Blog post first published July 19, 2023. Updated for journal publication and republished September 30, 2023.

Graphic: Real Milk Legal Map [1]

View the updated Raw Milk Legal Map, color index, and state-by-state status

Over the past decade or so, a growing number of states have passed laws to either legalize the sale of raw milk and raw milk products or increase access to raw dairy; no year has been as productive as 2023. Resistance from the dairy industry and public health agencies is not as great as it once was, and demand for raw dairy products is increasing rapidly. Through either statute, regulation or policy, 46 states now allow the sale of raw milk for human consumption, the sale of raw milk for pet consumption, or the distribution of raw milk through herdshare agreements.¹ The four outliers prohibiting any sale or distribution of raw milk are Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, and Rhode Island.

LEGISLATION

The states passing raw dairy legislation this year include:

• IDAHO – Senate Bill 1036 (SB 1036) removes the limit on dairy animals that herdshare operations can have; under prior law, herds were limited to seven cows, fifteen goats, or fifteen sheep.
• IOWA – Iowa became the 46th state to legalize raw milk sales or distribution when Senate File 315 (SF 315) passed into law. The bill allows the sale from producer direct to consumer on the farm or through delivery of any dairy product. There are testing, labeling and recordkeeping requirements.
• NORTH DAKOTA – House Bill 1515 (HB 1515) legalized the unregulated sale of raw milk and any other raw dairy products from producer direct to consumer. Under prior law only distribution of raw milk and raw milk products through herdshare agreements was legal. HB 1515 originally allowed only Grade A dairies (who produce milk for pasteurization) to sell raw milk to the consumer, but those supporting raw milk sales by all dairies hijacked the bill, turning it into the version that passed. The North Dakota Department of Agriculture (NDDA) has issued a press release² claiming that sales are limited to raw milk only (and not other raw dairy products) under HB 1515 even though the bill states that farms selling raw milk direct to consumers aren’t subject to any provision of the chapter in the North Dakota statutory code, titled “Dairy Product Regulation.”³
• UTAH – House Bill 320 (HB 320) legalizes retail sales of raw milk and any product produced from raw milk if a licensed producer has a majority ownership in the retail store. Licensees may also sell these products on-farm as well deliver and/or sell via refrigerated mobile unit. Prior law limited the raw dairy products licensees could sell to milk, butter, and cream. sell via refrigerated mobile unit. HB 320 marks the fourth raw milk bill since 2015 that the mother-daughter team of Symbria and Sara Patterson, founders of the nonprofit Red Acre Center, have been responsible for passing.
• WYOMING – Senate Bill 102 (SB 102) allows the sale of any raw dairy products produced by unregulated producers in retail stores. Prior law limited transactions to direct-to-consumer. When it comes to food freedom of choice, Wyoming remains way ahead of the curve; allowing any raw dairy products produced by an unregulated farmer to be sold in a retail store would be unfathomable in any other state. How much raw dairy is sold in Wyoming retail stores will likely be determined by what stores’ requirements for a producer to obtain product liability insurance are; it is difficult enough for regulated raw milk producers to get a product liability policy.

The biggest development in 2023 was in Iowa, a state that had once jailed someone for selling raw milk. Senator Jason Schultz (R) and farmer Tom German had been trying for 17 years to legalize raw milk sales in the state. A difference maker this time around was dairy farmer Esther Arkfeld, a mother with young children, who was the face of the effort to legalize raw milk sales in Iowa. Lobbyist Tyler Raygor of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) also helped; Raygor and another member of AFP were the only ones who registered with the state to lobby for the bill; 24 people—representing government agencies, the dairy industry, and Farm Bureau among other organizations—registered to lobby against SF 315.

The national opposition to further legalization of raw milk sales in any state made Iowa a litmus test. Mary McGonigle-Martin, a board member of the national food safety group Stop Foodborne Illness said, “Public health has lost the war on raw milk”⁴. McGonigle-Martin had testified four different times in opposition to Iowa raw milk bills. Passage of SF 315 into law struck a nerve with the mainstream media, which published more stories about raw milk after the Iowa law went into effect than it had in years. USA Today, the New York Times and Forbes, among other major media, ran stories warning about the “health risks” of drinking raw milk in an attempt to dissuade their readers from joining the millions of people who are already consuming the product.

A trend in recent years that accelerated in 2023 was the legalization of the sale of raw dairy products other than milk. In addition to Iowa, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, laws have also gone into effect since 2021 in Alaska, Montana, New Hampshire, and Texas, allowing the sale of numerous products made from raw milk. Value-added is where the money is at; the trend bodes well for the ability of small-scale dairy farmers to make a living. It appears that the dairy processing lobby is no longer fighting the legalization of value-added raw dairy sales like they once did.

The food safety argument–the only argument the opposition has staked its stance on–is increasingly in favor of raw milk proponents. The latest foodborne illness outbreak figures from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are that in 2020 there were five foodborne illness outbreaks resulting in 28 illnesses that were attributed to raw milk consumption.⁵ The number of raw milk consumers continues to increase considerably; hundreds of thousands of consumers go to realmilk.com each year for the first time to find a source of raw milk in their state. The number of illnesses attributed to raw milk consumption is significantly less than it was a decade ago.

Increased demand, fewer illnesses, and deteriorating quality in the conventional food supply are a formula for raw milk legalization. The next state to lift the prohibition on any raw milk sales or distribution could be Hawaii. That state has had bills for legalizing raw milk sales by micro dairies passed out of the House the last two years only to die in Senate committee.  There is only one dairy producing raw milk for pasteurization in Hawaii. For reasons of food security alone, a raw milk bill there should pass into law.

Whichever of the four remaining states is next to get rid of the ban, the goal of Weston A. Price Foundation President Sally Fallon Morell to have legal raw milk distribution in every state is getting closer to realization.

REGULATION CHANGE

MISSISSIPPI: Until recently, Mississippi allowed the sale of only raw goat milk, and then only if the farm had nine goats or fewer. Thanks to state Agriculture Commissioner Andy Gipson, that has now changed per the policy of the Mississippi Department of Agriculture. Under the policy, distribution of raw milk (including cow’s milk) through herdshare agreements is legal; there has been some pushback from the state department of health, but the policy remains in place. Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) has written herdshare contracts for its Mississippi members. Gipson has been one of the more progressive agriculture commissioners in the country. In 2020 he adopted a policy on distribution of meat from custom slaughtered and processed animals—better enabling small farmers and ranchers to make a living—by removing the limit on the number of owners there could be for a custom animal. Prior to becoming commissioner, Gibson served in the Mississippi legislature where he supported several food freedom bills, including legislation to legalize the sale of raw cow’s milk.

COURT CASE: TEST CASE FOR MAINE FOOD SOVEREIGNTY ACT

An important case from Maine Food Sovereignty Act (FSA) and possibly the state’s Right to Food Constitutional Amendment (RTFA) is ongoing in Kennebec Superior Court. Nathan and Rhiannon Deschaine, owners of Kenduskeag Kitchen, their customer Frank Roma, and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) have sued Jeanne Landrew, Commissioner of the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), for violations of the FSA and the RTFA. The Deschaines prepare and sell home-cooked meals in Kenduskeag, a town which per the FSA, has passed an ordinance allowing the unregulated sale of most foods direct from the producer to consumer. The FSA gives towns and cities in Maine, the power to adopt ordinances legalizing unregulated local producer-to-consumer commerce within their boundaries.

DHHS sent an enforcement letter to the Deschaines in October 2022, claiming that the couple needed a license to operate their business because, among other reasons, “Kenduskeag Kitchen does not meet [the] definition of direct producer to consumer transactions because it is preparing and selling meals that contain food products and/or ingredients that are purchased from other sites.” The FSA contains no restriction that producers engaging in unregulated commerce under a town ordinance are limited to preparing food with only ingredients that they grow.

Roma is suing DHHS for a violation of the RTFA, which gives individuals the right “… to consume the food of their own choosing …as long as an individual does not commit trespassing, theft, poaching, or other abuses of private property rights, public lands, or natural resources in the harvesting, production or acquisition of food.” Plaintiffs are seeking to have DHHS enjoined from regulating the operation of Kenduskeag Kitchen and requiring it to be licensed; the department has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. A favorable resolution to the case for
the Deschaines, Roma and FTCLDF should lead to a more expansive interpretation of the FSA and RTFA statewide, improving food security and food quality in Maine.

This article was originally a blog post on realmilk.com, and then updated and published in the Fall  2023 issue of Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

References

1. WAPF, Raw Milk Legal Map and State-by-State Notes, latest update July 11, 2023. https://www.realmilk.com/realmilk-legal-map/
2. NDDA, “Raw milk sales now legal, limited to fluid milk,” [Press release], August 4, 2023. https://www.ndda.nd.gov/news/raw-milk-sales-now-legal-limited-fluid-milk
3. North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 4.1-25, “Dairy Product Regulation,” p. 10 (point 3 of clause 4.1-25-40.1). https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t04-1c25.pdf#nameddest=4p1-25-40p1
4. Tony Leys “Public Health Has Lost the War – States legalize raw milk, despite public health warnings,” USA Today, July 3, 2023. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/07/03/raw-milk-legalized-states-unpasteruizeddisease-risks-public-health/70369454007/
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Access® database for outbreaks reported from 2005 to 2020 from all transmission sources (food, water, animal contact, environmental, and person-to-person) provided by Hannah Lawinger, CDC NORS Data Request Manager on May 26, 2021.

The post Big Year for Raw Milk in State Houses appeared first on Real Milk.

On December 10 ¹, District Court Judge Cynthia Feland put an end to one of the more ambitious power grabs by a government agency in the area of local food regulation when she ruled that the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) exceeded its authority by adopting rules that ban the unregulated sale of some homemade foods that the Legislature allows to be sold under the Cottage Foods Act [also known as the 2017 North Dakota Food Freedom Act (FFA)]. Under the FFA any producer can sell cottage food products directly to a consumer without regulation ². In her decision, Judge Feavel enjoined NDDH from enforcing the cottage food regulations; the department has decided not to appeal the ruling so the judgement is final. Moreover, NDDA will not be working through its allies in the state legislature to introduce legislation to amend the GGA this session, a move the department made in 2019. The filing deadline for bills in the 2021 session was January 25.

Attorneys for the Institute for Justice represented five cottage food producers challenging the rules. The case boiled down to the definition of a “cottage food product.” The FFA defines a “cottage food product” as “baked goods, jams, jellies, and other food and drink products produced by a cottage food operator”³. The only food the Act expressly bans the sale of are “uninspected products made from meat” (the sale of uninspected products from poultry is allowed if the cottage food operator slaughters no more than 1000 birds a year). The judge found that “nowhere in the Cottage Food Act is the Department of Health granted any authority to further restrict foods that can be sold under the Act.”

The cottage food regulations the department promulgated went into effect on January 1, 2020. The regulations marked the fourth time in NDDH had tried to water down the FFA since its passage ⁴. Shortly after legislation passed in 2017, NDDH issued a guidance document for the FFA that prohibited the sale of a number of foods under the FFA other than meat. Producers under the FFA didn’t abide by NDDH’s interpretation of the law; in 2018 the department followed up with proposed rules that would have again banned the unregulated sale of a number of foods legal under the FFA ⁵. When that effort failed, NDDH through its allies in the legislature introduced a bill, Senate Bill SB 2269, that as introduced would have not only prohibited the unregulated sale of a number of foods allowed under the FFA but also would have banned the unregulated sale of all drink products; the House of Representatives voted down this bill. The regulations NDDH issued at the end of 2019 banned the unregulated sale of many foods requiring time and temperature control that were legal under the FFA as well as low-acid canned foods that were also under the FFA’s definition of “cottage food product.”

A number of foods NDDH banned in the regulation would have been banned if SB 2269 had passed⁶. The judge noted in her opinion that “the Department does not cite to any legal authority establishing or even suggesting that if the Legislature fails to pass a law an agency wants, the agency can then enact the law on its own through the back door with rulemaking. Allowing such an end run directly undermines the clear legislative intent.”⁷

Judge Feland further stated, “Although the department claims that it has the general authority to enact rules governing food safety, the agency cannot adopt rules that contradict or conflict with an unambiguous act of the legislature. The Department’s power under the Cottage Food Law is limited to merely “providing assistance, consultation, or inspection, upon request, of a producer,” and conducting investigations upon complaints ⁶. Any general authority the Department has to regulate matters of health and food safety cannot extend to restricting the sale of homemade foods specifically allowed under the Cottage Food Act.

The hope is that NDDH going forward will work with cottage food producers to help them succeed rather than limiting the foods they can sell under the FFA. The food freedom laws passed in North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, and some 80 Maine towns have been an unqualified success; as far as is known, not a single foodborne illness has been attributed to a producer operating under those laws.

With the COVID crisis and the resulting upheaval in the conventional food system, local food producers are more important than ever; the best way to increase their numbers is through the passage of laws at the state level allowing unregulated sales of food from local producers direct to consumers. The more local food producers there are, the safer the food supply, the stronger the local economy, the more self-sufficient communities will be in food production, and the better the health of the state’s residents.

Congratulations to the plaintiffs in the case, cottage food producers Danielle Mickelson, Lydia Gessele, Lonnie Thompson, Summer Joy Peterson and Naina Agarwal as well as to Institute for Justice Attorneys Erica Smith and Tatiana Pino who provided their representation. Congratulations also to dairy farmer LeAnn Harner for her continued great work on behalf of North Dakota Food Freedom.

1. Conor Beck, “Victory for Food Freedom In North Dakota: Homemade Food Producers Restore Food Freedom to North Dakota”, Institute for Justice (ij.org); December 10, 2020. Accessed at https://ij.org/press-release/victory-for-food-freedom-in-north-dakota-homemade-food-producers-restore-food-freedom-to-north-dakota/

2. Pete Kennedy, “Governor Signs North Dakota Food Freedom Act”, Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (farmtoconsumer.org); April 14, 2017. Accessed by https://www.farmtoconsumer.org/blog/2017/04/14/north-dakota-food-freedom-act-going-governor/

3. NDCC 23-09.5 “Cottage Food Production and Sales”, North Dakota Century Code, Title 23 Chapter 09.5, North Dakota Legislature website (legis.nd.gov). Accessed at https://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t23c09-5.pdf#nameddest=23-09p5-02

4. Pete Kennedy, “Victory in North Dakota: Food Freedom Act Intact”, A Campaign for Real Milk (realmilk.com); March 23, 2018. Accessed at https://www.realmilk.com/victory-north-dakota-nddh-withdraws-proposed-rules/

5. Pete Kennedy, “The Department of Control Strikes Again”, A Campaign for Real Milk (realmilk.com); April 2019. Accessed at https://www.realmilk.com/the-department-of-control-strikes-again/

6. “Bill Action for SB 2269”, North Dakota Legislative Branch website (legis.nd.gov). Accessed at https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/66-2019/bill-actions/ba2269.html

7. “Food Freedom Timeline”, North Dakota Food Freedom website (ndfoodfreedom.com). Accessed at https://www.ndfoodfreedom.com/timeline

The post North Dakota: Judge Restores Food Freedom Act appeared first on Real Milk.

For the fourth time in 2 years, the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) is trying to water down the state cottage food law, also known as the 2017 North Dakota Food Freedom Act (FFA). The FFA allows the unregulated sale by producers direct to consumers except those foods that have either meat or raw dairy as an ingredient. NDDH has issued proposed regulations that would make illegal the unregulated sale of a number of foods that are currently legal under the 2017 law. In doing so, NDDH is overstepping its authority and is arguably hurting food safety; the proposed regulations are not about food safety–they are about control.

The FFA clearly states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a state agency or political subdivision may not require licensure, permitting, certification, inspection, packaging, or labeling that pertains to the preparation or sale of cottage food products under this section….” Under the FFA, “cottage food product” means “baked goods, jams, jellies, and other food and drink products produced by a cottage food operator”; it was the NDDH that actually convinced the legislature to adopt this definition for the FFA. The legislature initially included the unregulated sale of raw dairy products in the FFA but pulled those foods out of the bill. The FFA excludes the sale of any uninspected products made from meat. There is no exclusion on any other foods in the FFA.

Shortly after the legislation passed in 2017, NDDH issued a guidance document for the FFA that prohibited the sale of a number of foods other than meat and raw dairy. FFA supporters didn’t abide by NDDH’s interpretation of the law; in 2018 the department followed up with proposed rules that would have again banned the unregulated sale of foods that are legal under the FFA. When food freedom proponents and members of the legislature defeated that effort, NDDH through its allies in the legislature introduced a bill in the 2019 session to roll back the FFA. The legislation, Senate Bill 2269 (SB 2269), as introduced would not only have prohibited the unregulated sale of a number of legal foods but also would have banned the unregulated sale of all drink products. The House of Representatives eventually killed the bill. SB 2269 represents the only legal attempt NDDH has made to dilute the FFA.

The proposed regulations have a number of the same changes that were in the bill that the legislature rejected. Among other things, the bill would have changed the law by making the unregulated sale of low-acid canned foods such as carrots, beets or beans illegal. The rules would prohibit the sale of unrefrigerated foods unless they are frozen–foods such as banana cream pie, potato salad, and carrot and celery sticks would all be affected. The proposed rules define “frozen foods” as foods maintained at temperatures no higher than zero degrees Fahrenheit.

The FFA allows the sale of all foods subject to time and temperature control other than those with meat or raw dairy as an ingredient. The proposed rules would limit the sale of time-and-temperature-control foods to baked goods (e.g., cream pies that are “frozen”) and home processed fresh-cut fruits and vegetables that are either “dehydrated or freeze-dried” or “blanched and frozen” ( i.e., no longer fresh).

The FFA specifically states that no government agency can require licensure for anything pertaining to the preparation of cottage food products, but that is what NDDH is trying to do in prohibiting the unlicensed sale of many foods that are currently legal to sell without a license. There are also labeling and certification requirements elsewhere in the proposed rules, both in violation of the FFA.

Beyond the proposed rules exceeding NDDH’s authority, what makes the department’s action a waste of taxpayer dollars is that in the two-plus years the FFA has been in effect, there has not been a single case of foodborne illness attributed to a producer operating under the state cottage food law. Cottage foods are thriving in the state, bringing in an estimated $1.5 million per year for producers and their families.¹ The rules are a “solution” in search of a problem.

The experience of other states allowing the unregulated sale of time-and-temperature-control foods is similar to North Dakota. Towns in Maine have allowed the selling without regulation time-and-temperature-control foods direct from producer to consumer other than meat and poultry as far back as 2011 under local food sovereignty ordinances; no case of foodborne illness has been attributed to any producer operating under the ordinance. Under the Wyoming Food Freedom Act, producers in that state can sell any food product other than meat without regulation; in the 4-1/2 years since the law went into effect, no one operating under the Act has been found to make anyone sick. The same goes for the Utah Homemade Food Act which went into effect over a year-and-a-half ago, that Act allows the sale of all foods other than meat and raw dairy from the producer direct to the consumer without regulation.

The track record in these states indicates that NDDH’s proposed rules would hurt food safety in North Dakota if they become law. Some producers currently selling under the FFA will not be able to afford the cost of compliance if a license is required for the foods they sell require; others currently producing safe and nutritious food will stop if the law requires them to get a license because they don’t want a government inspector in their home kitchens. Fewer local producers will likely result in more purchases of industrial food which has a higher rate of foodborne illness outbreaks then foods produced under the FFA. The more producers operating under the cottage food law the better the public health is served. Instead of trying to dilute the FFA, there are ways NDDH could be spending taxpayer dollars productively to work with cottage food producers. Farmer LeAnn Harner, a leader in the North Dakota Food Freedom Movement, pointed out that the department could help provide education, equipment, and free testing of recipes to cottage food producers.² The more cottage food producers there are, the safer the food supply, the stronger the local economy, the more self-sufficient communities will be in food production, and the better the health of North Dakota residents.

NDDH has a chance to be an agency that promotes the production and sale of nutritious food rather than being a bureaucracy that restricts it or, in the words of North Dakota Representative Daniel Johnston (R-Kathryn), “the Department of Control”.³

North Dakota residents have until October 12th to comment on the proposed rules. It is important to call and or email NDDH asking that they withdraw the proposed rules. The phone number for the Division of Food and Lodging is 1-701-328-1291 or 1-800-472-2927; the email address is foodandlodging@nd.gov.

Please take action now.

If you are a producer affected by the proposed rules, let NDDH know what products you sell and how the Food Freedom Act has helped your business.

Consumers should let NDDH know what healthy nutrient-dense products the Food Freedom Act has enabled them to purchase direct from producers.

</ br>

———

[1] Harner, LeAnn. “Testimony of Cottage Food Rules”. North Dakota Department of Health hearing on proposed rules, Bismarck, North Dakota. October 2, 2019.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Dura, Jack. “North Dakota Department of Health accused of ‘arrogance’, confusion in proposed cottage food rules”, Bismarck Tribune, October 2, 2019. Accessed at https://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/north-dakota-department-of-health-accused-of-arrogance-confusion-in/article_d800a478-ac7d-5a88-8a6c-2f841cf81b96.html

</ br> photo by XXX from Pixabay

The post The Department of Control Strikes Again appeared first on Real Milk.

The FFA allows producers to sell any food (referred to as cottage foods in the legislation) without regulation except meat, dairy and foods with either meat or raw dairy as an ingredient. The FFA gave NDDoH no rulemaking power but that didn’t stop the department from trying to weaken the legislation. NDDoH convened a workgroup after the bill passed last year to draft regulations governing the FFA; the composition of the workgroup was stacked against its members that had supported the legislation.

Last month NDDoH published proposed rules that were an attempt to substitute its judgment for the legislature’s and reduce the number of cottage foods that could be sold without regulation from what the FFA allowed.

The proposed rules prohibited the sale of canned foods such as sauerkraut or pickles if their pH and/or water activity was above a certain level; nothing in the FFA contained this requirement. The rules required that producers sell only whole frozen poultry; nothing in the FFA has this limitation. Moreover, North Dakota has adopted the federal regulation governing the production and sale of poultry which allows the sale of fresh poultry, poultry parts and value-added products such as chicken pot pie and chicken broth.

The proposed regulations would also have prohibited the production and sale of certain dry goods, dehydrated and beverages such as kombucha that are all allowed under the FFA.

Opposition to NDDH was widespread. North Dakota Farm Bureau which had supported the FFA worked to get the department to withdraw the proposed rules. The national nonprofit Institute for Justice also made an impact, pointing out in a letter to NDDH Commissioner Mylynn Tufte by one of its attorneys that under the FFA a state agency could not regulate the preparation or sale of cottage food products.

Dairy farmer LeAnn Harner who heads the advocacy group North Dakota Food Freedom helped coordinate opposition to the rules, Harner, who was instrumental in the passage of the FFA, worked with legislators to move NDDoH to honor the legislative intent that there be no regulation of cottage foods.

The key legislators in getting NDDoH to withdraw the rules were Representative Luke Simons (the sponsor of the FFA) and Representative Aaron McWilliams. In a statement posted on the North Dakota Food Freedom Facebook page, Rep. McWilliams said that he and Rep. Simons had met with Commissioner Tufte along with a representative from the governor’s office and explained to them the legislative intent behind the FFA. McWilliams said, “We discussed what the role of the health department would be with cottage food producers, mainly education.”

On March 20 NDDoH issued a news release stating it was “closing the public comment period and cancelled three hearings inviting comment on proposed cottage food laws [scheduled for March 22nd and 23rd]”–meaning it was withdrawing the proposed rules.

The FFA is staying intact. The department’s bureaucratic power grab came up short.

Governor Burgum with supporters of the North Dakota Food Freedom Act

The post Victory in North Dakota: Food Freedom Act Intact appeared first on Real Milk.

On April 29 herdshares become officially legal in North Dakota when Governor Jack Dalrymple signed Senate Bill 2072 into law. SB2072 provides that “it is not a violation [of law] to transfer or obtain raw milk under a shared animal ownership agreement.”

Shared animal ownership is defined in the bill as “any contractual arrangement under which an individual:

a. Acquires an ownership interest in a milk-producing animal;
b. Agrees to pay another for, reimburse another for, or otherwise accept financial responsibility for the care and boarding of the milk-producing animal at the dairy farm; and
c. Is entitled to receive a proportionate share of the animal’s raw milk production as a condition of the contractual arrangement.”

The original version of SB 2072 did not contain a provision on herdshares; the bill only amended the state dairy code to adopt the latest revision of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), which governs the production and sale of pasteurized milk in the U.S.

After the bill passed the Senate, North Dakota Department of Agriculture (NDDA) Dairy Director Wayne Carlson intended to introduce an amendment to SB 2072 banning herdshare agreements in the House Agriculture Committee. Raw milk proponents had advance notice of the amendment and were able to convince the committee to adopt instead an amendment expressly legalizing herdshares.

To ensure that NDDA does not attempt to undercut herdshare agreements in the future, the new law contains a section stating, “. . . the commissioner may not adopt any rule that restricts, limits or imposes additional requirements on any individual transferring or obtaining raw milk in accordance with the terms of a share animal ownership agreement.”

With a possible eye towards legalizing the sale of raw milk in North Dakota, SB 2072 calls for a group referred to as “legislative management” to “consider studying the availability of raw or unpasteurized milk, for human consumption, in this state.” The group is to report its findings and recommendations along with any proposed legislation to implement those recommendations to the legislature next session.

North Dakota now joins Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Tennessee and Wyoming as states that have officially legalized herdshares by either statute or regulation; earlier this year the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development adopted a written policy recognizing the legality of herdshare agreements.

[include content_id=663]

The post North Dakota Herdshare Bill Signed Into Law appeared first on Real Milk.