The Utah Legislature is considering two fundamentally different approaches to raw milk regulation during the 2026 general session.
House Bill 0179, sponsored by Representative Kristen Chevrier, proposes significant deregulation by eliminating permit requirements.
House Bill 0283, sponsored by Representative Mike Kohler, proposes stricter compliance standards and elevated penalties.
Only one—or neither—will likely become law.
HB0179: The Deregulation Approach
Removes Permitting Requirement
HB0179’s most significant change eliminates the requirement for producers to obtain a permit. Instead, the bill requires producers to “notify the department of the intention to produce raw milk or a raw milk product.”
The bill states: “A producer of raw milk or a raw milk product may manufacture, distribute, sell, deliver, hold, store, or offer for sale the raw milk or the raw milk product in accordance with this part if the producer notifies the department in writing of the producer’s intention to produce raw milk or a raw milk product.”
The notice requires only basic information: “the producer’s name and address; the intended method of sale of the raw milk or raw milk product, including direct-to-consumer, through a market, or both direct-to-consumer and through a market; and the species of animal used to produce the raw milk.”
Minimal Testing Requirements
HB0179 requires “monthly” testing rather than testing at multiple points in production. The bill specifies that “a producer shall test for compliance with this section through an accredited laboratory at least monthly” for bacterial and coliform counts.
Importantly, the bill states: “A producer is required to provide the department test results only if requested by the department after the producer is linked to a foodborne illness outbreak.”
This means routine testing results are not automatically reported to state regulators—only outbreak-related tests.
Limited Department Authority
The bill restricts when the department can test or inspect. It states: “The department may collect and test a sample of raw milk or a raw milk product only if: there is a reasonable suspicion that the producer is linked to a foodborne illness outbreak; or during the issuance of a cease and desist order.”
Similarly, inspections are limited: “The department may inspect premises of a producer only if there is a reasonable suspicion that the producer is linked to a foodborne illness outbreak.”
This prevents proactive, routine inspections of producers who have not been linked to illness.
Significantly Lower Penalties
HB0179 establishes minimal financial penalties. For violations found during a foodborne illness outbreak investigation, the department “may impose upon the producer the following administrative penalties: upon the first violation, a penalty of no more than $300; upon a second violation, a penalty of no more than $750; and upon a third or subsequent violation, a penalty of no more than $1,500.”
There is no suspension of operations provision in HB0179.
On-Premise Sales Exemption
The bill creates a category of producers who can operate with even fewer requirements if they sell directly from their farm. These producers must:
- Sell only to consumers for household use, not for resale
- Sell and deliver only on the premises where raw milk is produced
- Cool raw milk “to 50 degrees Fahrenheit or a lower temperature within one hour after being drawn from the animal; and to 41 degrees Fahrenheit or a lower temperature within two hours of being drawn from the animal”
- Conduct “a monthly test ensuring the coliform count of the raw milk does not exceed 10 colony-forming units per milliliter”
- Ensure dairy animals are free of tuberculosis, brucellosis, and other milk-borne diseases
- Maintain records and notify the department
On-premise sellers would not be subject to the same testing frequency or facility requirements as producers selling through markets.
Outbreak Disclosure Requirements
HB0179 restricts when producers’ names can be publicly disclosed following an outbreak. The bill states: “Before an agency listed in Subsection (5)(a) may publicly disclose a producer’s name or identifying information, the department shall notify the producer that the department has linked the producer to a foodborne illness outbreak with a positive whole genome sequencing test.”
This requirement means a positive genome sequencing test is mandatory before any public identification of a producer, even if epidemiological evidence links them to illness.
HB0283: The Stricter Enforcement Approach
Establishes Registration System
HB0283 creates a formal registration requirement replacing the current permit system. Producers and markets must register, providing detailed information including:
- Intended method of sale (direct-to-consumer, through markets, or both)
- Declaration of intent to comply with regulations
- Examples of compliant signage and labeling
- Species of lactating animals
- Recall plan
- Type of raw milk products to be produced or sold
Registration is valid for the calendar year and must be renewed by December 31 annually.
Expanded Operational Requirements
HB0283 imposes more detailed operational standards. Producers must:
- “Obtain regular services by a licensed veterinarian for the producer’s herd of lactating animals”
- Maintain veterinary care records including “routine herd health checks; disease screening; treatment documentation; and withdrawal period verification”
- Cool raw milk “to 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below within two hours of milking and maintain the raw milk or a raw milk product at or below 41 degrees Fahrenheit at all times”
- Use “a separate enclosed facility for animal housing; milking; and processing and packaging”
- Maintain premises with “a sanitary toilet and handwashing station; a wastewater disposal system approved by the applicable state or local agency; and a proper cleaning, sanitizing, and storage area for equipment or packaging”
- Retain samples “of at least four ounces from each batch for nine days”
- Maintain records “for a minimum of two years” including “animal health and treatment records” and “test results and corrective actions”
Stringent Testing Standards
HB0283 establishes that raw milk and raw milk products “may not contain: drug residues; aerobic bacteria that exceeds 20,000 colony forming units per milliliter; a coliform count that exceeds 10 colony forming units per milliliter; detectable levels of listeria, salmonella, campylobacter, or shiga toxin-producing e. coli.”
Producers must “report positive pathogen or drug residue findings to the department within two business days of receipt of a test.”
Proactive Department Authority
HB0283 grants the department broader authority to conduct testing and inspections. The department “may collect and test a sample of raw milk or a raw milk product during an inspection if there is suspicion of adulteration; or anytime there is a suspicion that the producer or market is linked to a foodborne illness outbreak.”
The department “may inspect premises of a producer or market upon initial registration and annually after initial registration.”
This allows routine, preventive inspections rather than only outbreak-triggered testing.
Significantly Elevated Penalties
HB0283 establishes substantially higher penalties than HB0179. For adulterated or misbranded raw milk (12-month period):
- First violation: “administrative fine of not more than $2,000”
- Second violation: “administrative fine of not more than $5,000”
- Third or subsequent violation: “administrative fine of not more than $10,000 and the suspension of operations by the producer or market under this part for not more than one year”
For foodborne illness outbreaks (12-month period):
- First proof: “cease and desist order of 14 days”
- Second proof or new case: “cease and desist order of 14 days and an administrative fine of $2,000”
- Third proof or new case: “cease and desist order of 14 days and an administrative fine of $5,000”
- Fourth or subsequent proof: “administrative fine of $10,000 and the suspension of operations by the producer or market under this part for one year”
Outbreak Response Timeline
Upon discovering a likely foodborne illness outbreak, HB0283 requires the department to issue a cease and desist order and “within two working days of issuing a cease and desist order, the department shall collect a sample of raw milk or a raw milk product for whole genome sequencing.”
The department “shall share with the producer or market whole genome sequencing results within 15 working days from the day the sample is taken.”
Public Disclosure Restrictions
HB0283 allows public disclosure of a producer’s identity only “if proven by a positive whole genome sequencing test; and after the department notifies the producer or market in writing before the disclosure.”
Comparative Analysis: Key Differences
| Aspect | HB0179 | HB0283 |
|---|---|---|
| Permitting | Notification only | Registration with application |
| Fees | None | Yes (amount TBD) |
| Inspection Authority | Only with “reasonable suspicion” of outbreak | Upon registration and annually |
| Testing Frequency | Monthly | Upon detection; sample retention required |
| First Violation Penalty | $300 maximum | $2,000 maximum |
| Second Violation Penalty | $750 maximum | $5,000 maximum (+ cease and desist) |
| Third+ Violation | $1,500 maximum | $10,000 + suspension up to 1 year |
| Veterinary Oversight | Not required | Required |
| Facility Requirements | Basic cooling and storage | Separate facilities, sanitation stations, waste systems |
| Public Disclosure | Requires positive genome sequencing | Requires positive genome sequencing |
| On-Premise Exemption | Yes (minimal requirements) | No exemption category |
Legislative and Stakeholder Context
The Industry Conflict
Rep. Kohler‘s sponsorship of HB0283 while serving as executive director of a dairy industry organization creates complexity. The dairy industry has competing interests: some producers want less regulation, while mainstream commercial operations may prefer stricter rules that raise barriers to entry for smaller, less compliant producers.
Feasibility and Timeline
Both bills propose an effective date of May 6, 2026. The legislature must decide between these approaches, combine elements of both, or pass neither. Given their fundamental opposition, simultaneous passage is unlikely.
Health and Safety Considerations
The two bills represent different policy calculations about balancing producer accessibility against outbreak response speed. HB0179’s approach prioritizes minimal regulatory burden and relies on outbreak investigations to drive enforcement. HB0283’s approach prioritizes proactive prevention and rapid response capability.
Resources:
- GetRawMilk.com – Find licensed raw milk producers nationwide
- Utah Legislature HB0179 – Full bill text and status
- Utah Legislature HB0283 – Full bill text and status
- Utah Department of Agriculture and Food – Regulatory oversight and compliance information
- Current Utah Raw Milk Laws
