To amend sections 1.61, 303.01, 519.01, 901.511, 929.01, 1311.55, 1729.01, 5501.50, and 5713.30 of the Revised Code to expressly include the cultivation of trees to produce maple syrup and maple products in the laws relating to agriculture.
HB733 would amend multiple sections of the Ohio Revised Code to expressly include the production of maple syrup and maple products within the state’s definitions of “agriculture” and related agricultural terms. The bill updates definitions in laws governing zoning, agricultural districts, agricultural liens, cooperative associations, highway-property leasing, and other agriculture-related provisions so that maple syrup production is treated the same as other recognized farm activities.
In addition to broad definitional changes, the bill also revises a criminal statute to include agricultural products and equipment in offenses involving interference, intimidation, coercion, or disruption of agricultural production or research. It also expands the list of agricultural products covered by lien and cooperative provisions, and clarifies that state-owned highway property may be leased for maple-related agricultural purposes where otherwise eligible. Overall, the measure is primarily a statutory clarification and inclusion bill rather than a major policy overhaul.
The bill would change how Ohio law classifies maple syrup and maple products across several chapters of the Revised Code, extending agricultural protections, exemptions, and business rules to maple production. This would affect land-use and zoning rules, agricultural district treatment, agricultural product liens, cooperative marketing structures, and transportation property leasing provisions, while also adding maple production to certain definitions used in agricultural and criminal enforcement statutes. Producers of maple syrup and maple products would gain clearer statutory recognition and access to the same legal framework that applies to other agricultural commodities.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Agriculture Committee, with no recorded votes or committee testimony provided. Based on the text, the bill appears to be a technical and supportive measure aimed at recognizing maple syrup production as agriculture, which suggests generally favorable treatment for the bill’s subject matter. There is no evidence in the provided materials of organized opposition or significant debate at this stage.
The main substantive issue is the scope of the agricultural definitions and whether maple syrup production should be expressly covered in each affected statute. The bill also touches a criminal provision aimed at interference with agricultural operations, which could raise questions about how broadly those protections apply to protests, disruptions, or other conduct involving agricultural facilities and research. However, no specific objections, amendments, or opposing viewpoints are included in the provided committee or voting history.