In Shasta County, bureaucrats are protecting residents from an 86-year-old man who has been baking and selling pecan fruitcakes from his home the past decade. Jack Melton, a disabled World War II veteran, has been ordered to stop selling his popular fruitcakes because of a law forbidding the operation of an unregulated food business from a home.
The Shasta County Department of Environmental Health came to the rescue of consumers, who didn't have a problem with the quality of the fruitcakes. Doesn't matter, health officials said, because the law is the law. Of course, Melton has been selling the fruitcakes for more than 10 years and the law didn't seem to care until now.
The story is in the Redding Record Searchlight.
Shasta officials told the newspaper that if Melton is "selling the cakes to the public -- or even giving them away -- he must make them in a commercial bakery kitchen that has passed a health inspection."
Melton was disappointed, but told the newspaper: "At my age, I probably need to quit anyway. "This was probably the last year I was going to do it anyway." He said many of his customers will be disappointed, though.
But health officials know best. You just have to trust them.
Do you think the chaps in Health department use this case as an example to justify their pay packets? Wonder how many 'commercial bakery kitchens' they check out as well.
They will not allow even if he were to give away? Bloody hell, was going to make some cookies and pass out, best save me cash for the 'bakery trucks' that plague the road with their 'healthy' wares...............right, and MOI has an oil well in back garden.
Perfect example of government going too far.
The problem is, you guys want it both ways. Sure with this story, the health department LOOKS like the bad guy. The old guy is earning extra money and conducting a holiday tradition in his neighborhood; how bad is that? However, the health department has to follow the rules that the public makes them follow. What would the story be if someone got botulism or e coli from someone’s home cooked wares? The health department would be the bad guy for not shutting them down. Then there is the favoritism thing. How come he can do it but I can’t? How come he gets to sell food from his home and the baker down the street has to follow all the expensive health rules and pay taxes on his profits? Why does the old guy have more rights than the baker? The public wants to go the store and buy food that won’t kill them or make them sick, so they pass health laws and a create health department to enforce them. The man is not just selling or giving the cakes to his friends, he is selling them to the public, therefore, he has the follow the laws created by the public for their own protection; simple as that. Either abolish the health codes and give everyone the same rights and take your chances or once in a while an old guy can’t sell homemade fruit cakes. Your choice; however, once you make your choice live with it. If people start getting sick or killed from tainted food from people not as fastidious as this old man, there should be no right to sue; no blame for the health department and government for not protecting you. Buy at your own risk. Pick which way you want it, vote for it but then live with it. Everyone who wants safe food when they buy it from the store, needs the health codes to ensure it and is guilty for putting this man out of business; not the health department, not the government. Us, every one of US caused it. Take responsibility for YOUR decisions.
Well said, aks.
So if the Health Department is required to stop him from selling or giving away fruitcake to the public without passing a health inspection, why did it take officials more than 10 years to enforce the law? It wasn't like this just came to their attention. It was well-known that he was selling the fruitcake. So either they were wrong to cite him now or were wrong for not citing him for more than 10 years. The Health Department can't have it both ways.
Actually I agree with both Jim and aks. If you erected a monument to the Health Department, it would be a statue of an inspector holding a fruitcake and looking the other way.
I think they let the sweet old American Vet with the good intentions have his fruitcake and then it went on too long. Someone somewhere either said something, or someone in the department thought we'd better put an end to this or it's going to come back to bite us. Now, if he were giving them away, that's entirely different.
Honestly, I probably still have every fruitcake given to me. They work well as blocks to hold the car up while I work under it. I can't imagine anyone paying money for one.
Just because you don't get cited right away for breaking the law does not mean the law no longer applies. How many times have any of us been let off with a warning for speeding? We didn't get a ticket but that doesn't mean we weren't speeding. It doesn't mean that we get a free pass to speed at will. So he's been lucky for ten years, that doesn't make it any less against the health code. Besides, unless you know when it came to the attention of the health department, you can't claim they knew for 10 years and did nothing; however, the health department was likely turning their heads cause he was an old man, limited income, meaning no harm and putting out a safe product. Once he put up the sign, then the health department can't claim they don't know about it so they are forced to act because at that point they would be visibly breaking the law themselves. It is just as likely the big 'ole mean health department was trying to be a "nice guy" until their hand was forced. Gee sounds pretty nice to me. This is a case where the health department is damned if the do and damned if they don't. How fair is that?
"The health department has to follow the rules that the public makes them follow..."
Actually, that’s not quite true. The characteristic of a bureaucracy is that it takes a rule or reg that is probably good ... guesses at all the possible ramifications, intentions and possible outcomes ... and then reacts or adds to the initial rule or reg with a new set of rules and regs that border on the ridiculous.
It’s not the original reg, it’s the carrying it out to an illogical extreme that’s idiotic.
Like I said, damned if they do and damned if they don't. Humans are such a bunch of whiners. It is a matter of perspective.. not surprising that the majority are chosing the "poor me" angle instead of the "how nice they let him get away with it for 10 years until their hand was forced" angle. Sad thing is, this is hardly surprising to me.
It's part of the American psyche, AKS. The "big, bad institution" against the courageous/kind hearted/downtrodden individual is a common theme in American literature and films, and often leads to multi-million dollar verdicts in lawsuits. Journalists are suckers for this stuff, because it's such a great story line. And there's just enough of a kernal of truth in it to give it a dose of veracity.