Jebadiah Schwager, Research Fellow
Emily Stone, Staff Attorney

It is no secret that the United States has the safest food supply in the world. However, this standard of safety is only possible on such a massive scale because of strict licensing and inspection requirements. Compliance with these requirements often requires large financial and time commitments for producers and can be difficult for smaller operations to afford. There is good news though for small business owners – almost every state in the country has passed laws or regulations allowing entrepreneurs in similar situations to produce and sell certain food products made in private homes with very little or no regulation or oversight. This article will highlight recent general trends in cottage food law and discuss specific state updates. For more information and reference to the specific cottage food laws and regulations of each individual state, please visit the cottage food compilation on the National Agricultural Law Center’s website.

What Are Cottage Foods?

Foods that fall under the category of ‘cottage foods’ often include baked goods, jams, jellies, dry mixes, and candies. Generally, cottages foods are understood to be foods which are prepared at a home residence and sold to a consumer directly. These sales typically take place at farmers’ markets or on a producer’s property. However, the most important distinction of cottage foods is that those producing them are afforded certain exceptions from licensing or inspection requirements.

Generally, foods that are classified as “cottage food” are those not time or temperature controlled for safety.  “Time/temperature control for safety” (TCS) foods are defined by the FDA Food Code as “foods that require time/temperature control for safety to limit pathogenic microorganism growth or toxin formation.” Because foods which do require a specific time or temperature constraint to be deemed safe for consumption are more likely to pose a food safety risk if not handled properly, most cottage food provisions traditionally have not allowed them to be excluded from licensing or inspection requirements. For example, sliced tomatoes, which if not stored at a proper temperature could result in pathogen growth, were historically not considered cottages foods and thus could not enjoy the exceptions often afforded to cottage foods.

However, it is important to note that cottage food definitions and utilization of TCS language varies from state to state. In fact, in recent years, some states have expanded their definitions of cottage foods outside of the non-TCS category. Alternatively, some states use completely different parameters to define what is meant by ‘cottage food.’ For example, Nevada has two categories of food items that have reduced inspection and licensing requirements – cottage foods and craft foods. Under Nevada law, a cottage food operation is one that prepares and sells food items such as jams, dry herbs, and baked goods that do not require time or temperature controls for food safety, in a private home or kitchen that is not inspected. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 446.866. A craft food operation, on the other hand, is one that prepares and sells acidified foods, or food items containing either fruits, vegetables, or both and has a finished equilibrium pH level of not more than 4.6. Nev. Rev. Stat § 587.693. Nevada’s law includes requirements for the craft food operation that a cottage food operation is not required to comply with. Regardless of the definitions used or classes of foods covered, cottage food legislation generally aims at achieving a balance between allowing producer freedom and protecting public health.

Authority and Influence

In the United States, each individual state has primary authority over its citizens’ health and well-being. This authority is what allows states to establish their own laws and regulations addressing food production, usually through regulation of ‘food establishments.’ Most commonly, cottage food operations are exempted from the normal requirements imposed for food establishments. Nevertheless, in an effort to balance state interests in citizens’ health and well-being, there are usually separate requirements, such as specific labeling or sales caps, which must be met by cottage food operations to avoid licensing and inspection requirements.

It is important to note that states have extremely broad discretion in regulating food establishments and cottage food operations specifically. Nevertheless, many states are influenced by the federal government. Particularly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in partnership with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), regularly publishes a model Food Code, which sets out standards of food safety on multiple topics. While this model code is published by the FDA, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service regularly provides specific input for updating the code. While the FDA Food Code is not binding on states, they are welcome to adopt it in whole or in part, and it does work to influence state legislation. In fact, nearly all states with cottage food laws and regulations go beyond the general language of the FDA Food Code, which exempts home kitchens that “prepare non- time/ temperature control for safety food.” The resulting approaches differ dramatically from state to state and evolve just as dramatically over time.

General trends

Given new legislation and amendments to existing legislation within the past few years, there are some general trends worth exploring in relation to cottage food laws.

Definition of Cottage Foods

First, the legal definition of foods allowed under the ‘cottage food’ umbrella has changed in some states. states almost exclusively require cottage foods to be ‘non-TCS foods’ and meet the standards outlined in the non-TCS definition above, some states have amended that definition and provide alternative ways for a food to qualify as non-TCS. Thus, some traditional TCS food, under these new definitional standards, would qualify as cottage foods.

Among the states that define cottage foods as non-TCS foods, since 2022, at least five have passed amendments allowing the use of pH level testing or other measurements to determine TCS status. However, application of these alternative determinations differs among states. For example, while new , recent legislation from Hawaii, South Carolina, and South Dakota refers to the use of pH or water value to determine TCS status, further providing potential circumvention of the classic TCS definition. It is important to note that while these parameters are utilized to determine TCS status rather than cottage food status, these states define cottage foods as ‘non-TCS’ foods. Therefore, these determinations have the practical effect of determining if the food in question falls under the cottage food umbrella.

Other states have radically reformed their definition of cottage foods by using TCS language not to exclude protection under cottage food laws, but instead to create a tier system of cottage foods. Particularly, food freedom acts recently implemented in Alaska, Arizona, and   allow virtually all TCS and non-TCS foods to qualify as cottage foods. However, these states have imposed additional limitations on where and how TCS foods are sold. For example, while cottage food producers in Wyoming are allowed to market non-TCS foods as cottage foods through third party establishments, the sale of TCS foods allowed as cottage foods must take place directly between the producer and the consumer. Additionally, TCS foods must be specifically labeled as such and kept separate from non-TCS food areas.

Gross Sales Limitations

The second recent trend among cottage food laws and regulations is changes to gross sales limitations. In many states, food production operations must remain below a certain level of gross annual sales in order to qualify as cottage food operations. These gross sales limitations have been implemented to balance the reach that cottage food operations are allowed with state concerns for public safety.

Nevertheless, the trend in recent years has been to raise maximum gross sales or eliminate these constraints altogether, allowing increased expansion for cottage food operations. For example, Connecticut, Iowa, Nevada, Texas, and Virginia have all raised their maximum gross sales allowed for cottage food producers from $25,000 to $50,000; $35,000 to $50,000; $35,000 to $100,000; $50,000 to $150,000; and $3,000 to $9,000 respectively. Further Delaware, Missouri, and New Hampshire have eliminated such constraints since 2022.

However, not all states have followed this trend. Vermont established an annual sales cap of $30,000 for cottage food operations, replacing its former weekly sales cap of $125. Washington, through Wash. Rev. Code § 69.22.050, also has a new maximum annual gross sales allowance set at $35,000 where no cap stood previously. Finally, South Carolina departs from all other states in that minimum annual gross sales of $1,500 are required for the state’s home-based food production operations statute to apply to such operations. This minimum was raised in 2022 from minimum gross sales of $500 previously.

Place of Sale

Finally, states have expanded who may sell a cottage food product, and where those sales may take place. First, online sales of cottage foods have begun to grow as the industry has grown in popularity. Particularly, a handful of states since 2022 have passed or are in the process of adopting legislation to allow online advertising or sales of cottage foods. Missouri, Alaska, Iowa, Nevada, North Dakota, and South Carolina have recently adopted legislation allowing online sales of cottage foods, joining what is already a majority of states. In addition, new Hawaii legislation H.B. No. 2144, mentioned above, intends to allow online sales as well. Virginia appears to ride a line in between, explicitly allowing online advertising in newly adopted amendments to Virginia Code § 3.2-5130, while continuing to prohibit online sales. It is important to note that most states clarify that the online sale of cottage foods should be conducted within the state, and not across state boundaries. Nonetheless, with these new additions, less than half of states continue to prohibit online cottage food sales.

Additionally, a number of states have modified their cottage food provisions to expand where cottage food products can be sold. Traditionally, most provisions limit cottage food operations to only selling products directly to consumers on-site at a farm or at a farmer’s market. However, several states have updated their provisions to now allow the sale of cottage food products at retail operations beyond farmer’s markets and by vendors other than the producer. For example, Texas is now allowing cottage food operations to sell non-TCS cottage foods to third-party vendors. Similarly, Alaska updated its laws to allow non-potentially hazardous cottage foods to be sold at grocery stores or other retail locations by a third-party seller, but still requires potentially hazardous cottage foods to be sold only sold by the producer of the product.

Individual State Changes

Since 2022, over half of all states have made changes to statutes or regulations relating to cottage foods. While some changes have little functional effect, others have potentially significant implications. Listed below are specifically notable states and their changes:

Alaska– Despite having regulations implemented in the past, Alaska passed its first state statute relating to homemade food, codified at Alaska Stat. Ann. § 17.20.332-338, in 2024. This law established exemptions from labeling, licensing, packaging, permitting, and inspection requirements for the sale of homemade food. Additionally, the new law allows the sale of non-potentially hazardous cottage foods online, in person, and at some retail locations and even allows some potentially hazardous foods to be sold as cottage foods if sold direct to consumer by the respective producer.

Arizona– While previous Arizona statutes refer to cottage food operations in a piece-meal fashion, a recently passed statute consolidates definitions and references to cottage foods under one article. Codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 36-931-933, this new statute expands Arizona’s cottage food protections to some TCS foods, such as frozen produce, while explicitly excluding alcoholic beverages, unpasteurized milk, and meat products from cottage food protections. Additionally, this new statute supplies more precise definitions, requirements, and distinctions relating to cottage foods.

Vermont– In 2025, Vermont’s legislature enacted HB 401, a bill that expands the annual sales cap for Vermont cottage food operations to $30,000. Previously, Vermont law maintained a maximum sales cap of $125.00 per week for cottage food operations. This expansion will allow more operations in Vermont to qualify as cottage foods.

Hawaii- H. B. No. 2144, recently passed in the Hawaii legislature, directs the state’s health department to update its cottage food regulations. The required updates include expanding the current definition of homemade food products and adopting certain rules to expand the sale and delivery methods of homemade food products. While this legislation required that these changes be implemented “no later than December 31, 2024,” as of the writing of this article the Hawaii Department of Health has not yet implemented these changes.

Iowa– Cottage food statutes, Iowa Code Ann. §§ 137D and 137F, have been recently overhauled. Most notably, apart from updated labeling requirements, Iowa has added a section referring to and explicitly excluding raw milk from cottage food coverage. This is significant because Iowa has also recently passed legislation legalizing the sale of raw milk under very specific requirements. While cottage foods are defined in Iowa as “not TCS,” it appears Iowa is taking extra precautions to ensure raw milk is not afforded cottage food protections.

Wyoming– Wyoming has recently passed legislation that amends the Wyoming Food Freedom Act. Instead of excluding ‘potentially hazardous’ foods from production and sale by home producers, Wyoming’s new amendment merely differentiates between who can sell non-potentially hazardous foods (producers, agents of producers, and third-party venders) and who can sell potentially hazardous foods (producers and designated agents of producers). In fact, the new amendment goes further, separating dairy products and eggs from other potentially hazardous foods and explicitly including them under the same category as non-potentially hazardous foods, thus allowing their sales “to the maximum extent permitted by federal law.” Meat products are the only class of foods generally excluded from sale under the current statute. However, in addition to some current exceptions, Wyoming has passed another recent amendment to its cottage foods laws explicitly allowing the sale of meat products from animals raised and slaughtered by a home producer. However, the inclusion of such meat products produced by a home producer without inspection is contingent on the same legalization occurring at the federal level.

Utah– An amendment to the Utah state code, Utah Code § 4-5a-102, adds a subsection specifically defining ‘minor producers’ and ‘minor-operated businesses’ and thereafter explicitly excluding minor producers and minor-operated businesses from application of cottage food freedoms and requirements. Under the new language, minor producers are defined as individuals under the age of 18 and minor-operated businesses are defined as businesses operated by those individuals. Under this new amendment, Utah clarifies that cottage food producers must be of legal age to qualify.

Delaware– Delaware has recently amended its state administrative code 16 Del. Admin. Code 4458A, adding a subsection defining “cannabis” under state law and explicitly excluding cannabis from cottage food protections.

Oklahoma– House Bill 2975, signed into law in April of 2024, allows Oklahoma cottage food producers to obtain registration numbers to affix to their product labels in place of previous requirements to list the producer’s name, phone number, and physical address on all labels. The new change allows the Oklahoma government to continue keeping records of cottage foods sold in case of food safety issues while also protecting cottage food operations’ personal information from the general public.

Illinois– In addition to adding new TCS determinations through public act 103-903 (S.B. 2617), as referenced earlier, Illinois’s most recent cottage food amendment also includes more unique additions. First, a section is added explicitly defining a cottage food operation ‘employee,’ a term previously used but undefined under the statute. Second, mobile Farmer’s Markets are recognized for the first time as avenues for cottage food sales, allowing more freedom in how cottage food operations market products and reach customers. Finally, because Illinois law requires cottage food operations to register with their county’s health department, the new legislation allows cottage food producers who live in a county without a local health department to register with one in an adjacent county.

North Dakota– Senate Bill 2386, signed into law by the North Dakota governor on March 21^st, 2025, allows multiple new expansions to cottage food producer freedoms. Particularly, the new amendment allows for the sale of cottage foods online, over the phone, through the mail, or by consignment, following the lead of a growing majority of states around the nation. Breaking with the trend most states have followed requiring online sales to be within state boundaries, this new legislation also allows North Dakota cottage food producers to sell goods to out-of-state customers.

Texas- In 2025, Texas enacted Senate Bill 541, an update to its cottage food laws. This legislation expands current Texas law to allow nonprofit organizations to be eligible to register as cottage food producers and increases the annual cottage food sales cap to $150,000. This update allows cottage foods to be sold through certain third-party vendors, and like the Oklahoma law, permits cottage food operators to omit their home address from the product label. Additionally, the law bars local government authorities from attempting to regulate cottage food production through licensure and requires cottage food products to contain specific disclosures.

Minnesota – Through the inclusion of provisions pertaining to cottage food in its omnibus Agriculture bill, Minnesota updated its cottage food laws in 2025. Specifically, this legislation decreases the fee for registering as a cottage food operation from $50 to $30; expands the law to allow individuals, sole proprietors, and small two-person LLCs owned by two persons who cohabitate to be eligible to register as cottage food operators; and changed the food safety training requirements to only require cottage food producers to complete courses every three years. Additionally, the bill updated Minnesota cottage food law to require the annual sales cap be adjusted every two years for inflation, and to permit cottage food products to be delivered by mail or commercial services.

Nevada– In Nevada, the enactment of Assembly Bill 352 updated both the laws that govern cottage food operations and craft food operations. This legislation increased the gross sales limitation for both cottage food and craft food operations from $35,000 to $100,000. Specifically, for cottage foods, the law will permit Nevada operations to sell products over the phone, via the internet, through the mail, or with a food delivery service platform. Conversely, the law only permits craft food operations to fulfill telephone or internet transactions in person.

Looking Ahead

There is no doubt that cottage food production is growing in popularity across the country. These trends spanning across multiple states are evidence of that. As the 2025 legislative session continues around the nation, it is likely that proposed legislation, with these trends, may continue to surface. In a time of such a boom in popularity, squaring states’ interests in public health and safety with the potential expansion opportunities for small businesses will continue to require a balancing act for lawmaker