A state agriculture committee is holding hearings this spring on whether to revisit the minimum aging period required before raw-milk cheese can be sold. This isn't a new fight — versions of it have come up in different states every few years since long before most current members joined — but this round has more momentum than usual, and we'd rather members hear about it from us than find out after a rule has already moved.
The core question hasn't changed: how long does a raw-milk cheese need to age before it's considered safe to sell, and does that number need to be the same for every style and every size of operation? The rule as it currently stands sets one aging floor across the board. Some members who make small, dense, well-salted wheels have told us for years that the floor doesn't reflect how their particular cheese actually behaves, while others worry that any move to make exceptions opens the door to weakening the standard generally. Both concerns are legitimate, and we're not going to pretend this is simple.
What the federation is asking for
Our position, which the Food Safety Committee has reaffirmed this quarter, is not "loosen the rule" or "leave it exactly as is." It's narrower than that: we're asking the committee to base any change on published testing data broken out by cheese type and moisture content, rather than adjusting the aging floor uniformly. If there's a case for treating a hard, low-moisture wheel differently than a soft, high-moisture one, it should be made with evidence specific to that distinction — not settled by a single number that has to work for every cheese in the case.
One of our longtime members, Tom Reyes, testified before a similar committee in a neighboring state a few years back, and he's been in touch again this spring about this round of hearings. His view, which he's been consistent about for years: members who want an exception should be prepared to bring their own testing data to the table, not just ask for one. "If you want the rule to bend for your cheese," he told us, "you'd better have the numbers that show it's earned, not just an opinion that it should." It's blunt advice, but it's held up well as a strategy — committees respond to data far more than they respond to sentiment, however sincere.
What you can do
If this affects your operation directly, the clearest way to be heard is written testimony submitted before the comment window closes, not a phone call after the fact. A few practical notes from members who've done this before:
- Cite your own aging and testing records if you have them. A committee that hears "this works for my cheese" backed by two years of pH and moisture logs carries more weight than the same claim without them.
- Stay specific to the rule change on the table. Testimony that drifts into unrelated grievances tends to get discounted, fairly or not.
- Coordinate through the Food Safety Committee rather than submitting in isolation — a set of aligned, non-duplicate comments from several members in different states is more persuasive than one long letter.
We'll share the comment deadline and submission details as soon as the committee confirms its hearing schedule. In the meantime, if you've got testing data on aging and moisture that you think is relevant, get in touch with the Food Safety Committee — this is exactly the kind of evidence that shapes how this comes out.
The International Cheese Federation (ICF) and More Cheese are entirely fictional. This post is demonstration content created for MemberJunction. All people, organizations, events, courses, certifications, figures, and quotations in it are invented, and nothing here represents a real association, a real business, a real person, or real professional advice.