Senate committees amend SB 890 to require origin labeling for poi after testimony on supply and constitutionality

The Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection and the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Tourism on Feb. 26 voted to pass SB 890 SD1 with amendments that replace a proposed ban on labeling a product as “poi” unless it is wholly derived from in-state taro with a labeling requirement identifying the origins of ingredients.

The change follows testimony from the Attorney General's Office raising concerns about Commerce Clause and First Amendment (free speech) implications and from local producers and cultural groups who said they want to protect the cultural integrity of poi while avoiding unintended harm to local businesses.

Deputy Attorney General (Attorney General's Office) told the committees, “we provided comments on a commerce clause and free speech clause issue. I'm here if you have any questions.” The committees’ amendment adds a mandatory disclosure of ingredient origins for poi made with ingredients from outside Hawaii and inserts a severability clause; lawmakers also proposed a defective effective date of July 1, 2050, during the discussion to allow further drafting.

Cedric Gates of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture appeared in support of the bill “with comments,” and multiple Native Hawaiian civic groups and conservation organizations submitted written testimony in support. Several commercial producers and manufacturers testified in opposition or asked for clearer drafting to avoid hurting established local businesses that rely on out-of-state taro when Hawai‘i-grown supplies are short. Manufacturer Kinueke Kala of Kulolo LLC said the bill, as originally drafted, “restricts what poi is. Poi is more than just kalo. It's a process,” and warned the prohibition could prevent some existing products from being sold.

Testimony and questioning from senators focused on two competing aims: protecting the cultural meaning and consumer expectations for poi, and avoiding disruptions to supply chains and existing contracts (for example, meal contracts with schools) when local taro is scarce. One manufacturer described vertical integration and farming attempts to manage inconsistent local production; he said weather and other agricultural factors cause regular fluctuations in taro supply.

Senators discussed drafting the bill to mirror “truth-in-labeling” laws rather than a categorical ban after the Attorney General's Office explained that prohibiting the use of a single word raises different constitutional issues than requiring accurate origin or ingredient labels.

Votes at the committee level recorded the recommendation to pass with amendments. In the Commerce and Consumer Protection committee, the chair and vice chair voted aye; Senator McKelvey voted yes; Senator Richards recorded a vote with reservations; and Senator Auela voted aye. In the Economic Development and Tourism committee, the chair and vice chair voted aye; Senators Fuentaglia, Kim and Owa voted aye. Committees instructed staff to amend the bill to create a labeling requirement, add a severability clause, and to include the proposed defective effective date noted during the hearing.

Background: SB 890 SD1 originally would have prohibited the sale, offer for sale, display or marketing of any product labeled as “poi” unless the product is wholly derived from taro grown in Hawai‘i. Proponents argued for protecting cultural integrity and local producers; opponents warned of supply constraints and constitutional questions. The committees’ amendments move the measure toward a disclosure-based approach rather than an outright prohibition.

The measure will proceed with the committees’ recommendation and amended language for further consideration in the Legislature.