Senate committee advances bill allowing peer-to-peer raw-milk sales, rejects mandated pregnancy warnings

A Senate committee on agriculture on Wednesday approved a committee substitute for Senate Bill 20-28 that would allow individuals to sell raw milk and raw-milk products peer-to-peer, require labeling on containers and permit some advertising but stop short of allowing commercial or in-store sales.

Senator Wingard, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee the change was intended to "allow raw milk and raw milk products to be sold" in limited circumstances and to require labeling "so that the individual knows what they're purchasing." She said the measure raises the monthly limit for incidental sales to 1,500 gallons so small producers need not count daily volumes.

The measure drew sharp questioning on health warnings. Senator Hicks urged inclusion of explicit health-notification language, particularly for pregnant women, saying, in part, "Pregnant women and unborn babies and newborns are up to 17 percent more likely to contract foodborne illness from listeria alone compared to the general population," and warned of serious outcomes for infants and the elderly.

Wingard said she considered pregnancy-specific warnings but chose not to add them, arguing that labeling already informs consumers and that the bill is intended to preserve individual choice: "My belief on this is that it's the right of the individual to make the choice for themselves and they should understand the choices they're making."

Supporters said the bill aims to help small dairy producers who have been squeezed by consolidation. Senator Woods, describing his experience in the dairy industry, said the bill "is a way of life" for small producers and praised the sponsor for trying to restore opportunities for small dairies.

The committee adopted an amendment merging two related proposals (one permitting advertising and one removing a repealer), passed the amendment by voice vote and then approved the bill as amended on a roll call, 11 ayes to 2 nays.

The committee record shows ongoing work between the sponsor and colleagues on labeling language; the sponsor told members she was willing to consider warning-language options and to continue discussions before the bill moves further.

The committee's action sends the bill to the next stage of the legislative process.