Cottage Food Operations and Meringue Powder

@Sarah J  I have not yet heard the results from California's latest review of proposed additions to the Safe Food List (the review is/was this month), however no Meringue Powder is on the list, not even Wilton's.    A note, this is California law, not my county.... although the approval for a CFO and our ingredients used comes through the county.

It could be a great idea to ask MP manufacturers/sellers to get together to fund a test in one state that could help it be on "safe" lists starting with the USDA (as although their exact formula is not the same, their ingredients tend to be).

I'll see if I can find any updates next week, however I'm not optimistic.

Gayle (PlayingWithDough Cookies) posted:

@Sarah J  I have not yet heard the results from California's latest review of proposed additions to the Safe Food List (the review is/was this month), however no Meringue Powder is on the list, not even Wilton's.    A note, this is California law, not my county.... although the approval for a CFO and our ingredients used comes through the county.

It could be a great idea to ask MP manufacturers/sellers to get together to fund a test in one state that could help it be on "safe" lists starting with the USDA (as although their exact formula is not the same, their ingredients tend to be).

I'll see if I can find any updates next week, however I'm not optimistic.

Sounds like a cause you are passionate about - why not lead the charge yourself in contacting meringue powder suppliers on this topic? I bet if you demonstrated/estimated their lost sales in CA due the current regulations, you could pique their interest in working together to effect change.

Gayle (PlayingWithDough Cookies) posted:

@Sarah J  I have not yet heard the results from California's latest review of proposed additions to the Safe Food List (the review is/was this month), however no Meringue Powder is on the list, not even Wilton's.    A note, this is California law, not my county.... although the approval for a CFO and our ingredients used comes through the county.

It could be a great idea to ask MP manufacturers/sellers to get together to fund a test in one state that could help it be on "safe" lists starting with the USDA (as although their exact formula is not the same, their ingredients tend to be).

I'll see if I can find any updates next week, however I'm not optimistic.

Thank you for the quick response. Please keep us posted. Thank you for taking the time to research and report. It is very much appreciated!

Hi! I am new to cookie connection and hoping to jump into this conversation. I applied for my class A cottage food license in California (I'm in Sacramento county) and I just received a call saying my application was denied because of the royal icing. The inspector said that I have to find a new icing to use, and then listed off the approved icings. I use meringue powder, but he insisted that is no different than using eggs. I'm angry and devastated all at once. I continued to argue that none of the ingredients in the royal icing violated the cottage food laws, but he didn't care. He said, "I will approve it, but you have to change your icing. Do you want to tell me now what icing you will use? Or do you want to call me back once you've decided?" I don't want to be dishonest and tell him I'll use flat icing when I know I will not be changing my royal icing recipe. I want to go about this the right way. Has anyone been able to make progress on a solution? Would you like to team up and figure out how we can get royal icing on the approved list? I am a detail-oriented person, I researched the cottage food laws extensively before applying, and I was confident that royal icing wasn't violating the law in any way. I'm shocked and heartbroken, but I don't want to give up on this. 

Hi.   I did recently hear back from the California Dept of Public Health, and MP was again not approved  "Royal icing was not approved because it typically requires temperature control/refrigeration.  Foods on the CFO list must be approved as a category of food, so all royal icings must not need to be refrigerated. "

Of course we know this not to be true.   So I asked "Might you explain at least why it would be viewed as safe if I used a commercial kitchen?    It is not baked nor refrigerated.  Yet my local competitors using commercial kitchens can use it with no different processes or equipment than I use. "    No response.

California  CDPH is based upon USDA.    As MP manufacturers have something to gain with this, I contacted Wilton hoping they might be wiling to do a "US wide" food safety test of the product... no response.    

How upsetting. It really makes no sense to me. So just because some types of royal icing need to be refrigerated, ALL royal icing is forbidden? Now I'm wondering if the inspector was trying to tell me that if I just called it flat icing but kept my ingredient list the same he would have approved it. There was a slight language barrier between us so maybe I was misunderstanding him. I called him back to clarify but he didn't answer. Hopefully I will hear from him tomorrow! 

Gayle (PlayingWithDough Cookies) posted:

Hi.   I did recently hear back from the California Dept of Public Health, and MP was again not approved  "Royal icing was not approved because it typically requires temperature control/refrigeration.  Foods on the CFO list must be approved as a category of food, so all royal icings must not need to be refrigerated. "

Of course we know this not to be true.   So I asked "Might you explain at least why it would be viewed as safe if I used a commercial kitchen?    It is not baked nor refrigerated.  Yet my local competitors using commercial kitchens can use it with no different processes or equipment than I use. "    No response.

California  CDPH is based upon USDA.    As MP manufacturers have something to gain with this, I contacted Wilton hoping they might be wiling to do a "US wide" food safety test of the product... no response.    

I wonder what application would require that RI be temperature controled?  I thought that the CDPH might be objecting to the silicon dioxide used as an anti caking agent.  I'm mystifiyed.   Sorry that you're going through this.           Pip

I'm in also in San Jose and was so disappointed to learn no meringue powder. I've been experimenting with glaze but it's just not the same! 

I believe fondant is okay.  

HI, I too am worried about the royal icing recipe not being eligible for CFOs because of the uncooked eggs. I am looking into this as well. Thank you for providing all the leg work on this. 

I'm also looking into the cottage food license and am concerned about this issue with meringue powder (M.P.). I came across this info on the Facebook page "Creating Your California Cottage Food Business". I thought it might be helpful to you ladies that are trying to get the M.P. approved. (I've seen that the new approved items lists come out on July 1st and Jan 1st so I'm hoping you've all been successful in lobbying for M.P. and it will be approved on this next list - fingers crossed!) Here's the info I saw that I hoped might be helpful . . . (It's a letter from King Arthur Flour stating their M.P. is safe.) https://foodpreneurinstitute.c...ingue-powder-update/

Gayle (PlayingWithDough Cookies) posted:

Hi.   I did recently hear back from the California Dept of Public Health, and MP was again not approved  "Royal icing was not approved because it typically requires temperature control/refrigeration.  Foods on the CFO list must be approved as a category of food, so all royal icings must not need to be refrigerated. "

Of course we know this not to be true.   So I asked "Might you explain at least why it would be viewed as safe if I used a commercial kitchen?    It is not baked nor refrigerated.  Yet my local competitors using commercial kitchens can use it with no different processes or equipment than I use. "    No response.

California  CDPH is based upon USDA.    As MP manufacturers have something to gain with this, I contacted Wilton hoping they might be wiling to do a "US wide" food safety test of the product... no response.    

Do you have any updates on this issue? I posted some info I found in May (below) and was hoping to see MP approved on the new list that came out in July.  I've been making cookies as a hobby for friends and family, but am starting to get asked by strangers so I want to get my license to be legal and protect myself. I don't know what to do at this point. I certainly don't make enough at this to rent space in a commercial kitchen and that wouldn't be a home-based business anyway.  I would appreciate any new info you might have. I know there are lots of women selling their cookies from home and am really curious how they are doing this. I've tried messaging a couple of them, but they never responded which tells me they are probably afraid to because they aren't being honest about their ingredient list if they got their license.

@DIYDiva-SoExtraSweets, I can’t help you with this issue, as I don’t live in CA or sell cookies any longer, but I am tagging @Gayle p in the hopes that she’ll be more likely to see your message and can update us all.

okay thank you

I came upon this post as I too was denied for listing meringue powder in my royal icing 😡 (I totally thought this had already been approved). I am ready to lead the charge on this. I am in the process of seeing what needs to be done to get it tested and submitted to the state. Sounds like testing (at least the initial round) is not too expensive. But more in depth testing will start to add up. I will update as I get more information. Just started calling people today. Send your prayers, mojo, good juju, whatever your belief is. We’re going to need as much positive energy as possible 

Mari Alvaro posted:

I came upon this post as I too was denied for listing meringue powder in my royal icing 😡 (I totally thought this had already been approved). I am ready to lead the charge on this. I am in the process of seeing what needs to be done to get it tested and submitted to the state. Sounds like testing (at least the initial round) is not too expensive. But more in depth testing will start to add up. I will update as I get more information. Just started calling people today. Send your prayers, mojo, good juju, whatever your belief is. We’re going to need as much positive energy as possible 

Best of luck! I think this whole thing is sort of absurd, as meringue powder essentially eliminates the risk of salmonella. I'm really not sure what their concern is . . . Keep us posted!

Mari Alvaro posted:

I came upon this post as I too was denied for listing meringue powder in my royal icing 😡 (I totally thought this had already been approved). I am ready to lead the charge on this. I am in the process of seeing what needs to be done to get it tested and submitted to the state. Sounds like testing (at least the initial round) is not too expensive. But more in depth testing will start to add up. I will update as I get more information. Just started calling people today. Send your prayers, mojo, good juju, whatever your belief is. We’re going to need as much positive energy as possible 

Thank you, Mari Alvaro, for taking up the charge.  If you do get to the point of needing to raise money for testing, perhaps some of us California girls can chip in.

I just encountered this as well, and was SHOCKED when I was told I had to replace the MP. I then contacted someone at the state, who confirmed that Royal Icing is not approved in CA. I'm so frustrated! I was trying to do this the right way, and now I'm not sure what to do! 

I have tried contacting a few local ladies that I follow on Instagram  that I am fairly certain work from their home. (To see how they are making it work.) None have responded which tells me they are probably afraid to respond because they are operating outside the law (perhaps lied about using MP). A few people have said they thought the person they dealt with to get the license may have been hinting to them to say they use glaze I stead of RI. But even if one is willing to be dishonest about that, their insurance would never cover them if there was ever a claim.

Yah, I'm not willing to risk it! I've seen people list it on their labels eventhough it's not approved, so maybe they're trying to cover it on that side, and count on the state not seeing it? I guess I'm going to try it without the MP and see how it turns out! I'm happy to help if you find another Avenue to explore!