Arizona 2024 Regular Session

Arizona Senate Bill SB1146

Introduced
1/22/24  
Report Pass
2/15/24  
Introduced
1/22/24  
Report Pass
2/19/24  
Report Pass
2/15/24  
Engrossed
2/22/24  
Report Pass
2/19/24  
Report Pass
3/11/24  
Engrossed
2/22/24  
Report Pass
3/18/24  
Report Pass
3/11/24  
Enrolled
4/10/24  
Report Pass
3/18/24  
Vetoed
4/16/24  
Enrolled
4/10/24  

Caption

Disclosure; agricultural vaccinations; prohibition

Impact

The bill amends existing sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes to enhance the labeling requirements within the agricultural sector. Alongside the introduction of labeling provisions, it also entails modifications to the powers and duties of the state agricultural director. This includes expanding their authority to manage livestock inspections, implement civil penalties for violations, and even establish a self-inspection program for livestock transport, thereby centralizing certain regulatory responsibilities.

Summary

Senate Bill 1146, primarily focused on agricultural regulations, introduces a requirement for labeling certain livestock and aquaculture products. Specifically, it mandates that any product derived from animals that have not received messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccinations can be labeled as 'mRNA free'. This provision aims to ensure transparency for consumers regarding the vaccination status of the livestock from which their food products are sourced.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 1146 appears to be mixed, reflecting a division in public opinion. Proponents of the bill argue that enhanced labeling will empower consumers to make informed choices regarding their food, ensuring they have clarity on vaccination statuses which can impact health decisions. Conversely, opponents have raised concerns about potential implications for agricultural practices and market dynamics, questioning the necessity of such a heavy focus on mRNA vaccinations in promotional labeling.

Contention

The primary points of contention stem from the arguments surrounding agricultural regulation and consumer rights. Supporters of the bill believe it strikes a necessary balance between consumer transparency and food safety, whereas critics argue that it could lead to fear-mongering regarding vaccinations in livestock, potentially harming the reputation and economic viability of locally produced agricultural products. The implications of mandating such disclosures could reshape marketing strategies within the agricultural sector.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

AZ HB2406

Agriculture; hemp; regulation; vaccination; disclosure

AZ HB2762

Agricultural vaccinations; disclosure; prohibition

AZ SB1648

Agricultural vaccinations; disclosure.

MI HB4988

Agriculture: animals; livestock licensing fees; modify. Amends sec. 3 of 1937 PA 284 (MCL 287.123).

MS SB2204

Law enforcement; require centralized registry for all reports of stolen agriculture-related items.

AZ SB1147

Livestock compensation; appropriation

MT SB295

Revising laws to accommodate grizzly bear delisting

LA HB393

Provides for the issuance and administration of market agency and livestock dealer permits