Food Fascists Gone Wild
In England, you'll apparently get in the trouble with the law if you sell angel cake or lady fingers — unless the ingredients include actual angel bits and women's digits, respectively.
Consider what happened to the baker who offered cutesy pink pastries in the shape of pigs' faces:
A baker has been forced to rename her novelty pig tarts — because they don't contain any pork. Val Temple, who runs Sgt Bun Bakery, Weymouth, says officers from Dorset's trading standards department also told her she must swap the name of robin tarts as they are not made from robins. And she claims she was instructed to rename her paradise slice because ... it's not from paradise.
Mrs Temple has made the novelty cakes in the shape of pigs and robins as a treat for her customers for years. She said: "It's a joke. The officers came in and said they had had a complaint and I must change the names because they didn't contain pork, robin or paradise." ...
Ivan Hancock, the county's trading standards manager, said: "The fact is that piece of food needs to be properly described so that the consumer can tell what it is."
I fear for the future of shepherd's pie (which contains no actual shepherds) and sticky buns (which contain no actual buns).
Actually, no matter what's in those tarts of Ms. Temple's, it's an outrage that she is allowed to bake anything in the shape of a piggie at all. Doesn't she know that such products may offend pious pig haters?
Honest, there ought to be a law.




As a police officer, wouldn't you be embarassed to have to say that to someone? I don't think I could look someone in the eye if I had to tell them something as idiotic as that.
So does this mean that bars and liquor stores will soon have to stop selling Mudslides because they don't actually contain any mud?
Posted by: Token | Monday, April 30, 2007 at 01:39 PM
Girl Scout Cookies
Reminds me of the line from The Addams Family, where Wednesday (Christina Ricci) asks if they are made from real Girl Scouts...
Posted by: Edward McKeown | Monday, April 30, 2007 at 02:25 PM
What's in a name?
Would she be in violation if she named them
pyg tarts or robyn tarts?
How about sh3ph3rd pi3?
mudd-slied? or mmm-mmm-mmm udslide?
Posted by: Myrtle | Monday, April 30, 2007 at 03:56 PM
I vaguely remember a delicatessen here in Sydney - many years ago - getting in trouble for making sausages with too much meat in them. Figure that one out.
Posted by: Stick | Monday, April 30, 2007 at 07:52 PM
My thought was, "Who complained". I'm guessing her customers didn't. I would guess that it's one of here competitors. In regulated industries, it's exceedingly easy to bury the competition by crying fowl. That is why gubment ought to stay out of business. And it's why they never will.
Posted by: K. Dale Boley | Tuesday, May 01, 2007 at 03:33 PM
Well said, Dale!
The more power is concentrated in government, the greater the temptation to abuse it.
It would be interesting to check out who they HAVEN'T hassled in Weymouth, with similar wares for sale. And then check back and see if the un-hassled merchant has a cousin in the city or county offices, or is married to a police officer, went to school with some government inspector.....
Posted by: Martin Owens | Wednesday, May 02, 2007 at 04:24 PM
I shudder to think what they'd do about spotted dick...
Posted by: Rich | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 04:45 PM