WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 6133

AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE -- INDICTMENTS, INFORMATIONS AND COMPLAINTS

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Justine Caldwell and 2 co-sponsors

MDARD may reclaim oversight of complex/wholesale processing in food-service sites; local health depts keep general enforcement but must report such cases.

04/22/2025 Committee recommended measure be held for further study
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6133

Summary — HB 6133 (Substitute H-1): Food Law — delegation for complex processing in certain food establishments

Status
- Introduced: Nov 14, 2024 (Rep. Kimberly Edwards)
- Passed House (with H‑1 substitute): Dec 13, 2024 (immediate effect on passage by House)
- Referred to Committee on Government Operations: Dec 18, 2024
- Later referred to Joint Committee on Insurance and Real Estate: Jan 22, 2025
- Statutory target: amendments to 2000 PA 92 (Food Law), specifically sections 3105, 3129, 3139, 4101, 4105, 5101, and 6103 (MCL 289.3105 et seq.)

Purpose
- Clarify and refine how enforcement authority under Michigan’s Food Law is delegated between the Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development (MDARD) and local health departments, and to set procedures for when authority should return to the department for certain “complex” food processing activities carried out within food service establishments.

Key provisions and changes
- Delegation framework (Sec. 3105)
- Continues delegation of enforcement for food service establishments to local health departments that meet program criteria.
- Explicitly excludes certain enforcement elements from local delegation: late fees (sec. 4113), administrative fines (sec. 5105), and criminal fines (sec. 5107).
- Establishes rules for mixed operations:
- If a food service establishment is part of a retail grocery or food processor and the retail/processor component is predominant, delegation to the local health department does not apply.
- Conversely, if the food service side is predominant, the entire establishment is generally delegated—except in specified circumstances (see below).
- Allows MDARD to reclaim authority over activities related to processing food for wholesale when a food processor embedded in a food service establishment engages in complex or regulated wholesale processes (examples listed): low-acid canned foods, acidified foods, juice, seafood, fermented foods (other than alcohol), aseptic-processed foods, or other processes the department deems “complex.”
- Requires local health departments to forward information about such in-house food processors to MDARD within 30 days of identification.
- Permits such processors to obtain a separate MDARD license and limits fees owed to the fee under sec. 3119 (not the licensing fee under sec. 4111).

  • Investigations and reporting (Sec. 3129)

    • Clarifies local health departments’ duty to investigate alleged foodborne disease/poisoning incidents within their jurisdiction and to promptly report findings to MDARD.
    • Requires immediate notification to MDARD if a suspected source falls under MDARD’s jurisdiction (e.g., a processing or storage facility), and reciprocal reporting of MDARD’s response.

  • Certification revocation of local health departments (Sec. 3139)

    • Sets procedures and timing for revoking a certified health department’s delegated authority if it fails to meet statutory or rule requirements. Provides for written notice, opportunity for hearing, and timelines for revocation if deficiencies remain uncorrected.

  • Licensing scope and exemptions (Secs. 4101, 4105)

    • Clarifies when separate areas in one building may be treated as a single food establishment for licensing, with MDARD authorized to require separate licenses when operations are separately managed.
    • Retains and enumerates existing exemptions (e.g., certain licensed activities, sellers of whole uncut produce, some nonprofit cooperative activities) (text truncated in source).

Who is affected
- MDARD: gains explicit authority to reclaim oversight for complex/wholesale processing activities and will receive required reports from local health departments.
- Local health departments: continue primary enforcement for food service generally but face new reporting requirements and potential loss of delegation for certain in-restaurant processing activities.
- Food service establishments that include processors (e.g., restaurants that also process and sell wholesale products): may face MDARD oversight, separate licensing for processing, and different fee obligations.
- Retail grocers and food processors integrated with food service operations: clarified criteria on which entity is “predominant” for delegation purposes.
- Food businesses engaging in specified complex processes (low-acid canned food, acidified food, juice, seafood, certain fermented or aseptic processes) — may shift from local to state jurisdiction.

Potential impacts
- Creates clearer lines of responsibility between state and local regulators for mixed-use establishments and for establishments that engage in higher‑risk or specialized processing.
- May increase MDARD workload for oversight of reclaimed operations but could centralize technical oversight for complex processes.
- Businesses that add wholesale/complex processing capabilities may need to obtain a separate state license and comply with MDARD requirements and timelines.

Note: The substitute (H‑1) text and committee analysis are the primary sources. Some sections in the bill text provided in the source were truncated; readers should consult the enacted text or bill file for complete statutory language and any cross‑references (e.g., fee sections 3119 and 4111).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.