Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
FOOD LAW AMENDMENTS
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
House Bill 6128 as reported from committee Analysis available at
Sponsor: Rep. Emily Dievendorf http://www.legislature.mi.gov
House Bill 6129 as reported from committee
Sponsor: Rep. Stephanie A. Young
House Bill 6130 (H-1) as reported House Bill 6132 as reported
Sponsor: Rep. Veronica A. Paiz Sponsor: Rep. Jasper Martus
House Bill 6131 as reported House Bill 6133 as reported
Sponsor: Rep. Reggie Miller Sponsor: Rep. Kimberly Edwards
Committee: Agriculture
Complete to 12-13-24
SUMMARY:
House Bill 6128 would amend the Food Law, primarily to incorporate the provisions of the
administrative rules regarding smoked fish 1 into statutory law.
The bill also would amend the definition of the term foodborne illness outbreak so that the two
individuals who have ingested common foods no longer have to be residents of different
households for the incident to potentially be considered a foodborne illness outbreak. The bill
also would update a reference regarding procedures to be followed in the event of a suspected
outbreak, so that procedures would be followed according to the sixth edition (instead of the
fifth) of “Procedures to Investigate Foodborne Illness,” published by the International
Association for Food Protection.
Finally, the bill would repeal sections 5109 and 7103 of the act. 2
MCL 289.3103 et seq. and MCL 289.5109 and 289.7103 (repealed)
House Bill 6129 would amend provisions of the Food Law that relate to inspections of food
establishments.
The bill would exempt records provided by a food establishment in connection with
developing, implementing, or verifying a food safety plan or practice under the Food Law from
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and require that records released to a legislative
body not contain identifying information. The exemption would not apply to documents, data,
communications, reports, or other information required to be collected, maintained, or made
1
https://ars.apps.lara.state.mi.us/AdminCode/DownloadAdminCodeFile?FileName=202_10189_AdminCode.pdf&
ReturnHTML=True
2
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-289-5109 and
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-289-7103
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 7
 available or reported to a state agency or any other person by statute, rule, ordinance, permit,
order, or consent agreement or otherwise provided by law.
The bill would allow the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
(MDARD) to enter into agreements with state agencies, colleges, universities, and associations
to implement the Food Law and to provide and accept food safety assistance, including the
training of personnel. State law now only allows MDARD to enter into agreements with other
states and the federal government.
The bill would amend provisions that relate to how local health departments handle license
applications for food service establishments. Currently, local health departments are required
to conduct inspections as part of the application process. Under the bill, evaluations would be
conducted instead.
As part of the application for licensure as a food service establishment, an applicant must
submit their planned hours of operation. For a mobile food establishment, the planned locations
and dates of operation must be a part of the submitted information, both to MDARD and the
local health department. The bill would instead require that the route schedule be submitted as
part of the application along with the hours and dates of service for each location listed in the
route.
The bill would also change requirements relating to mobile food establishments to require a
copy of the approved menu and standard operating procedures always to be carried on the
mobile establishment, in addition to current licensure requirements. If the mobile food
establishment crosses jurisdictional boundaries, it would have to provide to the local health
department or MDARD (as applicable) each location in the jurisdiction where food will be
served, along with the dates and hours of service, no less than four days before preparing or
serving any food within the jurisdiction.
The bill would newly define the term major food allergen to mean any of the following:
• Milk.
• Eggs.
• Fish, including bass, flounder, or cod.
• Crustacean shellfish, including crab, lobster, or shrimp.
• Tree nuts, including almonds, pecans, or walnuts.
• Wheat.
• Peanuts.
• Soybeans.
• Sesame.
• A food ingredient that contains a protein derived from a food mentioned above, unless
one of the following applies:
o The ingredient is a highly refined oil or an ingredient that is derived from the
highly refined oil.
o The food ingredient is exempt under federal rules 3 as determined by the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
3
21 USC 343(w)(6) or (7): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/343
House Fiscal Agency HBs 6128 to 6133 as reported Page 2 of 7
 The meaning of the term misbranded under the Food Law would be extended to include when
an item’s labeling fails to declare a major food allergen within the meaning of 21 USC 343(w)
or if a product is shell eggs and it is not labeled in compliance with section 7114 of the Food
Law.
The bill would amend the definition of the term low-risk food so that, rather than being
described as potentially hazardous or not, the definition would rely on whether a food must be
controlled for time or temperature as defined in the Food Code.
The bill would newly define the term premises to mean one of the following:
• The physical facility, its contents, and the contiguous land or property under the control
of the operator.
• The physical facility, its contents, and the land or property, if its facilities and contents
are under the control of an operator and could impact the operator’s employees,
facilities, or operations, and the food establishment is only one component of a larger
operation, such as a health care facility, hotel, motel, school, recreational camp, or
prison.
The bill would change requirements regarding which food establishments need to employ a
certified food protection manager, including requiring a retail food establishment that is rated
a medium or high risk under MDARD policy to employ a certified food protection manager. If
an establishment was not required to have a manager before the incorporation of the 2017
version of the federal Food Code into state law by reference (see HB 6130), that establishment
would have until one year after the bill’s effective date to have such a person on staff. All food
establishments required to have a certified food protection manager would then have until two
years after the bill’s effective date to comply with the updated provisions of section 2-102.12
of the federal Food Code. The bill would allow MDARD to grant a statewide variance to a
group of food establishments, or to an individual food establishment, by modifying or waiving
requirements of the Food Law that relate to the certified food protection manager.
Finally, the bill would retain the state’s adoption of Chapters 1 to 8 of the federal Food Code,
while amending specific sections of those chapters to ensure that current state law requirements
regarding specific programs continue, such as the state’s mushroom identification certification
program.
MCL 289.2105 et seq.
House Bill 6130 would amend the Food Law to incorporate the 2017 version of the federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic into state law by reference. The Food Law now incorporates the
version of the federal act in effect on October 1, 2012, by reference. A reference to the “Model
Ordinance, National Shellfish Sanitation Program Guide for the Control of Molluscan
Shellfish” would also be updated to refer to the 2019 version instead of the 2009 version.
The bill would amend the definition of the term food establishment to also mean an operation
where food is otherwise provided to the public. In addition, the term now specifically excludes
a food operation located in a prison, jail, state mental health institute, boarding house, fraternity
or sorority house, convent, or another facility where the facility is primary residence for
occupants and the food operation is limited to serving meals to the occupants as part of their
House Fiscal Agency HBs 6128 to 6133 as reported Page 3 of 7
 living arrangement. The bill would expand this exemption to also include instances where the
food operation serves meals to staff of those facilities as part of their working arrangement.
Finally, the bill would amend food labeling provisions to prohibit a person from labeling or
identifying a laboratory-grown meat substitute as meat.
MCL 289.1107 et seq.
House Bill 6131 amends provisions of the Food Law relating to the manufacture and sale of
cottage food. The bill would require a cottage food operation to list its name, phone number,
and registration number on labels if it registers with the Michigan State University Product
Center. 4 If the operation does not register with the center, it would have to continue to post the
same information as now required: business name, address, and phone number.
The bill would allow the MSU Product Center to issue a document that evidences the granting
of registration and contains a unique ID number for the cottage food operation and collect a
one-time fee of up to $50 for registration. MDARD could inspect the records of the center upon
request. The information collected through the registration program would be exempt from
FOIA.
Additionally, the bill would allow cottage food to be sold by internet or mail order if the
operation directly interacts with the customer during the first sales transaction and provides
the customer the opportunity for direct interaction during second or subsequent sales.
Directly interact with would mean either a face-to-face or virtual meeting.
Virtual meeting would include a meeting where communication occurs electronically
in a way that allows two-way communications so participants can see or be seen and
hear or be heard by all parties to the communication.
Finally, the bill would increase the gross sales threshold for a cottage food operation from
$25,000 to $45,000, with an operation which sells its products at a price of $250 or more per
unit allowed to earn up to $75,000 in gross sales annually. Beginning October 1, 2025,
MDARD could adjust the gross sales limit by an amount calculated by the Department of
Treasury based on inflation (as measured in the Consumer Price Index) over the prior three-
year period, rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
MCL 289.1105 and 289.4102
House Bill 6132 would amend the licensure fee structure for license types overseen by
MDARD under the Food Law. Currently, if a local health department no longer conducts a
food service program, MDARD, in consultation with the Commission of Agriculture and Rural
Development, sets the food sanitation fee imposed for the conduct of the food service program
by the department. The bill would remove a restriction on the fees so that they must equal, as
nearly as possible, 50% of the department’s cost of providing the service. The bill would also
extend, from 12 months to 24 months, the length of time the department may impose service
fees after the date of cessation by the local health department.
4
https://www.canr.msu.edu/productcenter/
House Fiscal Agency HBs 6128 to 6133 as reported Page 4 of 7
 The bill also would combine the Consumer Food Safety Education Fund and the Industry Food
Safety Education Fund into a single fund called Consumer and Industry Food Safety Education
Fund, to be funded through a $3 fee on a food establishment license and a $2 fee on food
service establishment licenses. These fee amounts would reflect what is currently charged in
law to fund the respective funds. The industry fund would be abolished, and any remaining
funds at the time the bill takes effect would go into the newly combined fund.
The bill would eliminate the maximum fine amount in the section of the Food Law that
provides for fines for violations of the act.
The bill would amend provisions governing special transitory food unit licenses in several
ways. First, the name of the license would be changed to the transitory food unit license.
Second, an applicant for this license type would have to be licensed under the Food Law and
receive at least one evaluation by a regulatory authority.
While in operation, a transitory food licensee must request and receive two evaluations per
licensing year spaced generally over the span of the operating season. The local health
department or MDARD can charge a fee of $90 for each evaluation. The bill would change
this so not less than one month could pass between each evaluation, with at least one of the
evaluations conducted by the regulatory authority that issued the license. The regulatory
authority could still charge a fee, although a specific dollar amount would be removed from
these provisions. The owner of the transitory food unit would have to put a decal provided by
MDARD on the unit in a conspicuous place so it is visible to the public while serving food.
The bill also would prohibit a person from knowingly selling or offering for sale a shell egg
that the person knows or should know is the product of an egg-laying hen that was improperly
confined or restricted, as detailed in section 46 of the Animal Industry Act. 5 A person selling
shell eggs from an egg-laying hen would be have to maintain a record of compliance, which
would be valid for one year and would have to be kept for three years and be made available
to MDARD for inspection upon request. Eggs shipped into Michigan for commercial sale
would have to have documentation that demonstrates compliance with these provisions as well.
Eggs that pass through the state and are not intended for sale in Michigan could be marked as
such and exempt from the documentation requirement if appropriately marked in their shipping
records.
All shell eggs sold in Michigan would have to be labeled or marked as being in compliance
with the requirements of section 46 of the Animal Industry Act. A commercially recognized
label or marking could be used and would not have to specifically reference the applicable
section of Michigan law. MDARD could issue a list of commercially recognized labels for use
in complying with the labeling requirement.
Michigan’s requirements regarding minimum allowable room for movement of egg-laying
hens take effect on December 31, 2024.
MCL 289.1111 et seq.
5
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-287-746
House Fiscal Agency HBs 6128 to 6133 as reported Page 5 of 7
 House Bill 6133 would amend he Food Law to change who has authority over inspecting
certain food processor licensees. The bill would add language stating that, if a food processor
is part of a food service establishment but the establishment is the predominant part of the
business as determined by MDARD, then authority and responsibility could be transferred
from the local health department back to MDARD. Specifically, this transfer could take place
if the food processor processes for wholesale low acid canned food, acidified food, juice,
seafood, fermented foods other than alcohol, or aseptic processed foods, or performs a process
determined by MDARD to be complex. A food processor part of a food service establishment
as described above could receive a separate license from MDARD, and would be responsible
only for the $25 food service establishment fee listed in section 3119 of the Food Law.
Results of investigations of allegations of foodborne illness, if investigated by MDARD and
not the local health department, would have to be shared with the local health department.
The bill also would amend provisions regarding MDARD’s authority to revoke a local health
department’s certification and delegated authority. Presently, if a local health department fails
to meet the requirements established in the Food Law, written notice is provided to the local
health department wi