
What, promoting ways for people to evade them is carrying water for big government?
In court, they'd have to prove she is in business.
Everyone enjoys spending time in court.
She’s probably not making (much) money anyways and won’t suffer any great loss from govt shutting her down/requiring her to spend a lot or money to become govt compliant.
She was doing about $500/wk in sales via a couple dozen meals per the PPH story. I’ll guesstimate she’s clearing a $80/wk based on producing some of the ingredients. Maybe govt will prohibit you from $4000/yr in earrings, in addition to what they already take.
Bullshit.
Why didn’t she contract with someone who could provide the facilities locally. instead of insisting on running it out of her own kitchen?
I know a guy who does that, and it ain’t cheap. He got lucky though. During the lockdowns a lot of potential clients just fell onto his lap, and he was able to start a profitable catering business right away. Most people aren’t that lucky.
Most restaurants fail within about a year.
Yup. As I said, he got lucky by being able to start with a client base instead of having to build one from scratch.
Especially if you hire a drugged out cook who burns meat solely because someone orders it wrong.
'And yet, despite sustained high food costs, Americans are actually eating out more than ever before.'
Duh. Have you not noticed all the new food trucks?
I've noticed restaurant chains going bankrupt and closing.
Restaurant prices have only slightly increased, while food at the grocery store has gone through the roof.
Wut? Which restaurants have only slightly increased?
Not around here. Restaurant prices have skyrocketed since COVID fascism.
The cost of three pounds of ground beef is near equal to that of a twenty pound Thanksgiving turkey four years ago.
Up where I live in Northern Michigan ground beef run $6.49- $6.59#
How can a family survive with those prices.
Even cheap chicken has become a near luxury.
I wait until chuck roast is on sale for under $4 /lb and grind it up with a stand mixer attachment. Takes 10 minutes.
Are you in prison? I hear the restaurant there has stable pricing.
Americans are turning to home-cooked meals, but state regulators are making it harder for small food businesses to survive.
This makes no sense. Americans are turning to home-cooked meals. OK. What does that have to do with small food businesses?
“Home-cooked” and “small food business” don’t mean the same thing, Jar.
Oh, I see, you’re trying to defend some shady operations from doing business without the license that any legitimate business owner would require, and without the standards they’re held to in order to run that business legally.
So, look – you’ve got two paths you can take on this. There’s a fork in the road with a signpost. One signpost says, “Get the State out of the commercial food service industry completely.” The other says, “Public health concerns demand some State oversight of the commercial food service industry.” Which path is the correct one? YMMV – but you Jarrett, you don’t pick one. You just walk into the signpost and smack your head on it.
Y’know, I was in SoCal about two months ago. You know what I saw a lot of? A lot of little pop-up stands on the streets (usually around lunch time or sunset). Not food cart vendors, mind you, not trucks – just people who don’t speak a lot of English that set up a table or a park a minivan with a big piece of questionable meat on a trompo selling tacos al pastor, complete with salsas and cremas out of big unmarked jugs and no health department certificate to be seen, who only take cash. Also saw more than a few guys selling tostilocos on the street. Again, cash only.
You know where else you see that sort of thing? Tijuana.
Have you ever been to Tijuana (outside of like, Zona Rio or Playas)? Do you want American cities to be more or less like Tijuana?
ps. this is very misleading:
The constitutional Right to Food asserts that individuals have the right to grow, produce, and consume the food of their choice
Read the law you cited. It doesn’t include the right to sell it out your kitchen or purchase it out of someone else’s.
I mean, look, if grandma wants to sell her meatloaf fresh from her kitchen, I don’t really have a problem with it. But if she’s going to do so – she’s got to pick a path in that fork in the road. Either ALL food service becomes unregulated, or grandma has to play by the same rules that McDonald’s does.
You avoid that reality in your article, Jar. Next time don’t be afraid to take a stand.
Either ALL food service becomes unregulated, or grandma has to play by the same rules that McDonald’s does.
Using the same rules for different circumstances is not advancing liberty.
It's not different circumstances.
A food service provider is producing cooked food for human consumption in exchange for monies. How is grandma's kitchen (or Pedro's pop-up taco stand) any different from Denny's at that point? Why should they not be held to the same standard?
I don't really care which standard it is, but why shouldn't it be the same one?
Because among values held by the populace is one that cuts the little guy slack because s/he's a little guy. Grandma and Pedro may have so few customers, they stand to poison far fewer people than Denny's might. It's a balance of interests. Like how a lot of employment laws kick in only when you have at least 15 or 25 employees; if you have only 10, you can't be screwing as many.
Problem is that the little guy, knowing that he's held to a lesser standard, has an incentive to cut a few corners.
Now, from a consumer perspective, I don't have a problem with that: buyer beware. BUT, if these corner-cutting street sellers are undercutting the market that's otherwise held to legitimate legal standards that aim to prevent such a thing, that's a problem.
The only counterargument would be a public demand that says, "I want questionable meat from filthy brown guys who don't wash their hands before handling my food." Which I don't think you're going to find in a first-world society.
Which I don’t think you’re going to find in a first-world society.
In that case they wouldn’t have any customers.
Unless we import a bunch of people who are used to that sort of thing as the status quo. Or have a bunch of people who want to virtue signal by patronizing them.
Do we have that in America these days?
Protectionist bullshit, just on a smaller scale.
The little guy has an incentive to make his customers happy and healthy so they come back with money instead of lawsuits.
Those claiming to be “undercut” (protectionist language) are the ones who create the rules for the regulators (regulatory capture) to make it more difficult to be "undercut" (make it more expensive for the little guy to do business).
What you are defending is businesses making rules to shut out competition, and those rules being enforced by government.
The little guy has an incentive to make his customers happy and healthy so they come back with money instead of lawsuits.
What part of “pop-up” do you not understand? They may be there one day, and not the next. They may be across town. Or they may have shut down because they heard la migra was patrolling. You’re acting like they’re conventional restaurants. They’re not. That’s the whole point.
They’re not competition to any local restaurants. But they ARE engaged in commercial food service without any of the standards we hold legitimate commercial food service providers. How is that OK? If that's the case, then why should a legitimate business owner abide by them?
It’s fine if you want to say those standards shouldn’t exist – say it clearly if that’s your position. But otherwise you’re advocating for the growth of Tijuana slums in American cities. Is that your position? I doubt it.
What part of “pop-up” do you not understand?
What part of “repeat customers” do you not understand?
They’re not competition to any local restaurants.
Of course they are. If there are no taco stands, where does a person go to get lunch? A restaurant of course.
But they ARE engaged in commercial food service without any of the standards we hold legitimate commercial food service providers. How is that OK? If that’s the case, then why should a legitimate business owner abide by them?
That’s the type of argument I often hear from leftists who justify stupid taxes, or xenophobes who justify stupid immigration laws.
“Sure the rules are stupid. But it’s so unfair if some people get away without following the rules. So instead of fixing the rules, we need to force everyone into compliance. Because fairness is more important than anything.”
It’s fine if you want to say those standards shouldn’t exist – say it clearly if that’s your position.
I never said that. I said that many of the current rules are dumb, expensive, or both. I'd like to see those rules go away, not all of them.
Can you cite examples of the ones you want to go away, and the ones you want to keep?
What part of “repeat customers” do you not understand?
They don’t have them. They have customers of opportunity. Their customers aren’t sitting at their offices thinking, “Hey, let’s go down to that corner next the walmart and the gas station and see if Pedro has his hibachi out on the sidewalk.” If you had any first-hand experience with what I’m talking about, you’d know why your replies make no sense whatsoever.
You’re thinking of them likely in the context of actual legitimate businesses. But they’re not. They’re not like food trucks or hot dog vendors who regularly stake out the same spot and can be relied upon to be there every day for the rush hours (and, I might add, have a nice prominently displayed certificate from the health department). And they’re certainly nothing like a brick and mortar restaurant.
Just… back out of the conversation now, because you clearly don’t have the requisite knowledge to meaningfully participate in it.
Most American cities ARE like Tijuana in fact they are alot like so many little Mexican towns and cities gifted with the cartels and rampant crime.
How soon before the new Mayor of Oakland gets their head chopped off?
Either ALL food service becomes unregulated, or grandma has to play by the same rules that McDonald’s does.
You know who writes the rules that places like McDonald’s have to follow?
Places like McDonald’s.
It’s called “regulatory capture.” Businesses convince rulemakers to make rules that the entrenched businesses already follow and can afford, but make it prohibitively expensive for potential competition to enter the market.
And your choice of "Current system or nothing at all" is a great example of a false dichotomy.
Regulatory capture exists — except, it’s not usually capture after the fact, but the ones you think captured the regulators made the rules to begin with — but do you have any apt examples in a case like this? I mean, can you cite any particular rules that were promoted by McDonald’s that would not have been imposed as a result of popular will and “good government” reformers? Like rules that originated in a McDonald’s that then had to be adopted elsewhere because other restaurants had facilities that were just as safe, but different? I have heard about such things in medical products, but I don’t know of any in food and hospitality service.
Off the top of my head, no. However I spent many years in food service, and the government rules are vast. Many are downright stupid, many are downright expensive, and many are both.
So while I cannot provide any specific examples without doing some research, I also find it impossible to believe that none of those rules originated from businesses trying to regulate the competition out of business.
In many businesses I think you’d be right. However, in the case of food & hospitality, I find it very easy to believe that each of the rules originated from a consensus of experts who said, “In a rich country like this, we can afford to impose this rule to make people a tiny fraction safer, so let’s do it. Restaurants come and go all the time — it’s a very volatile business, so you can’t conclude anything from any particular establishment’s closure, and a lot of them were ego trips to begin with — and we see nothing that says the industry overall could not afford this rule.”
It's a cliché that if you look at random people on the bus seemingly lost in thought, it's because they're working on a novel or planning to open a restaurant.
A local seafood joint started off as a wooden shack on the side of the road.
There’s no way that could be done today.
Where does this consensus of experts come from if not established players in the industry, and isn’t in their interest to make sure nobody can sell seafood from a wooden shack?
From academia.
I'm sorry but I don't buy your argument that food service is somehow immune from regulatory capture.
Where did I say it was immune from it? It's just that its regulations needn't be explained by regulatory capture — that there is genuine popular support for it broadly, and that the specifics can be explained as the result of work by academics. Could there be some regulatory capture in the details over time, favoring a particular competitor here or there? Sure, but that's not its main thrust.
AT has a good point. We're a long way in rich countries from having the kind of support to get food safety laws abolished. I haven't even heard a thing about Milei trying that in Argentina. This is one of the most strongly defended/promoted areas of state control.
Yesterday a friend on the phone was asking me whether I agreed with an assessment he'd read or heard that "natural flavorings" could be hazardous to health. I said I thought yes, they could. So he wanted to know why labeling with no greater degree of spcificity was required; the authorities must be corrupt! I pointed out that it wasn't a fact of nature that food ingredients had to be labeled at all. He thought a bit and admitted he was taking that for granted, but that that such a legal requirement was a reasonable assumption in this day and age.
And given that, the argument is where the line is to be drawn between too small a business to affect public health and a large enough one to do so — because that's really what it's about, isn't it? Somebody who's maybe slightly above the hobby stage, getting some revenue albeit probably not enough to make a profit, who can't afford to invest in what it would take to be commercial, but also can't keep up the hobby without that revenue. And then it's a matter of balancing the freedom of someone to pursue a hobby who (by serving so few) at most might poison one customer in 5 years for lack of following some commercial protocol, vs. the freedom of people to go to any establishment that looks like it's commercial and be confident they're following the commercial rules, whether that makes them actually safer or not.
Commercial equipment and rules are no guarantee of safety, just ask the victims of Jack in the box or chipolte restaurants.
I know, but people believe they're safer with than without them.
Tell that to the chipotle and Jack in the box victims.
They'd say the same thing.
It’s like the way the articles against occupational licensure here just say it should be limited to professions where it’s obviously needed, like physicians. There just aren’t enough radical libertarians to abolish government’s power to require licensure generally, but there is enough support in the general electorate to want to abolish licensure requirements for trivia like interior design. You have to pick your battles.
In fact if you argue against the licensure power generally, people will just respond that you’re saying that only because you’re a radical libertarian, therefore they distrust what you say about all matters of public policy. Even if you have a good practical argument against certain cases, they'll perceive you as concern-trolling them and discount it, once they know you're a radical. That's especially true in a country like the USA, where radicalism and decisions a priori from principle are anti-traditional, and the tradition is either to look at issues and candidates detail by detail, or, to a fortunately lesser extent, according to which identifiable groups they'll benefit or detract from.
At least we know for a fact no one is coming for your gas stove.
You know they won't stop there. Wanna bet those little government prigs are WEF stooges.
Schwabe just stated he wanted an end to home gardens and I have no doubt "wretched" Gretchen Whitmer will be only too happy to inflict this on Michigan.
So very soon, this will be expanded to ensure people preparing meals are using only the approved ingredients ....meatless of course but how many different ways can you serve crickets and grasshoppers?
Wanna bet those little government prigs are WEF stooges.
I can hardly wait for Nuremberg 2.0 – Crimes Against Humanity. I hope Davos has enough lampposts.
An acquaintance’s parents run a restaurant here in a touristy area. Some years ago, the food inspector found a bunch of issues that didn’t exist but was willing to let the fantasy issues disappear for a donation. They talked with some other restaurant owners in the area and they experienced similar. The fantasy issues disappeared as did that government employee’s job. Same program.
Only time I ever got dinged by a food inspector was when I picked up my water and drank out of it. She literally gasped! Yes, that was a code violation. The lady said was supposed to bob like a drinking bird toy (she demonstrated by putting her hands behind her back, that was important so the cup wouldn’t be touched, and bending from her waist) onto a plastic cup with a heavy straw going through a tight lid. No hand contact allowed. Yes, that was an actual health code violation.
The manager said it was stupid and to ignore it.
WOW! Just WOW!
They just wannabe helpful that's all, like all hardworking selfless government worker bees.
JD Vance is wrong about food safety.
So, I'm not against the notion of reducing unnecessary regulation. Just get that out of the way.
But this dude immediately undermines his credibility in the first paragraph. The link he provides gives no data on how much Americans eat out. The data are entirely how much Americans SPEND eating out.
From anecdotal evidence, it is way more expensive at restaurants than it used to be. Also at home, but my regulars, places I've been going for years, are roughly 50% more than they used to be. Diner I was getting meals at pre-pandemic would be around $20 all in, tax, tip, and a drink. now those same meals range form $25-35 all in. The fancy place in town I used to get entrees at for $25-30, now those entrees are $40.
Fast food is ridiculous. You're in for $15 anywhere but In-n-Out, which seems the best for controlling their price increases, but even they're $10 for a double double combo. Five guys it's $20 for a burger, fries, and a drink.
People aren't necessarily eating out more. Those who do are just spending way more. More -- correct -- data are needed to decide frequency.
Its like the climate-disaster people talking about how every year there's a greater amount of property damage from storms.
No, there's *a greater cost* to the property damage because more stuff is built in the same area and its valued more - not that the storms are getting stronger, there's just more stuff for the same storms to damage.
Fact: Many Apartments in the Soviet Union did not have Kitchens
>To date, there does not appear to be a single publicized complaint that has made its way to mainstream media regarding food poisoning from a meal obtained on platforms like Shef.
That's . . . that's a lot of caveats, mate.
I'm going to be real and fair with you - the media only sees what it wants to see and that there aren't a lot of media reports really means nothing.
And I say this as someone who supports the removal of state interference in these things. I am certain that there *aren't* any serious issues with home cooks - but the media not reporting any doesn't mean there aren't any.
I am always for healthy home cooking. However, you need to find a balance with checks. Almost everything you cook for sale should be cooked in proper conditions. This is right. I can give an example of having a steel table - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-choose-stainless-steel-table-lysenko-alecsandr-uplke This is a base for professional cooking and meets all standards (does not absorb food particles, easy to clean). I can cook for myself any way I want. These are my personal risks and preferences. But do you want to get food made like in India?