There have been raw milk bills before the legislature in ten different states so far this current session. A bill has made it to the governor’s desk in Utah and there is legislation in at least a couple of other states that has a realistic chance of passing, including Louisiana which is one of seven states left where any raw milk sales or distribution is illegal. Bills before the legislatures include:

IOWA House File 2055 (HF 2055) would allow the unregulated sale of raw milk and raw milk products on-farm and through delivery. There is a labeling requirement that there be a statement on the container notifying consumers that the product has not been inspected and is not subject to public health regulations. Bills have also been introduced in the Iowa legislature that would legalize raw pet milk sales (HF 2057) and the distribution of raw milk through herdshares (HF 2056) but HF 2055 is the only raw milk bill the legislature has considered so far. On January 30 a subcommittee of the House Committee on Local Government recommended passage by a 2-1 vote; the bill is now before the full committee. Iowa is one of the remaining states that prohibits any raw milk distribution.

LOUISIANA companion bills, Senate Bill 188 (SB 188) and House Bill 437 (HB 437), have been introduced that would allow the on-farm sale of either cow milk or goat milk of an average of 500 gallons per month. No permit is required but producers are subject to inspection and must comply with milk testing, herd health, and sanitary standards as well as a labeling requirement that there be a warning that the raw milk may contain harmful bacteria. The bills are a reintroduction of Senate Bill 29 (SB 29) that nearly passed in 2016. SB 29 passed out of the Senate and was defeated in the House committee by one vote.

MASSACHUSETTS Senate Bill 442 (S.442) and House Bill 2938 (H.2938) are companion agricultural omnibus bills that include provisions which would officially legalize herdshare agreements and would allow the off-farm delivery of raw milk by licensed dairies. Under the bill, farmers with no more than twelve lactating cows, goats or combination of cows and goats can enter into herdshare agreements with those wanting to obtain raw milk. There must be a written contract that includes a statement that the raw milk is not pasteurized nor subject to inspection by the state Department of Health nor the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR). MDAR has power to issue rules on testing but cannot require testing more frequently than once every two months. The bills allow from a licensed raw milk farmer to deliver raw milk to a consumer with whom the farmer has a contractual relationship, including through the farmer’s agent and through a community supported agriculture (CSA) delivery system. The bill gives MDAR power to issue regulations governing delivery; the regulations must allow for non-mechanical refrigeration. The bills have passed out of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture and will likely next be assigned to the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

NEW JERSEY Assembly Bill 502 (A502) is the same bill that has been introduced the prior three legislative sessions, A502 allows for the on-farm sale of raw milk and raw milk products by a licensed dairy. Producers must comply with labeling, signage, herd health, and milk testing requirements. The bill also legalizes herdshare agreements and states that no permit is required for the distribution of milk through a herdshare contract. New Jersey is one of the remaining seven states that prohibits any raw milk distribution. A502 has been referred to the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

TENNESSEE House Bill 2229 (HB 2229) and Senate Bill 2104 (SB 2104) would have allowed the unregulated direct sale from producer to consumers of all foods except meat, on the farm, at farmers markets and other venues. There were labeling and signage requirements but no licensing or inspection under the bills. The bills were both defeated in committee; under current law, the distribution of raw milk and raw milk products is legal through herdshare agreements. Herdshare programs have been thriving in the state.

UTAH Senate Bill 108 (SB 108) has passed through both the Senate and House and are on the desk of Governor Gary Herbet. SB 108 allows the delivery and sale of raw milk through a mechanically refrigerated mobile unit by licensed dairies. Currently only the on-farm sale of raw milk by license holders is legal unless the producer has a majority ownership interest in a retail store (only one of the state’s ten licensed dairies meets this qualification). SB 108 also allows for the unlicensed on-farm sale of up to 120 gallons per month by unlicensed dairies if the producer is in compliance with labeling, recordkeeping, milk testing, and milk cooling requirements. Producers wanting to sell under this exemption must notify the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) that they are doing so. UDAF has power under the bill to order a producer to stop selling raw milk if the producer’s dairy is linked to a foodborne illness. The department has the power to levy administrative fines against producers who have been linked to a foodborne illness outbreak.

VIRGINIA Senate Bill 962 (SB 962) and House Bill 825 (HB 825) would have officially legalized and regulated herdshare operations. State policy in Virginia has long been to leave the many herdshare programs existing in the state alone. The original versions of both bills would have criminalized the refusal of either farmers or consumers to turn over copies of their contracts to government agencies. Both bills stated it was illegal for anyone besides the party to the contract to receive raw milk; in other words, giving raw milk to family or guests would have been a crime. Criminal penalties for violations of the bill’s requirements were up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine; every day the violation continued would be a separate offense. The bills also required that the herdshare contracts contain a clause that shareholders assumed joint liability if the herd or any milk produced by the heard was responsible for any injury or illness. SB 962 was in Senate committee and shortly afterwards was stricken in the House committee.

For further updates on the progress of raw milk legislation, go to the bill tracking page at

FDA Bootstrapping Its Power under FSMA

Recently the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYDAM) sent what it called a “Milk Control Facility FSMA Survey” to a number of licensed dairy producers in the state, including raw cheesemakers. The survey was mainly concerned with whether the producers were complying with various requirements related to the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) but there was one requirement the survey asked about that was never brought up at all when Congress was deliberating over FSMA–current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs), which FDA could try to use for regulating all commerce other than most meat and poultry that are under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This could include all intrastate commerce; under FDA’s interpretation of the law, any local producer– whether a raw milk dairy with a couple of cows or a private homemaking cottage foods operation–would be subject to the cGMP requirement and FDA jurisdiction.

The agency is claiming that authority given it by the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to regulate communicable diseases gives it the power to impose cGMP requirements. The PHSA provides that “[t]he Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary [of Health and Human Services], is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. For the purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.”1

A common sense reading of this power would be that FDA could get involved if there was a foodborne illness outbreak confined to one state or if a producer solely in intrastate commerce was found to be manufacturing food under unsanitary conditions but, according to the agency, its power to regulate communicable disease gives it the authority to impose cGMP requirements on all food manufacturers (other than those in the meat and poultry business) for the following: “plants and grounds; sanitary facilities, controls, and operations; equipment and utensils; processes and controls; warehousing and distribution; and natural or avoidable defect levels.”2

The cGMPs are part of a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme; unlike some of the more onerous FSMA provisions such as the national produce safety standards and the food safety standards (HAPRPC – Hazard Analysis Risk-Based Preventive Controls) in which many smaller producers are exempt from those mandates, there are no exemptions from the cGMP requirements.

FDA has long held that cGMPs apply to food manufacturers in intrastate commerce but the agency’s position fell on deaf ears until after the passage of FSMA. The cGMPs used to have their own section in the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR part 110) but, when FDA issued regulations governing the HARPC requirement (21 CFR part 117), it moved the cGMP regulations over to that section as well. FDA wants to make it seem like cGMPs are part of FSMA even though they were never brought up when Congress was considering the food safety legislation in 2009 and 2010.

At this time FDA doesn’t have nearly the resources to enforce the cGMP requirements across the board but that doesn’t have to happen for the agency to create a chilling effect among local food producers; an occasional inspection of or enforcement action against a raw milk producer or cottage food operation will do the trick. The cGMPs potentially threaten to roll back some of the progress made in recent years through legislative and policy changes in the areas of consumer access to raw dairy and cottage foods.

There are ways to protect against the cGMP threat to intrastate business. One way would be for state legislatures to more closely monitor FDA cooperative agreements between state departments of health and agriculture to make sure the state agencies don’t impose these requirements on food producers operating only in intrastate commerce; with FSMA, states will be counted on to carry out much of its enforcement. Another way would be to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to make it clear that the cGMP requirements only apply to firms operating in interstate commerce. As it is FSMA is possibly the most draconian piece of food legislation ever passed; FDA needs to be stopped from expanding its power beyond what Congress ever intended.

1 United States Code of Laws, 42 USC 264(a). Accessed 2/28/2018 at

2 Federal Register, 78 FR 3651. Section II.B.1 accessed 2/28/2018 at