Home-processed food; inspection of food establishments, labeling of foods with name of preparer. (HB1852)

Introduced By

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Inspection of food establishments and labeling of foods. Exempts private homes where the resident processes and prepares food products, other than meat or dairy products, from inspection by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), so long as the resident processing and preparing the product affixes a label to the product that indicates that the residence has not been inspected by the VDACS. The bill also requires a food establishment, food manufacturing plant, food storage warehouse, or retail food store to include on its product labels a statement that the facility has been inspected by the VDACS. If a label does not contain this statement, the owner of the establishment may be subject to a Class 1 misdemeanor for the misbranding of a product. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Passed

History

DateAction
01/08/2013Committee
01/08/2013Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/13 13100423D
01/08/2013Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources
01/14/2013Assigned ACNRsub: Agriculture
01/28/2013Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (7-Y 0-N)
01/30/2013Impact statement from DPB (HB1852)
01/30/2013Reported from Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources with substitute (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/30/2013Committee substitute printed 13104248D-H1
01/31/2013Read first time
02/01/2013Read second time
02/01/2013Committee substitute agreed to 13104248D-H1
02/01/2013Amendment by Delegate Orrock agreed to
02/01/2013Engrossed by House - committee substitute with amendment HB1852EH1
02/01/2013Printed as engrossed 13104248D-EH1
02/04/2013Read third time and passed House (100-Y 0-N)
02/04/2013VOTE: PASSAGE (100-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/05/2013Constitutional reading dispensed
02/05/2013Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources
02/14/2013Reported from Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources (10-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/18/2013Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/19/2013Read third time
02/19/2013Passed Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/21/2013Impact statement from DPB (HB1852EH1)
02/22/2013Impact statement from DPB (HB1852ER)
02/22/2013Enrolled
02/22/2013Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB1852ER)
02/23/2013Signed by Speaker
02/23/2013Signed by President
02/25/2013Impact statement from DPB (HB1852ER)
03/13/2013G Approved by Governor-Chapter 285 (effective 7/1/13)
03/13/2013G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0285)

Comments

Girl Scout Mom writes:

No No No. Criminal Ramifications. Really? Arrest Girl Scouts, Church and School banana bread sellers? Handcuff Lemonaid Stand Kids? Come on. Absurd. I have never seen and hope I NEVER see a Disclaimer label on the baked goods or jelly and jam that the little old ladies sell at some of our for profit community events. This has to be a joke:

"Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."

Does it really have to be this complicated to buy from my neighbor? I totally agree with the provision about dairy and meat. I don't want to buy meat that could be contaminated. But really does the government have to interefere with all the simple pleasures in life? Geez. I better go buy all the baked treat goodies I can get my hands on from my neighbors before the Cookie Police come and hall us all away. Why stop there? Heck, next you will be telling farmers they need a special site plan, special exception permit, pay $150 for an administrative permit AND have a business license to have a birthday party for little girls or sell an alpaca scarf at an alpaca farm! Oh wait - I hear that is the law with criminal ramifications in Fauquier County. Absurd.

What ever happened to the good ole days when the people were trusted to make uch profound decisions for themselves about such dangerous things as home-made brownies and fudge?

Illegal Apple Pie writes:

NO WAY! This "handcuff grandma bill" may as well be called "the Soviet Union Bill".

Grandma gets Up to 12 MONTHS in jail for not labeling her pumpkin pie or peach jelly?

This is the "Crazy Bill". Only thing criminal about home-made treats and baked goods are the bafoon elected politicians that want to criminalize our kitchens!

Lord help us if this Bill becomes law!

Hurry call 911, call the National Guard and Homeland Security-- Grandma just sold me unlabeled apple pie and I am eating it right now! Call the patty wagon and bring in the troops and handcuff all the grannies and children engaged in a Class 1 misdemeanor for an unlabeled apple pie and chocolate chip cookie! Hurry before the evidence is eaten! Ridiculous indeed.

Free the cookies! This "cookie police bill" is outrageous! Bafoon legislation at its best.

Hurry! Buy all the cookie, cake, pie and jam contraband from grandma before the Cookie Police handcuff her and throw her in jail for 12 months!!

Hurry the Apple Pie drones are coming to make sure there is a label on those muffins!!!!

Eat the evidence before this bafoon legislation becomes law!!

Waldo Jaquith writes:

I'm confused. Doesn't this constitute an improvement for those who advocate food freedoms? Currently, private homes are subject to VDACS inspection if its residents are manufacturing food products there. This bill eliminates that requirement, with the one requirement of disclosure—a sticker on the product saying that it hasn't been inspected. That seems like a really great trade. Why in the world would these folks oppose this bill?

Illegal Apple Pie writes:

No No No!!! No way to this "handcuff grandma bill".
@ Waldo - you are mistaken my friend. the kitchen Bill is already in existence. Grandma can bake what ever she wants and sell it to the community with a label.
There is a HUGE fatal flaw with this "Cookie Police Bafoon Bill" that if passed would make it a CLASS 1 Misdemeanor punishable by up to a $2500 fine and up to TWELVE months in jail!!!!!! Is this delegate riding the crazy train??? A Class 1 Misdemeanor is for things like Assault & Battery, concealed weapon, sexual battery and now thanks to this delegate - grandma gets to spend 12 months In jail because grannie is not labeling her homemade yummy banana bread or a jar of peach jam properly!!!
This is pure lunacy. Madness.

So yes I am confused too Waldo as to why in the world this delegate is introducing the criminalization of our kitchens to the tune of a class 1 misdemeanor for failing to label a brownie or chocolate chip cookie!!!! Really!!???

Get ready because the jails are going to be over flowing with such vile criminals as lemonade stand kids, grannies, home school moms, farmer's wives!!! Horrors!!! How dare they not label that piece of apple pie!! Ridiculous.

Please tell me this is a joke and that last line was an error about a CLASS 1 Misdemeanor!!!???

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Reading through the full text of this bill, I can see that this text was already present in the law:

To the extent that the Commissioner believes that compliance with the requirements of subdivision 4 b is impractical or results in deception or unfair competition, exemptions shall be established by the Commissioner.

That's despite the summary of the bill, which implies strongly that this is new. So, you're right, exceptions were already present. And this language is new:

The following statement: "THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT PROCESSING AND PRODUCING THIS PRODUCT HAS BEEN INSPECTED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES."

But this doesn't do what you think it does (or what I thought it did). Read that statement again, closely. That doesn't apply to home producers, it applies to people who are being inspected by VDACS!

So far, then, there are no changes that affect home producers. It's all good news. Let's continue.

The existing law has this exemption:

Private homes where the resident processes and prepares candies, jams, and jellies not considered to be low-acid or acidified low-acid food products and baked goods that do not require time or temperature control after preparation if such products are: (i) sold to an individual for his own consumption and not for resale; (ii) sold at the private home or at farmers markets; and (iii) labeled "NOT FOR RESALE - PROCESSED AND PREPARED WITHOUT STATE INSPECTION."

So, homemade goods of very limited types are OK, but they must be sold directly to the person who is going to eat it, not sold in stores, and has to have a disclaimer on it. The requirement for a disclaimer is already in the law!

Then let's look at what this bill proposes to change about that existing law—here's the new language:

Private homes where the resident processes and prepares a food product, not including meat and dairy products, (i) for sale directly to consumers and (ii) with an affixed label displaying the name and address of the person preparing the food product, the date the food product was processed, and the statement "NOT FOR RESALE - PROCESSED AND PREPARED WITHOUT STATE INSPECTION."

Wow! What a huge improvement! Now people aren't limited to candies, jams, and jellies, but they can produce any food product—other than meat and dairy products, and they can sell them directly to consumers, rather than only to the person who has to eat it!

So I ask again...why is this bad? You should be thrilled!

Illegal Apple Pie writes:

Yes I was thrilled until I saw the part about a CLASS 1 Misdemanor. I just don't want folks that make innocent mistakes about labeling to go to jail for 12 months.

With the exception of the Class 1 Misdemanor part it is an exceptional bill. I still don't understand why that has to be in there because I can tell you that the little old ladies that bake pies and cakes and cookies to help raise money for their grandkids cheer leading trips or for other community for profit events are not going to label those pies. Even if those farmer's wives did put a label on some cookies or brownies I am confident they will not be perfect.

So yes exceptional bill and kudos for bringing I forward instill think a Class 1 Misdemanor is extreme and I worry too that it is confusing as written and that grandma will be either stop baking banana bread because she doesn't want to go to jail or Grannies will have to bake in secret and be fearful 24/7 of the cookie police.

I think the bill is a bit confusing and I don't want grannies to stop bakin because the bill scares them in to thinking they will go to jail because they are just not capable of putting a perfect label on some blueberry scones. That's all.

Is there a way to make it easier to understand for all those home bakers?

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Yes I was thrilled until I saw the part about a CLASS 1 Misdemanor. I just don't want folks that make innocent mistakes about labeling to go to jail for 12 months.

But it's already a class 1 misdemeanor to improperly label foods. This law doesn't change that. You're fighting against the status quo, rather than change. Literally everything that this bill does is an improvement, and you're still against it, because it's not enough of an improvement. That's not a great idea!

The reason that it's a class 1 misdemeanor is because all food labeling requirements for all businesses are lumped together in this law. Home bakers are being held to the same standard as Con Agra. To fix this will be a lot of work—all of the home-made requirements will need to be pulled out of these laws, a new pair of laws will need to be established, and a new punishment will need to be contemplated. This will take a great deal of work. It's not something that will happen by amending this bill. If I were you, I'd rally in support of this bill, help it pass, and then go to its sponsor (Del. Orrock) and work with him on a new bill for next year that will reduce the penalty (if, indeed, that proves to be a good idea).

Illegal Apple Pie writes:

Ok I agree and will rally behind this Bill.

Just please don't handcuff innocent home bakers that have no desire to break the law because they accidentally mislabel a cookie.

Can't that part about a Class 1 Misdemeanor come out even if it is existing law?

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Can't that part about a Class 1 Misdemeanor come out even if it is existing law?

To be a law, there has to be some punishment. Otherwise it's not a law, it's a suggestion. :) This law makes it a class 1 misdemeanor to sell Brazilian orange juice and pass it off as Florida orange juice. It makes it a class 1 misdemeanor to sell a package of peanuts labelled as "16 ounces" that actually only contains 12 ounces. It makes it a class 1 misdemeanor to write on a package "contains no peanuts" and, in fact, have peanuts it in. It makes it a class 1 misdemeanor to label a package as kosher when the food is not, in fact, kosher. And so on. You can surely envision a lot of scenarios in which misleading packaging is at a minimum fraudulent and, at worst, deadly. That's the point of this law. Eliminating the bit about it being a class 1 misdemeanor functionally makes all of those things legal. That would be terrible. So that's not a change that a member of the General Assembly can make lightly. It would require a great deal of research, and the conclusion would surely be that we can't make that sort of fraud legal.

No, the only way to reduce the punishment level for mislabeling or failing to label homemade goods is to break all of those bits out into another law. And, as I've said, that's not a trivial thing to do, and it's not going to happen this year. But, by working with a legislator on it, that might be able to happen next year.

Ted T. writes:

NO Way to the "Handcuff Grandma Bill"! Free the Cookies Indeed and Grandma too.

Don't listen to Waldo (probably works for the "Cookie Police and is snooping your pantry now in search of Grannie's unlabled banana bread you just bought).

ABSURD, Ridiculous and FOOLISH to lump a home baker like Grannie, farmer's wives, home school moms, etc. in the same group as Con Agra.

The truth is that Orrock can ammend the bill NOW so that an appropriate punishment is in place for Grannie. Certainly NOT a CLASS 1 Misdemeanor! Come on!

Just because a law is on the books does not make it a good law. IF we were to follow Waldo's logic, slavery would still be on the books as well.

Not even a warning for Grandma? Really Orrock? Grannie goes to jail for 12 months over an unlabeled blueberry muffin? Grannie doesn't even get a warning?

I can think of much more wicked crimes than an unlabeled piece of pie that receive far less severe "punishment". Many include warnings to prevent the already over crowded court roooms and jails and to alert an offender they they are doing something wrong.

How is Grannie, the farmer's wife or an Amish family even going to know about this law or the Class 1 Misdeamenor punishable by 12 months in jail? Instead, it opens the door for a bitter disgruntled neighbor to complain and then the Cookie Police arrive on Christmas and handcuff Grandma and off to jail she goes!

Again, just because the law is bad that imposes a Class 1 Misdemanor on a home baker, does not mean it has to stay that way.

Orrock has the power to amend the bill as written now to exempt this severe punishment so that homebakers that produce under 1000 units of baked goods a year aren't not criminalized or heck Orrock could even amend it to say home bakers that earn under $8,500 a year are exempt.

SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE to fix this mess.

So what say you Waldo?

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Ted, here's the thing—I don't really care. I've invested time into researching this bill because I figured I was doing y'all a favor. Now that you've got me both the owner of slaves and an undercover regulator/burglar of old women, I have to say that you've convinced me that you're a jackass whose ignorance of both the law and the legislative process is surpassed only by your zealous defense of that ignorance. So, sure, go ahead and fight a law that you should be thrilled by because it's not as good as your imaginary alternative. It's all the same to me.

HappyFood writes:

Love the bill in theory, the problem seems to be with House track record. Three years vicfa lobbied to pass a pickle bill. Two time in the house with Del Orrock sitting on the Agri-subcommittee. Both times Del Orrock allowed the bill to die wothout a motion. Commissioner Lohr seems to have this over-exaggerated duty to protect consumers in Virginia from uninspected farmers selling directly to a consumer, so how is it that Del Orrock thinks now he can get a bill through that allows anything and everything???

This bill takes away the kitchen bill that was passed in 2008 against the wishes of VDACS. That bill gaves us the right to make jams, jellies, baked goods and candies without government inspection and to sell them directly to consumers. It orginally had pickles, relishes and salsa on it. With them opening this bill up, they can amend it.

I know for a fact that VDACS was trying to amend the code 3.2-5130 from food manufacturing plant to Food establishment....and guess what's the new language. Food establishment!!Which contradict itself in the bill under misbranded labeling and 3.2-5130 under private home well which is it??? confusing language also do we have to put both labels on it?. Why is it there??

The other time we went to pass the pickle bill( that would add pickles back on the list of the "food products" that are there already)Sen. Hanger tried to admend the bill to say we have to take an acidication class and have our recipes approved by VDACS (they are telling people this now, but it is not true) We had to pull the bill.Do not take my word for it call and ask VDACS.

So now if you think that they have had a change of heart and are going to let you make whatever you want, I think that is being very naive.

This bill needs to be killed or the freedom to sell jams, jellies , baked goods and candies directly to the consumer will be lost.

Happyfood writes:

Just wondering if HB 2092 has anything to do with HB 1852. Why does VDACS want to be tied into taxes? Food for thought!
VDACS claims it will help them minimize food borne illnesses and deaths in the Commonwealth. How someone explain.

Concerned abt Food Safety writes:

All this sounds great on the surface, but everyone should realize that folks could now sell their home processed green beans with a disclaimer label. As a consumer I would not know if this individual knew how to properly can this item or not. Unlike baked goods or other items that might make you a little ill if not handled properly, poorly canned low acid items develop botulism spores and kill. Surely there must be a balance which will help these individuals but also keep the consuming public safe.

Control Freak Virginia writes:

Really folks? Now I'm convinced - Virginia is making CUBA look good. Growing up almost 70 years ago, every home canned and baked and had gardens and bought from each other. No big deal. No problem. Now, we are over burdened with regulations. Give me a break. This is really disturbing.

Christine Solem writes:

HB 1852—A DANGEROUS BILL!! STRIKE IT!!!!!

Mommy, Mommy, Where Do Regulations Come From?

Everybody always wants to know—from what nether regions do all these laws and regulations come? It reminds me of when I was a child growing up in the 50’s and asked my mother where the kittens came from that suddenly showed up nursing the cat. True 50’s fashion, my mother told me the cat went and dug them up. Sex didn’t exist in the 50’s as far as parents were concerned. It’ a wonder the U.S. didn’t show a decline in population during that era.

The answer to the initial question above is YOU. You inadvertently make all these laws and regulations (with lots of “help” from the government}. There are certain “tools of the trade” involved in this procedure. HB 1852 contains a plethora of such tools. I could write a dissertation on the matter, but it will suffice to highlight just two of them.

No.1. The Bill, on its face, allows you to sell more than the 2008 exemption for candies and certain jams, jellies and baked goods. Rather, you sell a “food product”. This encourages everyone to want the Bill. But the language is broad—too broad, instigating confusion, more opposition on food safety grounds, and as a consequence, draconian amendments to the Bill as it moves through the rest of the House and then the Senate. Confusion is the name of the game in the General Assembly—divide and conquer through skillful political manipulation, and you will end up with more regulation and lose the exemptions you already have, unless you demand that the Bill be struck.

No.2. The Bill seeks to divide persons by mandating in the Misbranding section of the Code that all persons under inspection must have labels on their products stating that they are inspected. This drives an even deeper wedge between those that are “approved” through inspection and those who don’t have to be. Divisiveness works because there is a certain aspect of human nature that compels some persons to feel that if they have to jump through hoops and other do not, no matter what the circumstances, that they are somehow better than the others because they are “approved” and that the whole thing is somehow unfair. This quirk of human nature is exploited and manipulated by the government to get more laws and regulations. “Approved” people will always clamor for more regulations if nudged in the right direction.

I have never understood this unfortunate aspect of Homo sapiens.. Perhaps that is why I prefer animals. After all, How is anyone really better than another? We all fight the Grim Reaper and lose. We all have to perform rather unsightly functions every day just to keep our bodies working well, Including, but not limited to, brushing our teeth. All that foaming at the mouth and spitting is hardly charismatic. But of course you have to brush your teeth to remove all the multitude of bacteria in your mouth that could rot your teeth and then progress to annihilate your whole body in one fell swoop. According to agribusiness, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and Farm Bureau, such a multitude of bacteria does not exist anywhere else in the universe except in raw milk—and oh maybe in pickles. But I digress.

In short, the government skillfully maneuvers You to get as many laws and regulation as it can. But don’t feel too shamed about being “had”. These guys are good at this stuff: They undoubtedly take numerous courses in the art of manipulation and undergo strict rigorous testing. No doubt they all hold some degree from some secret university deep underground. I guess you might say they are “approved”

Christine Solem

--Christine Solem has been involved in court battles over oppressive regulations since 1980, and has been a citizen lobbyist for small farm issues in the Virginia General Assembly since 1992. She is currently on the Board of the Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association. Any Questions about this article? Contact her, (434) 973-6505.

Farmer writes:

@Concerned abt Food Safety: It is NOT legal for me to can my green beans under the existing law. Only those items specifically listed in the law. I grow herbs. I must have an inspected kitchen to pick/dry/sell my dried chamomile to you. I can cut it and sell it fresh, but once I dry it and put it in a package it is illegal for me to sell. The items that are listed in th elaw are jams, breads, candies etc--never low acid things such as beans.

Happy Food writes:

Bill has been amended . It's a good bill as it stands. Going to full committee Wednesday at 8:30 . For more info go to www.VICFA.org this bill has the potential to help small farmers and open up farmers' mkts!! call in support!

Christine Solem writes:

Here is the amended bill. Call Christine Solem for any questions (434)973-6505
SUPPORT as it stands only!!

HOUSE BILL NO. 1852
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
(Proposed by the House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources
on January 30, 2013)
(Patron Prior to Substitute--Delegate Orrock)
A BILL to amend and reenact § 3.2-5130 of the Code of Virginia, relating to food inspection.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 3.2-5130 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 3.2-5130. Inspections required to operate food establishment.

A. It is unlawful to operate a food manufacturing plant, food storage warehouse, or retail food store until it has been inspected by the Commissioner. This section shall not apply to:

1. Food manufacturing plants operating under a grant of inspection from the Office of Meat and Poultry Services or a permit from the Office of Dairy and Foods in the Department; and Grade A fluid milk manufacturing plants and shellfish and crustacea processing plants operating under a permit from the Virginia Department of Health;

2. Nonprofit organizations holding one-day food sales;

3. Private homes where the resident processes and prepares candies, jams, and jellies not considered to be low-acid or acidified low-acid food products, dried fruits, dry herbs, dry seasonings, dry mixtures, coated and uncoated nuts, vinegars and flavored vinegars, popcorn, popcorn balls, cotton candy, dried pasta, dry baking mixes, roasted coffee, dried tea, cereals, trail mixes, granola, and baked goods that do not require time or temperature control after preparation if such products are: (i) sold to an individual for his own consumption and not for resale; (ii) sold at the private home or at farmers markets; and (iii) labeled not offered for sale to be used in or offered for consumption in retail food establishments; (iv) not offered for sale over the Internet or in interstate commerce; and (v) affixed with a label displaying the name, physical address, and telephone number of the person preparing the food product, the date the food product was processed, and the statement "NOT FOR RESALE - PROCESSED AND PREPARED WITHOUT STATE INSPECTION" shall be placed on the principal display panel." Nothing in this subdivision shall create or diminish the authority of the Commissioner under § 3.2-5102;

4. Private homes where the resident processes and prepares pickles and other acidified vegetables that have an equilibrium pH value of 4.6 or lower if such products are (i) sold to an individual for his own consumption and not for resale; (ii) sold at the private home or at farmers markets; (iii) not offered for sale to be used in or offered for consumption in retail food establishments; (iv) not offered for sale over the Internet or in interstate commerce; (v) affixed with a label displaying the name, physical address, and telephone number of the person preparing the food product, the date the food product was processed, and the statement "NOT FOR RESALE - PROCESSED AND PREPARED WITHOUT STATE INSPECTION" shall be placed on the principal display panel; and (vi) not exceeding $3,000 in gross sales in a calendar year. Nothing in this subdivision shall create or diminish the authority of the Commissioner under § 3.2-5102;

5. Private homes where the resident processes and prepares honey produced by his own hives, if: (i) the resident sells less than 250 gallons of honey annually; (ii) the resident does not process and sell other food products in addition to honey, except as allowed by subdivisionsubdivisions A 3 and 4; (iii) the product complies with the other provisions of this chapter; and (iv) the product is labeled "PROCESSED AND PREPARED WITHOUT STATE INSPECTION. WARNING: Do Not Feed Honey to Infants Under One Year Old."; and (v) the resident certifies in writing annually to the Department that he meets the requirements of this subdivision. Nothing in this subdivision shall increase or diminish the authority of the Commissioner under § 3.2-5102; and

5. Retail establishments 6. Establishments that:(i) do not prepare or serve food; (ii) sell only food or beverages that are sealed in packaging by the manufacturer and have been officially inspected in the manufacturing process; (iii) do not sell infant formulas; (iv) do not sell salvaged foods; and (v) certify to the Department that they meet the provisions of this sectionsubdivision.

Retail B. Nonprofit organizations, private homes, and retail establishments that meet the provisions of this subdivisionqualify for an exception under subsection A shall be exempt from inspection and the inspection fees. Nothing in this section shall prevent the Department from inspecting any nonprofit organization, private home, or retail establishment if a consumer complaint is received.

B. C. Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Vicky writes:

NOT OFFERED FOR SALE OVER THE INTERNET would mean that no small business operating a home based food processing operation could have a Facebook Page for their business, a web presence, a shop on Etsy or other such sites, and could severely hamper those small businesses the ability to use social media, furthering their inability to compete against large businesses, even in their own localities. This seems grossly unfair. I can certainly appreciate, and completely support, the part about interstate commerce, but the limiting of sales over the Internet in this day and age is just crazy.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

NOT OFFERED FOR SALE OVER THE INTERNET would mean that no small business operating a home based food processing operation could have a Facebook Page for their business, a web presence, a shop on Etsy or other such sites, and could severely hamper those small businesses the ability to use social media, furthering their inability to compete against large businesses, even in their own localities.

The plain meaning of "not offered for sale over the internet" is that people would not be allowed to provide money over the internet in exchange for receiving goods. That has no effect on people's ability to promote their products online; they simply can't sell them via mail.

Grammie writes:

Have been following Bill 1852 for a while and would like to know if it went before the Senate on February 14, 2013 and what the outcome was.