Scarf

Scarf represented a classic Silicon Valley-style attempt to democratize a local economy. The founders argued that the government was 'stifling innovation' and that customers should have the right to choose whose food they eat. The Shutdown Event In November 2016, AHS officials contacted the founders, stating that the app was essentially a 'marketplace for unregulated restaurants.' The Edmonton Sun reported that the founders felt blindsided, as they believed the small scale of the transactions (often under $10) might fall into a 'gray area.' AHS disagreed, noting that any sale of food to the public requires a permit. The 'Risk' Argument Unlike an Airbnb where the risk is a bad night's sleep, or an Uber where there is a traffic risk, the government's concern with Scarf was a mass-poisoning event. Because one home cook could serve dozens of people, a single unwashed hand or undercooked chicken breast could lead to a localized outbreak that would be difficult for health officials to trace back to an anonymous home kitchen. The Legacy Scarf is a textbook example of Regulatory Barrier to Entry. It served as a warning to other Canadian food-sharing startups like Lemonade Stand or Munchado. Today, the spirit of Scarf lives on in cottage food laws which have slowly been relaxed in some jurisdictions (like parts of the US and Ontario) to allow for the sale of low-risk items (like bread or jam), but the sale of 'hot meals' remains the 'Final Boss' of food-tech regulation.