Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Food Safety And Small Farm Businesses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Home baker urges raising Vermont small-producer cap to $30,000
Summary
A Vermont home baker told the Senate Agriculture Committee she supports raising the gross-receipts cap for home food processors to $30,000 and asked that the $100 annual licensing fee be waived for small producers.
Get email alerts on the Food Safety And Small Farm Businesses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rosslyn, a sole-proprietor home baker who said she mixes and bakes by hand and sells weekly to a small CSA and farm pickup points, asked the Senate Agriculture Committee on March 26 to raise Vermont’s gross‑receipts cap for home food producers and to exempt very small bakers from an annual licensing fee.
“I bake sourdough bread, a 100% New England ingredient,” Rosslyn said in testimony, describing her supply chain and saying she makes about $1.90 net per $6 loaf after costs. Under the current rule she reported hitting the cap and stopping sales.
Rosslyn asked the committee to raise the cap from the current $6,500 for home bakery sales to $30,000, matching several neighboring states’ thresholds she cited. She said the existing $100 annual licensing fee is a further burden at her current scale.
Why it matters: Rosslyn told the committee that higher caps would let small producers add one or two more days of baking, expand a CSA from about 30 families to 60, and reinvest modest profits without moving into a different licensing and inspection category that requires larger equipment and commercial facilities.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about the licensing costs and how the cap is measured. The committee chair noted the bill to raise the small home food processor cap is moving through the legislature and asked the speaker to provide written testimony and suggested language to include in the committee record.
No formal action or vote was taken during the hearing. Committee members repeatedly asked presenters who favor statutory change to submit proposed language so the panel can analyze potential unintended consequences and compare it to existing statutes.
Ending: Speakers asked the committee for follow-up contact information and to post written testimony on the committee page so members could review specifics and possible statutory language before any formal bill drafting.

