Sponsor seeks exemption for dehydrated meat sales; health officials urge caution

Lede: Representative Aaron asked the House Environment and Agriculture Committee to allow the sale of dehydrated meat without a homestead food license; DHHS told lawmakers the change raises food‑safety and traceability concerns and recommended process review and oversight instead of a blanket exemption.

Nut graf: Proponents said the bill would increase market opportunities for small farmers and allow local consumers to buy smaller cuts without shipping animals out to USDA facilities with long waits. State health officials and the Farm Bureau urged care: the department highlighted the need for validated processing parameters and the possible consequences if products are sold without regulatory oversight.

Body: Representative Aaron told lawmakers the bill was intended to let producers sell dehydrated meats — jerky and similar items — that are produced from USDA‑inspected meat without requiring the producer to obtain a full homestead license or build a commercial kitchen. Aaron said she would adjust drafting errors and had intended limits on weekly production that were not present in the printed draft.

Erica Davis of DHHS described dehydration as a specialized process that reduces water activity and noted that if dehydration is not done to validated parameters the end product can be unsafe. "This process should be done in a commercial facility using commercial equipment," Davis said, and she added that the department cannot validate every dehydration process without a product‑specific processing authority review. DHHS cited a 2013 outbreak tied to dehydrated chicken pet treats (43 illnesses) as an example of the risks when dehydration is not properly controlled.

Rob Johnson, policy director for the New Hampshire Farm Bureau, told the committee Farm Bureau does not support HB 642 in its present form because it would put farmers at legal risk under federal statutes. He recommended a resolution urging the U.S. Congress or USDA to pursue regulatory flexibility for intrastate processing or a federal pilot program instead of creating a state‑level exception that conflicts with federal law.

The committee took testimony for and against HB 642 and did not vote. Several producers said access to retail sales by cut (rather than by whole or half animals) is an economic barrier; state and industry witnesses asked the committee to coordinate action with federal partners or craft narrowly drawn pilot programs.

Ending: No committee vote was taken. DHHS and Farm Bureau urged the committee either to (a) narrow any statutory exemption to tightly constrained, small‑scale scenarios with oversight and labeling, or (b) pursue a federal pathway (for example, the Prime Act or a USDA pilot) to create legal flexibility for intrastate sales.