农贸市场欺诈:加州的做法及其对农贸市场监管的意义

Q2 Social Sciences Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce Pub Date : 2016-03-02 DOI:10.5195/JLC.2015.88
Nathan J. Marketich
{"title":"农贸市场欺诈:加州的做法及其对农贸市场监管的意义","authors":"Nathan J. Marketich","doi":"10.5195/JLC.2015.88","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) defines a farmers’ market as “a multi-stall market at which farmer-producers sell agricultural products directly to the general public at a central or fixed location, particularly fresh fruit and vegetables (but also meat products, dairy products, and/or grains).” [1] The recent resurgence in the popularity of farmers’ markets represents a return to days past where local producers were the predominant source for fresh produce and agricultural goods. With the most farmers’ markets of any state, [2] California has a large interest in the success of its farmers’ markets. In furtherance of this interest, California endeavors to protect its farmers’ markets from fraud. [3] Prior to 2015, California had one of the strictest farmers’ market regulatory programs in the United States. [4] Even so, the California legislature decided that more needed to be done in order to prevent farmers’ market fraud and on September 26, 2014 enacted Assembly Bill 1871 (“A.B. 1871”). [5] The primary function of this Note is to analyze A.B. 1871 and develop an understanding of the California model for regulation of farmers’ markets. This model will be compared to the approaches taken by New York and Michigan (states with the second and third most farmers’ markets) [6] to develop a greater understanding of the various approaches to farmers’ market regulation. The goal of this Note is to serve as a policy guide for farmers’ market regulation. Following this introduction, this Note will proceed in six parts. Part I will discuss the recent history of farmers’ markets with a particular emphasis on the economic and social impact that farmers’ markets have on the communities in which they operate. Part II addresses the nature of farmers’ market fraud and some general ways that states and farmers’ market vendors and operators combat fraud. Part III will provide a comprehensive analysis of A.B. 1871 and its components. Part IV will provide a comparative analysis of the regulatory approaches taken by New York and Michigan. Part V outlines four general factors for states to consider before enacting statewide regulations for farmers’ markets. Finally, Part VI concludes with guidance on state policy regarding regulation of farmers’ markets. [1] What is a Farmers’ Market? , USDA Food & Nutrition Serv., (May 27, 2015), http://www.fns.usda.gov/ebt/what-farmers-market. This Note will adhere to this definition of “farmers’ market,” and any reference to “farmers’ market,” unless specifically stated otherwise, is intended to reference this definition. [2] National Farmers Market Directory , USDA Agric. Mktg. Serv., http://search.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/ (last visited February 1, 2015). As of January 2015, California had over 760 farmers’ markets registered with the USDA. The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (“AMS”) collects farmers’ market information and numbers through voluntarily submitted data. Id. [3] For the purposes of this Note, farmers’ market “fraud” indicates whenever a vendor sells something that the vendor did not produce, cultivate, or harvest himself/herself and/or a vendor misrepresents something as being from a local area.  A discussion on the nature of farmers’ market fraud is contained infra , Part II. [4] Samuel R. Wiseman, Emerging Issues in Food Law: Fraud in the Market , 26 Regent U.  L. Rev. 367, 386 (2013-2014) (discussing California’s previous system of farmers’ market regulation). [5] A.B. 1871, 2014 Cal. State Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2014). [6] National Farmers Market Directory , supra note 2.","PeriodicalId":35703,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Farmers’ Market Fraud: California’s Approach and What It Means for Farmers’ Market Regulation\",\"authors\":\"Nathan J. Marketich\",\"doi\":\"10.5195/JLC.2015.88\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) defines a farmers’ market as “a multi-stall market at which farmer-producers sell agricultural products directly to the general public at a central or fixed location, particularly fresh fruit and vegetables (but also meat products, dairy products, and/or grains).” [1] The recent resurgence in the popularity of farmers’ markets represents a return to days past where local producers were the predominant source for fresh produce and agricultural goods. With the most farmers’ markets of any state, [2] California has a large interest in the success of its farmers’ markets. In furtherance of this interest, California endeavors to protect its farmers’ markets from fraud. [3] Prior to 2015, California had one of the strictest farmers’ market regulatory programs in the United States. [4] Even so, the California legislature decided that more needed to be done in order to prevent farmers’ market fraud and on September 26, 2014 enacted Assembly Bill 1871 (“A.B. 1871”). [5] The primary function of this Note is to analyze A.B. 1871 and develop an understanding of the California model for regulation of farmers’ markets. This model will be compared to the approaches taken by New York and Michigan (states with the second and third most farmers’ markets) [6] to develop a greater understanding of the various approaches to farmers’ market regulation. The goal of this Note is to serve as a policy guide for farmers’ market regulation. Following this introduction, this Note will proceed in six parts. Part I will discuss the recent history of farmers’ markets with a particular emphasis on the economic and social impact that farmers’ markets have on the communities in which they operate. Part II addresses the nature of farmers’ market fraud and some general ways that states and farmers’ market vendors and operators combat fraud. Part III will provide a comprehensive analysis of A.B. 1871 and its components. Part IV will provide a comparative analysis of the regulatory approaches taken by New York and Michigan. Part V outlines four general factors for states to consider before enacting statewide regulations for farmers’ markets. Finally, Part VI concludes with guidance on state policy regarding regulation of farmers’ markets. [1] What is a Farmers’ Market? , USDA Food & Nutrition Serv., (May 27, 2015), http://www.fns.usda.gov/ebt/what-farmers-market. This Note will adhere to this definition of “farmers’ market,” and any reference to “farmers’ market,” unless specifically stated otherwise, is intended to reference this definition. [2] National Farmers Market Directory , USDA Agric. Mktg. Serv., http://search.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/ (last visited February 1, 2015). As of January 2015, California had over 760 farmers’ markets registered with the USDA. The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (“AMS”) collects farmers’ market information and numbers through voluntarily submitted data. Id. [3] For the purposes of this Note, farmers’ market “fraud” indicates whenever a vendor sells something that the vendor did not produce, cultivate, or harvest himself/herself and/or a vendor misrepresents something as being from a local area.  A discussion on the nature of farmers’ market fraud is contained infra , Part II. [4] Samuel R. Wiseman, Emerging Issues in Food Law: Fraud in the Market , 26 Regent U.  L. Rev. 367, 386 (2013-2014) (discussing California’s previous system of farmers’ market regulation). [5] A.B. 1871, 2014 Cal. State Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2014). [6] National Farmers Market Directory , supra note 2.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35703,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5195/JLC.2015.88\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/JLC.2015.88","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国农业部(“USDA”)将农贸市场定义为“农民生产者在中心或固定地点直接向公众出售农产品的多摊位市场,特别是新鲜水果和蔬菜(也包括肉类产品、乳制品和/或谷物)。”[1]最近,农贸市场重新流行起来,这代表着一种回归,过去,当地生产者是新鲜农产品和农产品的主要来源。加州拥有全美最多的农贸市场[2],因此农贸市场的成功与加州有着很大的利害关系。为了促进这一利益,加州努力保护其农贸市场免受欺诈。[3] 2015年之前,加州拥有美国最严格的农贸市场监管计划之一。[4]尽管如此,加州立法机构还是决定采取更多措施防止农贸市场欺诈,并于2014年9月26日颁布了第1871号议会法案(“A.B.”)1871”)。[5]本文的主要功能是分析A.B. 1871法案,并加深对加州农贸市场监管模式的理解。该模型将与纽约州和密歇根州(农贸市场第二和第三多的州)采取的方法进行比较[6],以更好地理解农贸市场监管的各种方法。本说明的目的是为农贸市场监管提供政策指导。在这个介绍之后,本文将分为六个部分。第一部分将讨论农贸市场的近代史,特别强调农贸市场对其经营所在社区的经济和社会影响。第二部分阐述了农贸市场欺诈的性质以及各州和农贸市场供应商和经营者打击欺诈的一些一般方法。第三部分将对A.B. 1871及其组成部分进行全面分析。第四部分将对纽约州和密歇根州采取的监管方法进行比较分析。第五部分概述了各州在制定全州农贸市场法规之前要考虑的四个一般因素。最后,第六部分总结了关于农贸市场监管的国家政策指导。[1]什么是农贸市场?,美国农业部食品与营养服务部,(2015年5月27日),http://www.fns.usda.gov/ebt/what-farmers-market。本说明将遵循“农贸市场”的定义,除非另有明确说明,否则任何提及“农贸市场”的内容均旨在引用此定义。[2]《全国农贸市场目录》,美国农业部农业部。Mktg。Serv., http://search.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/(最后访问日期:2015年2月1日)。截至2015年1月,加州有超过760个农贸市场在美国农业部注册。美国农业部的农业营销服务(AMS)通过自愿提交的数据收集农贸市场信息和数字。Id。[3]就本说明而言,农贸市场“欺诈”指的是小贩出售并非自己生产、栽培或收获的商品,以及/或小贩谎称商品来自当地。第二部分对农贸市场欺诈的性质进行了探讨。[4]刘志强,《中国农产品市场监管现状与对策》,《中国农业科学》第26卷,第3期(2013-2014)。[5]中国科学院学报,2014。,注册。税。(卡尔。2014)。[6]《全国农贸市场目录》,上注2。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Farmers’ Market Fraud: California’s Approach and What It Means for Farmers’ Market Regulation
The United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) defines a farmers’ market as “a multi-stall market at which farmer-producers sell agricultural products directly to the general public at a central or fixed location, particularly fresh fruit and vegetables (but also meat products, dairy products, and/or grains).” [1] The recent resurgence in the popularity of farmers’ markets represents a return to days past where local producers were the predominant source for fresh produce and agricultural goods. With the most farmers’ markets of any state, [2] California has a large interest in the success of its farmers’ markets. In furtherance of this interest, California endeavors to protect its farmers’ markets from fraud. [3] Prior to 2015, California had one of the strictest farmers’ market regulatory programs in the United States. [4] Even so, the California legislature decided that more needed to be done in order to prevent farmers’ market fraud and on September 26, 2014 enacted Assembly Bill 1871 (“A.B. 1871”). [5] The primary function of this Note is to analyze A.B. 1871 and develop an understanding of the California model for regulation of farmers’ markets. This model will be compared to the approaches taken by New York and Michigan (states with the second and third most farmers’ markets) [6] to develop a greater understanding of the various approaches to farmers’ market regulation. The goal of this Note is to serve as a policy guide for farmers’ market regulation. Following this introduction, this Note will proceed in six parts. Part I will discuss the recent history of farmers’ markets with a particular emphasis on the economic and social impact that farmers’ markets have on the communities in which they operate. Part II addresses the nature of farmers’ market fraud and some general ways that states and farmers’ market vendors and operators combat fraud. Part III will provide a comprehensive analysis of A.B. 1871 and its components. Part IV will provide a comparative analysis of the regulatory approaches taken by New York and Michigan. Part V outlines four general factors for states to consider before enacting statewide regulations for farmers’ markets. Finally, Part VI concludes with guidance on state policy regarding regulation of farmers’ markets. [1] What is a Farmers’ Market? , USDA Food & Nutrition Serv., (May 27, 2015), http://www.fns.usda.gov/ebt/what-farmers-market. This Note will adhere to this definition of “farmers’ market,” and any reference to “farmers’ market,” unless specifically stated otherwise, is intended to reference this definition. [2] National Farmers Market Directory , USDA Agric. Mktg. Serv., http://search.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/ (last visited February 1, 2015). As of January 2015, California had over 760 farmers’ markets registered with the USDA. The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (“AMS”) collects farmers’ market information and numbers through voluntarily submitted data. Id. [3] For the purposes of this Note, farmers’ market “fraud” indicates whenever a vendor sells something that the vendor did not produce, cultivate, or harvest himself/herself and/or a vendor misrepresents something as being from a local area.  A discussion on the nature of farmers’ market fraud is contained infra , Part II. [4] Samuel R. Wiseman, Emerging Issues in Food Law: Fraud in the Market , 26 Regent U.  L. Rev. 367, 386 (2013-2014) (discussing California’s previous system of farmers’ market regulation). [5] A.B. 1871, 2014 Cal. State Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2014). [6] National Farmers Market Directory , supra note 2.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Front Matter Volume 41 Issue 2 The Right Visa at the Right Time: Proposing a Targeted Special Immigrant Visa as a Flexible Tool for Practical Immigration Reform Court-Ordered Interim Measures in International Arbitration: A Comparative Approach Rethinking Decentralized Antitrust Regimes: A Window on the Future of Protectionism and Overregulation Rise and Fall of Ordinary Course Covenants and MAE Clauses: Case and Trend Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1