Committee hears testimony on House Bill 134 to expand cottage food sales

The Agricultural Committee heard testimony supporting House Bill 134, a proposal to expand Ohio’s cottage food rules so home-based producers can sell a broader range of foods — including some perishable items — and, in some cases, ship products beyond the state.

Megan Forbes, senior legislative counsel at the Institute for Justice, told the committee the bill would let small entrepreneurs start food businesses at home without the cost of commercial kitchen space and use the cottage-food pathway as a stepping stone to larger operations. “Cottage food laws allow entrepreneurs with little capital to start small in their own homes without having to spend thousands of dollars on commercial kitchen space,” Forbes said.

The bill would create a registration for what witnesses called microenterprise or home kitchen operations, attach minimum standards and inspections similar to the existing Ohio home-bakery license, and require labeling showing that products are homemade and listing ingredients. Forbes said the registration would allow perishable foods that are currently barred under the state’s cottage-food exemption, and that the Department of Agriculture would provide primary oversight. “A couple of states have required certain standards similar to what this bill does to make sure that the home kitchen is inspected and that certain food safety protocol is being followed,” Forbes said.

Supporters pointed to other states' experience. Forbes cited Minnesota, which she said issued about 3,000 cottage food licenses within three years of an expansion and has more than 10,000 now, and Wyoming as examples of expanded cottage-food programs that increased local food access.

Committee members asked questions about safety, enforcement and who would carry out inspections and investigations. Representative Cockley asked what precautions other states use; Forbes said many states rely on market forces but some require inspections and standards, and she asserted that in states allowing perishable cottage foods there has been “not 1 case of foodborne illness linked to it.” Representative Sims asked about staffing and oversight demand; Forbes said the existing home-bakery framework would cover many current producers and that fees attached to inspections and registration are intended to offset agency costs. When asked whether local health departments would be the main enforcer, Forbes said the Department of Agriculture would be the primary oversight agency and that state and local health departments typically cooperate only if a reported foodborne illness required investigation.

Members also asked what products producers want to sell beyond baked goods. Forbes relayed examples from her outreach: egg noodles, prepared meals picked up by customers, value-added farm products, acidified or fermented foods, and other items producers currently cannot offer under Ohio’s more limited rules. She said the bill would relax specific rules — for example, it would allow households with pets to hold a registration provided the pet is not in the kitchen while food is prepared, a change from a current home-bakery restriction that can bar licensing if a household has a pet.

Cheryl Castle, who identified herself as a licensed home baker, described her cheesecakes and packaging process, including using dry ice for shipments. “My name is Cheryl Castle. I am a home baker. I am licensed in my home. And I also I I sell cheesecakes,” Castle said. She explained storage and shipping practices and said many desserts are frozen when distributed by larger retailers.

No committee action on House Bill 134 was recorded during the meeting. The only formal action taken at this session was approval of the minutes from the April 2 meeting after the chair asked if there were any objections and none were raised.

The committee proceeded to additional witnesses after the HB134 testimony and adjourned at 11:55 a.m.