Thanks for posting this Kim. So important to be able to support this kind of on-farm processing on a small scale.

What was the objection by the NW Food Producers and Farm Bureau? I will write my reps and of course I support direct access but I’d like to be better informed about what they object to so I can object to their objection :)

You didn’t actually say how this HELPS farmers, you just said farmers were involved in drafting it. If they’re currently operating in a regulatory gray area, how exactly will tighter regulations support community agriculture? You go on and on about how the bill leaves room for farmers to operate, but utterly fail to address any of the reasons why the bill is ‘necessary’ in the first place. Does this bill alleviate legal problems farmers have had due to the current regulatory environment? And if so, how? Have there been cases where farmers have been prosecuted by the legal system for actions that will be made legal under this bill? Is there any evidence to support this bill whatsoever, or is this a case of legislators deciding that they need to regulate a largely unregulated industry, but wanting to do so in a way that is minimally onerous? And if so, what evidence is there that this industry needs regulation? It sounds purely arbitrary to me.

Here’s further information from Anthony Boutard that might answer your question:

Katherine,

Here is my quick answer. In every respect, this bill preserves the status quo or relaxes the regulations. Farmers will have much greater latitude in what they can sell directly to the public. More importantly, it makes it clear that a direct sale between a grower and customer is different than a retail transaction in a grocery store. Having these provisions clearly articulated in a statute is a major step forward for farmers.

The bill had it genesis in the winter of 2007 when some grocers complained about farmers’ markets selling food without a license. ODA initially floated the idea of requiring a license for farmers’ market. I object pointing out the fact that the markets do not handle or sell food. They are the landlords of the vendors. My underlying concern was that inspectors could threaten to pull the market license because of a single vender, affecting all of us. Wrapped up in the debate was the notion that open markets posed a greater health threat than a store. We debunked this as well.

By 2009, the market license idea was dropped but the ODA increased inspections of markets, and was proposing more licenses and inspections for individual vendors. Several legislators received complaints about the conduct of the agency, and Representative Brian Clem, chair of the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources, put the subject on its agenda. A working group was convened and met through 2010. This bill is the result, and reflects in every provision a sensible solution.

Anyone who supports access to clean, local food can support this bill without reservation. As a farmer who has consistently operated within the grey area of regulation, producing food such as frikeh, hulless barleys and fresh shell beans, I will be relieved when I can do so with fear of being shut down.

Feel free to post this on the permaculture list.

Anthony

And I’ve asked Anthony to weigh in, which I’m sure he’ll do soon.

I have been involved in the process leading up to the introduction of this bill and I will answer the questions.

The food processors generally objected on the grounds that the food isn’t traceable, that people assume all food in a jar is made in a licensed factory, that size of the farm doesn’t matter when it comes to food safety, and if a problem did occur in a farm’s preserves or pickles, the whole industry would suffer. (See http://www.capitalpress.com/orewash/ml-food-safety-bill-021111)

Here is my quick response. On the pickles and jams, the bill requires labeling, specifically the name and address of the farm, and the ingredients. The label must also include the statement that the contents are homemade, not produced in a licensed and inspected facility. Thus the food can be traced, the ingredients are known, and buyers know it was made in a home kitchen.

The bill doesn’t address farm size, but it does require that the primary ingredient is produced on the farm that produces the jams or pickles, and that it is a direct sale between the producer and consumer. In hazard analysis, as you add links in the chain of custody, or more steps in the processing, the opportunity for contamination increases. The $20,000 production limit was added at the insistence of the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

Regarding consumer confusion, the land I farm once supplied fruit to Smuckers and cucumbers to Steinfelds. Those companies have since left the state. Still, I hope people can tell the difference between my preserves and those made by Smuckers. And if there is a problem with Smuckers, I expect people will still buy my preserves, and visa versa.

Since the bill’s hearing and passage out of committee, the Oregon Farm Bureau has softened its stance. The organization no longer opposes the bill, but remains concerned about the inclusion pickles and jams, raising similar concerns as the processors.

With respect to pickles and preserves, we are hardly venturing into uncharted waters. Here are some examples of similar laws from other states. In Ohio, the state has a category called “Cottage Food Production Operation.” Farms are allowed to produce and sell a clearly defined range of nonhazardous foods, including sorghum and maple syrup, various baked goods, jams and jellies, candy, fruit butter, dried herbs, without a license. Kentucky and Iowa similarly allows farms to produce a range of nonhazardous foods without a processing license. In 2004, Minnesota passed the “Pickle Bill” which allows Minnesotans to make and sell their famous vegetable pickles, as well as jams and other foods, without a processing license. Following Minnesota’s lead, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, South Dakota have passed laws that allow market vendors and roadside stands to sell pickles jams and other low hazard foods made at home. New York, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts also have exemptions for farm-based food production. These bills are in effect because there is a unblemished track record for food safety among these cottage based foods.

As to Uriah Maynard’s question, Katherine posted an earlier response to a similar question regarding the need for a statute. I will add that during the public hearing on the bill, farmers testified in favor of the bill. As a member of the working group, I distributed the details of the proposal to the discussion lists for CSA farms and market farms to make sure the farmers had a chance to weigh-in on the effort. The response I received consistently was, “Thanks for doing this.”

Anthony Boutard
Ayers Creek Farm

How does this bill handle the folks who are not farmer/producers, but gather produce to sell at their stands?

Vicki,

HB 2336 is a bill for farmers who follow their produce “from seed to sale” and sell directly to the consumer. It does not address other types of vendors or stands.

Anthony Boutard

Anthony,

We were discussing this bill last night at a Portland Farmers Market board meeting and came up with a scenario and question:

Farmer A. asks his neighbor, Farmer B., to take his crops to market. Farmer A. considers himself a direct marketer since his product is being sold at a farmers market. But is he following his crop “from seed to sale” if his neighbor, Farmer B., is selling it, instead of him?

It’s a small point but one that may be relevant to our vendors and PFM policies around second farms. Can you clarify, please?

Thanks and congratulations on your progress thus far!

Ellen Jackson

Ellen,

Some farmers’ markets allow consignment, or second farm agreements. Others do not allow such arrangements. It is important to stress, this bill does not affect individual market policies on this matter. For example, if the Portland Farmers Market does not allow second farm agreements, this bill does not change that policy.

In the discussions leading up to the drafting of the bill, it was recognized that consignment is a useful tool for improving the diversity of produce in smaller rural markets. Consequently, the working group decided to allow consignment with limits.

The consigning farm must be located within the same county, or an adjoining county. The consigned produce cannot be co-mingled with the other farm’s produce. It must be kept separate and conspicuously labeled with the name and business address of the consigning farm. The consigning farm must retain ownership of the produce until it is sold. Finally, the list of foods that can be consigned is limited as well. If Farmer A and Farmer B follow these limits, no additional license is required. The spirit of “from seed to sale” is retained in that you know name and address of the farm that grew it, even if it is sold under a different farm’s banner.

Under current law, a vendor can purchase and resell food if they have a retail license. They may need to get a peddler’s license as well. Having clearly stated instances where a license is not required will allow the Oregon Department of Agriculture to develop rules for vendors who buy wholesale and sell retail. Once again, market policy determines if they can participate in the market. That is the market’s right and responsibility as a landlord.

Personally, I prefer market policies that exclude food that is not grown and harvested by the farm selling it. I also understand the challenges faced by smaller, rural markets, and we need provide the necessary flexibility without compromising the identity preserved nature of farmers’ markets.

Anthony Boutard
Ayers Creek Farm

Hi Anthony,

Are we achieving with this bill similar protection from federal “oversight” as that being sought with this effort in Maine? http://www.NaturalNews.com/032412_Maine_food_freedom.html. If not, should there be a parallel effort in for this protection in our state?

Theodore Wadman