House Ag committee hears months of testimony on bill to allow sale of raw milk products; labeling and regulation remain key concerns

Representative Dawson Holly, sponsor of House Bill 1131, introduced the bill to the House Agriculture Committee as a way to allow sale of raw milk products and create new revenue streams for small North Dakota dairy farms.

“By expanding the law to include raw milk products, we're giving North Dakota farmers a fresh shot at survival,” Representative Dawson Holly told the committee, citing a long‑term drop in the state's dairy farms and an informal count of 17 raw‑milk operations he found online.

The bill drew dozens of supporters who described homestead and small dairy operations that already sell raw milk directly to consumers and who said the change would allow producers to legally sell butter, cream, kefir, yogurt and some cheeses. Leanne Harner, a small dairy goat operator, described the role that home‑produced cheeses and yogurts can play in family diets and said small producers take the safety of their product seriously.

“This has been going on in the state for 12 years without any problem,” Harner said, adding she tracks foodborne‑illness reports and has not seen recent outbreaks from these homestead products in the state. Harner also described practical differences between goat and cow milk, and said many homestead producers sell by share and handle product directly to the end consumer.

Other supporters urged a labeling requirement. Zachary Cassidy of the Dakota Resource Council said the council supports expanded market opportunities for small farmers but asked that the committee add requirements that products be labeled as raw milk products and that local public health authorities investigate complaints of illness.

Opponents and skeptical witnesses raised public‑health and market‑oversight concerns. Casey Murphy, co‑owner of the state’s only licensed micro‑creamery, urged a “two‑tier” approach that would allow small direct‑to‑consumer sales with minimal regulation but require licensing and Department of Agriculture oversight for processors that sell beyond the farm or to retailers. Denise Roeder of the Milk Producers Association said the bill as written contains “a complete lack of regulation” and urged farm registration, product labeling, and inspection access for state or local authorities as minimum safeguards.

Committee members pressed witnesses on several technical points: whether the bill would require product labels to say “contains raw milk,” shelf‑life questions for non‑pasteurized products, and whether liability insurance is available to raw‑milk sellers. Representative Holly said his earlier drafts had included labeling language and that he would not oppose adding a labeling requirement. Several producers and advocates said farmers generally have general‑liability insurance but that direct coverage for raw‑milk sales can be difficult or unavailable.

The hearing closed without a final committee vote. Representative Mary Anderson moved a "do pass" recommendation and Representative Rios seconded, but Representative Anderson later withdrew the motion while members agreed to work on draft amendments. Committee members and witnesses said the group would try to draft language that could include a study of retail sale pathways and a labeling requirement; Representative Holly said he supports adding a study and would not object to a labeling amendment.

Committee staff and members asked producers and stakeholders to work with legislative counsel and extension staff on specific amendment language. The committee announced it will revisit HB 1131 at a later date after working language is prepared.

Why it matters: Supporters say HB 1131 could create business opportunities for small and homestead dairies in rural counties, while industry groups and public‑health advocates say the bill needs clear labeling, registration and inspection authority to protect consumers and the state's dairy reputation.

What happens next: The sponsor and committee members asked stakeholders to help draft amendment language and indicated the bill will be taken up again after the committee reviews proposed amendments and any requested study language.

Quotes in this article are from participants who testified before the House Agriculture Committee and are attributed to them at first reference.