An Act to repeal 97.29 (2) (b) 2. b., c., d. and e.; to renumber 97.29 (2) (b) 1.; to amend 97.29 (2) (b) 2. (intro.); to create 97.29 (1) (he), 97.29 (2) (b) 1g., 97.29 (2) (b) 2. f., 97.29 (2) (b) 3. and 97.29 (7) of the statutes; Relating to: exemptions from food product licensing requirements for sale of pickled fruits and vegetables, baked goods, and other shelf-stable food products prepared in a personâs home and granting rule-making authority. (FE)
SB739 expands Wisconsin’s “cottage food” style home-processing exemptions from food processing plant licensing. Under current law, a limited exemption exists for certain home-canned pickled fruits and vegetables sold at community events or farmers’ markets under narrow conditions. This bill would create a new exemption for home-prepared “nonpotentially hazardous foods” sold at retail, and it would also revise the existing pickled-food exemption so both categories are governed by a common set of registration, labeling, sales, insurance, and sales-volume requirements.
To qualify, a home producer would have to register with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP), provide product and ingredient information, sell directly to consumers in specified settings, label each container with the producer’s registration number, preparation date, allergen information, and a statement that the product was made in a private home, and maintain liability insurance. The bill sets a $40,000 annual gross-sales cap for covered products, with a simpler sign requirement for smaller producers under $10,000 and a food-protection certificate requirement for producers between $10,000 and $40,000. It also directs DATCP to create by rule a home-inspection process for certain cottage food producers making nonpotentially hazardous foods and to issue a certificate showing the home has been inspected.
The bill would amend Wisconsin Statutes section 97.29 by creating new definitions, adding a new licensing exemption for home-prepared nonpotentially hazardous foods, and replacing several existing pickled-food exemption provisions with a broader registration-based framework. It would also expand the statute’s treatment of “person” to include a household, allowing multiple household members to share one registration number upon request. In practical terms, the bill would affect home bakers, jam and pickle makers, small-scale direct-to-consumer food sellers, DATCP, and consumers purchasing homemade foods at farmers’ markets, community events, or from the producer’s home or delivery.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is supportive of expanding opportunities for small home-based food businesses while adding consumer-protection safeguards. Although no committee transcript or recorded vote is provided, the bill’s structure suggests an attempt to balance economic access for small producers with food safety through registration, labeling, insurance, training, and inspection requirements. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, so its proposed changes did not become law.
The main points of contention likely center on the appropriate level of regulation for home-prepared foods. Supporters would likely favor the expanded market access and simplified pathway for small producers, while critics may focus on food safety, allergen disclosure, liability, and whether home inspections and insurance are sufficient protections. The inspection requirement for certain cottage food producers, the $40,000 sales cap, and the distinction between small producers and larger cottage food producers appear designed to address those concerns.
If enacted, SB739 would substantially broaden Wisconsin’s home food-sale exemptions by adding nonpotentially hazardous foods to the list of products that may be sold without a food processing plant license, while also restructuring the existing exemption for home-canned pickled fruits and vegetables. It would impose a new registration system with DATCP, require product and ingredient disclosures, mandate liability insurance, and set different compliance obligations based on annual sales levels. The bill would also authorize DATCP rulemaking for inspections and certification of certain cottage food producers, thereby increasing the department’s administrative role over home-based food sales.
The bill appears generally favorable toward small-scale home food entrepreneurs and direct-to-consumer sales, with a policy approach that expands legal pathways for cottage food production while layering in consumer-safety requirements. Because no committee discussion or vote record is included, there is no documented floor or committee debate to measure, but the bill’s design indicates a compromise-oriented effort to support local food businesses without eliminating oversight. The fact that the bill failed to pass suggests it did not secure enough legislative support to advance.
The likely areas of contention are food safety, regulatory burden, and the scope of the exemption. Supporters would emphasize economic opportunity for home bakers and other small producers, while opponents may question whether home-made shelf-stable foods should be sold under a licensing exemption at all, especially at higher sales levels. Specific friction points include the adequacy of labeling and allergen requirements, whether liability insurance should be mandatory, whether DATCP inspections are practical or intrusive, and whether the $40,000 cap is too high for an unlicensed home-based food operation.