Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seafood Labeling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers bill to require country-of-origin labeling for seafood on restaurant menus
Summary
House Bill 117 would require food-service establishments to disclose country of origin for seafood items. Sponsors cited high rates of imported shrimp and concerns about antibiotics and other contaminants in some foreign shrimp supplies; restaurant groups backed transparency but warned of implementation cost and menu‑update burdens.
Representative Petrie presented House Bill 117 to the House Committee on Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, proposing that food-service establishments conspicuously display the country of origin for seafood on menus.
Petrie framed the bill around U.S. seafood import patterns: he told the committee that roughly 80% of U.S. seafood is imported and that 94% of shrimp consumed in the United States is imported, with leading sources including India, China, Ecuador, Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia. He highlighted concerns raised in testing and refusal data, saying the Food and Drug Administration inspects a small share of foreign shrimp imports (he cited a 0.7% inspection rate) and that the FDA refused 81 shipments last year for antibiotics.
Petrie said the proposal builds on federal country-of-origin rules that apply in retail grocery but noted food-service is regulated at the state level and lacks consistent disclosure. He told the committee: “I think people have a right to know what they're eating,” and said the measure aims to give consumers information to make buying decisions.
Stephanie Fisher, president and CEO of the Georgia Restaurant Association, said the association supports transparency in principle but asked the committee to consider implementation costs and operational burdens. She noted many restaurants change seafood sourcing frequently and that about 60–70% of Georgia restaurants are independent operators; frequent menu printing or reprinting could be costly for smaller operators. Fisher suggested digital updates or other methods might reduce the burden and asked for flexibility in any final rule.
Representative questions addressed enforcement (environmental health specialists in public health inspect restaurants), menu-change frequency and whether the bill should carve out certain state institutions. Representative Donahue and others emphasized the impact on the domestic seafood industry and said greater transparency could support local producers.
Ending: The bill received discussion and industry testimony; committee members did not vote on the measure during the hearing.
