Change in Ohio law creates new “low risk” license for mobile food vendors

In time for another farmers’ market season, Ohio has a new food license available for food entrepreneurs who sell eggs, meats, and certain home-produced foods at farmers markets and similar venues.  A new “Low Risk Mobile Retail Food Establishment license” (Low Risk MRFE) offers a lower risk level license that will benefit many of Ohio’s farm-based and home-produced food vendors. Regulations establishing the new license were effective on February 12, 2024.

Ohio law has historically required an MRFE license for vendors selling certain foods from mobile units such as trucks, trailers, tents, and stalls at farmers markets and similar locations. All mobile vendors, regardless of the risk level of the food they were selling, had to obtain the same type of MRFE license.  That changes with the new regulations, which create two types of MRFE licenses, low risk and high risk, and different licensing requirements for each.

The new Low Risk MRFE license offers two positive changes for the mobile food vendors who qualify for it:

• The Low Risk MRFE license will be half the cost of the High Risk MRFE license, and,
• Low Risk MRFE license holders can use non-mechanical refrigeration rather than commercial equipment to maintain their food product temperatures.

Here’s an explanation of the new Low Risk MRFE license option.

Mobile vendors that qualify for the Low Risk MRFE license

The Low Risk MRFE license is available for mobile vendors whose activities fall into a low risk level.  Low risk level activity means the food poses a potential risk to the public in terms of sanitation, food labeling, sources of food, and food storage practices at the mobile unit, but the risk is lower than higher risk food activities. Low risk activities involve foods that were “pre-packaged” before being brought to sell at the mobile unit, and include the activities of holding pre-packaged refrigerated or frozen foods that require temperature controls for safety and offering pre-packaged foods that do not require temperature controls for safety. See Ohio Admin. Code 901:3-4-05(E)

If pre-packaged, these foods that are held and offered for sale from a mobile unit will qualify for the Low Risk MRFE:

• Eggs
• Frozen and refrigerated meats and fish
• Foods from a licensed Home Bakery that require refrigeration, such as cheesecakes and cream pies
• Cheeses and dairy products from a licensed Milk Producer or Milk Processor
• Frozen foods from a facility with a Frozen Foods License
• Cottage foods from a cottage food operation, but the MRFE is not required  if the cottage foods are sold at any of these locations:  farmers market, farm market, registered farm product auction, a political subdivision sponsored festival or celebration, or direct from the producer’s residence.

Holding temperature requirements for a Low Risk MRFE

There has long been confusion about the type of equipment an MRFE vendor must use to maintain the temperature of refrigerated or frozen foods, and some health departments have required vendors to use only commercial refrigerators or freezers.  That will change under the new rule, which allows a Low Risk MRFE license holder to choose whether to use mechanical or non-mechanical refrigeration such as ice, ice packs, gel packs, or dry ice.  The rule does not require the use of commercial equipment. 

There are several important points mobile vendors should note about the new rule:

• When applying for the MRFE license or renewal, a vendor should explain their refrigeration choice and method, and the health department might require a plan or process for replenishing the cooling material if using non-mechanical equipment.  The health department will note the refrigeration information on the MRFE license.
• The new rule requires a vendor to refresh or replenish the ice, ice packs, gel packs, or dry ice every four hours.
• A vendor should keep a working thermometer inside each cooler or refrigerating unit and be able to document that the temperature is within the allowable range for the food held in the unit.
• Gel packs and dry ice are preferred non-mechanical methods for maintaining food packaged in paper because wet ice can destroy paper packages and increase food safety risk.

See Ohio Admin. Code 3717-1-04.1(K)(K)

Lesser fee for Low Risk MRFE licenses

The new rule specifies that a Low Risk MRFE license fee will be 50% of the health department’s fee for high risk MRFEs. See Ohio Admin. Code 901:3-4-03(A)

New signage requirement for MRFEs

The new rule also requires any MRFE vendor to display specific information on the exterior of the mobile unit, in individual lettering at least three inches high and one inch wide.  The information must include:

• Name of the operation
• The operation’s city of origin
• The operation’s telephone number, including area code

See Ohio Admin. Code 901:3-4-02(I)

High Risk MRFEs

A High Risk MRFE creates higher potential risks due to concerns with receiving, holding, cooking, cooling, processing, handling, and heating food products.  Activities such as assembling or cooking, heating, and reheating foods are high risk activities.  A few examples of high risk activities include making kettle corn or soft serve ice cream. Most farm-based and home-produced food activities will not require the High Risk MRFE.  See Ohio Admin. Code 901:3-4-05(E)

For additional questions about the new Low Risk MRFE license, contact your local health department or the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Division.

The Ag Law Harvest

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq. Program Coordinator Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University

Spring has officially sprung, and so have a few interesting legal updates. In this edition of the Ag Law Harvest we cover aggravated vehicular assault in a farm utility vehicle, “Made in the USA” labels, the Corporate Transparency Act’s legal woes, USDA’s Dairy Margin Program, and the U.S House Committee on Agriculture’s Agricultural Labor Working Group’s final report. 

Driver of Farm Utility Vehicle Cannot be Found Guilty of Aggravated Vehicular Assault. 
The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that a driver of a farm utility vehicle involved in a crash cannot be convicted of a felony for injuring passengers because the vehicle does not meet the definition of a “motor vehicle” under Ohio’s criminal code. Joshua Fork of Sandusky County crashed his Polaris utility vehicle while driving under the influence at a party in 2020. Two of Fork’s passengers sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident. Fork was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI), and two counts of aggravated vehicular assault. Fork did not contest his OVI conviction but did appeal his aggravated vehicular assault conviction to the Sixth District Court of Appeals. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of Ohio. 

In its decision, the Court found that Ohio law has two definitions of “motor vehicle.” One definition applies strictly to traffic laws and the other applies more broadly to Ohio’s “penal laws.” The Court held that the definition of “motor vehicle” that applies to penal laws, such as aggravated vehicular assault, exempts utility vehicles. The Court concluded that because of the utility vehicle exemption and the fact that the utility vehicle’s principal purpose is for farm activities, Fork cannot be found guilty of vehicular aggravated assault. To read more on the Supreme Court’s decision, visit: https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2024/SCO/0321/230356.asp

USDA Announces Final Rule on “Made in the USA” Labels. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) announced the finalization of a rule to align the voluntary “Product of USA” label claim with consumer understanding of what the claim means. The USDA’s final “Product of USA” rule permits the voluntary use of the “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” label claim on meat, poultry, and egg products. However, these labels can only be used if the products are derived from animals that were born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States. The rule aims to prevent misleading U.S. origin labeling, ensuring that consumers receive truthful information about the origins of their food.

Under the final rule, the “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” label claim will remain voluntary for meat, poultry, and egg products. It will also be eligible for generic label approval, meaning it won’t require pre-approval by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) before use, but establishments must maintain documentation supporting the claim. Additionally, the rule permits other voluntary U.S. origin claims on these products, provided they include a description on the package of the preparation and processing steps that occurred in the United States upon which the claim is made. 

Corporate Transparency Act Loses First Federal Court Battle. 
As we have previously reported (here), the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) requires certain business entities to file Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) or face civil and criminal penalties. However, an interesting twist in the CTA saga has occurred. A federal court in Alabama issued an opinion ruling the CTA unconstitutional, concluding that the CTA exceeds the U.S. Constitution’s limits on Congress’s power, and issued an injunction against the U.S. Government from enforcing the CTA against the named plaintiffs in the case.  Therefore, the named plaintiff, Isaac Winkles, and companies for which he is a beneficial owner or applicant, the National Small Business Association, and the approximately 65,000 members of the National Small Business Association are currently not required to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. Everyone else must still comply with the CTA and the BOI reporting requirements. 

FinCEN released a statement acknowledging the court’s ruling but emphasized that only the named plaintiffs are excused from reporting beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time. On March 11, 2024, the U.S. Government filed a notice of appeal of the lower court’s ruling, hoping to reverse the injunction and the court’s decision. We will continue to monitor the situation and keep you informed of any updates to the CTA and BOI reporting requirements.

USDA Announces 2024 Dairy Margin Coverage Program. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) announced that starting February 28, 2024, dairy producers in the United States can enroll in the 2024 Dairy Margin Coverage (“DMC”) program. Enrollment for the 2024 DMC coverage ends on April 29, 2024. 

The USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) has made revisions to the DMC regulations to allow eligible dairy operations to make a one-time adjustment to their established production history. This adjustment involves combining previously established supplemental production history with DMC production history for dairy operations that participated in Supplemental Dairy Margin Coverage in previous coverage years. DMC has also been authorized through the calendar year 2024 as per the 2018 Farm Bill extension passed by Congress.

FSA Administrator Zach Ducheneaux encourages producers to enroll in the 2024 DMC program, citing its importance as a risk management tool. The program has proven effective, with over $1.2 billion in Dairy Margin Coverage payments issued to producers in 2023. Ducheneaux highlights the program’s affordability, noting that it offers a sense of security and peace of mind to producers.

DMC is a voluntary risk management program that provides protection to dairy producers when the margin between the all-milk price and the average feed price falls below a certain dollar amount selected by the producer. In 2023, DMC payments were triggered in 11 months, including two months where the margin fell below the catastrophic level of $4.00 per hundredweight, marking a significant development for the program.

House Committee Releases Final Report Recommending Changes to H-2A Program. 
On March 7, 2024, the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture’s Agricultural Labor Working Group (“ALWG”) released its final report containing policy recommendations for U.S. agricultural labor. The report includes significant reforms to the H-2A program, many of which, as announced by the ALWG, received unanimous support from the bipartisan working group. The recommended policies encompass creating a single H-2A applicant portal, implementing H-2A wage reforms, establishing a federal heat standard for H-2A workers, and granting year-round industries such as livestock, poultry, dairy, peanuts, sugar beets, sugarcane, and forestry access to the H-2A program.

Our new Food Business course is available!

Are you a baker ready to sell your home-baked goods? Are you a farmer looking for value-added opportunities for crops you’ve grown or livestock you’ve raised? Are you an entrepreneur aiming to use local agricultural products to make value-added foods?

If you’ve answered yes to any of these questions, then the new Food Business Central online course can equip you with knowledge and strategies to launch a successful farm-raised or home-based food business in Ohio.

Navigating food regulations, establishing a new business, and applying best practices for food safety can be challenges for food entrepreneurs. This course is designed to serve as a centralized hub to connect you to information and resources regarding all types of food products you might want to make and sell.

We’re part of the teaching team that created the course, which also includes Emily Marrison, OSU Family & Consumer Sciences Educator, Nicole Arnold, OSU Food Safety State Specialist,and Garth Ruff, OSU Field Specialist in Beef Cattle and Livestock Marketing. Our goal is to help food business entrepreneurs start off organized, safe, compliant, and strategic. The self-paced course asks key questions with considerations to explore and actions to take on your journey to start a food business. The cost of the course is $25, and registration is at go.osu.edu/foodbusinesscentral .

The  Food Business Central online course was partly funded through North Central Extension Risk Management Education, whose goal is to help farmers and ranchers effectively manage risk in their operations. This assistance comes from the United States Department of Agriculture through the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee at work on three bills

The holidays aren’t distracting the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee from considering three legislative proposals concerning scenic rivers, small beer brewers, and state agriculture day designations.   On December 12, the committee will hear testimony on all three bills.  Here’s a summary of the proposals.

S.B. 156 – Designation of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers.  Senators Bill Reineke (R-Tiffin) and Bob Hackett (R-London) introduced this legislation to revise portions of the Ohio Scenic Rivers Program that were raising concerns from private property owners.  The committee will hold its fourth hearing on the bill on December 12.  The proposal makes the following changes to the Ohio Scenic River Law:

• Clarifies that the designation of a Wild, Scenic or Recreational River does not grant authority to oversee private activities on private property or enter private land within the river area to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), which administers the program. 
• States that the agency has management and oversight of lands along a designated river only for those lands the state owns.
• Requires ODNR to adopt rules to govern the use, visitation, and protection of scenic river lands and to establish facilities and improvements within the areas necessary for visitation, use, restoration, and protection of the lands.
• Clarifies that certain public entities must obtain approval from the ODNR Director to perform certain construction activities within 1,000 feet of a wild, scenic, or recreational river. 
• Extends the public comment period following the announcement of intent to designate a new river from 30 days to 60 days.

S.B. 138 – Alcohol Franchise Law exemption for small brewers.  This bill introduced by Senator Andrew Brenner (R-Delaware) aims to help small brewers who annually manufacture less than 250,000 barrels (7.75 million gallons) of beer.  The bill exempts small brewers from Ohio’s Alcohol Franchise Law, which requires a beer or wine manufacturer to enter into a franchise agreement with a distributor and lays out requirements for the franchise agreement.  The exemption would allow small brewers to establish agreements with distributors under their own negotiated terms rather than the state-required terms.  S.B. 138 will see its second committee hearing on December 12.

H.B. 162 – Agriculture Appreciation Act.  The House of Representatives passed H.B. 162 in October, and it will have its  second hearing on December 12.  Proposed by Reps. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville), the bill designates the following federal agriculture days as state days in Ohio:

• March 21 of each year as “Agriculture day”;
• The week beginning on the Saturday before the last Saturday of each February through the last Saturday in February as “FFA Week”;
• October 12 of each year as “Farmer’s Day”;
• The week ending with the second Saturday of March as “4-H Week.”

Keep up with the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee’s activity on the Ohio Senate’s website at https://ohiosenate.gov/committees/agriculture-and-natural-resources. 

The Ag Law Roundup: your legal questions answered

The summertime slowdown hasn’t affected the number of agricultural law questions we’ve received from across Ohio. Here’s a sampling of recent questions and answers:

Is a tree service business considered “agriculture” for purposes of Ohio rural zoning?

No, tree trimming and tree cutting activities are not listed in the definition of agriculture in Ohio’s rural zoning laws, although the definition does include the growing of timber and ornamental trees. The definition ties to the “agricultural exemption” and activities that are in the “agriculture” definition can be exempt from county and township zoning.  Here is the definition, from Ohio Revised Code sections 303.01 and 519.01:

“agriculture” includes farming; ranching; algaculture meaning the farming of algae; aquaculture; apiculture; horticulture; viticulture; animal husbandry, including, but not limited to, the care and raising of livestock, equine, and fur-bearing animals; poultry husbandry and the production of poultry and poultry products; dairy production; the production of field crops, tobacco, fruits, vegetables, nursery stock, ornamental shrubs, ornamental trees, flowers, sod, or mushrooms; timber; pasturage; any combination of the foregoing; and the processing, drying, storage, and marketing of agricultural products when those activities are conducted in conjunction with, but are secondary to, such husbandry or production.

What are the benefits of being enrolled in the “agricultural district program” in Ohio, and is there a penalty for withdrawing from the program?

There are three benefits to enrolling farmland in the agricultural district program:

1. The first is the nuisance protection it offers a landowner.  A landowner can use the defense the law provides if a neighbor who moves in after the farm was established files a lawsuit claiming the farm is a “nuisance” due to noise, odors, dust, etc.  Successfully raising the defense and showing that the farm meets the legal requirements for being agricultural district land would cause the lawsuit to be dismissed.  
2. The second benefit is that the law also exempts agricultural district land from assessments for water, sewer and electric line service extensions that would cross the land.  As long as the land remains in agricultural district program, the landowner would not be subject to the assessments.  But if the land is changed to another use or the landowner withdraws the land from the agricultural district program, assessments would be due.  The assessment exemption does not apply to a homestead on the farmland, however.
3. A third benefit of the agricultural district program law is that it requires an evaluation at the state level if agricultural district land is subject to an eminent domain action that would affect at least 10 acres or 10% of the land.  In that case, the Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture must be notified of the eminent domain project and must assess the situation to determine the effect of the eminent domain on agricultural production and program policies.  Both the Director and the Governor may take actions if the eminent domain would create an unreasonably adverse effect.

As for the question about a penalty, the law does allow the county to assess a penalty when a landowner withdraws land from the agricultural district program during the agricultural district enrollment period, which is a five-year period.  If a landowner removes the land from the agricultural district, converts the land to a purpose other than agricultural production or an agricultural conservation program, or sells the land to another landowner who does not elect to continue in the agricultural district program, the landowner must pay a withdrawal penalty.  The amount of the penalty depends on whether the land is also enrolled in the Current Agricultural Use Value program.  See the different penalty calculations in Ohio Revised Code 929.02(D(1).

Read the agricultural district program law in Chapter 929 of the Ohio Revised Code and contact your county auditor to learn about how to enroll in the program.

My farmland is within the village limits and the village sent me a notice that I must cut a strip of tall grass on my land.  Do I have to comply with this?

Yes.  Ohio law allows a municipality such as a village to have vegetation, litter, and “noxious weeds” laws.  These laws can set a maximum limit for the height of grass, require removal of litter on the property, and require ridding the land of “noxious weeds.”  The purpose of the laws is to protect property values, protect public health by preventing pests and nuisances from accumulating, and keep noxious weeds from spreading to other properties.  The village is within its legal authority to enforce its grass, litter, and noxious weeds laws on a farm property that is within the village limits. Failing to comply with an order by the village can result in a fine or  financial responsibility for all expenses incurred by the village to remedy the problem.

Is it legal to pull water from a river or stream to irrigate land in Ohio?

Yes, as long as the withdrawal occurs on private land or with the consent of the public or private landowner.  Registration with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources is required, however, if the amount withdrawn exceeds 10,000 gallons per day and the State has the ability to scale the 10,000 gallon amount back if the withdrawal is within an established groundwater stress area.  Withdrawal registration information is available on the Division of Water Resources website. 

Note that according to Ohio’s “reasonable use” doctrine, if a water withdrawal causes “unreasonable” harm to other water users, a legal action by harmed users could stop or curtail the use or allocate liability for the harm to the person who withdrew the water.  To avoid such problems, a person withdrawing the water should ensure that the withdrawal will not cause “unreasonable” downstream effects.

An urban farmer wants to build a rooftop greenhouse to grow hemp and then wants to make and sell cannabis-infused prepared foods at a market on her property.  Who regulates this industry and where would she go for guidance on legal and regulatory issues for these products?

Regulation and oversight of food products that contain cannabis is a combination of federal and state authority.  Federal regulation is through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and state regulation is via the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Division.  She should refer to these resources:

• U.S. – https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-including-cannabidiol-cbd#legaltosell
• Ohio – https://agri.ohio.gov/divisions/food-safety/resources/Hemp-Products

As for the growing of hemp, the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) regulates indoor hemp production in Ohio.  There is a minimum acreage requirement for indoor production—she must have at least 1,000 square feet and 1,000 plants.  See these resources from ODA:

• https://agri.ohio.gov/divisions/hemp-program/cultivation. 
• https://agri.ohio.gov/divisions/hemp-program/faqs

She should also look into zoning regulations that could affect her farm market and the greenhouse structure she wants to build.  If she is within a municipality (unlike outside of a municipality in a township or county), there may be zoning regulations that apply to both of these land uses.  And food licensing regulation could come into play.  If she is selling other types of food items along with the cannabis foods, she’ll likely need a Retail Food Establishment (RFE) license from the County Health Department.  See our Law Bulletin for an explanation of when an RFE license is necessary.

Want to donate your garden surplus? Ohio law provides liability protection

It’s the time of year when many Ohio vegetable gardeners are wondering, “why in the world did I plant so many zucchini?”  And it’s also when we start hearing the question, “is there any liability risk in giving away my garden produce?”  The good news is that Ohio has a food donation immunity law.  The law encourages food donations by granting liability protection to those who give perishable foods like garden produce to agencies that serve individuals in need.  A new amendment to the law recently passed in Senate Bill 16 broadens the types of donations that qualify for liability protection.  If you’re up to your ears in garden produce, you may want to know about the food donation immunity law.

Here’s how the law works.

1. The grant of immunity

The food donation immunity law is in Ohio Revised Code 2305.37.  It states in Section B that a person who, “in good faith,” donates “perishable food” to an “agency” is not liable for harm that may arise if the food, when distributed to an “individual in need,” is not “fit for human consumption.” 

2. The donation must be made “in good faith” that the food is “fit for human consumption” when donated

There is not a definition for the term “in good faith,” but it’s a term commonly used in legal situations.  It means that a person acted with an “honest intent” and not with an intent to deceive or conceal something. The food donation immunity law provides two conditions to help ensure a person is donating in good faith.  First, the immunity only applies if a person determines, prior to making a donation, that the food is “fit for human consumption” at the time it is donated to an agency.  The term “fit for human consumption,” though not defined by this law, means that it is edible and safe.  But note there is no responsibility on the donor to ensure the food will be edible and safe after it is donated, when it is actually consumed or distributed.  Second, when determining whether food is fit for consumption, a donor cannot act with gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.  These two conditions mean that if a donor doesn’t inspect the food at all before delivery or knows something happened to the food that could make it unsafe for consumption but donates it anyway, the law will not protect the donor from liability if the food causes harm. 

3. The law applies to “perishable food”

The law’s definition of “perishable food” is broad.  It refers to any food that may spoil or otherwise become unfit for human consumption due to its nature, age, or physical condition.  The definition includes fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh and processed meats, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy products, bakery products, eggs, refrigerated and frozen foods, and packaged foods.  It also includes food prepared but not served by a food service operation such as a restaurant, caterer, or hotel, and gleaned foods, discussed below.

4. Donations must be to “agencies” that serve “individuals in need”

Donations to friends and family don’t qualify for the liability protection—the law only applies to a donation to an “agency” that serves “individuals in need.”  Several definitions and conditions are important.

• An “agency” is an organization that distributes perishable food to “individuals in need,” either directly or indirectly. The term includes any nonhospital, charitable nonprofit corporation organized under Ohio nonprofit laws, or nonprofit charitable association, group, institution, organization, or society.  An “individual in need” is a person an agency determines to be eligible for food distribution due to poverty, illness, disability, infancy, or similar circumstances.
• A qualifying agency is one that does not charge a fee for the food.  However, Senate Bill 16 recently amended the law to allow donations to an agency that charges an amount no more than the cost of handling the food.  That change means even if individuals pay a food handling cost to receive the donated food, the donor of the food will receive immunity.
• Another section of the law, 2305.37(D), also grants immunity to an agency that distributes donated food as long as the agency determines the food is fit for human consumption when the food distribution occurs.

Ohio law also provides liability protection for “gleaning”

Growers can also be immune from liability when allowing someone else to pick or salvage the garden produce and donate it to an agency.  This is referred to as “food gleaning” and Ohio law also provides liability protection to those who allow food gleaning.  First, the gleaned food is considered “perishable food” and is covered by the food donation immunity law described above.  Second, the food gleaning immunity law in Ohio Revised Code 2305.35 grants a landowner or operator immunity for physical injuries sustained by a gleaner during the gleaning process. The landowner or operator is not liable for injuries to a gleaner resulting from any risks or conditions of the property or any normal agricultural operations on the property.

Ready to donate?

Gardeners ready to donate excess garden produce first need to find an agency that serves individuals in need.  Find a local food bank, food pantry, soup kitchen, meals on wheels, or similar agency, and make sure the agency doesn’t charge for the food or charges no more than the cost of handling the food.  These resources can help locate an agency: 

• Ample Harvest – https://ampleharvest.org/find-pantry/
• Ohio Victory Gardens –  https://u.osu.edu/ohiovictorygardens/donating-your-victory/
• Ohio Soup Kitchens, Food Banks, Food Pantries – https://www.homelessshelterdirectory.org/foodbanks/state/ohio

Before delivering garden produce to tan agency, be sure to inspect the produce and ensure it is fit for consumption—clean, not spoiled, and edible.  Don’t have time to pick and deliver?  Find a food gleaner who may be willing to glean your garden and donate the food to an agency.  Here’s a resource that lists Ohio food gleaners:  https://nationalgleaningproject.org/gleaning-map/states/ohio/?fwp_state=oh.

What’s happening for ag at the Ohio Statehouse?

Despite the arrival of summer and continuing disagreements over the state budget, Ohio legislators have been working on several pieces of legislation relevant to Ohio agriculture.  All of the proposals remain in committee but may see further action after the budget bill process ends. Here’s a summary of the ag related proposals currently under consideration at the Statehouse.

Senate Bill 111 – Urban Agriculture

Senator Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo) targets barriers for farmers in urban settings in SB 111, which has had three hearings before the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. OSU Extension, the Ohio Municipal League, and several farmers have testified in support of the  proposal, which contains three components:

• Establishes an Urban Farmer Youth Initiative Pilot Program to provide youth between the ages of six and eighteen living in urban areas with programming and support for farming and agriculture.  The bill would appropriate $250,000 over 2024 and 2025 for the pilot, to be administered by OSU Extension and Central State Extension.
• Exempts temporary greenhouses, such as hoop houses, from the Ohio Building Code, consistent with Ohio law’s treatment of other agricultural buildings and structures. 
• Codifies the Department of Taxation’s current treatment of separate smaller parcels of agricultural land under the same farming operation, which allows the acreages to be combined to meet the 10 acre eligibility requirement for Current Agricultural Use Valuation.

House Bill 64 – Eminent Domain

A proposal to make Ohio’s eminent domain laws more favorable to landowners remains on hold in the House Civil Justice Committee.  HB 64 is receiving more opposition than support, with dozens of parties testifying against it in its fourth hearing on May 23.  Read more about the proposal in our previous blog post.

House Bill 162 – Agriculture Appreciation Act

Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville) introduced HB 162 on May 1 and it received quick and unanimous approval from the House Agriculture Committee on May 16.  The bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate.  The proposal would make several designations under Ohio law already recognized by federal law:

• March 21 as “Agriculture Day.”
• October 12 as “Farmer’s Day.”
• The week beginning on the Saturday before the last Saturday of February as “FFA Week.”
• The week ending with the second Saturday of March as “4-H Week.”

House Bill 166 – Temporary Agricultural Workers

A bill addressing municipal income taxes for H2-A agricultural workers has met opposition in the House Ways and Means Committee.  HB 166, sponsored by Rep. Dick Stein (R-Norwalk) would subject foreign agricultural workers’ income to municipal income taxes.  The current municipal tax base in Ohio is based on federal tax laws that exclude foreign agricultural worker pay from Social Security and Medicare taxes since the workers cannot use those programs, and HB 166 would remove that exclusion and add H2-A income to the municipal tax base.  The bill would also require employers to withhold the taxes for the municipality of the workers’ residences.  While municipal interests support the bill, Ohio Farm Bureau and agricultural interests testified against it in its third hearing on June 13.  Opponents argue that H2-A workers are not residents because they are “temporary,” that the proposal would have many potential adverse effects on how Ohio handles the H2-A program, and would hamper the ability of agricultural employers to use the H2-A program to hire employees.

House Bill 193 – Biosolid and biodigestion facilities  

Biosolid lagoons and biodigestion facilities would have new legal requirements and be subject to local regulation under a proposal sponsored by Rep. Kevin Miller (R-Newark) and Rep. Brian Lampton (R-Beavercreek).  HB 193 would grant county and township zoning authority over the lagoons and facilities, require a public meeting and county approval prior to seeking a facility permit from the Ohio EPA, require the Ohio EPA to develop rules requiring covers on new biosolid lagoons, and modify feedstock requirements for biodigestion facilities to qualify for Current Agricultural Use Valuation property tax assessment.  HB 193 had its first hearing before the House Agriculture Committee on June 13.

House Bill 197 – Community Solar Development   

A “community solar” proposal that did not make it through the last legislative session is back in a revised form.  HB 197 proposes to define and encourage the development of “community solar facilities,” smaller scale solar facilities that are directly connected to an electric distribution utility’s distribution system and that create electricity only for at least three “subscribers.”  The bill would establish incentives for placing such facilities on distressed sites and Appalachian region sites through a “Community Solar Pilot Program” and a “Solar Development Program.” Rep. James Hoops (R-Napoleon) and Sharon Ray (R-Wadsworth) introduced the bill on June 6, and it received its first hearing before the House Public Utilities Committee on June 21. “The goal of this legislation is to create a small-scale solar program that seeks to be a part of the solution to Ohio’s energy generation and aging infrastructure need,” stated sponsor Hoops.

House Bill 212 – Foreign ownership of property

 Ohio joins a movement of states attempting to limit foreign ownership of property with the introduction of HB 212, the Ohio Property Protection Act.  Sponsored by Representatives Angela King (R-Celina) and Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland), the proposal would prohibit foreign adversaries and certain businesses from owning real property in Ohio. The bill was introduced in the House on June 13 and has not yet been referred to a committee for review.

Thinking about selling home-produced foods? Understand Ohio’s Cottage Food Law first

Did you know Buckeyes can make and sell homemade Buckeyes?  That’s because those peanut butter and chocolate candies we call Buckeyes are a “cottage food” in Ohio.  And our Cottage Food Law allows home-producers to make cottage foods with little agency oversight and without obtaining a food license.  There are several laws that do apply to making Buckeyes and other cottage foods, though.   We explain them in our newly updated law bulletin on Ohio’s Cottage Food Law.

Why do we have a Cottage Food Law?

Food science teaches us that some foods pose a lower food safety risk than other foods.  Likewise, some foods have a higher chance of causing a foodborne illness if not handled properly.  Our Cottage Food Law recognizes this difference and allows home-producers to make and sell those food products that have a low food safety risk and don’t require special handling.  At the same time, the Cottage Food Law prohibits home-producers from making higher risk “potentially hazardous” foods.

Which foods are cottage foods?

The Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) has the responsibility of determining which foods are cottage foods.  If a food is on the cottage food list, the Cottage Food Law applies.  The full list is in our Ohio Cottage Food Law Bulletin and in Ohio Administrative Code Section 901:3-20-04.  It includes items like baked goods, candies, jams and jellies, granola, and many dry mixes, herbs and mixes.  But note that there are exceptions in many of the categories.  For example, freezer jam and sugar free jam are exceptions in the jam category, and those types of jams are not cottage foods.  For this reason, it’s important to identify whether a specific food product is on the cottage foods list.  ODA also maintains a helpful list of foods that are not cottage foods, and we explain those in the bulletin.  Many producers will be disappointed to know that salsa is on that list.

What laws apply to cottage foods?

Even though a home-producer need not obtain a food license to make and sell a cottage food, there are four laws that do apply to a cottage food product.  These laws address:

1. Labeling requirements
2. Packaging restrictions
3. Sales restrictions
4. ODA product sampling authority

Read about these legal provisions and more in our Ohio Cottage Foods Law bulletin, available in the Food Law Library on farmoffice.osu.edu.  Also check out our recent webinar that addresses product development and laws for cottage foods and other home-produced foods in the Starting a Food Business webinar series. 

Selling home-baked foods: when do you need a license?

The world loves a good baker.  If you’re one of those good bakers and you want to sell your baked goods, do you need a license?  Maybe. Our newly revised law bulletin, “The Home Bakery Registration Law in Ohio,” explains when a license or “registration” is necessary for selling home baked goods in Ohio.

Whether you need to register for a Home Bakery license depends on the type of baked good you’ll produce. Certain foods are at lower risk of a food safety concern when produced at home, which we refer to as “non-potentially hazardous” foods.  Those foods might fall under the Ohio Cottage Food Law, which does not require a license or registration for those who want to produce and sell foods that are on the cottage foods list. When a home baked good does pose higher food safety risks, however, the home bakery law applies to that food and additional practices are necessary to reduce food safety.  The producer who wants to sell that type of home baked good must register as a “Home Bakery” with the Ohio Department of Agriculture to help ensure that food safety practices are in place.

Which home-baked foods fall into which category?  This chart illustrates the differences between non-potentially hazardous “cottage” foods and potentially hazardous “home bakery” foods. If a food falls into the “potentially hazardous” category, the producer needs to apply for a Home Bakery license. 

What’s required for the Home Bakery registration?  Our law bulletin explains the registration and inspection process and labeling requirements.  Read more about those parts of the Home Bakery Registration Law in our bulletin, available on the Farm Office Food Law Library at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/our-library/food-law.

Solar zoning authority one of several gifts wrapped up in Ohio legislature’s final sessions

A new law giving local governments zoning authority over small-scale solar facilities may feel like a gift to counties and townships dealing with solar development conflicts.  The late amendment was one of a few surprises from the legislature as it wrapped up its lame duck session last week. 

Several other pieces of legislation affecting agriculture and natural resources  that passed include local preemption of pesticides, loosening oil and gas drilling reviews on state lands, and new knowledge requirements for environmental health specialists that inspect retail food establishments. Here’s a summary of the agricultural related bills that passed and now await the Governor’s action.

Zoning authority over small scale solar — H.B. 501

An amendment to a township bill will grant counties, townships, and municipalities regulatory authority over “the location, erection, construction, reconstruction, change, alteration, maintenance, removal, use, or enlargement of any small solar facility, whether publicly or privately owned, or the use of land for that purpose.” The bill defines a “small solar facility” as one that has a single interconnection point to the grid and is under 50 MW. That number is important, because it addresses solar facilities that were not subject to S.B. 52, passed last year, which gave counties and townships new authority over wind and solar facilities that are over 50 MW. 

Agriculture – H.B. 507

This bill began as a simple provision reducing the number of poultry chicks that can be sold in lots from six to three.  Before it passed, however, the Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee added six amendments, including these:

• Local preemption of pesticides

Prohibits a political subdivision from regulating or banning the packaging, registration, labeling, sale, storage, distribution, use, or application of a pesticide registered with ODA on private property.

• Environmental health specialists and food safety regulations

Requires ODA and ODH to adopt new rules for evaluating Environmental Health Specialists’ knowledge of food safety laws and to include the evaluations when assessing a board of health’s ability to license retail food establishments and food service operations.  Also revises several food safety laws to align them with state and federal laws.

• Green energy in competitive retail energy laws

Defines “green energy” to be any energy that releases reduced air pollutants and cumulative air emissions or is more sustainable and reliable relative to some fossil fuels or is generated using natural gas, but excludes natural gas energy from renewable energy credits, except for gas from biologically derived methane.

• Internet sales exemption from auction laws

Exempts from auctioneer and auction firm licensure requirements a person who, in any
calendar year, sells not more than $10,000 of personal property via an auction
mediation company (for example, eBay) if the company provides fraud protection to the buyer; and the property is the person’s own personal property, or the property is the personal property of another (sold without compensation).

• Oil and gas drilling on state land

Requires a state agency to lease agency-owned oil and gas resources “in good faith” until new rules for nominating the development of resources are adopted by the Oil and Gas Land Management Commission.  The leasing party must demonstrate insurance and financial assurance and register with ODNR.

• Towing authorizations for conservancy districts

 Authorizes a conservancy district police department to order the towing and storage of
a motor vehicle when the vehicle is an abandoned junk vehicle and when left on private or public property for a specified time.

Tax amnesty and appropriations – H.B. 66

H.B. 66 sets up the possibility of a tax amnesty program in 2023 and allocates $6 billion in one-time appropriations of COVID relief funds. And Medicaid draw down funds.

• Tax amnesty

Allows a two-month tax amnesty program in 2023 for delinquent state taxes, local sales and use taxes, income tax withholding and more, but only if additional revenues from amnesty will be needed to meet General Revenue Fund obligations.

• Ag-related appropriations

$4.5 million to Ohio Department of Agriculture for grants to county agricultural societies.

$250 million to Ohio Dept. of Development for water quality grants program.

Millions to Ohio Department of Natural Resources for state and local parks, and improvement, recreation, and conservation projects.

What proposals didn’t pass?

Since we’re at the end of the two-year session of the 134^th General Assembly, any proposed legislation that did not pass is now dead.  Some of those proposals will be reintroduced next session, but we might never see others again.  The two most notable ag-related bills that died include:

• Community solar – H.B. 450

Many solar developers were hoping this bill would pass, as it provides incentives for smaller scale subscription-based solar projects and solar projects on brownfield sites.  Landowners considering leases with solar developers who stated they were doing community solar projects must note that, because the bill did not pass, there is currently no legal authority to construct a community solar project in Ohio.

• Eminent domain — H.B. 698

This proposal would have streamlined the process for landowners challenging compensation for property taken by eminent domain, increased the burden of proof by an agency using eminent domain, and expanded attorney fee and expense rewards for property owners.  It would also prohibit takings of property for recreational trails, an issue that has plagued northeast Ohio.  Sponsors say they will reintroduce next session.

What packages will the new year bring?

We’ll be keeping an eye on the new Ohio General Assembly, which will likely include new committee members and leadership on both the House Agriculture and Conservation and Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources committees.  Our quick wish list for the next session starts with:

• Revisions to the agricultural and agritourism exemptions in county and township zoning law.
• Mowing date and procedural revisions to the noxious weeds law.
• Updates and clarifications to the partition fence law.
• Streamlining and clarification of home-based and farm-raised food licenses.

Follow the Ohio legislature at https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/.