Senate Rules Committee approves 2025 NC Farm Act

Following a fiery debate, the Senate Rules Committee approved the North Carolina Farm Act of 2025 (HB 639). This bill has 22 sections; two sections have been added since the Senate Agriculture Committee approved the bill. HB 639 is sponsored by state Sens. Brent Jackson, R-Sampson; Lisa Barnes, R-Nash; and Norman Sanderson, R-Pamlico. 

The Farm Act, SB 639, updates and reforms environmental safeguards, regulatory practices, and policies governing the state’s agricultural industry. 

The proposed bill addresses various agricultural, environmental, and regulatory issues in North Carolina. It begins by updating the agricultural water plan for the first time since 2010 and establishes a feral swine working group with support from key agricultural stakeholders.

The bill also expands local authority by allowing denial of special-use permits that unduly impact agrarian production, repealing a reportedly outdated violation point system for swine farms, and clarifying eligibility and technical aspects related to animal waste programs. Additionally, it aligns state definitions of susceptible livestock species with USDA standards, modifies rules on composting animal mortalities, and encourages youth agricultural engagement by mandating a minimum of excused absences for schoolchildren participating in agri-events. It also designates additional high-risk burn counties and adjusts longstanding pesticide registration fees.

SB 639 expands the NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCD&CS) oversight, which includes liquid petroleum gas regulation, public weighmaster processes, and law enforcement jurisdiction for forestry officers. The bill initiates studies on communication infrastructure and raw milk herd-share systems, highlighting public-health concerns linked to raw milk and emerging viruses, especially Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). The bill amends penalties for shellfish violations and crop theft and introduces legal protections for pesticide labeling disputes. Additional provisions redefine composting facilities as agricultural, permit optional propane assessment increases, and clarify property-tax program eligibility for farm businesses.

Sen. Julie Mayfield, D-Buncombe, debated bill-sponsor Jackson on her concerns regarding the labeling of pesticides and raw milk. 

Mayfield: I agree with you that this bill doesn’t prevent people from bringing lawsuits for harm caused by pesticides. You said it’s really just about the presumption on the labeling, but that is the lawsuit. Making that a rebuttable presumption increases the hurdle tremendously for plaintiffs and petitioners. I would say an individual case makes it virtually impossible that an individual plaintiff could acquire the data needed to rebut that presumption. I think that’s really problematic. My understanding is that this rebuttable presumption would apply to about 16,000 chemicals and pesticides. Is that your understanding, or do you know?” 

Jackson: I can’t answer that because I do not know how many it would apply to, but it would just apply to the labeling part of it. It’s my understanding that in the case that we’re talking about, they put on exactly what the EPA told them to put on. 

Mayfield: Yes, and I wish I could ask the entire room this question: Do we always agree with what federal agencies do? Do we? I mean, I think the answer is no.

Jackson: Well, you might want to add, do they always agree with what we do? 

Mayfield: It’s curious to me that we are suddenly going to trust, particularly, an environmental agency, not the most popular agencies inside this building, to have gotten the analysis right on this particular issue.

In response to closing the “milk loophole,” as legislators dubbed it, Mayfield asked what problem is being addressed, aside from concerns regarding the HPAI.

“One: what we’re doing is not really what the companies wanted me to do,” said Jackson. “Two: I think it’s the fairest thing we can do, I think — a rebuttable presumption if you don’t have data, without it completely being a frivolous lawsuit. File a lawsuit. So I think it levels the playing field for both parties, and that’s the best thing to do.”

Several other legislators had questions or comments regarding the legislation. Additionally, multiple individuals spoke for and against the bill during the public comment period.

The North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) is responsible for food safety throughout the state, a serious responsibility, not only for products intended for human consumption but also for those consumed by animals, according to Cameron Dawson, legislative affairs director for NCDA&CS. According to Dawson, the presence of HPAI in raw milk has heightened the existing risks associated with unpasteurized milk, posing potential dangers to both individuals and their pets. Raw milk contaminated with HPAI, even when intended for animal consumption, he said, has been linked to multiple pet fatalities and remains a public health concern if ingested by humans.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) strongly opposes legislation that permits the direct sale and distribution of raw milk to consumers, according to Dawson. Since 1987, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)has mandated the pasteurization of milk for human consumption, following the first state law implemented in 1908.

Advocates for expanding access to raw milk in North Carolina point out that other food products (like raw meat and bagged vegetables) are sources of bacteria when not properly prepared and consumed. John Locke Foundation CEO Donald Bryson argued in a recent CJ editorial that those who want to purchase raw milk should receive similar freedom.

“Senate Rules Committee approves 2025 NC Farm Act” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.