A look back at the trends in state legislatures this year

— OPINION —

I was excited last week when Doug Farquhar, the National Environmental Health Association’s government affairs director, presented the final report on State Legislative actions for 2024.

I want to take the opportunity to point out a couple of things from that report.

Doug has been kind enough to provide Food Safety News with these reports since he held a similar position at The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)

I am probably more amazed than most that technology allows these reports to be created. Of course, I am “old school” and remember often having to drive in heavy traffic from Seattle to Olympia on a Friday afternoon simply to pick up a copy of some amendment or the like.

So, I like any technology that keeps me off the road.

The actions the 50 States are taking are as important as the food safety decisions made in Washington D.C. That’s especially true because 2,700 state and local health departments are the foundation for surveillance of foodborne illness in the county. And surveillance is pretty critical at the moment, I think we’d all agree.

The 2024 legislative season began in January, and 250 bills related to food safety were introduced. According to the Farquhar report, 41 passed and became law. Another 11 are pending a governor’s signature, and four were vetoed.

One non-trend jumped out. California passed bills restricting certain food additives in 2023 and 2024. This year’s bill bans dyes from school lunches.

This California trend-setting, however, does not appear to be going anywhere. The NCSL has adopted a resolution expressing confidence in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for making such decisions.

There is a trend regarding Food Freedom and Cottage Foods, and there’s no doubt about it. It’s really been going on since the Wyoming Food Freedom bill was enacted into law 10 years ago. In general, such laws allow certain foods to be exempt from inspections and permits.

This year, Wyoming’s governor vetoed the PRIME Act (S 103), which would have allowed the sale of homemade meat products.

But 12 of 50 Food Freedom bills did pass in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia. The enacted bills include:

• Alaska H 251 exempts certain foods and drinks prepared in an uninspected kitchen from state labeling, licensing, packaging, permitting, and inspection requirements. The law also allows for the acquisition of meats employing an ownership share. 

• The Arizona legislature enacted two bills on cottage foods: H 2042 and H 2079. H 2042 requires cottage food products to be packaged at home with a label of the preparer’s registration number and a list of ingredients. H 2079 prohibits a county from requiring a food handler to have a certificate or attend a training course for persons who volunteer to handle food less than three times a year, if overseen by a certified food protection manager.

• Hawaii H 2144 expands homemade food opportunities by allowing the direct sale of such foods to consumers by phone or the Internet. 

• Illinois S 2617 provides that a cottage food operation shall not sell certain food items or processed foods containing certain hazardous items. The director of agriculture may be exempt from inspection of the slaughter of animals at certain preparers if labeled and not sold to consumers

• Iowa H 2257 exempts certain establishments that slaughter and prepare poultry products from inspections.

• New Hampshire H 1565 removed processed acidified food from the definition of potentially hazardous foods.

• New York S 1979 requires the state to study the economic impact of creating kitchen incubators. This bill passed the legislature but requires the governor’s signature for enactment.

• Oklahoma enacted H 2975, which provides the registration numbers of homemade food producers for labeling purposes.

• Utah’s S 73 restricts the state regulation of local food and limits rule-making authority.

• Vermont H 603 enacted exemptions for inspections of poultry slaughtering sold at the producer’s premises. The law also repealed the requirement that uninspected poultry may only be sold as a whole bird at the farm, at a farmers’ market, or to a food restaurant.

• Virginia H 759 requires a specified pH value for pickles and acidified vegetable products if sold to consumers for consumption and not resale.

In other words, many states are willing to take a risk. It will be interesting to see how long the Food Freedom trend lasts.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Source: https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2024/09/a-look-back-at-the-trends-in-state-legislatures-this-year/