{"id":8198,"date":"2024-01-10T16:46:46","date_gmt":"2024-01-10T17:46:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=8198"},"modified":"2024-01-10T18:05:10","modified_gmt":"2024-01-10T18:05:10","slug":"legislators-turn-up-heat-on-wisconsin-home-bakers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=8198","title":{"rendered":"Legislators turn up heat on Wisconsin home bakers"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post originally appeared at https:\/\/www.badgerinstitute.org\/legislators-turn-up-heat-on-wisconsin-home-bakers\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Proposed cottage food sales cap would be among lowest in the country<\/em><\/strong><\/h4>\n

Wisconsinites who bake food at home for sale in their communities could find their incomes dramatically curtailed under legislation recently introduced in the Wisconsin Legislature. Assembly Bill 897<\/a>, introduced by Rep. Rob Summerfield (R-Bloomer) and Rep. Chanz Green (R-Grand View), would impose a $20,000 cap on the annual gross sales of Wisconsin cottage food producers.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Wisconsin<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

A similar measure, Senate Bill 813<\/a>, introduced by Sen. Andre Jacque\u202f(R-De Pere) and Sen. Duey Strobel (R-Saukville), would set the earnings cap at $25,000, still one of the lowest amounts in the nation for at-home producers who sell only shelf-stable food.<\/p>\n

\u201cCottage food is, broadly speaking, homemade, home-grown, small batch food,\u201d said Kriss Marion, who with her husband owns a bed and breakfast on their Circle M Market Farm in Blanchardville, Wis. \u201cIt\u2019s what consumers want more than ever, post-COVID \u2014 to be close to the source of the products they buy. They want to know and trust their makers.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bill supporters argue that this cap is necessary to ensure fair competition.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen it comes to home-baked goods, there was no sales limit, so it created an unfair market advantage that negatively affected licensed food producers,\u201d said Green.<\/p>\n

Jessica Hoover, executive director of the Wisconsin Bakers Association, agreed, saying that commercial bakeries have greater out-of-pocket expenses because they are required to be licensed by the state and to make their products in a commercial kitchen.<\/p>\n

\u201cProducts produced in a home setting do not incur these costs and can be produced at a much lower price point,\u201d she said. \u201cIt is inherently unfair for the state to require one sector of the industry to adhere to an extensive set of strict and costly rules while completely ignoring the existence of an unregulated competitor.\u201d<\/p>\n

Opponents point out that a majority of states don\u2019t have cottage food sales caps, that such restrictions would limit their ability to earn a living wage, and that their markets options are limited relative to licensed producers.<\/p>\n

\u201cExpenses for home businesses are very high, (and a maximum of) $20,000 gross income is unreasonable,\u201d said Dela Ends, who owns and runs a Scotch Hill Farm, a USDA-certified organic farm, with her husband and children in Green County. \u201cOther states have much higher caps or no caps at all. Wisconsin was the next-to-last state in the country to (relax restrictions on) home baking, and that was only after our lawsuit. Do we want to continue to be among the last in the country?\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2017, Ends, Marion, and Lisa Kivirist, represented by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice, were plaintiffs in two lawsuits challenging a Wisconsin law that required cottage food producers to obtain a license and rent or build a commercial-grade kitchen before selling a single home-baked pie or jar of pickles. Kivirist, along with her husband, owns and runs a bed and breakfast on their small farm near Browntown.<\/p>\n

Anyone who violated the law risked fines of up to $1,000 or six months in jail. Wisconsin was one of only two states to ban, in effect, the sale of home-baked goods.<\/p>\n

The first lawsuit involved baked goods. IJ attorneys argued \u201cthat the ban on homemade, non-potentially hazardous baked goods was not rationally connected to any constitutionally legitimate purpose,\u201d according to Justin Pearson, senior attorney for the institute. \u201cInstead, it was passed at the request of special interest groups like the Wisconsin Bakers Association and the Wisconsin Restaurant Association to restrict competition.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2017, the court ruled for the plaintiffs, stating that the ban was unconstitutional. The government chose not to appeal, and homemade, shelf-stable baked goods have been legal to sell in Wisconsin without a state license ever since. \u201cShelf-stable\u201d describes foods that can be safely stored for a long period of time without having to be refrigerated or cooked to be eaten safely.<\/p>\n

The second case addressed all homemade, non-potentially hazardous foods, such as canned goods, that were not covered by the first lawsuit.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe government\u2019s employees admitted that these foods were equally safe as the foods covered by the first lawsuit,\u201d said Pearson.<\/p>\n

In 2022, the court ruled that this ban was also unconstitutional. The government appealed, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals stayed the ruling pending a decision.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The rulings created a \u201clegal mess\u201d that needs clarification in law, said Hoover of the Bakers Association.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cBack-to-back court decisions since 2017 have exposed a gap in (the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection\u2019s) authority to require even modest food safety protocols from home-producers of non-potentially hazardous foods, i.e. wedding cakes, breads, cookies, etc.,\u201d she said. \u201cAs a result, the bakery industry has been flooded by unregulated producers and your main street bakery is quickly becoming a thing of the past.\u201d<\/p>\n

But commercial bakers also have distinct market advantages over their unlicensed competitors. Cottage food producers must make their products at home, limiting the scale of their production. They\u2019re also required to sell their food directly to consumers, while licensed food producers can sell through third parties, at grocery stores and at restaurants.<\/p>\n

Meagan Forbes, director of legislation and senior legislative counsel for the Institute for Justice, said the bills would be \u201ca huge step backwards for Wisconsin.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cMany states are lifting gross sales caps and expanding the venues and food that cottage food producers can sell,\u201d said Forbes. \u201cEven Minnesota raised its $18,000 gross sales cap to $78,000 a couple of years ago. Our research shows that cottage food is incredibly safe<\/a>, even in states that allow the broadest variety of food to be sold.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia do not cap cottage food sales, according to Forbes. States that do have caps set them significantly higher than this bill would establish. Florida has a gross sales cap of $250,000, Oklahoma\u2019s cap is $75,000 and Texas\u2019 cap is $50,000.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Forbes pointed out that selling cottage foods is often a steppingstone for cottage food producers to become licensed and expand their businesses, \u201csomething that we\u2019ve seen cottage food producers do in other states.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

In one area, the legislation lifts an existing cottage food sales cap. The Assembly bill increases a cap on canned goods from $5,000 to $20,000; the Senate bill would raise the cap to $25,000.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cIt may seem like a small amount, but $20,000 is what we agreed to, and it was a significant improvement from $5,000,\u201d said Green.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But Ends argues that even with the increase, the cap is still \u201cmuch too low.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cCanning is very labor intensive and really not very profitable on a small scale,\u201d she said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

While the cap would go up for canned goods, moreover, opponents are focused on the new limits and regulations for baked goods.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The bills will also require cottage food producers to inform DATCP of what and where they plan to sell. Hoover calls this \u201can asset in the event of a food-born illness outbreak.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

But cottage foods \u2014 particularly baked goods \u2014 don\u2019t pose a safety threat, according to research conducted by the Institute for Justice.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe government calls them \u2018not potentially hazardous\u2019 because they remain safe to eat even if they aren\u2019t refrigerated,\u201d said the institute\u2019s Pearson. \u201cThey may become stale over time, but even then, they won\u2019t hurt you. It is undisputed that there is literally no safer item to eat being sold in Wisconsin today.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

IJ researchers requested data from seven states with the broadest homemade food laws regarding the number of complaints and foodborne illnesses that could be traced to cottage food products.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe found no incidents of foodborne illness, even in these states that allow the widest variety of food to be sold,\u201d said Forbes.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Both Green and Summerfield acknowledge that their legislation won\u2019t do much to benefit Wisconsin food buyers.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThis bill won\u2019t have a large impact on consumers,\u201d said Summerfield.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But cottage food producers argue that it will restrict options for consumers, especially those seeking specialty items such as gluten-free, halal or kosher foods.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Marion said a ban would be \u201ccatastrophic\u201d for cottage food producers like herself. She believes legislators should encourage entrepreneurial food enterprises, especially in rural and urban areas.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cTo me, the lawsuit was a matter of economic justice for small towns, small business and small farms \u2014 the things that make vibrant rural living wonderful and rare,\u201d she said.\u202f\u201cMany rural places are not vibrant, but cottage food has the ability to revitalize both hollowed-out rural communities and hollowed-out urban neighborhoods.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Forbes agreed that legislators should be looking to expand, not restrict, the cottage food industry.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe state should not impose severe restrictions on cottage food sales simply to protect licensed food producers from competition,\u201d she said. \u201cThere are many benefits to having a thriving cottage food industry.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cAspiring food entrepreneurs benefit by being able to test the market and grow their businesses,\u201d she added. \u201cSmall farms also benefit from being able to make value-added products and from having an additional source of revenue. Overall, expansive cottage food laws create jobs and stimulate economic growth in their communities.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

AB 897 is scheduled for a hearing this Thursday at 10 a.m.<\/a> in the Committee on Consumer Protection.<\/p>\n

Michael Jahr is former vice president at the Badger Institute and current CEO of Jahr Productions.<\/em><\/p>\n

var gform;gform||(document.addEventListener(“gform_main_scripts_loaded”,function(){gform.scriptsLoaded=!0}),window.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,function(){gform.domLoaded=!0}),gform={domLoaded:!1,scriptsLoaded:!1,initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?o():!gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?window.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,o):document.addEventListener(“gform_main_scripts_loaded”,o)},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook(“action”,o,n,r,t)},addFilter:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook(“filter”,o,n,r,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook(“action”,o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook(“filter”,o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,n){gform.removeHook(“action”,o,n)},removeFilter:function(o,n,r){gform.removeHook(“filter”,o,n,r)},addHook:function(o,n,r,t,i){null==gform.hooks[o][n]&&(gform.hooks[o][n]=[]);var e=gform.hooks[o][n];null==i&&(i=n+”_”+e.length),gform.hooks[o][n].push({tag:i,callable:r,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(n,o,r){var t;if(r=Array.prototype.slice.call(r,1),null!=gform.hooks[n][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[n][o]).sort(function(o,n){return o.priority-n.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){“function”!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),”action”==n?t.apply(null,r):r[0]=t.apply(null,r)})),”filter”==n)return r[0]},removeHook:function(o,n,t,i){var r;null!=gform.hooks[o][n]&&(r=(r=gform.hooks[o][n]).filter(function(o,n,r){return!!(null!=i&&i!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][n]=r)}});<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Submit a comment<\/h2>\n

\n

“*<\/span>” indicates required fields<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\nYour name*<\/span><\/span><\/legend>\n
\n


\n

<\/span><\/p>\n


\n

<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n