Surprisingly or otherwise, some big business groups like the Grocery Manufacturers of America have allied with consistent Big Government advocacy groups like the Consumer Federation of America and Center for Science in the Public Interest to push S. 510, the food safety bill pending before the Senate (which might win consideration in the lame-duck session). In a post at Cato at Liberty recently, I cited writer Barry Estabrook, an ardent critic of the food industry (“Politics of the Plate“), writing at The Atlantic, who says the bill could “make things worse”:
You needn’t go along completely with Estabrook’s dim view of industrialized agriculture to realize he’s right in one of his central contentions: “the proposed rules would disproportionately impose costs upon” small producers, including traditional, low-tech and organic farmers and foodmakers selling to neighbors and local markets. Even those with flawless safety records or selling low-risk types of foodstuff could be capsized by new paperwork and regulatory burdens that larger operations will be able to absorb as a cost of doing business.
It’s true that S. 510 includes language not in earlier drafts that nods toward the idea of tiering regulatory burdens. But as the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance notes (background), most of the small-producer-friendly changes are left to FDA discretion, so it really depends on how much you trust that process. Note also these comments (background) by Peter Kennedy for the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which focuses primarily on defending raw milk, and in particular Kennedy’s discussion (as things that may be particularly burdensome to small entities) of HARPC (”hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls”), traceability, penalties, expansion of federal jurisdiction, and produce standards, as well as the terms of S. 3767, the “Food Safety Accountability Act of 2010,” a new measure introduced by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. On the “pro” side, here is an advocacy sheet (anonymous on its face, but attributed in some quarters to Senate staffers) defending the measure as fair to small farmers (& welcome Professor Bainbridge readers).
Tagged as:
food safety,
small business
“‘No touch’ rules discouraging teachers from restraining and comforting children are to be scrapped, Education Secretary Michael Gove has said.” [BBC] And the incoming Cameron government is proceeding with a previously signaled broad effort to roll back excessive health and safety rules that discourage harmless goings-on in schools, workplaces and the community [BBC, earlier] On the other hand, the Conservatives intend to go forward with most of a package of new measures devised by the previous Labour government that would expand discrimination and harassment law in the direction of wide-open U.S.-style rights to sue [Telegraph, Daily Mail]
Tagged as:
discrimination law,
hostile environment,
nanny state,
schools,
United Kingdom
The website of the Golden Cockerel import firm includes a rather elaborate warning as to why its matryoshka are not meant for the under-12 set, at least not since the enactment of the calamitous Jan-Schakowsky-backed law:
the law requires each batch of toys be tested by a 3rd party laboratory to be sure they are “toy safe.” Such tests can cost well over $1000 per nesting doll set! And sometimes, as with our museum quality one-of-a-kind dolls, a “batch” consists entirely of one doll, or only a few, making it totally unfeasible to test.
CPSIA: reserving treasured toys for strictly adult use since 2008.
More: The CPSC has just sided with purported consumer groups and against pleas from the business community in adopting a broad definition of what constitute “children’s products” under the disastrous Barbara-Boxer-backed law: for example, ordinary paper clips must go through costly separate CPSIA testing when meant for kids’ use as part of a science kit with magnets and similar items [NY Times, AP/WaPo ("Kids' science kits may take hit from safety ruling"), Commissioners Anne Northup and Nancy Nord]
Tagged as:
Barbara Boxer,
CPSC,
CPSIA,
CPSIA and toys,
Henry Waxman,
Jan Schakowsky,
schools,
science and scientists
At least for its employees: the London borough of Barnet admonishes staff that mother-in-law jokes, “as well as offensively sexist in their own right, can also be seen as offensive on the grounds that they disrespect elders or parents.” [Telegraph]
P.S. Notes SiouxsieLaw, in reference to this case: “In the US, we sue over mother-in-law jokes.”
Tagged as:
hostile environment,
United Kingdom
“It depends on your whole interpretation of what a weapon is,” said the superintendent of the Jamesburg, New Jersey district. “It’s not a weapon as a knife is a weapon. But a weapon is anything that has the potential to cause harm.” Better watch out for kids who bring knuckles and fists to school, especially if they try to smuggle them in in the form of innocent-looking hands. [Free-Range Kids]
Tagged as:
New Jersey,
zero tolerance
The Los Angeles lawyer springs another surprise on a gubernatorial candidate in the run-up to an election, this time Meg Whitman, who allegedly didn’t fire a housekeeper fast enough as her illegal status emerged, or perhaps fired her too fast, it’s not entirely clear. [Jim Treacher] More: Legal Ethics Forum (”As always, some question if Allred’s publicity-seeking actions are in the best interests of the client,”), Coyote (”What Kind of Freaking Lawyer is This Lady?”).
Tagged as:
California,
Gloria Allred,
politics
