Ohio Legislative Roundup

Written by Peggy Kirk Hall, Attorney and Director, Agricultural & Resource Law Program and Ellen Essman, J.D., Senior Research Associate with the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Note:  We welcome Ellen Essman to the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program.  Ellen worked with us previously, and has returned to assist with covering legislation and serving as the Education Director for our Ohio Farm Resolution Services agricultural mediation program.

The Ohio General Assembly is currently considering several bills that would affect agriculture, farmers, livestock producers, sellers of homemade foods, landowners, and students participating in FFA or 4-H.  Here is an update on the bills we are following, including a few updates on bills we mentioned in our last legislative blog post.

H.B. 10 – Imitation meat and egg products

As we reported in our previous legislative blog post, H.B. 10 would prohibit the sale of foods that are “misbranded” as meat or egg products. Sponsored by Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Jack Daniels (R-New Franklin), H.B. 10 defines “misbranded” meat and egg products as those that: contain manufactured-protein food products or fabricated-egg products, are offered for sale by a food processing establishment, and have a package label that includes certain “meat” or “egg” terms.  A food processing establishment that sells misbranded meat and egg products would be subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 per day.  The bill would also require Ohio agencies to request a USDA exemption of cultivated-protein food products and fabricated-egg products from eligibility under SNAP and WIC food programs and would require Ohio school districts and state institutions of higher education to adopt policies preventing the purchase of cultivated-protein food products or foods misbranded as meat or egg products. H.B. 10 is still being deliberated in the House Agriculture Committee. At the bill’s most recent hearing on May 28, there was no opponent or proponent testimony.

H.B. 65 – Agriculture Appreciation Act

The Ohio House of Representatives passed H.B. 65 on April 2, and the bill was introduced in the Senate on April 8. The bill had its first hearing in the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on May 27, where sponsors by Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina) testified on its behalf.  The sponsors cited the importance of agriculture to Ohio’s economy, and the long tradition of agriculture in Ohio as the catalysts for introducing this bill. The act proposes the following official designations:

• “FFA Week” as the week ending with the last Saturday in February.
• “4-H Week” as the week ending with the second Saturday of March.
• “Agriculture Day” on March 21.
• “National Farmers Market Week” as the first full week of August.
• “Ohio Stormwater Awareness Week” as the first week of October.
• “Farmer’s Day” on October 12
• “Ohio Soil Health Week” as the second full week of November, to celebrate and raise awareness for the importance of soil health and in honor of the birthday of soil pioneer and advocate David Brandt.

H.B. 65 had its second hearing in Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources on June 3, with no in-person testimony.

H.B. 125 – Excused school absences for 4-H and FFA programs

Introduced in the House on February 24 by sponsors Rep. Thomas Hall (R-Middletown) and Rep. Rodney Creech (R-West Alexandria), H.B. 125 has since had three hearings in the House Education Committee.  The bill would require school districts to grant excused absences for participation in scheduled 4-H and FFA activities or programs to students in grades K-12, and to allow those students to make up any school work missed as a result of that absence. In order to verify absences for 4-H or FFA activities, the school must receive written documentation from 4-H or FFA educators. The bill would not allow for excused absences for 4-H activities during state testing or when a student has been disciplined by, suspended, or expelled from school.

H.B. 134 – Microenterprise home kitchen operation

A bi-partisan bill would add Ohio to the small but growing list of states that have adopted “food freedom laws” to loosen regulations on the sale of homemade foods.  Sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester) and Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D-Columbus), H.B. 134 would create a new “microenterprise home kitchen operation” registration that would broaden the types of foods a person could produce at home and sell directly to customers. Ohio law currently allows a person to sell certain “cottage foods” and “home bakery” foods with minimal regulation but requires producers of other foods to produce the foods in a commercial kitchen and operate under state and local food licenses.  H.B. 134 would remove those requirements and allow a registered microenterprise home kitchen operation to produce and sell any homemade foods (except those containing alcohol or drugs), including items such as canned goods and hot meals.  The annual $25 registration would require an inspection by the Ohio Department of Agriculture to ensure the microenterprise home kitchen operation meets requirements in the law regarding operations, food safety, storage and preparation, and sales and delivery of the food.  H.B. 134 received its second hearing before the House Agriculture Committee on April 9, with two proponents testifying in support of the bill.

H. B. 201 – Allow specified hunting on landowner’s property without a permit

H.B. 201 was introduced in the House on March 26 by Rep. Kevin Miller (R-Newark), and Dani Isaacshon (D-Cincinnati), and had its first hearing in the House Natural Resources Committee on May 7.  The bill would expand the list of relatives that may hunt and trap on an Ohio landowner’s property without purchasing a hunting license, deer or wild turkey permit, or fur taker permit from the Ohio Department of Natural Resource’s Division of Wildlife. The bill would make the following changes:

• Current Ohio law allows an Ohio landowner’s children and grandchildren under 18 to hunt on the land without a license.  H.B. 201 would extend this to also allow parents of Ohio landowners to hunt without a license.
• Current Ohio law allows an Ohio landowner’s children to hunt deer and turkey on the land without obtaining permits.  H.B. 201 would also allow the landowner’s parents and grandchildren to do so.
• Current Ohio law allows an Ohio landowner’s children to hunt and trap fur-bearing animals on the land without a permit. H.B. 201 would expand the current law to allow an Ohio landowner’s parents and grandchildren under 18 to hunt and trap without a permit.

S.B. 60 – Veterinarian Telehealth

Since the Covid-19 pandemic, we have all become familiar with telehealth medical appointments. S.B. 60, sponsored by Sen. Shane Wilkin, (R-Hillsboro), and Sen. Steve Huffman (R-Tipp City), would expand the ability to conduct telehealth appointments to veterinarians with their clients and patients (animals) under certain circumstances.  Current law requires a veterinary-client-patient (VCP) relationship to be established in-person via an examination or visit to the patient.  S.B. 60 would allow VCP relationships to be established via real time telehealth examinations.

The bill would also allow a licensed veterinarian to conduct telehealth services with a client and their animal (the patient) if:

• The veterinarian obtains the informed consent from the client, including an acknowledgement that the standards of care prescribed by the law governing veterinarians equally apply to in-person and telehealth visits;
•  The veterinarian provides the client with the veterinarian’s name and contact information and secures an alternate means of contacting the client if the telehealth visit is interrupted; and
• Before conducting an evaluation of a patient via a telehealth visit, the veterinarian advises the client concerning certain information, including that the veterinarian may ultimately recommend an in-person visit.

Further, the bill would place some requirements on prescribing drugs during a telehealth appointment, including:

• A veterinarian may issue an initial prescription for up to 14 days. The veterinarian may issue one refill for up to 14 days if the veterinarian sees the patient for another telehealth visit. For additional refills, the patient must visit the veterinarian in person.
• The veterinarian must notify the client that certain prescription drugs or medications may be available at a pharmacy and, if requested, the veterinarian will submit a prescription to a pharmacy of the client’s choosing; and
•  The veterinarian must not order, prescribe, or make available a controlled substance unless the veterinarian has performed an in-person physical examination of the patient.

S.B. 60 had its second committee hearing in Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources on May 27.  Senators on the committee discussed amendments to the bill that would make the following changes:

• For livestock raised as food for human consumption, a VCP relationship must first be made in person before telehealth appointments would be permitted;
• However, veterinarians may give “tele-advice” prior to VCP being established in person. “Tele-advice” was described as “opinion or guidance from a veterinarian, but not a diagnosis, treatment, or prognosis;”
• An addition to the bill that it would not invalidate anything from Chapter 956 of the Ohio Revised Code, which governs dog breeding; and
• Telehealth appointments must occur in within the state where the patient is located.

In the May 27 committee hearing, several proponents of the bill also gave testimony in its favor.  Those testifying cited numerous reasons why passage of the bill would be prudent, including the state shortage of veterinary professionals, the difficulty of people living in rural areas or with a lack of resources to access veterinary care for their animals, the passage of veterinary telehealth laws in other states, and the ability for veterinarians to give faster care in the case of emergencies. They also mentioned that the law would not replace in-person veterinary appointments but instead would be another tool in a veterinarian’s arsenal to care for animals.

On June 3, the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held their third hearing on S.B. 60.  There was no in-person testimony, and the Committee favorably reported the bill, with the May 27 changes, out of committee.

S.B. 122 – Local authority for agricultural land zoning resolutions

This bill was introduced in late February and had its first hearing in the Senate Local Government Committee on March 5 but no hearings since that date.  S.B. 122, sponsored by Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo), would eliminate the authority of townships and counties to adopt zoning resolutions for agricultural land under certain circumstances.

The bill eliminates a township and county’s limited authority to utilize zoning to regulate any of the following in a platted subdivision or in an area consisting of 15 or more contiguous lots:

• Agriculture on lots of one acre or less;
• Buildings or structures incident to the use of land for agricultural purposes on lots between one and five acres by setback building lines, height, and size; and
• Dairying and animal poultry husbandry on lots between one and five acres when at least 35% of the lots in the subdivision are developed with at least one building, structure, or improvement that is subject to real property taxation or that is subject to the tax on manufactured and mobile homes.

Ohio law currently prohibits regulation of agriculture, buildings or structures, and dairying and animal and poultry husbandry on lots greater than five acres. S.B. 122 would broaden that prohibition to protect agriculture on smaller lots, which would be beneficial to those practicing urban agriculture.

S.B. 100 – Exemption from insurance regulations for nonprofit agricultural membership organizations

This bill would exempt healthcare benefits offered by “nonprofit agricultural membership organizations” from insurance regulations.  The bill passed the Senate in early April and was favorably reported out of the House Insurance Committee on May 27.  S.B. 100, sponsored by Sen. Susan Manchester (R-Waynesfield) would define a “nonprofit agricultural membership organization” as an organization that was incorporated in Ohio on or before December 31, 1919, to promote the interests of farms and that provides contractual healthcare benefit coverage exclusively with members of the organization and their families. Healthcare benefit coverage provided by such an organization, according to the proposal, is not “insurance” and is not subject to insurance regulations. The bill would also allow the nonprofit organizations to assume or reinsure the risks arising out of healthcare benefit coverage with a company authorized to provide insurance in Ohio.