Earlier this month, Keep Food Legal executive director Baylen Linnekin appeared with host Kennedy on the Fox Business Channel show The Independents to discuss the often-difficult regulatory environment for food trucks. Click on the image below to watch the segment.
For see and read more about what Keep Food Legal has to say on food trucks, click here.
As a variety of food issues around the country have heated up over the past month--from the battle in Washington over the USDA's failed school lunch program to the New York City's last-ditch effort to revive its soda ban--you may have noticed that Keep Food Legal has been all over the news in recent weeks.
Keep Food Legal executive director Linnekin spoke to Dennis Miller earlier this month, in one of his regular appearances on the iconoclastic star's popular, nationally syndicated radio show, about the soda ban and the school lunch fight.
That same week, Linnekin told Politico that "he would be 'stunned' if the state appeals court overturned the decision" of two lower courts in New York State that both rejected the soda ban.
Local NBC TV affiliates from Los Angeles to Connecticut to Mississippi recently featured our comments on a Center for Science in the Public Interest meeting that discussed ways to crack down soda consumption by targeting individual rights. Read more details--and our remarks--at the NBC News website.
Linnekin also recently sat down with Stossel host John Stossel and disucssed school lunches, the slanted Katie Court food documentary Fed Up, and the Founding Fathers' vision of food freedom on a segment of the popular Fox Business Channel TV show. View that clip below and here.
Keep up to date with breaking food freedom news and all of Keep Food Legal's media appearances by following us on Twitter and liking us on Facebook. You can support our work advancing the cause of food freedom by donating today.
As you've no doubt noted, we here at Keep Food Legal are most vocal in our opposition to the many regulations around the country that restrict the rights of individuals to buy or sell the foods of their own choosing. That's largely a function of the pervasiveness of such rules.
But our longstanding definition of "food freedom" includes much more than buying and selling food. Specifically, we define "food freedom" as "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing."
Sharing food might seem at first glance to be the least controversial facet of food freedom. But food sharing--particularly when it involves the homeless and less fortunate--has faced a growing attack in cities around the country for several years now.
In his latest Reason online column, Keep Food Legal executive director Baylen Linnekin looked at bans on sharing food with those in need and found such bans to be spreading. That's unfortunate, as Linnekin wrote last year about our hope that these unconstitutional bans (as Linnekin described in a 2012 column) were in retreat.
But it's true. These bans are spreading.
Here's Conor Friedersdorf, who notes our opposition to bans on sharing food in an excellent Orange County Register column today.
"'Starting in about 2006, several cities began arresting, fining and otherwise oppressing private individuals and nonprofits that feed the homeless and less fortunate,' says Baylen Linnekin, who heads the organization Keep Food Legal. 'Since then, other cities have followed suit.'"
Friedersdorf makes a key point worth repeating: opposition to bans on sharing food with the homeless and less fortunate knows no ideology.
"If there’s anything conservatives, liberals and libertarians ought to be able to agree on, it’s the goodness of private charities meeting their needs," he writes. "Denying food to these people because of its uncertain fiber content, or the fact that no one wants them around, hurts the most downtrodden."
Last month may have been the most active--and worst--month for food freedom in recent American history. The month took off with Pres. Obama signing a subsidy-heavy Farm Bill into law, reached cruising altitude with rumblings of a nationwide lawsuit against food producers, and touched back down with a series of proposals--including a plan to expand the USDA's lousy school lunch program and a costly and misguided FDA proposal to change America's food labels.
Who's fighting back against this awfulness? Keep Food Legal, that's who. We've been a vocal (and quotable) opponent of this slew of regulatory challenges facing consumers and producers alike.
For example, Keep Food Legal executive director Baylen Linnekin has been quoted over the past week in two Politico stories on the proposed new regulations.
Asked to comment for a Politico piece that rightly paints the food industry as "under siege," thanks to the slew of new regulations proposed by the Obama administration, Linnekin urged the president to rein in his food-agency heads.
"'I wish the administration would take a step back,' said Baylen Linnekin, executive director of Keep Food Legal, a food freedom advocacy group, and a professor at American University. 'I would imagine [the food industry] has the same whiplash as someone like me or you who has just been trying to keep up with these changes.'"
In another Politico story, Linnekin spoke out against proposed changes to the FDA's labeling scheme for packaged foods.
"Baylen Linnekin, executive director of Keep Food Legal and a professor at American University, said he thinks the new labeling overhaul is misguided and will likely provide little or no benefit.
"'This is a case of pointy-headed academics thinking that their labeling changes are going to have an impact in the real world,' said Linnekin. 'While additions to the labels might make FDA and advocates happy, it’s likely the case that consumer behavior won’t change.'"
Linnekin also used his regular monthly appearance on Dennis Miller's popular syndicated radio show last week to speak out against the USDA and FDA actions in particular. Linnekin told Miller the proposed FDA labels were "likely to have little to no impact on consumers, just like the existing labels."
And in his most recent weekly Reason column, Linnekin describes how--when viewed as a whole--these and other recently proposed food regulations appear to be part of a pervasive new campaign against food freedom.
"February 2014 may go down as the worst month for food freedom since the New Deal era," writes Linnekin.
We will continue to fight to turn the tide in favor of food freedom. But we've got powerful foes in powerful places. Won't you please help support our work by donating today?
A recent Agence France-Presse report on possible FDA intervention into natural food labeling quotes Keep Food Legal and highlights our stance on the issue. Simply put, we believe consumer demand can and does yield better results than might FDA regulation.
Here's the N.Y. Daily News quoting us:
Baylen Linnekin, executive director of the non-profit group Keep Food Legal, said more regulation is not the answer.
"The idea that the FDA needs to define every word that has ever been used to refer to food is ludicrous," said Linnekin.
What happens when a consumer feels a company has deceived them? That's a question for the courts, says Linnekin, and it's none of the FDA's business.
"The occasional lawsuit helps keep companies honest and that has always been the case."
On the other side of the issue sits the Center for Science in the Public Interest, whose chief litigator Stephen Gardner wants the FDA to step in because--among other reasons--he says "[t]here are just too damn many 'natural' lawsuits."
In one sense, he's right. There have been a slew of natural-labeling lawsuits. CSPI itself has filed some of those, and threatened to file others. But the upside of these lawsuits is that courts have been reluctant to embrace them for lack of proof, because the labeling in question didn't hurt anyone, or--quite germanely--because the term "natural" is so vague to begin with.
After a debate with Gardner over the same issue on Southern California's largest public radio station late last year, Linnekin pointed out several inconsistencies in the positions of Gardner and CSPI head Michael Jacobson. Our point in doing so is not to highlight the mixed message that CSPI put out in this instance but, rather, to highlight the fact that if two key advocates of greater FDA involvement in "all natural" food labeling who work in the same organization can't agree on a definition of "all natural" or on whether or not a particular food is "all natural," then how can CSPI reasonably expect a massive and notoriously confounded federal agency to come up with a definition that makes the agency--or CSPI or consumers--the least bit happy?
Who should decide what the term "all natural" means in the context of food?
Last week Keep Food Legal executive director Baylen Linnekin appeared on AirTalk with Larry Mantle on KPCC Radio, Southern California's NPR affiliate, to discuss that controversial question. Appearing alongside Linnekin was Stephen Gardner, head of litigation for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a group that often supports increased food regulations.
In recent years, class action lawyers and groups like CSPI have sued food companies over all natural claims. There's also been a renewed push of late by CSPI and others to force the FDA to define the term "all natural" once and for all.
But that would be a grave mistake, Linnekin told AirTalk host Mantle and his listeners.
The failures of the USDA organic program should stand as a warning to those who believe the federal government can apply some sort of one-size-fits-all definition to "all natural" foods, Linnekin told AirTalk listeners.
Even those who support mandatory labeling can't seem to agree how to define the term, or whether a particular use of the term is or isn't acceptable.
During the AirTalk segment, for example, CSPI's Gardner defined "all natural" as "something you could make in your own kitchen." Is he right? Maybe so. But he may first want to speak with his boss.
In 2010, CSPI head Michael Jacobson wrote that a product that contains chicken, salt, and water--something one can make quite easily in their kitchen--is not all natural.
"[W]hen you combine the three what you get is chicken that is anything but 'all natural,'" Jacobson claimed. Why? Because CSPI detests 100% natural salt, which Jacobson referred to as "probably the single most harmful ingredient in the food supply."
Unlike the FDA, the USDA has defined the term "all natural." Does CSPI support the USDA's definition? That also apparently depends who you ask.
Gardner said during last week's AirTalk segment that he supports the USDA definition of "all natural," stating that the agency "has defined it, and has defined it in a way that I think adequately summarizes how consumers view 'natural.'"
Yet Gardner's boss, CSPI head Jacobson, wrote in the same 2010 posting on the unnaturalness of chicken, salt, and water that "unscrupulous poultry producers, with the regrettable acquiescence of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have drained the meaning from those words"--referring to the term "all natural."
So it turns out it's not so easy to define "all natural."
Linnekin used the example of soy milk, one food that's often touted as "all natural" but that might not fit a definition of "all natural" should the FDA force one on consumers and food producers, to drive home that point to AirTalk listeners.
"You can't really milk a soybean," Linnekin noted. "Is that natural?"
What do we suggest as an alternative to one single FDA definition of the term "all natural"? Instead of an FDA standard that could take a decade to develop and would likely be little more than a wink and a nod to special interests, Keep Food Legal urges the FDA to “[o]pen up all food labels to any and all statements that aren't demonstrably false.”
We're not the only ones who think the FDA should stay out of the "all natural" game. Prof. James McWilliams pointed out a few more problems with a potential FDA definition of the term "all natural" in a recent column at Forbes.
A San Francisco city council proposal to enact a two-cent-per-ounce tax on all soda sales in the city would raise the price of a six-pack of soda by $1.20 if adopted. Not surprisngly, the tax hike has been met with stiff resistance from many, including San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders, who sought Keep Food Legal's opinion on the issue for a recent column blasting the proposal:
Who pays for this tax? Soda drinkers, of course.
Large businesses and tony restaurants won't feel much of an impact from a soda tax, said Baylen Linnekin of the antiregulation group Keep Food Legal. It's the "the small business, entrepreneurs, the taco trucks" that will pay. Linnekin believes that higher soda taxes will push sugar-lovers to buy other sweets, also high in calories.
In addition to her column, Saunders had some very kind words for Keep Food Legal in a recent Chronicle blog post, too.
Keep Food Legal, San Francisco
While working on my Sunday column on Supervisor Scott Wiener’s proposed sugary beverage tax, I chatted with Baylen J. Linnekin, executive director of Keep Food Legal.
In California, [attacks on food freedom include] the foie-gras ban, San Francisco’s Happy Meal ban, and other nanny state laws from politicians who think they know what’s best for you.
BTW, KFL is also big on promoting food trucks, and hell bent on ending federal agriculture subsidies that distort American eating habits. For example, Linnekin suggests that if S.F. pols want to decrease sugar consumption, they should pressure Washington to end ethanol subsidies and sugar price supports.
If you’re interested in KFL’s thinking, you may want to read this piece about California’s crackdown on food. I like the group’s emphasis about getting big government out of the kitchen and the stomach.
We're grateful to Saunders for the kind words. And we'll keep you posted on the status of San Francisco's proposed tax.