Utah/Food Freedom Act

Food Freedom basically consists of the concept that a state shouldn't regulate direct sales from producer (eg. grower, farmer) to informed consumer for many/all food products. One of the major arguments for this paradigm is that regulatory agencies were created to deal with the problems inherent in modern food production and distribution, in which the consumer is normally many steps removed from the producer, so there are both many opportunities for the food to become tainted and no way for the consumer to be informed about the process. However, when a consumer goes directly to a farmer to purchase food items, the problems that putatively create the increased need for oversight do not exist. A consumer should be able to buy whatever food they want.

The benefits of deregulating producer to consumer sales are: increased access to real fresh food for the consumer, increased opportunities for businesses, increased innovation, and a strengthened local economy.

In an age when legislators are wringing their hands trying to side-step the constitution to get a piece of the ever-increasing online market, it makes a lot of sense to take the burden off of local businesses in reasonable ways that allow them to fully provide the home court advantage that is naturally theirs.

Two states have enacted laws along these lines; Wyoming and North Dakota. Detractors warn of a wave of food-borne illnesses coming from such legislation, but this has failed to pan out, and the benefits to consumer choice and small businesses has proven to be very real.

In Utah, Representative Marc Roberts has been the major proponent of Food Freedom in the legislature.

External Resources

• North Dakota Food Freedom
• Real Food ND
• North Dakota Food Freedom Act - Facebook