Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Food Labeling Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reports substitute requiring labeling for manufactured proteins after industry and farm groups testify
Summary
House Bill 2633 (substitute) would require labeling that identifies manufactured or cultivated protein products so consumers know products are not animal‑derived; the subcommittee reported the substitute 4–3 with two abstentions after testimony from agricultural and food groups.
House Bill 2633, substitute version, would require that ‘‘manufactured protein food products’’—including cultivated, fungus, insect and plant‑based proteins—be labeled with qualifying language so consumers are clearly informed that a product is not derived from an animal. The House Ag Subcommittee reported the substitute to the next committee on a recorded vote of 4–3 with two members recorded as abstaining.
The substitute, offered by Delegate Wilt, adds poultry to the definition and requires qualifying terms on front‑labeling so products resembling animal proteins are not represented as meat from livestock or poultry. ‘‘This is all about truth in labeling,’’ Jim Riddell of the Virginia Cattlemen’s Association told the committee. ‘‘The public deserves to know how their food is produced.’’ Several industry groups — including the Virginia Farm Bureau, Virginia Poultry Federation and Virginia Agribusiness Council — testified in support, citing consumer transparency and a recent settlement involving advertising claims by a meat‑alternative company.
Patrons and industry witnesses said the measure is not a ban; it does not prevent manufacturers from producing or selling alternative proteins but requires the product name to include a qualifying term that identifies it as cultivated or plant‑based rather than animal‑derived. Supporters argued that the bill helps consumers make informed decisions and protects established livestock and poultry producers from marketplace confusion.
Committee members discussed federal labeling authority and USDA jurisdiction; witnesses said the federal government has not finalized a uniform approach and some states have already enacted similar labeling laws. A motion to table the substitute failed; the substitute then passed the committee on a reported vote.
Ending: The subcommittee reported the substitute to the next stage; lawmakers said they would monitor federal regulatory developments and coordinate drafting to avoid conflicts with any future USDA rulemaking.
