Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Food Labeling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears competing views on SB 15 77, a bill requiring clearer labeling for fabricated egg and meat products
Summary
SB 15 77 would classify plant-, insect- or lab-based products as misbranded if labels use meat/egg terms without clear proximate qualifiers; supporters called it consumer-protection and alignment with federal guidance, opponents warned state-level labeling risks conflict with federal law and interstate commerce.
The committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 15 77, introduced by Senator Nash, which would require plant-based, insect-based, or cell-cultivated products that use terms associated with meat or eggs to include clear, prominent qualifiers disclosing the product is not made from eggs or meat.
Isaac Insco, chief of staff to Representative Todd Nash, testified the bill is a straightforward transparency measure: "If a package uses a meat term or an egg term that could reasonably signal this is meat or this is eggs, then the label needs to clearly, prominently have a qualifier right next to it," he said, adding the bill is not a ban on plant-based or cultivated products.
Diana Worth, president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, urged support and said accurate labeling protects agricultural producers and consumers alike, noting the industry contributes nearly $1.2 billion in cash receipts to Oregon's economy. "Consumers deserve to know what they are buying," Worth said.
Opponents including Mike Friess of Food Northwest argued state-level mandatory labeling can be problematic for Oregon companies that sell in multiple states and that existing state and federal law already prohibit misleading labels. Friess cited recent USDA guidance recommending that plant-based patties identify their plant source prominently and warned that state-specific mandates have led to litigation elsewhere.
Committee members asked whether the bill addresses food safety or simply transparency, and whether a patchwork of state rules would create compliance burdens. Supporters countered they expect the bill to align with federal labeling principles and to require only transparent qualifiers rather than prohibition. The committee closed the SB 15 77 hearing for time and moved on to other business.
