Sedgwick, Maine versus the Feds
“Maine Town Declares Food Sovereignty, Nullifies Conflicting Laws.” So reads the headline at the 10th Amendment center blog:
The Maine town of Sedgwick took an interesting step that brings a new dynamic to the movement to maintain sovereignty: Town-level nullification. Last Friday, the town passed a proposed ordinance that would empower the local level to grow and sell food amongst themselves without interference from unconstitutional State or Federal regulations. Beyond that, the passed ordinance would make it unlawful for agents of either the State or Federal government to execute laws that interfere with the ordinance.
Under the new ordinance, producers and processors are protected from licensure or inspection in sales that are sold for home consumption between them and a patron, at farmer’s market, or at a roadside stand. The ordinance specifically notes the right of the people to food freedom, as well as citing the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Maine Constitution in defending the rights of the people.
Andy Ellis pointed out on Twitter that Wickard v. Filburn disagrees, but it’s fascinating to watch the frustration with the political system. Think of it as a Tea Party for foodies, with hand-harvested Darjeeling milk.
Let the first person get salmonella or e.coli poisoning and the town could be liable for not protecting citizens, AND the seller had better be incorporated or else could lose everything they own.
That sort of misses the point and is inaccurate as well. Of course, the law would not countenance any such suit, nor would incorporation shield any small producer from liability for selling tainted food (one is always liable for one’s own negligence, regardless of what business entity or entities they operate behind).