It is currently a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in federal prison to falsely identify cane sugar or corn-based syrups as”maple syrup.” Apparently this is not enough for Vermont’s congressional delegation. As the Los Angeles Times reports, Vermont’s senators have proposed legislation to make it a felony to represent a product as “maple syrup” when it’s not.
[NOTE: Post edited because I omitted some words.]
trash says:
Revenue from maple syrup represents a significant portion of Vermont’s economy. Additionally, maple syrup is virtually a symbol of the state. While I don’t speak as to the public policy of turning practically anything into a felony, if you do something that poses a threat to your state’s economy and on top of that, insults the state itself, you can expect it to be treated harshly.
I’m not sure the law is necessary, as fraud over a certain dollar amount is often a felony anyway.
October 25, 2011, 7:54 amFantasiaWHT says:
What if you color it white? (Thinking back to oleo wars in Wisconsin)
October 25, 2011, 8:03 amJohn Burgess says:
I wouldn’t turn faking maple syrup into a felony. I would, however, structure fines so that each bottle of the fake stuff was subject to a $10K assessment, perhaps an excise tax, once discovered as fake.
That ought to stop the counterfeiters, once discovered. I think the issue is not with Chinese fakes crossing the border. Rather, it is domestic (and Canadian) producers cutting their costs or looking for a quick buck.
Perhaps the Senators can team up with Canada and make it an international crime subject to the ICJ? (I jest.)
October 25, 2011, 8:04 amrob bob says:
I love Maple Syrup. Mmmm.
October 25, 2011, 8:16 amtrash says:
Nonsense! They should be forced to dye it pink or black or the color of George Romero zombies! This presents no Dormant Commerce Clause issue at all.
October 25, 2011, 8:17 amGiant Frog says:
Our Mable Syrup continues to sell nicely.
October 25, 2011, 8:54 amthirdeblue says:
I believe the title is misleading. I’m pretty sure you could sell a product that’s called “Fake Maple Syrup” that does not, in fact, have Maple Syrup in it and be OK.
Or “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Maple Syrup” brand corn syrup.
October 25, 2011, 8:56 amDave says:
Vermont’s senators have proposed legislation to represent a product as “maple syrup” when it’s not.
Surely you mean “have proposed legislation prohibiting representing a product” ?
October 25, 2011, 8:57 amSnaphappy says:
There’s definitely something missing there, including at least the word “felony.” Maybe “making it a felony” to represent, etc.
October 25, 2011, 9:19 amWayne says:
Is this any different than selling a load of fake Rolexes or Ipods?
October 25, 2011, 9:21 amSeth Eag says:
Aren’t there similar laws governing what can be called ‘Scotch’ or ‘Bourbon’ or ‘Champagne’?
October 25, 2011, 9:25 amJonathan H. Adler says:
dave & snaphappy
Yes. I had a brief brain leak. Fixed now.
JHA
October 25, 2011, 9:29 amhf says:
So you ask for “maple syrup” at the local Waffle Hut, and the waitress carelessly brings you some Aunt Jemima. I hate that. Definitely calls for a kickdoor blackmask raid, denial of bail, 10 years in supermax, and no voting or firearms ever.
October 25, 2011, 9:32 amDotar Sojat says:
It goes well with a nice glass of Grand Enwick.
October 25, 2011, 9:42 amSteve says:
Actually, the statute provides an exception for “a product labeled as maple syrup that is not maple syrup if the label also includes a clear identification of the true nature of the product.” So you can actually call it “Maple Syrup” as long as you explain somewhere on the label that it really isn’t.
October 25, 2011, 10:02 amSteve says:
This would not actually be illegal, but it was a fun scenario.
October 25, 2011, 10:05 amCornellian says:
A logical consequence of decades of “tough on crime” rhetoric. Every politician’s favorite cause of the week becomes an issue of criminal law.
October 25, 2011, 10:17 amSeaDrive says:
Well, you just can’t make bad behavior too illegal.
October 25, 2011, 10:47 amMarcus says:
Yes, because Rolex watches and iPods are not a principle industry of any particular state or commonwealth.
October 25, 2011, 11:21 amyankee says:
We should also protect the children by banning these criminals from living or working within five miles of a school, park, playground, church, or bus stop.
October 25, 2011, 11:29 amsubpatre says:
Oleo (margarine) IS white, it looks like shortening, which is actually what margarine is. The ‘conflict’ was whether oleo makers could sell a product deliberately fashioned —artificial texture, color, and flavor— to deceive people; to make them think oleo was butter. For quite a while margarine was sold in tubs with a small coloring packet that had to be mixed in by the consumer.
IMO making it a felony (margarine or false syrup) isn’t the solution; there is more than enough tooth in continuing and multiple misdemeanors to accomplish their ends.
Nonetheless, for a nation that extends police protection to copyright and trademark, our attitude toward food labeling and purity is amazingly hypocritical; another example of regulatory capture by corporate interests.
October 25, 2011, 11:30 amrumpelstiltskin says:
Why shouldn’t it be a felony?
Food purity and labeling laws are some of the oldest government regulations. They date back thousands of years. There is absolutely nothing wrong with serious food laws, especially in an era where consumers have little go on besides a label.
October 25, 2011, 11:46 amGrant Fenwick says:
The smaller the state, the dumber the senators. Didn’t these guys also want to declare Lake Champlain one of the Great Lakes?
October 25, 2011, 11:51 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
I was waiting for that.
October 25, 2011, 11:52 amGhost of SSB says:
Children’s sports leagues that don’t keep score. That is the root cause of all this insanity.
October 25, 2011, 11:56 amSteve says:
Yes, it’s “dumb” to want to protect one of your state’s principal exports from cheap and misleading ripoffs. How “clueless” of them.
October 25, 2011, 11:59 amyankee says:
Because when somebody passes off corn syrup as maple, what happens is that my pancakes are less tasty than they would be otherwise. It’s fraud, but as frauds go the damage is not very serious. Giving these people the same treatment as people who commit violent crimes against the person is both disproportionate to the gravity of the offense and a waste of resources.
Violations of food safety laws likely to result in serious injury or death could arguably merit highly punitive treatment, but that’s not what we’re talking about.
October 25, 2011, 12:26 pmSid says:
I appreciate the passion of those close to the situation but I am opposed to this because it is a waste of time. There are already mechanisms in place to handle the situation. Gulf shrimp, farm-raised catfish, Florida orange juice, Napa Valley wine, yadda yadda….
Selling imitation or fake maple syrup can be addressed through the courts in civil litigation.
October 25, 2011, 12:55 pmAnym_Avey says:
100% Delicious
October 25, 2011, 1:06 pmNaturally-Produced
Organic
MAPLE
flavoredSYRUP
joshua says:
File under “federal overcriminalization.” Reminds me of a blog post I read last month where I learned that apparently the United States began with three federal crimes and today has thousands that are literally uncountable.
October 25, 2011, 1:16 pmMore Proliferation of Felonies | Shall Not Be Questioned says:
[...] already a misdemeanor to put corn syrup or cane sugar in a bottle and call it maple syrup. Apparently that’s not enough for the Congressional Delegation from Vermont. Because we need more federal felonies or [...]
October 25, 2011, 1:27 pmDavid Sawyer says:
Insulting Vermontness.
October 25, 2011, 1:27 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
So how many other misdemeanor frauds are there? You realize even bouncing a check is a felony in many states?
Show me any other fraud that isn’t a felony. If writing a bad check can you get you 5 years in jail in many states, then I don’t see why knowingly and falsely labeling products for consumer sale shouldn’t also be a felony.
October 25, 2011, 1:29 pmSteve says:
If this were intended as a consumer protection measure, it wouldn’t exclusively be sponsored by Senators from the maple syrup-producing states. It’s not. The harm it seeks to avoid is harm to the maple syrup industry caused by fraudulent imitations. You may or may not care if maple syrup producers make less money/go out of business, but there’s real economic harm here, not just pancakes that taste worse.
October 25, 2011, 1:48 pmAnthony J. Lawrence says:
Reminds me of the movie “Thank you for Smoking”:
Senator Dupree: Mr. Naylor, there’s no need for theatrics.
October 25, 2011, 2:43 pmNick Naylor: I’m sorry. I just don’t see the point in a warning label for something people already know.
Senator Dupree: The warning symbol is a reminder, a reminder of the dangers of smoking cigarettes.
Nick Naylor: Well, if we want to remind people of danger why don’t we slap a skull and crossbones on all Boeing airplanes, Senator Lothridge. And all Fords, Senator Dupree.
Senator Ortolan Finistirre: That is ridiculous. The death toll from airline and automobile accidents doesn’t even skim the surface of cigarettes. They don’t even compare.
Nick Naylor: Oh, this from a Senator who calls Vermont home.
Senator Ortolan Finistirre: I don’t follow you, Mr. Naylor.
Nick Naylor: Well, the real demonstrated #1 killer in America is cholesterol. And here comes Senator Finistirre whose fine state is, I regret to say, clogging the nation’s arteries with Vermont Cheddar Cheese. If we want to talk numbers, how about the millions of people dying of heart attacks? Perhaps Vermont Cheddar should come with a skull and crossbones.
Senator Ortolan Finistirre: That is ludicr – . The great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!
All linky, no thinky « Blunt Object says:
[...] Making fake maple syrup a felony (The Volokh Conspiracy) [...]
October 25, 2011, 3:03 pmRand says:
Either you are poor at counting or don’t know what “literally” means.
October 25, 2011, 3:04 pmsubpatre says:
Because the other felonies shouldn’t be? Or would you support ‘material misrepresentation’ as another potential federal felony if it is made in comments on a interstate blog? Just because other draconian, or stupid, laws exist doesn’t justify adding more of the same type.
Maple syrup is chemically different than imitations, its sweetness is from sucrose and it contains ingredients not found in any other food. Corn syrup in table syrups is glucose-fructose, and is cheap due to government sugar quotas, corn subsidies, and tariffs on foreign sugar.
October 25, 2011, 3:11 pmDennis says:
… Or a pancake house.
October 25, 2011, 3:27 pmyankee says:
I’m also unconvinced that stealing business from producers of genuine maple syrup merits felony treatment.
October 25, 2011, 3:31 pmRandolph says:
I love all the conservatives suddenly worried about over-criminalization now that fraudulent business practices are being targeted by communist Vermonters.
What is it they always say? If you don’t want the time, don’t do the crime.
Yes, it would be better dealt with as a high fine than a felony, but on the list of most ridiculous felonies, I doubt it would make the top 50.
October 25, 2011, 3:33 pmSeaDrive says:
I’m wondering what your point is. You could be noting that thousands of things are in the countable range. Or, you could be pointing out that in mathematics, “uncountable” implies infinite.
I suspect that the original intention was to say the combination of the number of laws and their imprecision and overlap makes in impossible to count the number of distinct offenses.
October 25, 2011, 4:01 pmBallchinian says:
That’s nice.
“Harming Vermont’s maple syrup industry via maple syrup counterfeiting” is still a completely ridiculous basis for a federal felony.
October 25, 2011, 4:08 pmJake says:
Actually, neither of your assertions is true.
After an attempt lasting two years, even the Justice Department was only able to produce an estimate of the number of federal criminal laws (“about” 3,000). It’s not a question of counting, but a question of how many crimes a single violation of statute might be. From the linked article:
It gets even worse when you include federal regulations.
Federal laws are complex, convoluted, labyrinthine, and subject to the interpretation of the one reading them. They really are literally uncountable.
October 25, 2011, 4:34 pmduffy pratt says:
I think his point is that in mathematics uncountable not only implies infinite, but that it implies an order of infinity that is greater than the odd numbers, the whole numbers, or even the set of all fractions — all of which are both infinite and countable.
As for the point you are trying to make, an offense is something that can be charged in an indictment. In Federal law, that requires pointing back to a specific section of the code. Do you mean to suggest that these are “literally” uncountable?
October 25, 2011, 4:35 pmVermonter says:
Vermont politicians love to sponsor legislation protecting the integrity of genuine Vermont maple syrup. The dirty little secret is that over half of the syrup in those bottles originated in trees in NY, NH, ME and Quebec. They producers ship the syrup into VT to be packaged for a premium price as “genuine Vermont maple syrup”. The felony law is probably intended to make those out-of-Vermont producers keep shipping the syrup here for packaging, instead of packaging and selling it themselves.
October 25, 2011, 4:55 pmSid says:
Agreed.
October 25, 2011, 5:34 pmKent Scheidegger says:
How about no tip?
October 25, 2011, 5:40 pmTexEd says:
Didn’t notice it in the comments but when we are talking about Vermont’s Senators, we are talking about Leahy and Saunders. Does that help clarify the issue?
October 25, 2011, 5:55 pmleo marvin says:
Anything but pure maple syrup is a gustatory felony.
October 25, 2011, 6:26 pmSteve says:
The bill is co-sponsored by the Senators from Maine and New York, so I’m thinking no.
October 25, 2011, 6:42 pmCalderon says:
There’s a quasi-(in)famous class action precedent in Illinois law where the plaintiffs sued Arby’s for calling its product “roast beef” when supposedly it was not. At least that case did not involve criminal penalties of up to 5 years in prison.
The proposed statute looks like pure special interest legislation, especially given that a few google searches indicates that maple syrup makes up a small part of Vermont’s economy.
October 25, 2011, 7:13 pmyankee says:
Actually I would say that about anything but Grade A Dark Amber. But not every gustory felony should also be a federal felony!
October 25, 2011, 7:23 pmIspep Teid says:
Are they going to make it strict liability? That’s what all the cool federal laws are doing these days in order to help out their lazy prosecutor buddies.
By the way, why don’t we just go ahead and make every crime a felony?
October 25, 2011, 8:07 pmOrenWithAnE says:
A man that steals $10 from a million people is probably just as culpable as a man that murders a single person, at least objectively.
October 25, 2011, 8:28 pmStephen Ryan says:
October 25, 2011, 10:34 pmStephen Ryan says:
You bet it is. We don’t eat Rolexes or Ipods. As an old northern New Englander, I think a year in jail is way too lenient. A public flogging followed by a drawing and quartering (if there is anyone left who knows how to do that) would be appropriate.
October 25, 2011, 10:38 pmSFC B says:
I’m willing to bet that a similar law pertaining to lobsters and cheesecake would be forthcoming.
October 25, 2011, 10:48 pmathEIst says:
That wasn’t dumb, they wanted a cut of some money that had been appropriated for the Great Lakes, also not dumb was backing off when it became well-known.
October 25, 2011, 11:58 pmwhit says:
iirc, there was a law in hawaii (i used to be a cop there) that made theft of AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (of any amount) a felony.
iow, steal $200 worth of stereo equipment?
misdemeanor
steal a pineapple from a field?
felony
of course, it’s pretty common knowledge that the pineapple industry is pretty big in hawaii (a substantial %age of arable flat land is either pineapple or cane fields)), so it’s not surprising that they lobbied or there was pressure to make EXTRA SURE people knew – don’t steal a pineapple
of course i’m pretty sure that few people if anybody was ever brought up on felony charges for chomping on a pineapple or a piece of sugar cane in a field, but they passed the law for effect and deterrence i guess
the (in)famous surf spot “jaws” is accessible through a long drive through pineapple fields.
being a public servant, i refrained from chomping on da pineapples, despite the fact that they were sitting there WAITING TO BE EATEN
guava trees on the side of the road were fair game, though. or the guavas at least
October 26, 2011, 12:03 amSo, what are you serving five years in federal prison for, new blood? Oh, I got busted selling fake maple syrup. - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum says:
[...] [...]
October 26, 2011, 4:06 amBill Poser says:
If not for the fact the Bernie Saunders is involved I would guess that this was a diversion by Leahy to draw attention away from his outrageous internet copyright legislation.
October 26, 2011, 5:17 amBill Poser says:
Yankee: “Grade A Dark Amber”.
As a Vermonter, I assert that only sissies use Grade A. Real Vermont Men prefer maple syrup with flavor. :)
October 26, 2011, 5:21 amTatil says:
Umm, I am pretty sure “tariffs on foreign sugar” would end up increasing the sale price of corn, by limiting competition.
October 26, 2011, 6:06 amsubpatre says:
Tariffs on sugar increase the price of sugar, making corn derivatives comparatively cheaper compared to sugar. You may well be correct that the prices of both sugar and corn products rise.
October 26, 2011, 6:38 pmGaryM says:
Aren’t there general laws against selling something as what it isn’t? The distribution of supporting senators (New York, Vermont, Maine — I’m glad to see there’s a gap in New Hampshire) gives it away; it’s not that faking maple syrup is a more heinous crime than, say, faking corn meal, but that they’re looking for support from local industries with money.
BillPoser is absolutely right; Grade B is the good stuff, counter-intuitive as that sounds.
October 27, 2011, 10:22 amEH says:
As someone who likes cheese, wine, and maple syrup, I have no problem with name-protection for some foods. The garbage that is sold as “syrup” is truly bad and their archetypes should have the kinds of protections that are afforded even mayonnaise.
October 27, 2011, 7:11 pmPeter says:
I’m with EH on this though not sure I think it should be a felony. One thing I always loved in the EU was “Protected Designation of Origin” or “Denominación de origen”.
I hate in the US when I buy Manchego and it’s not Manchego (hint American producers: You need sheep) and ditto with cheeses like Sirene (hint: It’s not creamy) and mozeralla (hint: it comes from buffaloes). I’m fine with them selling as “manchego” as long as it’s labeled clearly on the front somewhere with big bold letters “This is not really manchego but fake. We are calling it this because our version cheap and you grew up on it as a result. We can reasonably assume you have never had the real stuff so won’t know the difference and then we you try the real stuff complain that it doesn’t taste right”
October 30, 2011, 3:19 pm