Comments on the proposed new rule may be submitted to Cheryl Wilson, Food Establishments Group, Policy, Standards and Quality Assurance Unit, Division of Regulatory Services, Environmental and Consumer Safety Section, Department of State Health Services, Mail Code 1987, P. O. Box 149347, Austin, Texas 78714-9347, (512) 834-6770, extension 2053, or by email to
cheryl.wilson@dshs.state.tx.us. Comments will be accepted for 30 days following publication of the proposal in the Texas Register.
Email and snail mail are equally effective.
Sample Letter (short version). You are encouraged to add as much personal detail as you wish, or specifically object to certain proposed requirements.
Cheryl Wilson
cheryl.wilson@dshs.state.tx.us
Food Establishments Group
Policy, Standards, and Quality Assurance Unit
Division of Regulatory Services
Environmental and Consumer Safety Section
Department of State Health Services
Mail Code 1987
PO Box 149347
Austin, TX 78714-9347
Dear Ms. Wilson,
I am writing to express my deep objection to the proposed rules for labeling for Cottage Food Operations. The legislative intent of these labels was to inform the consumer who made their food, where their food was made, and that the food was made in a kitchen that was not inspected by the health department.
The legislature has made it abundantly clear to DSHS that the proposed rules are not in line with legislative intent.
The labels should contain nothing more than what the statute requires: the name and address of the cottage food operator, and a statement that the food was not inspected. The labels should be legible. These are the only rules for labeling that I am willing to accept.
Thank you,
Name
Address
Phone
Sample letter - long version. PLEASE use this only as a template, and personalize it, adding your own thoughts and examples. Form letters are not as effective as personalized letters!
Cheryl Wilson
cheryl.wilson@dshs.state.tx.us
Food Establishments Group
Policy, Standards, and Quality Assurance Unit
Division of Regulatory Services
Environmental and Consumer Safety Section
Department of State Health Services
Mail Code 1987
PO Box 149347
Austin, TX 78714-9347
Dear Ms. Wilson,
I am writing to express my deep disappointment and objection to the proposed rules for labeling for Cottage Food Operations. The legislative intent of these labels was to inform the consumer who made their food, where their food was made, and that the food was made in a kitchen that was not inspected by the health department.
The legislature has made it abundantly clear to DSHS that the proposed rules are not in line with legislative intent.
Here are just a few of my objections:
(B) the common or usual name of the product and an adequately descriptive statement of identity;
So if someone ordered chocolate chip cookies from my wife, they would need a label to tell them that the chocolate chip cookies they ordered are chocolate chip cookies? Don’t you think they had that figured that out when they ordered?
(C) if made from two or more ingredients, a list of ingredients in descending order of predominance by net weight, including a declaration of artificial color or flavor and chemical preservatives, if contained in the food;
What public health purpose does it serve for my wife to have to weigh every ingredient to make sure she gets it in the right order?
(D) an accurate declaration of the net quantity of contents including metric measurements;
This may be the stupidest one of all. These are ladies taking custom orders in their homes for items like cakes and cookies. Why do they have to weigh their final product and list the final weight in metric, for crying out loud? Did Texas suddenly become Canada? Again, what is the public health benefit?
(E) allergen labeling in compliance with the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-282, Title II, 118. Stat. 905; and
Well, I don’t know about you, but we don’t have a lawyer on staff here at our house to make sure she complies with that law. Furthermore, the even the FDA exempts small businesses from complying with this requirement.
(2) Labels must be clearly legible and printed with durable, permanent ink.
So I need to buy a new printer, because inkjet apparently won’t do. A $150 printer to sell $20 worth of cookies. Sounds about right for government work.
(A) Ingredient statements shall be at 1/16 of an inch or larger.
We’ll make sure we keep our ruler handy.
(B) Net quantity of contents shall be separated from other text on the label and must be located in the bottom third of the label.
How very, very specific. Good thing we’ll have our ruler out. Again, what public health benefit is there in this?
And one overriding, very serious objection: You know full well that food establishments, coffee shops, bakeries, doughnut shops, kiosks at the mall, farmer’s market vendors, etc. etc. DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANY OF THIS. None of it. Not a bit. The last time you ordered your muffin at Starbucks, they gave it to you in a brown paper sleeve, and there wasn’t a label. SB 81 was supposed to make it EASY for people to start a home-based business, and you’re trying to slap them with regulations more stiff than what is required of food establishments, and even requirements that the federal government exempts them from, for crying out loud.
Your proposed rules make a mockery of SB 81 and its simple, straightforward intention. It’s obvious that your intent is to scare people away from legally earning extra money under this law.
The labels should contain nothing more than what the statute requires: the name and address of the cottage food operator, and a statement that the food was not inspected. The labels should be legible. These are the only rules for labeling that I am willing to accept.
Thank you,
Name
Address
Phone