Bill
SB 28
Michigan would require egg-laying hens to be housed cage-free with minimum usable floor space and ban confining practices, restricting shell egg sales from noncompliant farms.
Status
- Bill: SB 28 (amendment to section 46 of 1988 PA 466, MCL 287.746)
- Introduced: August 15, 2025
- Current status (as provided): Referred to Committee on Regulatory Affairs
Purpose / intent
- Establish and codify minimum housing and handling standards for egg‑laying hens on Michigan farms, and to limit sale in Michigan of shell eggs produced under housing that does not meet those standards. The bill aims to require “cage‑free” housing and minimum usable floor space per hen and to restrict certain confinement practices for covered farm animals.
Key definitions added or clarified
- “Egg‑laying hen”: female domesticated chicken, turkey, duck, goose, or guinea fowl kept for egg production.
- “Cage‑free housing system”: indoor/outdoor controlled environment where hens may roam (includes required enrichments like perches, nest boxes, dust‑bathing areas) and excludes conventional battery/colony/enriched cage systems. Multitiered aviaries, partially slatted systems, and single‑level all‑litter floor systems are defined.
- “Usable floor space”: square footage per hen available to roost or stand (excludes perches/ramps).
- “Shell egg”: whole egg in shell intended as human food.
Main substantive provisions
1. Prohibitions on confinement (subject to specified exemptions):
- Farm owners/operators may not tether or confine a “covered animal” (gestating sows, calves raised for veal, egg‑laying hens) in a way that prevents basic movement (lying down, standing, fully extending limbs, turning around freely).
- Egg‑laying hens may not be confined in enclosures other than a cage‑free housing system and must be given at least the usable floor space specified in United Egg Producers’ “Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg‑Laying Flocks” (2017).
2. Exemptions (temporary or limited): research, veterinary treatment, transport (subject to other law), exhibitions/fairs/4‑H, slaughter, and in the case of sows the 7‑day pre‑parturition period.
3. Sale restriction: businesses may not knowingly sell shell eggs in Michigan that they know or should know were produced in violation of the bill. Exception: shell eggs from farms with fewer than 3,000 hens are excluded from the sale restriction.
4. Enforcement and remedies: civil enforcement available — the Department (or Attorney General) may pursue temporary or permanent injunctions and other equitable relief in circuit court. The bill disclaims criminal penalties under a referenced provision for violations of this section; customary livestock‑husbandry defenses under certain criminal statutes are not a defense in civil enforcement under this section.
5. Good‑faith supplier defense: a business can defend a sale allegation by showing it relied in good faith on a supplier’s written certification/guarantee that eggs complied with the standards.
Who would be affected
- Egg producers and poultry farms (especially those using conventional cage systems) — potential need to convert to cage‑free systems or reduce flock sizes.
- Distributors, retailers, restaurants and other businesses selling shell eggs in Michigan — compliance, recordkeeping, and supplier verification obligations.
- Small farms (fewer than 3,000 hens) are largely exempt from the sale prohibition.
- State Department(s) and Attorney General — enforcement responsibilities.
- Consumers — possible changes in availability and price of shell eggs.
Potential impacts and considerations
- Compliance costs: transition or retrofit costs for producers shifting from cage systems to cage‑free housing (capital and operating costs).
- Market effects: potential short‑term supply tightening and upward pressure on retail egg prices; redistribution of market share to cage‑free producers.
- Administrative/verification burden: businesses may need supplier certifications and traceability systems.
- Legal exposure: civil injunctive actions (rather than criminal penalties) for noncompliance; reliance defense may reduce retail liability if reasonable vetting occurs.
- Small‑farm carve‑out reduces direct impact on many family/very small operations.
Procedural / timing notes
- The bill amends an existing Michigan statute (MCL 287.746) and, at the time of this summary, is in the Regulatory Affairs committee. The provided text does not specify an effective date or implementing schedule; those would be set in the bill’s final language or subsequent amendments.
Limitations / uncertainties
- The bill text provided is partial/truncated in places; final enforcement language, penalty scheme, recordkeeping requirements, and an effective date (if any) should be checked in the enrolled or final version.
- Interaction with federal labeling or interstate commerce rules is not addressed in the provided text and could raise legal questions if the bill affects out‑of‑state producers.
If you want, I can:
- Compare this Michigan proposal to similar laws in other states (costs, timelines, legal challenges), or
- Draft a short checklist for producers and retailers outlining compliance steps they would likely need to take.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
