Bill Description: House Bill 24 would create Idaho-specific labeling requirements for lab-grown meat and insect-based proteins.
Rating: -1
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 "clear and conspicuous" labeling of any "alternative animal protein product sold, distributed, or offered for sale within the state of Idaho."
The bill defines "alternative animal protein" as "food products derived from animal sources other than traditional livestock production or wild game harvest" and offers lab-grown meat and insect protein as two examples.
The bill requires that all food product ingredient lists include the common and scientific names of any insect-based proteins they contain.
It further mandates that "restaurants or other vendors that offer for sale alternative animal proteins shall provide labeling on menus or equivalent notifications."
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. 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 a national (and even global) industry 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)
