Talk:Smithfield ham

Misunderstanding about Virginia code change
User:Lkorleski noted that the Virginia statute regarding Smithfield had been repealed in October 2008, but it was later revealed to be a routine measure to remove superfluous wording.

No change in wording was made to the section entitled "Smithfield hams defined." Only a serial comma has been added.

Code of Virginia 3.1-868 Code of Virginia 3.2-5420 --Dforest (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:DianaMcFarland posted these comments to the article, which I am moving here:

The statue concerning location was not removed in October 2008. Unfortunately, that was a mistake made by a reporter for a Virginia agriculture publication. Rather, the change to the code was made as part of a routine codification of Virginia's agriculture provisions, which was approved during the 2008 session of the General Assembly. The change in question was very small and can be noted by comparing code 3.1-868 to 3.2-5420 — from "no person, firm or corporation shall ..." to "no person shall ..." The second part of the law refers to the geographical requirements, which was not changed. The attorney that helped draft the new document said it was considered a housekeeping change. That is, according to the definitions used for agricultural provisions, "person" also includes firms and corporations. Mostly, removing the superfluous wording helped to further shrink an already outsized document. After the editor of the publication was notified, a correction was run in the next issue. Therefore, in order for a ham to be a genuine Smithfield ham, it must still be smoked and cured within the town limits of Smithfield, Virginia.

--Dforest (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)