Cottage food businesses range from small, part-time operations to a large registered producer population spread across multiple states. The available evidence combines a 2017 multi-state study, a 2017 Sacramento-area survey reported in 2018, and Alabama’s 2025 training results. These sources measure different things, so their figures should be read as specific snapshots rather than a current national census.
Table of contents
- Registered producers across states
- Who runs cottage food businesses
- Revenue and operating costs
- Equipment and shared-kitchen demand
- Where businesses can sell
- Training and potential economic activity
Registered producers across states
A 2017 study counted 25,418 registered cottage food producers across the 25 states included in its study population. This is a registered-producer count, not a complete count of every home-based food business in the United States. The study notes that states with registration exemptions can be undercounted. Source: Appendixes.
The state totals varied considerably. North Carolina had 4,186 registered producers, while New York had 3,147 and California had 2,811. Arizona had the highest named total in this group, with 5,671 registered producers. Maine had 1,285, Kentucky had 759, and Massachusetts had 661. Georgia had 250, and Minnesota had 423.
These figures describe the population captured by the 2017 study. They should not be interpreted as 2026 totals, growth rates, or a ranking of all current cottage food businesses. A registration number can reflect a state’s rules and administrative process as much as the underlying number of operators.
| State | Registered producers in the 2017 study population |
|---|---|
| Arizona | 5,671 |
| North Carolina | 4,186 |
| New York | 3,147 |
| California | 2,811 |
| Maine | 1,285 |
| Kentucky | 759 |
| Massachusetts | 661 |
| Minnesota | 423 |
| Georgia | 250 |
The spread between Arizona’s 5,671 producers and Georgia’s 250 illustrates why state-by-state comparisons need legal context. The available figures establish the recorded totals for the study population; they do not establish that one state’s businesses are larger, more profitable, or more active than another state’s businesses.
Who runs cottage food businesses
The Sacramento-area evidence offers a more detailed view of operators, but it comes from a small local sample. The 2018 Alchemist Kitchen Feasibility Study reported results from a survey of 23 cottage food operators conducted in 2017. Because the sample included 23 respondents in one area, its percentages are not national estimates.
Sixty percent of respondents had never worked in a food business before registering their current operation. That figure suggests that cottage food rules can be an entry point for people without previous food-industry employment, at least within this local survey. It does not show how many people nationwide enter the sector without prior experience.
The same survey found that nearly 80% of cottage food owners ran their operation part-time and did not rely on it as their primary income source. This work profile is important when interpreting revenue totals: a modest annual revenue figure may represent a side business with limited hours rather than a full-time commercial operation.
Employment was also limited in the survey. Only one surveyed cottage food operator reported employing additional help. The result describes the 23-respondent sample and should not be generalized to every state or business model.
Product mix was concentrated in baked goods. More than 70% of registered cottage food businesses in the Sacramento-area survey sold baked goods, while 27% sold confectionery goods. These categories may overlap, and the supplied study figures do not provide a complete product distribution for all operators.
Revenue and operating costs
The Sacramento-area survey indicates that most businesses in its sample operated at a small scale. More than 70% of surveyed cottage food businesses reported annual revenue below $15,000. The median annual revenue for a surveyed operator was also under $15,000.
The revenue threshold and the median are related but not identical measures. “More than 70% below $15,000” describes the share of respondents below the threshold. “Median under $15,000” describes the middle value in the survey. Neither figure gives an exact average revenue, a national benchmark, or a forecast.
Estimated average annual costs for the surveyed cottage food operators were $6,560. The source presents this as an estimate for the operators in the local feasibility study. It should be kept separate from the revenue figures: the available facts do not provide a complete, standardized profit calculation, and unsupported subtraction would imply a precision the study does not supply.
Taken together, the local measurements describe businesses that were commonly part-time, usually below $15,000 in annual revenue, and associated with estimated average annual costs of $6,560. They do not show that every operator was profitable, nor do they indicate whether costs included the same categories for every respondent.
| Sacramento-area measure | Reported result | Measurement context |
|---|---|---|
| Operators surveyed | 23 | 2017 survey reported in a 2018 study |
| Businesses with annual revenue below $15,000 | More than 70% | Survey respondents |
| Median annual revenue | Under $15,000 | Survey respondents |
| Estimated average annual costs | $6,560 | Survey respondents |
| Owners operating part-time and without primary-income reliance | Nearly 80% | Survey respondents |
For readers evaluating a cottage food idea, these figures are best used as scale indicators. They show why revenue, costs, working time, and household-income dependence should be tracked separately. A business can have sales without being a primary job, and an operator’s reported costs may not be comparable with another operator’s costs.
Equipment and shared-kitchen demand
The local survey also measured interest in shared-kitchen space. More than 85% of surveyed cottage food operators expressed some interest in shared-kitchen space, while 50% expressed clear interest. The two figures represent different levels of interest reported in the feasibility study; they should not be combined or treated as two independent groups.
Equipment needs point to the practical reasons an operator might consider shared facilities. Stainless-steel tables were identified as needed equipment by 83.3% of surveyed cottage food operators. A walk-in cooler or refrigerator was identified as needed equipment by 72.2%.
These percentages come from the 23-person Sacramento-area survey and do not establish that the same equipment is required by every cottage food business. They do, however, identify the specific infrastructure most frequently marked as needed in that local assessment. The study’s findings can therefore inform questions about kitchen design and demand without serving as a national equipment standard.
The shared-kitchen results also need careful interpretation. “Some interest” and “clear interest” are not measures of paid memberships, reservations, or completed kitchen use. The available facts show demand signals from surveyed operators, not a forecast of occupancy or revenue for a shared-kitchen facility.
Where businesses can sell
The 2017 legal analysis coded the number of sales-venue categories available to cottage food businesses in different states. The categories were farmers’ markets, roadside stands, community events, home, online, restaurants, and retail stores. The count is a legal coding result, not a measure of actual sales volume or customer reach.
Arizona had 7 available venue categories. Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia also had 7 under the study’s coding. California had 5 under Permit A and 7 under Permit B. Georgia had 5, while Vermont had 5.
Other states in the analysis had narrower coded access. Minnesota and Nevada each had 4 categories. Washington also had 4. Kentucky and New York each had 3, and West Virginia had 2. Illinois had 1 available venue category under the study’s legal coding.
| State or permit category | Coded venue categories available |
|---|---|
| Arizona | 7 |
| California, Permit A | 5 |
| California, Permit B | 7 |
| Georgia | 5 |
| Illinois | 1 |
| Kentucky | 3 |
| Minnesota | 4 |
| Nevada | 4 |
| New York | 3 |
| Washington | 4 |
| West Virginia | 2 |
The source’s seven-category maximum in this comparison does not mean that businesses in every state with 7 categories can use all venues under identical conditions. The coding captures whether a category was available in the legal analysis; it does not describe permits, labeling requirements, product restrictions, local enforcement, or the number of customers available in each venue.
Training and potential economic activity
Alabama’s 2025 cottage-food training results provide a more recent measure, but they measure training participation rather than the number of operating businesses. The Food Safety & Quality Impacts 2025 report states that the program certified 1,974 individuals.
The standardized course lasted 2 hours, and participants had to achieve at least a 75% score on the certification exam. Certifications issued through the 2025 program were valid for 3 years. These are program requirements and validity terms, not evidence that each certified person launched a business or generated sales.
Approximately 90% of Alabama’s 2025 training participants reported plans to start or grow a home-based food business. This is a reported intention, not a completed launch rate. The distinction matters because intentions can include both people preparing a new operation and existing operators planning expansion.
The report estimated that Alabama’s certified 2025 training participants represented a potential $8,880,000 in home-generated revenue. The word “potential” is essential: this is not recorded revenue, realized profit, or a confirmed statewide economic total. It is an estimate associated with the certified participants and their reported plans.
Across the available evidence, cottage food statistics describe several different stages: registration, operation, equipment interest, legal market access, training, and intended growth. The 2017 multi-state count covers registered producers in a defined study population; the Sacramento figures describe 23 local respondents; and Alabama’s 2025 figures describe certified participants and potential revenue. Keeping those scopes separate is necessary when using the numbers to understand food safety planning, business readiness, or access to sales venues.