Bill Description: Senate Bill 1270 would create Idaho-specific labeling requirements for alternative animal proteins.
Rating: -1
NOTE: Senate Bill 1270 is related to House Bill 24 (2025).
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
House Bill 24 would create Chapter 16, Title 37, Idaho Code, to require labeling of any alternative animal protein product sold, distributed, or offered for sale within the state of Idaho.
The bill defines “alternative animal proteins” as “food products derived from animal sources other than traditional livestock production or wild game harvest and includes but is not limited to any animal cell-based food product produced or derived from culturing animal cells outside of the animal's body.”
It would require this labeling to “appear on the principal display panel of the packaging; and use a font size and style that ensures legibility to an average consumer” and be “at least equal in prominence to the product name.”
It would also require restaurants and other vendors that sell any alternative animal proteins to provide “labeling on menus or equivalent notifications consistent with this section.”
The bill would prohibit labeling, advertising, or marketing any “product that is not derived from meat” using any “terms that are commonly associated with specific meat cuts, including but not limited to ‘steak,’ ‘roast,’ ‘tri-tip,’ ‘loin,’ or ‘brisket’.”
This provision would appear to prohibit many currently available products, such as “Beyond Steak®“ and “Impossible® Steak Bites,” since they are “marketed using terms that are commonly associated with specific meat cuts.”
The Idaho Department of Agriculture would be given regulatory oversight and enforcement authority. Each improperly labeled package could result in a civil penalty of up to $500. It also says, “additional penalties for repeat offenses may be established by the Idaho department of agriculture through rulemaking.” The bill contains no requirement that the violations be done knowingly or intentionally.
The imposition of more regulations on market participants is always concerning, but the scope of these regulations is particularly troubling. State-based regulations on national (and even global) industries are largely unworkable because they require information not available to many market providers.
Somewhat ironically, this bill does not impose its labeling requirements on foods produced in Idaho. Instead, they apply to foods “sold, distributed, or offered for sale” in the state. It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect sellers and distributors to conspicuously label products with information that food producers aren't required to provide.
Even if the bill imposed the labeling requirements on food producers, it still wouldn't provide information about foods produced in jurisdictions without similar requirements. Also, restaurants source ingredients from many locations that have no such requirements, leaving restaurant owners in a precarious position.
From a practical standpoint, labeling should be the responsibility of the entity adding the “alternative animal protein” to the food, not of the entity selling it.
Additionally, any enforcement of labeling regulations should be contingent on the responsible party being aware that the affected product contains an ingredient that necessitates its disclosure.
(-1)
