PrintThe bill proposes to exempt all food from licensing or inspection that's sold directly from the producer or processor to the end consumer.
By Bill McCarthy
bmccarthy@wyomingnews.com
CHEYENNE - In the fight over the Wyoming Food Freedom Act, public health takes on individual rights in a philosophical battle over food.
House Bill 54 sponsor Rep. Sue Wallis, R-Recluse, says her bill "seeks to clarify the fundamental right of Wyoming citizens to choose to eat whatever they want to eat."
But Bob Harrington says the bill "returns us to years when there wasn't food safety regulation at all," heightening the risk of debilitating illness or death from food-borne illnesses.
Harrington is the Casper-Natrona County Department of Health director and a member of the Wyoming Governor's Food Safety Council.
"No amount of regulation can guarantee absolute safety," Harrington said, but it reduces the risks.
Some who sell food under inspection now, such as a sandwich-maker in a small grocery, might go home to make the food they sell without inspections. So unregulated food could show up in a variety of situations not considered now, Harrington said.
Dr. Brent Sherard, Wyoming State Health Officer, said it is a classic battle between philosophies about protecting public health and infringing on people's rights.
As the director of the Wyoming Department of Health, Sherard oversees the division that regulates food safety.
"In the nine years I've been director, we have the data showing these things (outbreaks of food-borne illness) do happen in Wyoming," Sherard said.
He also said he understands the economics of the small entrepreneur and the rights that individual consumers have to take responsibility for what they eat.
"I think, ladies and gentleman, there's an opportunity to find common ground here," Sherard said.
The House Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources Committee took testimony on the Wyoming Food Freedom Act, House Bill 54, on Tuesday. It will continue to take testimony at 7 a.m. Thursday.
The committee should vote on the bill Thursday, since that's the last day to get it out of committee for the current legislative session.
The bill proposes to exempt all food for home consumption from licensing and inspections when there is only one transaction between the producer or processor and the end consumer.
Roger Hovel, who owns Crow Creek Meat Processing in Cheyenne, said he sees danger in allowing anyone to butcher and sell uninspected and unlabeled meat.
"If 500 people buy contaminated meat, what's that
See Food, page A9
Food:
Continued from A8
going to do to next week's farmers market?" said Hovel, a 30-year veteran of the meat industry. "I believe there is something to be said for USDA inspections."
Wallis says people know their neighbors and know what they are buying.
A raw milk seller agrees.
"There is nobody between us and our customers," said Mark McAfee.
McAfee operates Organic Pastures Dairy Co. in Fresno, Calif. He said he was invited by supporters of the legislation to testify because he sells raw milk directly to consumers from his dairy.
He said it's in his self interest to keep his customers healthy and coming back for more milk.
Raw milk bolsters the immune system, he said.
State epidemiologist Dr. Tracy Murphy countered and said, "I personally have not seen any well-done studies saying that raw milk is good for you."
But he said that there is no point arguing with people's perceptions about their health, and people do overcome illness sometimes and scientists are unable to explain why.
He said he was concerned that the legislation would prevent investigation after an incident, since it eliminates inspections.
Rep. Matt Teeters, R-Lingle, said, "I don't see anything in the legislation that would hamper your ability to investigate."
Murphy said inspections often are used after an outbreak to trace back the source or potential source of the illness.
Wallis said at times the department has said illness came from milk but had no direct evidence to make the link.
Sometimes, Murphy said, the evidence is not definitive, and epidemiologists must look at every possible clue, using circumstantial evidence to determine the cause of an outbreak.
