Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb339 Labeling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee agrees to include labeling protections in SB 339 package but rejects staggered rollout
Summary
A conference committee agreed to include a labeling-protection amendment in a package containing Senate Bill 339 while rejecting a staggered phase‑in; members said the $21.64 package will be brought to the floor for signature. No formal roll‑call vote was recorded in the transcript.
A conference committee agreed to include food‑label protection language in a package that includes Senate Bill 339 while declining to adopt a staggered phase‑in, the panel said.
The committee member said, "I believe we agree on $21.64, which contains Senate Bill 339 as amended with section 1 of 390 in it and with the agreed upon amendments that we just did now with the labeling accepted, but not the staggering." The chair confirmed that understanding and said the package would be brought to the floor for signatures.
Why it matters: the labeling protection discussed would shield school districts that rely on an incorrect food label from being deemed at fault, according to the committee’s exchange. Committee members framed the change as a clarifying protection rather than a substantive new duty on schools.
Details and context: committee speakers described two separate elements in earlier negotiations — a proposal to phase in implementation (the "staggered" option) and a separate labeling‑protection amendment. After discussion, the committee member said the group preferred to accept only the labeling protection and not the staggered implementation. The transcript does not record a formal roll‑call vote; the agreement is verbal and the chair said the package will be taken to the floor to be signed.
The committee also noted the package reference "$21.64" as the fiscal/packet designation for the compromise; the transcript does not specify whether that number is a fiscal note, bill number, or internal packet identifier.
Next steps: the chair said the package will be brought to the legislative floor to be signed. A final procedural question about drafting an "agree to disagree" statement was left unclear in the record, with the two speakers responding "No" and "Yes" in succession during the final clarification.
