Bill Description: Senate Bill 1283 would establish a regulatory framework governing the production and direct sale of homemade food.
Rating: -1
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
Senate Bill 1283 would create Chapter 2, Title 37, Idaho Code, titled the “Idaho Direct-to-Consumer Commerce Act.”
The bill creates definitions and includes a list of exclusions — things that will still be heavily regulated — including “the sale of milk and dairy products or products derived therefrom”; “the sale of raw milk and raw milk products or products derived therefrom”; and “a product made available … as an ingredient in a food establishment.”
The bill would also broadly exclude “the sale of meat or meat products,” with an exception for small-scale poultry, “the sale of live animals,” “the sale of portions of live animals … before slaughter for future delivery,” and most other sales of meat or fish.
The bill says, “Producers operating pursuant to this chapter may sell homemade shelf-stable or perishable food products to the fullest extent permitted by applicable state and federal law.”
This bill would allow the sale of some foods with somewhat less government regulation than what exists under current law.
(+1)
The bill would only apply to transactions “between a producer or designated agent and informed end consumer,” which “occur entirely within the state of Idaho and shall not constitute or involve interstate commerce.”
The bill would impose several obligations on producers including requiring them to “inform the end consumer that any homemade shelf-stable or perishable food product sold pursuant to this chapter is not subject to inspection or licensing” and to have a “conspicuously displayed sign, label affixed to the food product, or card given to the informed end consumer that shall state: ‘This product is not subject to government food safety inspection or licensing requirements. It may contain allergens.’; include the name and contact information of the producer; and include a list of ingredients used in the product if such product contains two (2) or more ingredients.”
The bill would further require producers to “maintain records of transactions that identify the type and quantity of product sold, the date of the sale, the date of production, where the homemade food product was produced, and where each ingredient was produced or acquired.”
While the bill reduces regulations in some areas, it also imposes new regulations on producers and sellers, including labeling and record-keeping mandates, which are particularly onerous for small-scale, home businesses and those selling products at farmers’ markets.
(-1)
The bill would preempt local regulations of the narrowly-defined activates in the bill, saying, “Except as expressly authorized by state statute, agencies and political subdivisions of this state shall not adopt, continue in effect, or enforce any ordinance, rule, regulation, resolution, or policy pertaining to the licensing, permitting, inspection, packaging, or labeling of products made available pursuant to this chapter that is more stringent than the corresponding state or federal requirement. Any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or policy that is in violation of this chapter is hereby declared to be unenforceable.”
(+1)
The bill includes a new section within this chapter dealing with “animal shares,” which would allow consumers to establish an ownership interest in an animal prior to slaughter. Such shares could be “created in any size or portion as agreed on by the producer and the informed end consumer.”
These arrangements would “not constitute the sale of meat products and shall not be prohibited.”
Those who obtain meat from an animal share would be prohibited from selling, donating, or commercially redistributing the meat.
While it is appropriate for individuals to be able to buy shares in each other’s animals, prohibiting transfers and even donations of the meat produced is far too restrictive on individual freedom.
(0)
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
The act itself is an expansion of government, and the bill would also create a new responsibility for the Department of Health and Welfare, saying that “to prevent foodborne illnesses and promote best safety practices,” the department shall “compile educational information on food safety, shelf-stable and perishable food storage, and prevention of the spread of foodborne illness and shall make such information publicly available.”
It also says, “Producers and designated agents shall become familiar with the educational material provided by the department.”
There is already an abundance of information available on these topics from many competent sources, and government is neither the most reliable nor the most accurate source of information on any topic, especially health and safety.
(-1)
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the tenth amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
The bill says, “Producers operating pursuant to this chapter may sell homemade shelf-stable or perishable food products to the fullest extent permitted by applicable state and federal law.” But the bill would only apply to transactions “between a producer or designated agent and informed end consumer,” which “occur entirely within the state of Idaho and shall not constitute or involve interstate commerce.”
The bill does not need to reference “federal law” because the bill only governs transactions that do not involve interstate commerce. Any federal law that attempted to restrict such transactions would be unconstitutional.
Broadly requiring compliance with federal law or incorporating federal law by reference subordinates state law to changeable federal statutes, which means that the federal government can effectively change state law without the Legislature's knowledge or consent.
(-1)
