After four years, the Council of the District of Columbia finally passed rules to regulate the burgeoning mobile food industry that seem to please all sides. Restaurant owners were hoping the new dining option would be a flash in the pan, but it seems the new rules and the food trucks are here to stay.
After a marathon hearing on proposed food truck regulations in May, it became clear the would-be rules needed “more time in the oven” as Benjamin Freed of DCist, put it. When the Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington approved the original plan, the Food Truck Association of Metropolitan Washington claimed it would put its members out of business. But the revised rules, unanimously approved by the council, seem to be a compromise everyone can live with.
The proposal creates “mobile roadway vending zones” which lets truck operators win access to 180 designated mobile vending spots in a monthly lottery. The trucks must have at least six feet of unobstructed (parking meters do not count as obstructions) sidewalk by their parking space, reduced from 10 feet in the original proposal (which counted parking meters and other non-obstructions as obstructions). The bill also reduces the fine for parking at an expired meter — a change the food truck association pushed hard for — from $2,000 down to $50 for the first infraction and doubling for subsequent offenses. For those trucks not lucky enough to land spots in the lottery, they must be at least 200 feet away from the designated mobile vending zones — which is a reduction from the 500 feet in the original proposal. If an unassigned food truck parks in the spot of a vendor who won it in the lottery, the offending vendor could face a fine of $2,000.
Despite heated rhetoric from both sides, and even outlandish claims that the food trucks could be used in terrorist plots, it appears this bill, which Mayor Vincent Gray is expected to sign before the June 22 deadline, solidifies food trucks’ place in the D.C. dining scene.
Beer wholesalers are testifying yesterday morning in the Pennsylvania Senate, expressing their opposition to the proposed plans to privatize the state-run liquor store system. As John McGinley, vice president of Wilson-McGinley Inc. in Pittsburgh noted, “The beer industry is private. We don’t need to privatize an already private business.”
He is right, the beer market in Pennsylvania is private, but that doesn’t mean it’s free and certainly doesn’t mean it couldn’t be improved. Currently, Pennsylvanians wanting to buy beer have few choices. In most parts of the state they have two options; either buy a six-pack at high cost from a bar or buy a full case from a distributor shop. And for brewers wishing to get their beer into those bars or shops, unless they are based in Pennsylvania they have to sell to wholesalers first. While the wholesalers oppose the proposed privatization plans, some think that they don’t go nearly far enough. More changes need to be made to Pennsylvania’s alcohol regulatory system—if only to bring it into compliance with constitutional law.
Along with selling off the state-run liquor stores to private interests, the House bill will allow grocery stores to sell wine (and beer if they have a separate eating space and a special license) and will give beer distributors to sell 6-packs as well as full cases and would also give them the option to sell wine, as well. It’s understandable that the wholesalers fear this new form of competition. But the proposal still leaves a glaring problem on the book: Pennsylvania is in violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
As David Scott highlighted in his paper for CEI, “Don’t forget the Beer,” released last week, brewers in Pennsylvania are allowed to bypass the three-tier system, that is, distribute their own beer instead of going through wholesalers, while out-of-state brewers must sell their beer to wholesalers in order to gain access to the PA market. This, as Scott notes, is similar to Michigan’s wine regulations until the Supreme Court determined that treating in and out of state alcohol producer differently was a violation of the constitution and that state, along with others, was forced to change its laws. Pennsylvania has yet to do so.
[click to continue…]
It’s a rare occasion that we get to praise government agencies. While the federal agency governing alcoholic beverages certainly took it’s time to make a ruling on nutrition labeling on alcoholic products — a topic it has been considering since 2003 — it appears the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax, and Trade Bureau (TTB) ultimately made the right decision to allow, not require, companies to add a “serving facts” nutrition panel to their labels. According to a press release dated May 28, 2013, the TTB reviewed the issue of having a “serving facts” statement on beer, wine, and spirits — something that the spirits suppliers have been asking for — and it concluded that it will allow, but not require the use of nutrient analysis in labeling as well as advertisements.
Happily, companies will not have to apply for approval for a new label, so long as the added nutritional facts panel follows the example provided by TTB and they may include information regarding the serving size, number of servings in a container, calories, carbs, protein, and fat per serving.
This is good news because there had been some talk in the past about requiring all suppliers of alcohol to add this nutritional information to all of their products, a change that could have been disastrous for some smaller producers of alcohol and consumers who like variety. As I wrote back in 2011:
“Craft brewers on the other hand, produce a wider variety of beers, and far fewer barrels of each one, so they will struggle with the cost of testing and labeling the nutritional contents of their many beers. In its 2008 comments on the TTB labeling requirement proposal, the Brewers Association, which represents more than 1,400 U.S. small brewers, estimated that the annual cost of compliance with the proposed labeling requirement could be as high as $18,000 for brewers producing less than 1,000 barrels a year and more than $350,000 for brewers making more than 100,000 barrels a year.”
Requiring all suppliers of alcohol to label their entire line of products would almost certainly mean that smaller wine makers and brewers would have to reduce the range of products they sell and/or raise their prices. While this guidance issued by the TTB is a stop-gap until it issues regulations regarding nutritional labeling, let’s up that the voluntary aspect remains part of the plan.
Even in a divided Washington, everyone agrees on the importance of creating jobs in America. So why are some government agencies using taxpayer money to lobby against some food manufacturers?
At least one lawmaker, Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) thinks it’s time government officials stopped using taxpayer money to run smear campaigns against the makers of lawfully produced goods that consumers want. On April 15, Rep. Schock introduced the Stopping Taxpayer Outlays for Propaganda Act (STOP) Act (H.R. 1572), which would prohibit the use of federal funds for advertising and media campaigns to discourage consumption of any food or beverage that is lawfully marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In a Politico op-ed this week, Schock explains that in this time of economic stress, using taxpayer money to harm American industry doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Not only do these government-funded campaigns harm American businesses, they are doing nothing to improve Americans’ health — and may even cause harm in some cases. Government is simply not very good at determining what is best or healthy for each individual. Studies funded by government grants are often cited by legislators to promote one-size-fits-all policies that fail to take into account a person’s health risks or specific dietary needs. Yet many such studies are based on limited data that often result in incorrect conclusions.
[click to continue…]
National: Constellation Brands revealed this Monday that a preliminary deal has been reached regarding the sale of Gupo Modelo — the maker of Corona. The $20 billion deal was stalled when the DOJ filed a suit to stop the merger of Modelo and Anheuser-Busch (ABI), citing anti-trust concerns. In the revised deal, it seems that ABI would sell its 50 percent ownership of Crown Imports to Constellation Brands — giving Constellation full control of Crown — the importer of Corona in the U.S. That, along with the sale of the Modelo’s Piedras Negras brewery to Constellation, appears to be enough for the DOJ to allow the merger to go through.
Alabama: The House of Representatives approved a bill earlier this month that would legalize home brewing in Alabama — the last state that maintains a ban on the activity. Representatives voted 58-33 in favor of the bill that would allow those 21 and older to make up to 15 gallons of beer, wine, mead or cider every three months so long as they are not in a dry county or city. The measure now moves to the Senate for consideration.
Arizona: Two sisters who wanted to open a combination vineyard and brewery were thwarted by an Arizona law that banned such combinations on the same property. However, the Governor signed legislation last week reversing the ban.
Florida: Bills that would legalize the standard growler (64 ounces) in Florida are essentially dead after The Florida Beer Wholesalers Association, which opposed the bill, convinced Rep. Debbie Mayfield, R-Vero Beach, not to give it a hearing at the House Business and Professional Regulation Subcommittee she chairs. Currently, only 32 ounce containers or gallon-sized containers may be filled by breweries.
[click to continue…]
While most states are desperately trying to figure out ways to encourage business development and reduce the cost of consumer goods, New York is considering a proposal that would benefit one particular group of large businesses at the expense of smaller outfits and consumers. The reason, it appears, that lawmakers are considering the proposal is because those large in-state businesses set to benefit from the law changes donated very large sums of money to those very lawmakers.
“At-rest” laws, which require alcohol being shipped from out-of-state spend 24 hours in a distributors warehouse in the state where it is to be sold (sometimes for up to three days) are an effect of the mandatory three-tier system that separates alcohol producer from retailers by forcing both to use a middle man. As I have stated in the past, wholesalers can provide and invaluable service for both retailers and alcohol producers, but by making their use mandatory it has given that middle tier an immense amount of control over the market and with it power and money. Over the decades, wholesalers have been able to buy or pressure their way to favorable laws. For example, 33 states have these “at-rest” laws which really serve no greater purpose than to act as a way to protect in-state wholesalers from out-of-state competition and raise costs (and thus the prices) of out-of-state alcohol. Now, New York is reportedly considering adding this provision to its alcohol control laws. Why? As others, like Walter Olson over at Cato have noted, the only explanation seems to be that large in-state wholesalers donated thousands of dollars to lawmakers in order to convince them to get on board — State Sen. Jeff Klein (D-Bronx), who is pushing the proposal, S3849, received no less than $33,000 from Empire Merchants, a distributor that already has warehouses in New York.
Small and out-of-state wholesalers are up-in-arms about the proposal, claiming that the cost of buying or leasing warehousing space in New York could put them out of business which would reduce the choices for consumers in the New York market. Furthermore, for those that manage to survive the change, the increases in operating costs would necessitate an increase in the prices they charge to consumers. According to wine writer Jesse Nash, the new requirement could add $7 or $8 to bottles.
[click to continue…]
Politicians love to sell alcohol tax hikes as pennies on the drink that won’t really hurt anyone’s pocketbook, while helping to pay for the burden that drinkers put on the rest of society, as they did in Minnesota this week, when lawmakers there introduced a proposal to increase the state excise tax on alcohol by at least 300 percent.
These arguments are deceptive. The cost estimates used by politicians to increase taxes are usually misleading and grossly inflated. Worse, these seemingly small increases in the cost of alcohol will have significantly harmful effects on Minnesota businesses and consumers, and potentially reduce state tax revenue as businesses close and consumers cross the border to buy cheaper alcohol in neighboring states.
According to a 2011 Minnesota Institute of Public Health (MIPH) study commissioned by the Minnesota Department of Health, alcohol use costs the state $5.07 billion a year. That number is far greater than the $296 million in revenue collected each year from alcohol taxes, but a closer look at the study shows that the majority of the “costs” aren’t paid by the state at all. Most of those costs, such as the $3.71 billion in productivity loss, lost wages, absenteeism, and premature death, are borne by individual and arguably their families and employers, not taxpayers. As is often the case, government researchers are conflating private costs with public, or social, costs.
[click to continue…]
This story demonstrates very clearly how technology can be used to create a future with a cleaner environment and underscores why we must protect access to resources so people have the time and money to come up with more efficient and environmentally friendly technology.
As the folks over at Treehuger.com noted, there’s a range of concerns regarding the use if herbicides in farming and gardening, “ranging from protecting the workers using the chemicals to groundwater contamination.” On the other hand, in organic farming, the methods of controlling weeds include pesticides, hand-weeding, or flame throwers that are either as harmful as conventional weeding or impractical for large-scale agriculture. However, farmers may soon have another more environmentally friendly option: weed-targeting lasers. A team of scientists at the Leibniz University of Hannover Germany, and Laser Zentrum Hannover (LZH) are in the process of testing weed-targeting robot drones that utilize CO2 lasers to kill plants that compete with desired plants for resources.
There are some challenges in getting the robots to differentiate between wanted plant species and weeds, as well as having the lasers hit precisely at the plant’s center. To do this, the scientists use cameras to film the plants and software to measure the plants so the lasers can be shot at precisely the right spot. Another challenge is getting the strength of the radiation just right. If it’s too low the radiation can “encourage growth.”
While the current research is testing lasers that run on rails in a greenhouse, Thomas Rath, a lead on the project, believes that drones may be used to “swarm over the field” for larger-scale agricultural use.
The title of the Vimeo video below is “Fighting Fire with Fire,” which conveys fairly well what doctors from the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) did when they used the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to reprogram the T-cells of a 7 year old girl in order to cure her of leukemia.
Fire With Fire | Ross Kauffman from Focus Forward Films on Vimeo.
Pediatric oncologist Stephan A. Grupp of CHOP and his colleagues presented the updated results of their clinical trial of the innovative therapy at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting on December 10 in Atlanta. To conduct the treatment (officially called CTL019), doctors collect T-cells from the patient and reengineer them with a disabled form of HIV to recognize and attach to a protein that is found only on the surface of B-cells. B-cells are found in the immune system and become cancerous in certain leukemias and lymphomas. Once the reengineered T-cells are injected into the patient, they multiply and are able to attach to the cancerous B-cells—which would otherwise fly under the immune system’s radar—and destroy them.
[click to continue…]
It’s that time of year again when we at the Competitive Enterprise Institute celebrate the innovative power of humanity and demonstrate our commitment to protecting the rights of individuals against government action that would limit our ability to use earth’s resources and thus hinder human progress. We call this celebration Human Achievement Hour (HAH).
On Saturday, March 23 at 8:30pm (local time), some people, businesses and governments around the world will choose to sit in the dark for one hour as a symbolic gesture to take action against climate change. The organizers of Earth Hour say that they longer expect energy use to actually drop during the hour, but instead see it as a way for people to show their commitment to reducing energy use and taking action beyond the hour.
It’s absolutely every person’s right to decide if they want to conserve energy for whatever reason; they are free to sit in the dark as long as they want. However, it should not be their right to impose their beliefs or opinions on others. And that is what is at the heart of the environmentalist movement. While many participants in Earth Hour sincerely want a cleaner environment — a desire most of us share — the environmentalist movement whether implicitly or explicitly seeks to clamp down on human progress by reducing energy consumption whether through regulation and taxation. They want to make fossil fuels, which they see as dirty, more expensive to encourage the use of renewable “greener” energies.
Despite any good intentions, the ultimate result of environmentalist policies is not a healthier, cleaner environment. Instead we will see a population that is sicker and poorer. The only way we achieve technology that is “greener” is by building on older “dirtier” technology. As we make it harder and more expensive for those in the business of creating new technologies, all we do is slow progress and make it that much longer to reach more environmentally friendly solutions.
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
DriveInnovation.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 