Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Food Labeling Shrimp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to require shrimp origin labeling; senators debate 'local' claims and restaurant burden
Summary
H.4248 advanced with a favorable report after senators debated two competing amendments that would either require 'imported' labeling or require establishments claiming 'local South Carolina shrimp' to identify their South Carolina purveyor; committee agreed to pursue a combined floor amendment.
The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee gave a favorable report to H.4248, a bill that would require shrimp and shrimp products sold in the state to carry country-of-origin labeling and would bar false claims that shrimp are "local" when they are not harvested in state waters.
Mister Strickland summarized the bill as having "no fiscal impact" and said it would add a requirement in section 39-25-220 that shrimp and shrimp products sold in South Carolina bear a label noting country of origin.
A senator who said he first introduced a similar bill in the House and later urged passage described mislabeling as "fraud": "You're paying for something you think it is, and it's not," he said, arguing the bill would protect South Carolina shrimpers.
The committee considered two competing amendments from the senator from York. The first would let food-service establishments denote simply that shrimp are "imported" or "local" instead of printing a country name on menus; the second would require an establishment that advertises "local South Carolina shrimp" to display the name and location of the South Carolina purveyor.
Members debated enforceability and overlap with federal law. Several senators noted the federal COOL (Country of Origin Labeling) rules already require country-of-origin disclosure for raw products; questions remained about who would enforce violations and whether the bill should focus on sellers making false "local" claims rather than imposing burdens on restaurants with frequent menu changes.
Senators agreed on a practical approach: keep the original bill’s coverage of sellers but incorporate targeted elements of the proposed amendment to minimize burden on restaurants. The committee directed interested members to draft a unified floor amendment in the next 48 hours to address timing, retailer liability protections and enforcement details.
A senator moved a favorable report; the motion was seconded and the committee approved it by voice/raise-hand vote. The transcript records that the bill "received favorable report" but does not include a roll-call tally.
The bill now goes to the Senate floor, where members said they expect a consolidated amendment to clarify labeling standards, implementation timing (proposals of 90–180 days were discussed), and retailer liability exemptions if a distributor mislabels product.
