Exempt any food grown, raised, or otherwise produced in this state from state sales tax.
Summary
SB213 would create a state sales tax exemption for food that is grown, raised, or otherwise produced in South Dakota. The exemption applies only to gross receipts from the sale of qualifying food and requires that the food be prominently labeled as grown, raised, or produced in the state. In practical terms, the bill is aimed at reducing the tax burden on in-state agricultural products sold to consumers.
The bill would amend South Dakota sales tax law in chapter 10-45 by adding a new exemption category. It would affect retailers, producers, and consumers of locally produced food by removing state sales tax from qualifying items, so long as the labeling requirement is met. The measure is limited to food produced in-state and does not appear to change local sales taxes unless otherwise provided by existing law.
Impact
If enacted, SB213 would narrow the state sales tax base by exempting sales of qualifying South Dakota-produced food from taxation under chapter 10-45. The practical effect would be to give a tax advantage to in-state agricultural producers and sellers of locally sourced food, while requiring clear in-state origin labeling as a condition of the exemption. It would not create a general food tax exemption; rather, it targets only food produced within South Dakota and sold with the required label.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests limited advancement and no recorded opposition at the committee stage, with the bill being tabled on a 7-0 vote. Because there are no committee transcripts, there is little direct evidence of debate or public sentiment in the provided materials. The vote outcome indicates the measure did not move forward at that point, but the unanimous tally suggests the committee did not split publicly on the issue.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether South Dakota should exempt only in-state produced food from sales tax, which raises questions about tax fairness, support for local agriculture, and possible market advantages for in-state producers over out-of-state competitors. Another likely point of concern is the administrative burden of verifying that food is truly grown, raised, or produced in the state and that it is prominently labeled as required. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided transcripts, but these are the most likely areas of contention.