I'm writing because we need help to unscramble (pun intended) HB6657
(originally introduced by Andy Meisner) and remove the amendment therein which
would include shell eggs. The effect of this amendment is to
radically restrict, from 3000 hens down to perhaps 200 hens, the size of an egg
operation exempt under Michigan law. By "clarifying" a situation which
does not need clarifying, a major restriction on the viability of a small
farmer's income from eggs would be implemented. Michigan's small farm
economy does not need such additional burdens.
Briefly, the following excerpt from the Egg Law of 1963 provides
EGGS (EXCERPT)
Act 244 of
1963
289.333 Sale by producer to consumer or first
receiver.
Sec. 13.
All producers shall comply with this act except those selling eggs of
their own production direct to consumers or when delivering or selling to
a first receiver.
History: 1963, Act 244, Eff. Sept. 6, 1963
|
MDA has been taking the position, that the Egg Law of 1963 has been
superseded somehow by the Food Code (derived from the Federal model act) and
thereby imposes Food Code licensing and sanitation provisions on farmers selling
eggs of their own production direct to consumers at farmers' markets. I do
not read the Food Code as doing what MDA says, since the only reference to eggs
in the Food Code, is a provision therein putting a cap of 3000 hens on such
production.
In other words, read together properly, the Food Code simply puts a 3000
hen cap on the above-cited section 13, which otherwise would exempt unlimited
direct-to-consumer sales (a farmer selling to a "first receiver" is also exempt,
but a first receiver is nevertheless subject to the licensing, washing, grading,
cartoning, etc. provisions of the egg law since a first receiver can in turn
sell to a retail outlet and hence the additional regulatory oversight is
appropriate).
Since MDA claims the Food Code does something that it does not in fact do,
their logic is to offer in HB6657 language to include shell eggs in a new
amendment to the Food Code which would exempt up to $15,000 in gross sales of
eggs. HB6657 was originally designed to cover small farms producing honey,
maple syrup, etc. At $3.00 per dozen, the proposed amendment would thus
exempt about 5000 dozen eggs a year, which is about 96 dozen per week, which is
1154 eggs per week, 165 eggs per day, or a flock of perhaps 125 hens (at $2.00
per dozen, about 200 hens) at typical production rates.
When I initially spoke with Kathy Fedder about this last week, I was not
aware that such a clarification was not necessary, nor did I appreciate its
impact on small farmers. I have since clarified my views on this directly
to Kathy raising the concerns that I express here (and continue to do so, by
copying her on this email). I fear, however, the wheels are now turning on
the floor to enact the egg amendment to HB6657, and this will be a step backward
for small farmers who otherwise are struggling to serve the burgeoning
direct-food public demand under typical farming pressures, exacerbated by
rocketing feed and fuel costs for most of the past year.
We don't need this amendment to include eggs (I don't opine on HB6657
without the egg provision - it seems OK, but I'm not familiar with the much-more
seasonal honey and maple syrup); we do need MDA to "clarify" existing law as it
is written, namely to exempt direct farm to consumer egg sales from flocks of up
to 3000 hens as provided under the Egg Law of 1963 as modified by the 3000 limit
in the Food Code.
Finally, food safety should not be a concern here. Salmonella, the
pathogen of concern with eggs, is far and away a concern with industrial-sized
operations (100,000+ hens in gigantic facilities) where the crowding, forced
molting and other pressures on the birds are much more likely to produce
disease. Any outbreak from a small producer, rare in any case, would have
natural limitations by the small number of people affected from any one
producer, with a product that is typically cooked in any case. Again, to
the extent there is a weighing of risk, that calculus has already been weighed
in the presently-existing law limiting to 3000 birds and we don't need further
restrictions and confusion in this area.
Thanks for reading this. I would appreciate your looking into this,
and speaking on our behalf.
