Food

Over the past month, we’ve shared several blog posts examining aspects of the State Operating Budget, HB 96 and how it makes changes to agricultural law in Ohio. Below, we note some more assorted provisions in the bill related to agriculture.  

Pork Marketing

HB 96 establishes a state “pork marketing program to promote the sale of pork and pork products,” but only if the National Pork Checkoff created under federal law ceases to operate.  Checkoff programs for agricultural commodities gather fees on products in order to better promote the products and to conduct research. If the National Pork Checkoff ends, the new law would require the Ohio Pork Council to accept nominees and hold elections for a state pork marketing program operating committee. The committee would consist of 12 members, including the Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture, the executive vice president of the Ohio Pork Council, four pork producers appointed by the director, and six members from each of the six districts established throughout the state.  The operating committee would be able to levy assessments on the value of animals, pork, or pork products sold or imported in the state. This provision of HB 96, which again, is only triggered if the National Pork Checkoff ceases to operate, was likely included in the State Operating Budget due to reports in February of this year that the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was reviewing and possibly cutting federal agricultural checkoff programs.

Animal and Consumer Protection Fund

The Operating Budget establishes the Animal and Consumer Protection Fund, which will be used to fund the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, the regulation of captive deer producers, the regulation of wild animals and snakes, and the regulation of garbage-fed swine and poultry.  The new language would channel various fees collected from permits for the possession of dangerous wild animals to go to the Animal and Consumer Protection Fund, when they previously went to the “dangerous and restricted animal fund.”

HB 96 also gives ODA the power to assess civil penalties against those who violate livestock dealer laws. The civil penalties would replace the finding of  first-degree misdemeanor for violators (however, the fifth-degree felony penalty for violating certain provisions of the livestock dealer law remains). Money collected from these civil penalties would also go to the Animal and Consumer Protection Fund. 

Food Processing Establishments

Under Ohio law, a food processing establishment is defined as a premises or part of a premises where food is processed, packaged, manufactured, or otherwise held or handled for distribution to another location or for sale at wholesale.” New language included in HB 96 would exempt small egg producers (those who annually maintain 500 or fewer birds) from food processing establishment requirements.                           

Hemp

HB 96 gives ODA permission to transfer the authority to regulate hemp cultivation in Ohio to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and requires ODA to establish a program to monitor and regulate hemp processing. On July 25, 2025, ODA started the process of transferring the regulation of hemp cultivation in the state to the USDA. As of January 1, 2026, hemp growers must be licensed through USDA, and ODA cultivation licenses will be voided.  More information about the transition is available here.

Although the steps are in motion to transfer regulation of cultivation of hemp to USDA, HB 96 still allows ODA and universities with agricultural programs to cultivate and process hemp without a license for research purposes.

Finally, the budget bill allows ODA to issue hemp processing licenses if either of the following apply:

• • The individual holds the applicable license in another state
  • The individual has satisfactory work experience, a government certification, or private certification as a hemp processor in a state that does not issue the applicable license. 

H2Ohio

It has been widely reported that the state budget made cuts to the H2Ohio Program. In Governor DeWine’s proposed budget released in January, he called for $270 million to fund the program, but in the final version of the budget as passed by the General Assembly, only around $165 million was allocated to the program for 2026 and 2027. ODA’s H2Ohio funds will be $107.2 million for 2026-2027, compared to $171.4 million received in 2024—2025. Bigger cuts were made to ODNR , which will have $42.4 million for H2Ohio (down from $69.4 million in 2024—2025), and Ohio EPA, which will receive $15 million for H2Ohio (down from $ 51.4 million in 2024—2025).

In the version of HB 96 delivered to Governor DeWine, the General Assembly also added a provision that money in the H2Ohio fund could not be used for the purchase of land or for the purchase of conservation easements to further the goals of the H2Ohio program. This provision, however, was vetoed by Governor DeWine.

We hope you’ve found our series on agriculture in the state budget informative thus far! You can find HB 96 in its entirety here.  There has been talk of legislation to “fix” certain parts of the budget bill as passed. Please stay tuned to the Ohio Ag Law Blog, where we will be sure to update you on any changes the General Assembly makes this fall!

Proposals that would formally designate several “ag-related days” in Ohio, allow Ohio Farm Bureau to provide healthcare benefit coverage to its members, regulate imitation meat and egg products, and expand homemade food production opportunities are receiving attention in the Ohio legislature.  Here’s a summary of the bills and where they stand in the legislative process.

H.B. 65 – Agriculture Appreciation Act

The Ohio House of Representatives passed H.B. 65 on April 2, and the bill was introduced in the Senate on April 8. Sponsored by Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina), the act proposes the following official designations:

• “FFA Week” as the week ending with the last Saturday in February.
• “4-H Week” as the week ending with the second Saturday of March.
• “Agriculture Day” on March 21.
• "National Farmers Market Week" as the first full week of August.
• “Ohio Stormwater Awareness Week” as the first week of October.
• “Farmer’s Day” on October 12.
• “Ohio Soil Health Week” as the second full week of November, to celebrate and raise awareness for the importance of soil health and in honor of the birthday of soil pioneer and advocate David Brandt.

Readers might recognize some of H.B. 65’s proposed designations, and that would be because a similar bill nearly passed the legislature last year.  A last minute amendment in the Senate prevented the proposal from making it through the General Assembly before December 31, 2024, however.

S.B. 100 and H.B. 99 – Exemption from insurance regulations for nonprofit agricultural membership organizations

Identical bills that would exempt healthcare benefits offered by “nonprofit agricultural membership organizations” from insurance regulations has passed the Senate and is moving through the House Insurance Committee, despite opposition from a number of health care advocacy groups.  H.B. 99, sponsored by Rep. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina) and S.B. 100, sponsored by Sen. Susan Manchester (R-Waynesfield) would define a “nonprofit agricultural membership organization” as an organization that was incorporated in Ohio on or before December 31, 1919 to promote the interests of farms and that provides contractual healthcare benefit coverage exclusively with members of the organization and their families. Healthcare benefit coverage provided by such an organization, according to the proposal, is not “insurance” and is not subject to insurance regulations. The bill would also allow the nonprofit organizations to assume or reinsure the risks arising out of healthcare benefit coverage with a company authorized to provide insurance in Ohio. Opponents who testified in the bill’s third hearing before the House Insurance Committee on April 8 fear the legislation would allow discrimination against persons with pre-existing conditions. 

H.B. 10 – Imitation Meat and Egg Products

A bill that would prohibit the sale of foods that are “misbranded” as a meat or egg product has received two hearings before the House Agriculture Committee.  Sponsored by Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Jack Daniels (R-New Franklin), H.B. 10 defines “misbranded” meat and egg products as those that: contain manufactured-protein food products or fabricated-egg products, are offered for sale by a food processing establishment, and have a package label that includes certain “meat” or “egg” terms.  A food processing establishment that sells misbranded meat and egg products would be subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 per day.  The bill would also require Ohio agencies to request a USDA exemption of cultivated-protein food products and fabricated-egg products from eligibility under SNAP and WIC food programs and would require Ohio school districts and state institutions of higher education to adopt policies preventing the purchase of cultivated-protein food products or foods misbranded as meat or egg products. Several agricultural organizations testified in support of the bill in its second hearing on April 2, 2025.

H.B. 134 - Microenterprise home kitchen operations

A bi-partisan bill would add Ohio to the small but growing list of states that have adopted “food freedom laws” to loosen regulations on the sale of homemade foods.  Sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester) and Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D-Columbus), H.B. 134 would create a new “microenterprise home kitchen operation” registration that would broaden the types of foods a person could produce at home and sell directly to customers. Ohio law currently allows a person to sell certain “cottage foods” and “home bakery” foods with minimal regulation but requires producers of other foods to   produce the foods in a commercial kitchen and operate under state and local food licenses.  H.B. 134 would remove those requirements and allow a registered microenterprise home kitchen operation to produce and sell any homemade foods (except those containing alcohol or drugs), including items such as canned goods and hot meals.  The annual $25 registration would require an inspection by the Ohio Department of Agriculture to ensure the microenterprise home kitchen operation meets requirements in the law regarding operations, food safety, storage and preparation, and sales and delivery of the food.  H.B. 134 received its second hearing before the House Agriculture Committee today, April 9, with two proponents testifying in support of the bill.

We are back with another edition of the Ag Law Harvest, where we bring you rulings, laws, and regulations that affect the agricultural industry. This month's Ag Law Harvest is bringing the heat with H-2A wage rule injunctions, cultivated meat ban challenges, sales and use tax issues, and an emergency order from the EPA. 

Federal Judge in Georgia Blocks H-2A Wage Rule for Named Plaintiffs. A Georgia federal judge has limited the U.S. Department of Labor's enforcement of a rule titled "Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States" (the “Final Rule”). This rule, challenged by 17 states led by Kansas and Georgia, as well as by Miles Berry Farm and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association (the “Plaintiffs”), is claimed to be unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs argued that the Final Rule violates the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) by granting H-2A farmworkers greater organizing and collective bargaining rights than those afforded to U.S. citizen agricultural workers, effectively bypassing the Act. The U.S. District Court in Georgia sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the Department of Labor's Final Rule improperly creates a right that Congress did not intend and did not create by statute. The court emphasized that administrative agencies, including the DOL, cannot create laws or rights that Congress has not established. The court criticized the DOL for overstepping its authority, stating that while the DOL can assist Congress, it cannot assume the role of Congress. The court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the DOL from enforcing the Final Rule, but only for the Plaintiffs. Thus, the preliminary injunction will only apply in Georgia, Kansas, South Carolina, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The injunction will also apply to Miles Berry Farm and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. We will keep you updated as the case goes up on appeal and how this ruling affects other H-2A lawsuits across the country. 

Florida Cultivated Meat Ban Challenged. A California business has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Florida, challenging a law that bans the sale of cultivated meat. The company argues that Florida's prohibition is unconstitutional, claiming it violates their right to engage in interstate commerce by restricting their ability to sell their products across state lines. Upside Foods, Inc., the California based company, alleges that Florida Senate Bill 1084 (“SB 1084”), which bans the manufacture, distribution, and sale of cultivated meat, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause because SB 1084 “is expressly preempted by federal laws regulating meat and poultry products.” Furthermore, Upside Foods alleges that SB 1084 violates the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause because SB 1084 “was enacted with the express purpose of insulating Florida agricultural businesses from innovative, out-of-state competition like UPSIDE.” Upside Foods has asked the district court in Florida to declare SB 1084 unconstitutional and to issue an injunction preventing SB 1084’s enforcement. Proponents of SB 1084 argue that the law protects Floridians, however, Upside Foods alleges that the Florida ban isn’t meant to protect the public, rather it was passed to “protect in-state agricultural interests from out-of-state competition.” 

Board of Tax Appeals Finds Utility Vehicle Not Exempt Under Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption. Claugus Family Farm LP (CFF), an Ohio timber farm, purchased a 2015 Mercedes-Benz utility vehicle and claimed it was exempt from sales tax under Ohio’s Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption. After an audit, the Ohio Department of Taxation assessed the sales tax on the vehicle. CFF petitioned for reassessment, but the Ohio Tax Commissioner determined that CFF did not provide enough evidence to prove the vehicle was primarily used for farming as required by law. CFF then appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, arguing that the vehicle was mainly used for farming operations, such as transporting people around the farm, monitoring tree health, applying pesticides, maintaining equipment, and carrying supplies. CFF claimed the vehicle was used 95% of the time on farming activities. Upon review, the Board of Tax Appeals noted that “the use of vehicles for transportation around a farm, as well as general uses such as delivering parts and cutting and hauling of wood and brush, do not constitute direct farming activities.” The Board held that the vehicle was used primarily for these purposes and not directly in farming and thus found the vehicle to be subject to Ohio’s sales and use tax. 

EPA Emergency Order Suspends Use of Pesticide DCPA/Dacthal. On August 7, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued an Emergency Order immediately suspending the registration and use of all pesticides containing dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (“DCPA” or “Dacthal”). The EPA cited the danger the substance poses to pregnant women and unborn babies. The agency determined that the continued sale, distribution, or use of DCPA products during the cancellation process would present an imminent hazard, justifying the emergency suspension without a prior hearing. Despite efforts by AMVAC Chemical Corporation, the sole registrant of DCPA products, to address these concerns, the EPA concluded that no practicable mitigations could make the use of DCPA safe.

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.