Archives for the 'Food Law' Category
The case against menu labeling
I’m in the Washington Examiner today arguing against taking calorie labeling laws national:
Among the many proposals under heated debate between the House and Senate health care bills is one provision both sides will likely support: a national law mandating calorie labels on chain restaurant menus and in vending machines.
Advocates have described the measure as a symbolically important step against obesity and have spun recent research in their favor, but a closer look reveals a weak case for labeling.
Bag Tax Confuses, Dismays
Washington, DC’s 5¢ tax on plastic bags applies only to stores that sell food. But which ones are those?
The owners of Chocolate Moose, which sells quirky gifts and jewelry as well as candy, were certain the tax didn’t apply to them. Although they received the notice the district sent to all retail food establishments, candy accounts for just 10% or 20% of sales, says co-owner Marcia Levi. “I don’t consider myself a food establishment,” she says. When another store owner asked what she was going to do about the regulation, she decided to call the city, just to be on the safe side. “I explained to them the situation—that only a small part of my business is food,” she said. “They said it does not matter.”
I can’t imagine the headaches this bantamweight bean counting must be inducing in store owners:
Stores keep one cent of every five cents they charge for bags, and two cents if they give customers a credit of at least five cents for each bag (of any sort) that they bring to the store. That provision forced clerks at one local Giant supermarket to intervene in every purchase at every self-check-out terminal to authorize the credit. Under no circumstances, the law says, are stores allowed to pick up the five-cent fee for their customers.
Now imagine your check-out isn’t automated and you have to keep track of how many bags leave your shop so you know how much to pay John Q. Law — or be fined.
At least DC has the manzanas to call it a “tax.” In Connecticut, an identical “fee” was introduced last year by Representative Kim Fawcett but it fell by the wayside once Fawcett, a Democrat, pissed away her political capital voting against gay marriage — this in a state where the Republican governor signed it into law. Fawcett then promptly ran over her own daughter. Man, that was a crazy spring.
A victory for food freedom
Some great news yesterday for Michael Schmidt, an Ontario raw milk dairy farmer who risked jail time challenging Canadian regulators. In a remarkable ruling, the court decided that his program by which customers by shares in cow ownership in exchange for the milk they produce is a legitimate enterprise not covered by existing law. In broader context, it seems an encouraging precedent for allowing consumers to opt out of restrictive safety regulations:
Although it is not illegal to consume raw milk in Canada, selling or distributing violates laws that require pasteurization of most commercial milk products.
The Schmidt case, which began when his farm was raided in 2006, has captivated food-rights academics and advocates in Canada, and around the world, who argue the court’s decision will ripple well beyond the raw-milk community. At its crux, they argue, the case is really about the extent to which consumers should be free to buy foods, however rarefied, and whether constitutional rights stretch as far as the grocery basket, farmer’s market and the people who own shares in – but do not live on – food-producing farms.
[Thanks to Kimberly Hartke for the tip. My article on raw milk for Reason is here, and a visit to a Virginia cow share program here.]
New Study: Menu-Labeling Laws Make People Eat More Calories
From today’s NYT (emphasis mine):
A study of New York City’s pioneering law on posting calories in restaurant chains suggests that when it comes to deciding what to order, people’s stomachs are more powerful than their brains.
April Matos, 24, bought a Happy Meal at a McDonald’s for her 3-year-old son, Amari, and a Snack Wrap for herself. “Life is short,” she said. “I started eating everything now I’m pregnant.”
The study, by several professors at New York University and Yale, tracked customers at four fast-food chains — McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken — in poor neighborhoods of New York City where there are high rates of obesity.
It found that about half the customers noticed the calorie counts, which were prominently posted on menu boards. About 28 percent of those who noticed them said the information had influenced their ordering, and 9 out of 10 of those said they had made healthier choices as a result.
But when the researchers checked receipts afterward, they found that people had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law went into effect, in July 2008.
All this makes the stand of the upscale (and very good) Houston’s chain against New York City’s menu-labeling requirements all the more excellent.
More from the NYT here. When I interviewed the fantastic Brian Wansink, a professor, author, and former USDA official, for Reason.com earlier this year, he noted that menu-labeling laws and other such meddling have
“…either been ineffective or disturbingly counterproductive,” he says. “All the data we’ve seen about menu labeling doesn’t show a consistent answer at all.
“Trying to change capitalism is a lot of work,” he adds, “and it won’t work.”
Indeed it won’t. Hear that, Ezra? Hear that, Mr. Brownell?
The Big Move, and More School
I have new digs. I drove from my DC home to Fayetteville, Ark. last week to earn a degree at the University of Arkansas–yes, the same school Bill and Hillary taught at together. In nine months, I’ll be the proud owner of a Master of Laws degree in Agriculture and Food Law from UARK law. It’s the only such program in the country. The program boasts a
curriculum specializing in the law of food, agriculture and the environment. Each year, the Graduate Program in Agricultural Law prepares a small number of carefully selected attorneys as specialists in the complex legal issues involving food and agriculture. The Program attracts candidates from throughout the United States and the world. Our alumni currently work in 35 different states and 15 foreign countries, serving as leaders in private practice, government, agribusiness, public policy, and academia.
I’ve been lucky enough to earn a full tuition assistantship, along with a modest stipend to work as a research assistant. This means I’m pretty much done accumulating student loans, and I’ll hopefully get to do some interesting food research and writing over the school year.
To the best of my recollection, my ten classmates hail from Arkansas, Virginia, India, Colombia, Nigeria, and Russia. Sounds like a pretty interesting mix.
Afterwards? Who knows. I certainly plan to work in some free market, food-related legal capacity. As my plans firm up, I’ll keep everyone y’all informed. In the meantime, I’m back to regular blogging duties here at Crispy.
Better Booze in Virginia, At Last?
Liquor stores in Virginia are terrible (so bad they probably caused fellow Crispy blogger Jacob to flee the area!). They’re owned and operated by the commonwealth’s Department Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), and if you’re looking for anything snootier or more unusual than Maker’s Mark, you’re probably SOL. The lighting is bleak. The clerks have all the enthusiasm for their product of middling DMV employees. (Come to think of it, DMV employees may actually be more enthusiastic about the work+hooch combo than ABC staff.) And the hours are inconvenient.
But serious Old Dominion boozehounds see a ray of hope in their tequila sunrises: Former state attorney general and current Republican gubernatorial candidate Robert F. McDonnell proposed privatizing the whole mess in a press conference yesterday, conducted (seriously!) in a parking garage.
The idea is win-win. End 75 years of incompetent state alcohol sales management and the state gets a bunch of cash for transportation spending when it sells off the rights to run a private liquor store.
In case you’re waffling on whether this is a good idea, go spend 5 minutes on Virginia’s weirdly self-congratulatory booze biz website. Historic photos celebrate milestones. Like 1970, when the first lady clerk, Betty Wilson, was hired. Thank goodness government was running that rum, how would we have achieved gender equality otherwise? (Note: I think the guy in my local liquor store in nearby Alexandria is still wearing her coat.) Lady boozemongers were an innovation that appeared just a couple of years after Virginia started licensing sales of “liquor by the drink” in bars.
In its early history, Virginia ABC agents were also enforcers of anti-bootlegging and moonshining laws, allowing the government run stores to deal very effectively with private competition.
The Pause That Refreshes–A Links Roundup
Health care and financial markets are not enough. The Obamas are now going to lead us on the path of righteous eating, for the children of course.
A self-described libertarian anarchist hates Coke. Interesting. The ones I know enjoy capitalism. Is it because he’s English?
Speaking of capitalism and marketing, here’s an example of it modern style courtesy of Chipolte, providing you hefty calories with INTEGRITY.
Whether it’s from calories with integrity or those without, we’re fat. The world is getting fat. So let the modern hand wringing begin: Write a book!
People are too fat, but food still costs too much in the developing world. It’s not particularly cheap either in these cities.
An economist walks into a bar…
Europe Lifts ‘Wonky’ Ban on ‘Bonkers’ Regs (or is it ‘Bonkers’ Ban on ‘Wonky’ Regs?)
British grocers and tabloids helped lead the charge to lift a decades-old European Commission ban on imperfect-looking foods, according to The Sun.
Sainbury’s spokeswoman Lucy Maclennan said: “We are delighted to have played a part in winning the wonky veg war against these bonkers EU regulations.”
Tesco spokesman Adam Fisher said: “It’s not before time. We welcome this move.”
And last night it was predicted the change could see some prices fall by 40 PER CENT.
More here. We here at Crispy let you know about plans to lift the ban last June.
And He’s Not a Real Cap’n, Either
Judge dismisses lawsuit by California woman. Says reasonable consumers know the difference between berries (strawberries, blueberries, and the like) and Crunchberries.
The plaintiff, Janine Sugawara, alleged that she had only recently learned to her dismay that said “berries” were in fact simply brightly-colored cereal balls, and that although the product did contain some strawberry fruit concentrate, it was not otherwise redeemed by fruit. She sued, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated consumers who also apparently believed that there are fields somewhere in our land thronged by crunchberry bushes.
Which should leave the Cap’n free to return to his gig as the nation’s most prolific roof-of-the-mouth cutter. More at Lowering the Bar.
Texas trans fat blues
This is a bad week for consumer freedom in my native Texas (where, incidentally, I enjoyed two chicken fried steaks, barbecue lunches, a Tex-Mex feast, several bottles of Shiner, and Dublin Dr Pepper this weekend). The statewide smoking ban looks very close to passing and the Senate is considering a bill to ban trans fats from restaurants. The AP lists the exceptions included in the latter bill:
But, fearing a backlash from the sweet tooth lobby, the lawmakers provided an exemption for trans fats used to make cakes, pies and other bakery items.
“The icing exemption,” is what Democratic Sen. Eliot Shapleigh called the loophole, explaining that cake icing doesn’t stay put without the hydrogen pumped into the oil – the very process that makes trans fats unhealthy.
Other exemptions were provided for food served by grocery stores, fire departments and certain caterers, and the ban would be slowly phased in. Initially, it would impact only chain establishments. It would apply to all Texas restaurants by late 2011.
Another loophole – for nonprofit organizations – was inserted in part to ensure that corn dogs and other fried goodies served at rodeos and state fairs could still be cooked with trans fat.
And, of course, consumers could still by entire tubs of shortening at the grocery store if they’re in the mood. All of which shows the absurdity of this ban. If trans fats are a dangerous toxin, they shouldn’t be allowed at state fairs or catering events. But they’re not toxins. They’re just another food ingredient, and there’s no justification for forbidding restaurant chefs to use them when they’re readily available elsewhere.
If the Texas legislature insists on doing something about trans fats, it should follow the lead of San Francisco. The city allowed restaurants to apply for seals certifying them to be trans fat free, thus preserving choice and giving consumers the information they might wish to know. Unfortunately, that sensible idea was made irrelevant by California’s statewide ban.
Quick Bites: Sweet and Salty Edition
- Labels mandated by the Country of Origin Labeling laws that went into effect in March are beginning to appear in stores.
- A recent Wall Street Journal Health column chastises Americans for consuming too much salt. In other news, Connecticut-based writer tells Journal columnist to shut the hell up.
- Confectioner makes candy that looks like bacon but tastes like… strawberries.
- Pepsi unleashes two soft drinks for the summer containing beet and cane sugars. Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback, which — alas — feature no psychedelia on their bottles, are intended to return consumers to an Age of Aquarius before HFCS harshed our trip. Ride the snake!
- Tiki comes to DC. Let the drunkening begin.
Crispy Podcast Episode 8
This podcast comes courtesy my presentation at the twelfth annual conference of the Association for the Study of Law, Culture, and the Humanities, which took place earlier this month at Suffolk University Law School in Boston.
I sat on a panel on food, law, and culture that was chaired by Prof. Chris Buccafusco of University of Illinois Law, and that featured Prof. David Caudill of Villanova Law, me, and two others.
My presentation, based in large part on work I did as a legal intern at the Center for Consumer Freedom this past summer, focused on the evolving legal strategy of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, one of the nation’s most aggressive, aggravating, and controversial nutrition nannies.
We hope you enjoy this episode and that you’ll tell us what you think. If you like what you hear, please subscribe to the show for free. You can grab the RSS feed or click here to subscribe in iTunes. That way you’ll get it every “week.”
April is National Grilled Cheese Month
…you know what to do. Make miracles happen.
One slightly unorthodox suggestion: Grilled Cheese and Jam
Calorie counts come to Oregon
“To better understand this movement against fast foods, one has to appreciate first of all that many individuals do not like fat persons.” — Gary Becker
A calorie count mandate may be coming to Oregon. Newly introduced legislation would require all restaurants operating in Oregon that have more than 10 locations nationwide to publish calorie information on their menus. Multnomah County, which contains Portland, already has similar rules going into effect on March 15, so the impact will be somewhat mitigated by the fact that many of these restaurants will already be forced to comply. Nonetheless, there are many reasons to oppose this bill.
Continue reading this post »
Senseless threat to Ethiopian microlots
From George Howell via Tim Wendelboe:
[...] the Ethiopian government determined a few months ago that all availability and traceability of individual coffee lots be scrapped. Regional coffee lots were to be graded by the government’s designated authorities and then lump-blended into large trademarked lots. You could buy Yirgacheffe Grade X and know nothing more. This adds value? After strenuous protests from shocked exporters the government relented somewhat: cooperatives could operate independently and retain traceability but not so with any private mills – who often paid farmers for their cherry more than many coops! So this means, as things stand now, that the organic superb Ademe Bedane we currently have will not be available as new crop this year. Even if they produce a lot as refined and flavorful as the one we currently have, tough – it will be dropped into the leveling sea of other lots all ideally from the same region, but in no way required to be. This is commodity thinking at its worst, the very way to guarantee there are no “Ah-hah!” moments that really determine why certain regions become stars commanding higher prices. We pray Ethiopia will relent even at this late time in the current season. Specialty coffee exporters, when recently protesting, were told they were irrelevant because specialty represented 1% of Ethiopia’s sales. That’s vision!”
This is tragic if accurate. Ethiopia grows some of the finest coffees in the world, and even after years in the industry tasting a new microlot from, say, Aricha can be a mind-blowing experience. It’s senseless to dump them into aggregated lots that, even when very good, don’t have the distinct flavor profile of an outstanding microlot.
I haven’t seen much coverage of this issue so I’m at a loss as to why the Ethiopian government has implemented the policy. It might be part of its strategy for preventing dilution of its regional brands, or it might be that the market for distinguished microlots is just too small to care about. Regardless, the new rules will block trade between farmers and bean buyers who’d gladly pay them a premium for their coffees and deny consumers some of the best Ethiopia has to offer. In the long-run this seems likely to hurt the country’s reputation, giving a competitive advantage to origins that are more transparent and able to reward their highest quality growers. I hope exporters and farmers can apply enough pressure to force a change.
