Allows producers to sell many types of perishable foods (including some with meat), as well as all non-perishable foods. Removes the sales limit (previously $25,000). Allows indirect sales in retail locations. Allows online sales and shipping within the state. Changes the labeling requirements.
Allows a producer to avoid putting their name, home address, and phone number on labels by requesting a registration number ($15/year)
Would have redefined “homestead foods” as “artisan foods” and replace their cottage food law with a food freedom law. Would have allowed the sale of perishable foods. Would have allowed all in-person sales and wholesale for non-perishable and perishable foods. Would have also allowed online sales and shipping for non-perishable foods.
Replaces their current cottage food law with a food freedom law. Greatly expands the types of products producers can sell, including perishable foods and certain items with meat. Requires perishable foods to be sold directly to the consumer. Adds some restrictions to indirect sales of nonperishable foods.
Likely has been replaced by HB 2144. Would have created a law for Hawaii’s existing cottage food rules. Would have allowed direct, online, and indirect sales of all nonperishable foods. Would have allowed the direct sale of some perishable foods. Would have allowed producers to sell dried, freeze-dried, acidified, fermented, and low-acid foods in certain… [read more]
Would have been a significant improvement to their cottage food law. Would have allowed indirect sales of products. Would have removed the requirement to get a kitchen inspection. Might have removed the requirement to get a cottage food license and take a food safety course. Would have allowed a producer to avoid putting their home… [read more]
Allows producers to sell dairy products. Allows certain indirect sales and delivery capabilities via a “designated agent”.
Exempts minors from labeling requirements.
Would have created a traditional food freedom law that would mainly benefit small farms by allowing them to sell certain items produced from the meat that they raise.
Would have replaced their current cottage food law with a food freedom law. Would have greatly expanded the types of products producers can sell, including perishable foods and certain items with meat. Would have required perishable foods to be delivered in-person. Would have added some restrictions to indirect sales of nonperishable foods.
Changes “home bakeries” to “home food processing establishments”. Allows home food processing establishments to sell most types of homemade food, including perishable foods and items containing red meat and/or poultry (if the meat is from an approved source). Allows cottage food businesses to sell online and ship products. Allows cottage food businesses to sell acidified… [read more]
Would have replaced the cottage food law with a food freedom law which would have allowed many types of perishable foods.
Would have codified (put into law) Hawaii’s existing cottage food rules. Would have allowed direct, online, and indirect sales of all nonperishable foods. Would have allowed direct sales of perishable foods. Would have implemented a permit process with a fee.
Removes almost all restrictions for selling nonperishable food items. Allows indirect sales at retail stores. Changes labeling requirements. Removes restriction on having employees.
The Homemade Food Freedom Act, which allows sales of non-perishable foods anywhere, and allows only direct sales of perishable foods (that don’t contain meat). It comes with a $75,000 sales limit.
The “Food freedom Act”, which replaced the cottage food law and allows almost all nonperishable foods to be sold almost anywhere, without government regulation
The Montana Local Food Choice Act, which allows direct intrastate sales of any homemade food that doesn’t contain meat
Allows people to sell eggs under the law, and clarifies that there should be as few restrictions as possible for businesses using this law
Allowed online sales, and possibly shipping and sales to other states
Attempted to create a food freedom bill, which mimicked many features of other food freedom laws around the country. However, it would have only applied to farmers.
Tried to create a food freedom bill, which would have been similar to some of the best food freedom laws around the country
Would have allowed the sale of all types of food, including perishable foods.
5 plaintiffs, along with help from the Institute for Justice, successfully sued the ND Health Department for undermining the food freedom law. The judge determined that the health department had intentionally ignored and undermined the law when they published their rules. After the judge’s ruling, the original food freedom law was restored.
After multiple unsuccessful attempts to restrict the food freedom law, North Dakota’s health department bypassed the legislature and passed rules that undermined the law. They restricted most perishable foods and added labeling requirements.
North Dakota’s first law that legalized the sale of homemade food. This was the second food freedom law to be passed, and allows producers to sell all non-meat foods directly to consumers. The biggest restriction is that products must be consumed in private homes. There is no licensing or inspection needed to sell.
Allows the sale of farm-raised fish and rabbit meat, while also restricting poultry products to those who raise poultry
Allows those who have a commercial food establishment on their property to sell with this law