Ohio Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee - 6-10-2026

Chair Schaefer. Here.

Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson. Present.

Senator Liston. Here.

Senator Wilkin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is my first time testifying before Senate Ag, which is wild because I'm almost out the door as a senator. But that said, Chairman Schaefer, Vice Chair Kaler, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and members of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on Senate Bill 369, legislation that would prohibit the force feeding of birds and the sale of products derived from that practice in the state of Ohio. 369 addresses a highly specific agricultural practice that currently operates outside Ohio law. Under the bill, force feeding is defined as manually or mechanically causing a bird to consume more food than it would voluntarily ingest under normal conditions. This includes the practice commonly known as gavage or cramming, in which tubes are inserted into a bird's esophagus to enlarge its liver or carcass for commercial production. The bill establishes several straightforward prohibitions. First, it prohibits any person from knowingly force feeding a bird or directing another person to do so. Second, it prohibits the distribution sale or offering for sale of products derived from force-fed birds. These products include food items such as foie gras, paté, confit, mcgray, and rendered fats, as well as non-food products including feathers and down. SB 369 also provides a measured enforcement framework. The Director of Agriculture would oversee implementation through a civil process. First violation would result in a written warning. Subsequent violations could result in a civil penalty of up to $100 per day, with each day of a continuing violation constituting a separate offense. The legislation also preserves due process protections by allowing appeals of any civil penalties assessed. There are important agricultural, environmental, and public health considerations associated with force-feeding operations. Studies have documented that mortality rates among force-fed birds are substantially higher than those observed under conventional poultry production practices, with some research reporting rates more than 10 times greater. Researchers also found that the livers of force-fed birds contain significantly elevated concentrations of amyloid proteins compared to those of non-force-fed birds. Medical researchers have identified these amyloid deposits as a potential public health concern because amyloid proteins are associated with neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease. Additionally, the intensive handling required during the force-feeding process and the unusually high feed intake associated with these operations result in increased waste production and environmental contamination. Research and disease control efforts have further shown that waterfowl fattening operations are highly susceptible to highly pathogenic avian influenza and create conditions that may facilitate the transmission and spread of avian influenza viruses. HPAI continues to have significant consequences for the poultry industry with more than 200 million poultry birds affected in the United States in recent years. Ohio has experienced repeated outbreaks of HPAI in recent years, resulting in the loss of millions of birds and significant economic impacts on poultry producers. Since the current HPAI outbreak began in 2022, Ohio has reported infections in commercial poultry flocks across multiple counties, including some of the state's largest poultry-producing regions. These outbreaks have required the depopulation of millions of birds, disrupted agricultural operations, increased biosecurity costs, and created ongoing concerns regarding disease transmission and containment. Given the demonstrated susceptibility of ducks raised for foie gras production to avian influenza, it is prudent for Ohio to carefully evaluate agricultural practices that may increase disease risks within the state's poultry sector. Ohio would not be acting alone in addressing this issue. More than 80 percent of European Union member nations prohibit force feeding through either direct bans or animal welfare production. In the U.S., a growing number of states and municipalities have restricted the production or sale of products derived from force-fed birds. These actions demonstrate that agricultural modernization in this area is not a novel concept, but rather part of an ongoing effort to protect agriculture, public health, and consumer confidence. SB 369 represents a reasonable and forward-looking approach to addressing a practice that has raised concerns related to agriculture, food production, environmental impacts, and public health. The bill establishes clear standards while providing a fair enforcement process in bringing Ohio in line with evolving standards seen elsewhere in the U.S. and around the world. Thank you for the consideration of 369. I'd be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this legislation. I was, you know, you talk about that, the outbreak of the highly pathogenic avian influenza. And so are you saying that this, if you know, whether this process will add to that, if you know?

You know, it's not like these operations are even in Ohio right now.

But they are in operation in France and Hungary, if I have that correctly, over in Europe. Admittedly, foie gras, France, goes without saying. But the fact that they've had problems with this, if this comes to Ohio, I think it poses a definite risk to us. So it's more of a prophylactic measure than anything else. Thank you. Nothing further.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move we accept Amendment AM 136-2478-2.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is an omnibus amendment containing minor changes and technical fixes for the Ohio Department of Agriculture sections of the revised code. Most notably, the amendment will make the following changes. First, excludes bakeries registered with the Director of Agriculture under the law governing bakeries from the requirements to be licensed as a frozen food facility under the law governing cold storage and frozen food facilities. In the case of producers of an agricultural commodity that submit a list of candidate recommendations to serve as members for applicable agricultural commodity marketing programs operating committee, it does both of the following. One, it eliminates the requirement that the producer's list include at least twice as many candidates as the number of members that are required to be appointed. And two, it eliminates the prohibition against any list, including fewer than three names. Another provision clarifies that the books and records of the Ohio Grape Industry Committee must be made available to the Auditor of State as part of the Auditor of State's annual audit of ODA. and it eliminates the requirement that ODA director accomplish an audit of the books and records of the committee prior to September 30th of each year. Next, it expands the jurisdiction of local weights and measures officials by adding the duty of verifying the accuracy and computation of advertised prices, price representations, and point-of-sale systems. Current law only requires the director to perform such verification. Finally, it makes several changes to the auctioneer's licensing law, including stating that if an auctioneer license fails to place the license on deposit prior to expiration of the auctioneer license, the ODA director or the director's designee may grant a medical exception upon application by the licensed auctioneer to retroactively place the auctioneer's license on deposit. Additionally, this language came at the request of the House Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I move to accept Amendment AM 136-2592-2.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. The amendment will phase in the amusement ride inspection fees under the bill, with the exception of fees for the inspection of tower rides and larger roller coaster, phases in the changes, both increases and decreases, that the bill makes to amusement ride fees as follows. First, half of the fees increase or decrease amount takes effect on the bill's effective date and ends on November 30, 2027. And the full fee increase or decrease amount takes effect December 1 2027 Phases in the bill increase to the annual inspection for tower rides as follows beginning on the bill effective date and ending on November 30th 2027 and $1,800 beginning on December 1st, 2027. And it phases in the bill's increase to the annual inspection ride for larger roller coasters as follows, $3,250 beginning on the bill's effective date and ending on November 30, 2027, and $4,000 beginning on December 1, 2027.

Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Schaefer, Vice Chair Kaler, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and members of the Senate Agricultural Natural Resource Committee, thank you for your time today. and allowing me to submit testimony in support of House Bill 433. My name is Tammy Chapman, and I am the owner of A&S Party Rental in Franklin, Ohio. For more than 24 years, my company has provided safe family entertainment throughout Ohio and working closely with the Ohio Department of Agriculture to ensure that my attractions were inspected and operate safely. I respectfully ask each and every one of you for your support of House Bill 433. The strongest reason why I ask for your support of this legislation is that it is based on the findings by the Ohio Department of Agriculture's own inspection time study. This independent time study spent significant time evaluating the actual resources required to inspect different amusement rides and attractions throughout the state of Ohio. The department study confirmed that not all rides require the same amount of inspection time or inspection resources. Some attractions can be inspected in a relatively short period of time, while larger and more complex rides require substantially more inspector time and more resources. For example, a small bounce house, which is what the bill primarily addresses, takes 20 to 25 minutes to inspect, and the cost to inspect that ride is $329. A more complex and detailed ride, like a roller coaster, will take two to three inspectors, three to five days, and that inspection fee is $1,425. I am hoping this resonates with you because for my company, we have 115 rides inspected in that three to five days, three to four, but three to five days. My company inspects 115 bounce houses. My bill for those balances is $37,835. To inspect a roller coaster is $1,425 for the same resources and time spent. So 37,000 compared to $1,425. I wanna make this extremely clear. This bill does not reduce safety standards and eliminate any inspections or weaken any oversight in any way. As a matter of fact, in the state of Ohio, it is estimated that 100 to 150 bounce house companies go unlicensed every year. Now, I will challenge you this. If you say the word bounce house to your phone and you get on Facebook tonight, you'll start seeing all the unlicensed companies come up. They say they can't license them because the fees are too high. So I'm going to tell you, I think that our safety will improve with the inspection fees being more affordable for people. My second reason for asking for you to support House Bill 433 is that the department's findings have already received significant support throughout the legislative process. House Bill 433 passed the Ohio House of Representatives by a strong bipartisan margin, 87 to 4. I think that demonstrates the broad recognition that the current fee structure should be modernized and updated. Another reason why I think this deserves your support is the High Amusement Ride Safety Council supported this recommendation to move toward a fee structure based on actual time spent, and it was a unanimous vote to forward this bill. The advisory council is made up of individuals with firsthand knowledge of ride safety and inspection, and they recognize the fairness of this bill and the approach. I have worked for more than eight years on this bill myself. I genuinely believe the current fee structure is unfair to many small businesses. Over those eight years, I've attended many meetings. I've actually even given testimony before. I've talked to many people trying to come up with a common ground and a fairness approach. To me it's really not about somebody winning or losing, it's about paying your fair share. If you need more, if you utilize more resources, then I think you should pay for those more resources. As a small business owner, as a taxpayer, as an Ohio employer, I am simply asking for a system that is fair to everyone. A system where businesses pay inspection resources that they use, where no company is forced to subsidize another company. This is a pay for play. If I use the resources, I pay for them. I mean, I don't know a more modern approach than that. I want to be completely clear. I own 10 amusement rides myself. 10 amusement rides. My fees will go up. As a small business owner, if I use more resources, I think that those fees should go up. I rent a bounce house out for $199. Those large attractions rent out for $2,000 to $25,000 a day. There is a difference. There truly is. I know my opponents will come up and say that they believe the fees should go up, but they don't think it should be that much. What's more fair than you pay for what you use? In conclusion, my final statement to you is this. I grew up in Portsmouth, Ohio. I went to the University of Cincinnati. I studied really hard. I graduated with honors. And the vision of a dream to own a small business in the state of Ohio. Because of legislators like you, who support small businesses and fight for fair rules for small businesses, my dream came true. I thank you for your support in the past, and I ask for your support again today in passing House Bill 433. Any questions?

Thank you.

Very good. Very good, you did. You did.

Thank you. Chairman Schaefer, Vice Chair Kohler, Ranking Members Hicks, Hudson, and members of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resource Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony in support of House Bill 433 because it's an important issue. and I did not know I was going to follow Tammy with such great examples. And also a few years ago, and I want to mention this, if you see something, say something was always a negative thing. I use that as a positive here. If you see something, say something on people doing a good job. And I'd like to thank Travis Brock from your office, Senator Schaefer, for really kind of last night's conversations and just making things happen. Hustle, hustle, hustle. And I told you that, so thank you. So, but anyways, I've been involved with this. I left the office about eight o'clock and he was still working. Well, I submitted about 11.30 p.m. Oh my. So anyways, I have been involved with the issue since the early 90s. I established a rental company and we're not simply talking about a bounce house rentals for birthday parties, but how inflatable amusement businesses are different than traditional carnival businesses. Why they need 24 different bounce houses and how they conduct business with clients in a different way than a traditional carnival ride company. A traditional carnival company wouldn't typically have 24 different carousels or 24 different Ferris wheels or giant swings. Usually one or two of them items is sufficient because of the cost to purchase those and the number of shows that they operate within a weekend's time. It has a big impact on success and the growth of these small businesses and understanding how House Bill 433 is an issue of finally restructuring amusement inspections to be in line with the actual cost it requires to complete the process without being excessive is the important issue Just two years ago, I might add, North Carolina eliminated their inspections on inflatables because of some of these similar issues in the number of units that small businesses had and the cost of compliance was rising. Again, my name is Kevin. just to kind of go over some of my involvement in the industry. I've been involved with the inflatable industry in a number of roles, generally viewing issues from a business owner's perspective since establishing my company in 1990. Since then, I've experienced different roles, which include involvement with the owner-operator task group chair with the ASTM safety standards and revising those standards in 2014, serving on the Ohio Amusement Rides Safety Advisory Council through Senate appointment by past Senate President Huffman, serving on the board of Inflatable Operators Association, and currently, since selling my company, current executive director for IOA. So I currently manage risk management and safety programs based on the ASTMF 2374 and present annually for the Pennsylvania ride safety programs. Aim safety training and maintain a current NARSO Level 1 amusement ride inspection certification as well. So I thought it was important that I understand what I'm doing and getting the credentials to support my positions. I respect and ask for your support for House Bill 433. How do traditional carnival companies or amusement parks differ from inflatable amusements? Why doesn't a carnival company midway need 24 carousel rides? The inflatable industry businesses will generally afford multiple theme units because of cost, and they need them for different children's ages, different children's themes, you know, for boys and girls birthday parties, and the rental process is choosing a theme is generally a big decision for parents to plan that perfect birthday party in the backyard. What is trending? Superheroes, unicorns, baseball, football, or basketball themes, not just one carousel, but multiple themes for a bounce house, and the setup is generally managed through a delivery set up training of parents for operations and then returning to pick up the equipment following the rental. They need those 24 units so there's ability to choose and they meet the demands of their clients in their business. In comparison to a traditional carnival ride that's set up that could generally be provided for these type of events are much more complex, costing several thousand dollars more, and they're complex with pneumatic, hydraulic, or substantial power requirements, it would be awesome to have a Ferris wheel for a backyard birthday party, but it generally doesn't happen. And in a carnival company, it's purchasing one of those units for $80,000 to $250,000, but an inflatable rental company needs 24 bounce houses because of the fulfilling the demand on the different themes. An investment per unit that's typically $3,500 to $7,500 per unit. The inspection process, the Ohio Department of Agriculture Department of Amusement and Ride Safety Councils comprised of 15 industry professionals. In order to assess the time and resources needed for the inspections of different types of amusements, the department created a subcommittee for review of the inspection process. Generally, time required to complete the process and the current fee structure. This was an important fact-based study in where the department found more time was needed with larger, more complex rides and adjustments occurred and were proposed. This is where my comparison comes back for reference. Companies owning 24 bounce houses were paying, you know, on the average $7,896 for the process that was completed within an eight-hour workday, and that was budgeting 20 minutes per inspection of each individual rides. I will defer back to the comparison that Tammy Chapman provided that really was an eye-opening, probably more so than my example. In comparison, a Ferris wheel was paying $385 for a process taking a much longer time period for a single ride, involving mechanical inspection, structural inspection, and witnessing the ride's cycles for operation, a process budgeting four to five hours to complete that process. So there's a disproportionate amount paid for the same amount of time. House Bill 433 creates a system that better aligns inspection fees with actual inspection resources used. It allows us a simple and fair pay-for-use principle. Businesses pay based on the inspection resources they consume of the department. I'd like to point out that many state-exempt inflatable amusements from annual inspection include Michigan and Indiana to our neighbors, where they simply just don't require the inspection of these inflatables units anymore. The Kentucky program provides inspection of inflatable amusements at a cost of $50 per unit. Familiar with Pennsylvania program, annual cost of compliance is much less, and they provide a self-inspection of amusements with audit authority maintained by the PA Ride Safety Program. That's a program that costs around $399 per every two years for the inspection or the education to do that. I think the most important thing studying the Ohio programs is this bill does not reduce Ohio safety standards. It eliminates inspections or weaken the oversight in any way. Every ride will continue to be inspected and held to the same safety standards that protect Ohio families. Safety remains the highest priority for everyone. Again, I am asking your support for House Bill 433 as it aligns a fee structure that was developed with the Ohio Department of Agriculture support. House Bill 433 was introduced by Representative Roy Kloppenstein and Representative Sarah Fowler-Arthur in the House. I remind everyone regarding the negotiations that took place from when originally introduced the proposed fee was $25 per inflatable unit. Inflatable amusement owners were willing to pay more in support of a fair assessment of fees. I commend the leadership of Director Baldrige in requesting time from that point to thoroughly review the fee structure. I commend inflatable amusement owners for wanting to maintain the oversight of the state safety program at a reasonable cost. The legislation has been carefully studied, thoroughly discussed, approved by the Ohio House, supported by the Department of Agriculture's research, and advanced with the support of the Ohio Amusement Ride Safety Advisory Council. Through debate in the House, it successfully passed 87 to 4 in favor of the revisions supported by the Ohio Department of Agriculture. Thank you for your time, your service to Ohio, and your consideration for this important legislation. If there are any questions, I would be happy to take any and answer them to the best of my ability.

No?

Best explanation, I guess I could give no questions.

Thank you. Next, we'll call up Drew Kissel from Kissel Amusement. Welcome to committee, sir.

Thank you for your testimony, sir. Any questions from the committee? Yes.

Thank you.

Follow up? No.

Thank you, guys. And all you do. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Just fill one of those out before you leave, if you would, please. Absolutely. My name is Nat Floyd. I'm owner of Bounce Up Ohio. During the last one, the proponent hearings, I testified along with my son. We are a small bounce house company, father son duo that we started about eight years ago. I started the business to teach my son that anyone can start a small business. I worked in corporate world for over 25 years, and I thought, hey, it's time to get out and teach the next generation that life can go on. When we first started, we started off with three inflatables. Very first year, I'm not afraid to admit this, we made $14,000. My inspections took up 10% of that money. That was not paying myself. That was not paying my son. That was not paying for the bounce houses. We basically broke even. As we've grown over the years, inspection fees have stayed the same, and thankfully we haven't grown our business. We're up to 30 inflatables now, but our inspection fees this year are almost $10,000. That represents almost 8% of what I will do this year. I do understand that the increase in fees for other businesses is tough to swallow, but at the same time, they are more complex. Think about inspecting a roller coaster. How much time that takes, every bolt, every nut. But a bounce house, you put the blower on, blow it up, check the tethers, make sure there's no holes or rips. You've heard testimony over and over again that it only takes 20 to 30 minutes for a bounce house. Think about this. If you did work one day for two hours and they paid you for six, would you feel good about your day? Would you feel honest about your day? But if you did six hours worth of work and someone only paid you for two, would you feel that is fair and just? No, that's all we are asking is for fair and just. As Tammy alluded earlier, she did say that, hey, we are just fair pay for a fair day's work. That's exactly all we're asking. If it takes our resources, X amount of hours to inspect a roller coaster, let's pay for those X amount of hours. Same for bounce houses. And I'll make it very, very clear. In my corporate career, I worked in safety. This has zero to do about safety. I am thoroughly invested in this. I have seen some horrific times and horrific accidents in my lifetime, as I'm sure all of you have had. And I do not want to see safety decrease. I do get tired of chasing down the legal operators and sending them on to DOA. My wife scans Facebook Marketplace, and then we will pepper them with, are you state inspected and insured? We have caught many of them. I actually bought out a company that had nine inflatables because they were not state inspected. I made them an offer and they said yes when I threatened to turn them in. We're trying to do our best to continue with safety, but with the high fees it is very difficult. Thank you for your time.

Yes, sir.

My name is Steve Kallmeyer. I work for a company called Super Games, an event rental company here in Worthington, Ohio. Pardon me, I wasn't super prepared. I didn't know I'd get the chance to speak today. I'll keep it short and sweet. I am in support of House Bill 433 for all the reasons that have been listed over the last half hour here. Last time I got to talk, I submitted kind of my journey through this and how long we've been at it and kind of how well the new regime has at ride safety taken over and hearing our plight. I just wanted to step up and say I support the bill and thank you for your time.

Sorry, I did that last time too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we favorably report substitute House Bill 433 to the Committee on Rules and References.

Yes.

Senator Landis?

Senator Liston?

Senator Reynolds?

Yes. All right, 5-0. and the motion passes with five affirmative votes, and we will hold the roll open until 10.30. Okay, good. We'll hold the roll open until 10.30. For those who are checked in and not able to be here at the moment. That concludes today's hearing on House Bill 433. Now I'd like to call Senate Bill 342, Senator Al Landis' legislation for his third hearing. We did not receive any testimony, any witness requests for today's hearing. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to Senate Bill 342? Okay, saying none, I'd like to call on Vice Chair Kaler for a motion.

the Committee on Rules and References. Thank you. We have a motion. and without any discussion, will the clerk please call the roll. Chair Schaefer? Yes.

Yes. Senator Liston? Yes.

All right, 5-0. And we have five affirmative votes

Mr. Chairman, I move to favorably report Senate Bill 398 to the Committee on Rules and Reference.

Vice Chair Kaler?

Senator Landis?

Senator Liston? Senator Wilkin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we favorably report Senate Concurrent Resolution 19 to the Committee on Rules and Reference.

Chair Schaefer?

Vice Chair Kaler?

Senator Landis?

Yes.

Yes. Senator Wilkin? Yes. Five-0.