Legislative Meeting: Food safety and fencing laws dominate second day of Joint Ag Committee meeting

Proposed changes to the Wyoming Food Freedom Act and state fencing laws dominated discussion during the second day of the Wyoming Legislature’s Joint Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources Committee meeting, held June 11-12 at Central Wyoming College in Riverton.

Committee members spent the majority of day two discussing state and federal food regulations, debating the sale of raw milk and locally produced meat and considering whether Wyoming’s longstanding fence-out doctrine remains relevant in today’s day and age.

Food Freedom Act amendments

To begin, Wyoming Legislative Service Office (LSO) Attorney Anna Johnson presented two amendments to the Wyoming Food Freedom Act, which was originally enacted in 2015 to expand opportunities for direct-to-consumer food sales in the state.

The first would allow commercial food establishments to use raw milk as a food ingredient under the condition consumers receive written notice the milk has not been inspected or pasteurized.

The second would allow producers, designated agents or third-party sellers to sell meat products from animals raised by a producer and slaughtered on the producer’s operation or at a custom slaughter facility.

Johnson explained portions of the second proposal heavily depend on federal law, particularly the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act which would allow the sale of certain custom-processed meat products currently prohibited under federal regulations if passed.

“The Federal Meat Inspection Act prohibits direct-to-consumer sales of uninspected meat by a producer-designated agent or a third-party seller,” Johnson stated. “While the Wyoming Food Freedom Act could be amended to allow these types of sales, the sales themselves would be in violation of federal law unless and until the requirements of subsection O printed in the draft bill are met.”

Raw milk and local meat sales

A majority of the meeting focused on recent enforcement actions carried out by the Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA) involving food freedom in small businesses.

WDA Director Doug Miyamoto responded to criticism surrounding these actions, explaining the department was prompted to conduct inspections in Cody and Cheyenne after complaints were filed alleging meat sales were occurring without proper licensing.

“We were initially informed we had an entity selling breakfast items which contained meat, and they didn’t have a license to sell,” Miyamoto said. “Essentially, if an individual wants to open a coffee shop, a restaurant or they want sell things commercially, they need a license.”

“Subsequently, we learned the entity was also selling non-homemade grocery items and preferred food items like breakfast burritos, and they didn’t have a retail or commercial license,” he continued. “That’s the reason we were there.”

While acknowledging several lawmakers’ frustrations regarding federal oversight, Miyamoto stressed WDA’s obligation to comply with federal law and explained Wyoming’s meat inspection program operates under an agreement requiring the state program to remain “equal to” federal standards established under the Federal Meat Inspection Act. 

He also noted licensing requirements serve three primary purposes. 

If retailers are not licensed, the state may have no way to identify where recalled products are being sold, verify labeling requirements such as country-of-origin claims or inspect facilities to ensure products remain safe and unadulterated.

One of the most contentious issues brought up during the meeting was the use of raw milk in commercial settings. 

Under current Wyoming law, raw milk may be sold direct-to-consumer but cannot be used as an ingredient in a licensed commercial food establishment because federal food safety regulations treat raw milk differently than pasteurized milk.

WDA Deputy Director Joe Budd described the situation as a “catch-22,” noting if a business obtains a commercial food license, it becomes subject to federal pasteurization requirements, but if it operates outside of the commercial licensing system, it may lose the ability to offer certain prepared food products. 

Several lawmakers questioned why products like eggs and produce can be sold with fewer restrictions than milk and meat.

“The reality of it is different products are treated differently because they are defined differently in various laws,” Miyamoto retorted.

Sen. Taft Love further commented, “When we look at the way God has packaged things and handed them to us in life, the egg retains its full packaging all the way to the point of sale, and so does the skin on a fruit or vegetable.” “It’s therefore considered a person can wash off any external issues which have shown up and consume those products somewhat safely,” he added.

“Meat, however, is removed from the package – the skin is gone – and raw milk is no longer part of the package given to it naturally, so I think the natural distinction, the biological effects of how we harvest things and the way things are grown is the reason behind that,” Love concluded.

A call for reform

When the floor opened for public testimony on the topic, one message rang loud a clear – a growing desire for lawmakers to revisit the Wyoming Food Freedom Act in its entirety.

Former Rep. Tyler Lindholm, author of the original Wyoming Food Freedom Act, noted the law has become increasingly difficult to interpret after years of amendments.

“The Wyoming Food Freedom Act seems like it’s just been bolted together,” he said, suggesting a broader rewrite of the bill rather than making small continual changes.

Representatives of the Wyoming Food Coalition and Rocky Mountain Farmers Union echoed this sentiment and urged lawmakers to work collaboratively with producers, consumers and regulators to improve the legislation.

“I think we’ve got a lot of great ideas here, we just need to work on it, make a good bill and give Wyoming the food freedom they’re looking forward to,” said Rep. Steve Johnson.

Wyoming fencing laws 

Later in the day, the committee shifted its focus to Wyoming fencing law.

LSO Attorney Savannah Collins provided an overview of Wyoming’s longstanding fence-out doctrine.

She noted, under traditional common law, livestock owners are required to fence animals in. 

However, as livestock production expanded across the Cowboy State’s vast rangelands, Wyoming became a fence-out state for cattle, meaning landowners are responsible for constructing fences around their properties if they wish to keep livestock out.

“The western U.S. was mostly established on the principle of open range grazing and generally does not follow the common law principle of fencing in,” she stressed. “In Wyoming in particular, the concept was never applied to cattle, so Wyoming is a fence-out state when it comes to cattle.”

She also mentioned a “foundational case for fence law in Wyoming” which occurred in 1902. In the case, two men were found liable for damages their sheep caused while grazing on an adjacent landowner’s property after repeatedly being asked to stop.

“The Wyoming Supreme Court found the men liable for the damages for a number of reasons, including that they had not honestly and prudently endeavored to confine their sheep to public lands,” Collins explained. “Through a combination of the common law principle, the way Wyoming was established and early cases like this one, Wyoming does not have any statutes on the books regarding fencing in of livestock.”

Collins comments prompted questions from lawmakers about whether sheep and cattle are treated differently under Wyoming law. She responded by noting there is no statute explicitly requiring sheep to be fenced in, but court precedent has created a “practical distinction between sheep and cattle management.”

Rep. J.T. Larson noted producers have operated for a long time under the assumption sheep must be fenced in, while cattle fall under the traditional fence-out doctrine.

Committee members decided the issue needs further examination as livestock production continues to evolve across the West.

Rural development and livestock production

When the discussion opened up to public comment, the committee heard testimony regarding the growing challenges between rural development and livestock production.

Representatives of county planning organizations mentioned the increasing confusion for planners, developers, neighboring landowners and producers around fencing requirements and subdivision approvals.

Wyoming Planners Association Representative Joy Hill further noted legislative changes enacted in recent years moved subdivision fencing requirements into planning statutes, leaving a long list of unanswered questions in its wake.

The complexities of fencing and modern development were echoed in multiple testimonies and lawmaker comments.

Sens. Bob Ide and Cheri Steinmetz discussed how maintenance agreements between neighbors are more complicated when large parcels are subdivided into smaller residential lots, while Love noted fencing discussions now have to extend beyond livestock containment and property boundaries to include wildlife migration patterns, subdivision development and changes in landownership.

Moving forward

At the end of the meeting, committee members agreed more work is needed before legislation advances on either issue. 

In regards to the Wyoming Food Freedom Act, the committee tossed around the idea of forming a working group made up of legislators, WDA officials and other stakeholders to address lingering questions around raw milk sales, designated agents and licensing requirements. 

On the topic of fencing law, they suggested holding future meetings to focus on criminal penalties, federal land issues, subdivision fencing concerns and other questions raised during the meeting.

Hannah Bugas is the managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Send comments on this article to roundup@wylr.net.