By Howard Fischer
Mail | Twitter: @azcapmedia

PHOENIX — Gov. Katie Hobbs promises she will finally address the question of people being able to sell home-cooked foods on the street when the Legislature reconvenes.

But the governor, who vetoed a measure to do just that earlier this year, still can’t — or won’t — say what she wants in a new version to gain her signature.

The issue, though, transcends the tamales that became the focus of the extensive debate earlier this year. It also comes down to what the governor believes is the role of government in regulation.

More to the point, it focuses on the question of whether Arizonans, given certain information, should have the right to assume certain risks without having the state tell them they can’t.

Hobbs, in an interview with Capitol Media Services after the just-ended session, sidestepped questions of exactly where that line should be, saying “it depends on the issue.” And the governor said she would not answer questions about “a bunch of hypotheticals.”

But Hobbs does have a record on the issue — and not just with her veto of what was dubbed the “tamale” bill.

As a legislator, she was one of just six state senators who opposed what was known as “right to try” legislation, permitting terminally ill patients to get — and use — drugs that have not yet been approved by federal agencies.

And she wasn’t in the minority just there.

That plan went to voters in 2014. And it was approved by a margin of more than 3 to 1.

Now the issue is whether Hobbs is willing to legalize the common practice of some families of making tamales and similar items at home and selling them on the street.

The governor vetoed House Bill 2509 in April despite its overwhelming bipartisan support, saying that allowing cooked foods to be prepared by individuals and sold to the public would “significantly increase the risk of food-borne illness” by allowing “cottage food vendors” to sell “high-risk foods.”

What particularly frosted a number of Democrat lawmakers who voted for the bill, which had overwhelming bipartisan support, was being blindsided by the governor.

It didn’t help the situation when the governor said it would open the door to items being cooked in home kitchens with “rodent and infestation.”

“That is offensive,” said Rep. Alma Hernandez, D-Tucson, who voted for the bill. “And I would be glad to put up my nana’s kitchen or my mom’s kitchen up against anyone’s kitchen.”

Hobbs conceded that was one of the stumbles of her first session.

“We’re in the process of building our legislative team,” she said, the staffers who are supposed to work with lawmakers.

“We need to have more focus on the ground there,” Hobbs said. “And we’re going to do that next time.”

In the end, enough House Democrats agreed to change their original votes in favor of the bill and uphold her veto, preventing her the embarrassment of being the first governor since 1981 of having her action overridden. And Hernandez said she has been assured by the governor she would sign such a law — with some yet-to-be specified changes.

There already were various safeguards in HB 2509.

The legislation would not have allowed just anyone to start selling tamales legally out of their homes. Ditto menudo, posole, pupusas or anything else not pretty much readily available.

First, it restricted what ingredients could be used. So, for example, no shellfish.

Producers would need to register with the health department and take a state-approved course in food handling.

Anything with meat or dairy would have to be delivered in person. And no item could be transported more than twice, with a total limit of two hours.

Perhaps most significant were disclosure provisions on the label, including the producer’s name and state registration number and a statement that said “this product was produced in a home kitchen that may process common food allergens and is not subject to public health inspection.”

So with all that information, what is the problem with letting people decide whether to purchase these items versus the government saying that you can’t?

“I think it depends on the issue,” Hobbs said.

Hernandez, for her part, does not see it as a difficult question.

“At the end of the day, I believe that if you’re buying these products by your own will you know what you are purchasing,” she said, pointing out the requirements for not just registration but also disclosure that these are home-made items. And Hernandez said it isn’t the role of government to overrule that option.

“I think that is a personal decision that I think individuals can make and should be able to make in their own,” she said, saying what was approved was sufficient.

So what more does Hobbs want?

She’s providing no specifics other than seeking to ensure the health department has the resources “to take on this new sort of regulation.” And about the only thing Hobbs has said she isn’t demanding are unannounced inspections.

But having health inspectors check out the premises before production can start?

No answer.

There is some support for that.

During debate, Rep. Patty Contreras, D-Phoenix, sought to add provisions to require the health department to inspect home kitchens where food was to be prepared before issuing the necessary permit. Contreras, who has more than 15 years as a food serve manager, wanted things like examining the area to ensure it is free from indication of pests and debris, that cooking supplies are clean and stored in sanitized cabinets, and that refrigerated food is properly stored and dated.

That went nowhere with opposition from Travis Grantham, sponsor of the measure. And the Gilbert Republican told Capitol Media Services his views have not changed.

“You’re going to get bureaucrats telling them their drain doesn’t drain fast enough and they need to spend $20,000 to have a bigger drain or they’re going to be put out of business,” he said.

“That’s a non-starter to me,” Grantham said. “And that’s exactly what the bureaucracy will do.”

He said there are things that are appropriate.

“You can train them and require them to have a food handler’s certificate,” Grantham said, things that were in the vetoed measure. “But allowing state inspectors into people’s homes to inspect their kitchens and possibly cite them and be in their private residence, that is a problem.”

Arizona has a long history of letting people make their own choices without government interference.

There’s laetrile, also known as amygdalin and vitamin B17.

Proponents argued that the cyanide in the drug that can be found in things like apricot pits supposedly kills cancer cells.

But it has been banned by the Food and Drug Administration. And Arizona law makes it illegal to manufacture, sell, or even give away a drug unless it has been approved by the federal government.

In 1970s, however state lawmakers approved an exception for laetrile, calling it a “nutritional supplement.”

Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, tried multiple times in the last decade to repeal that exemption.

But Kavanagh gained no traction as colleagues said people should be able to decide what is appropriate for themselves. And Nancy Barto, who chaired the Senate Health Committee, refused to even give the bill a hearing.

And then there’s that 2014 voter-approved measure — the one Hobbs opposed but voters approved — allowing access to experimental drugs by those who are terminally ill, defined as “a disease that, without life-sustaining procedures, will result in death in the near future or a state of permanent unconsciousness from which recovery is unlikely.”