Hawaii 2024 Regular Session

Hawaii Senate Bill SB516

Introduced
1/20/23  
Refer
1/25/23  
Introduced
1/20/23  
Report Pass
2/14/23  
Refer
1/25/23  
Report Pass
2/14/23  
Report Pass
3/3/23  
Refer
2/14/23  
Engrossed
3/7/23  
Report Pass
3/3/23  
Refer
3/9/23  
Engrossed
3/7/23  
Report Pass
3/22/23  
Refer
3/9/23  
Report Pass
3/22/23  
Refer
3/22/23  
Report Pass
4/4/23  
Report Pass
4/4/23  
Report Pass
4/27/23  
Report Pass
4/27/23  
Enrolled
5/2/23  
Report Pass
4/27/23  

Caption

Relating To Hemp.

Impact

The bill's introduction is motivated by the recognition that the hemp industry in Hawaii could provide significant economic benefit, estimated to range between $32 million to $54 million annually. Currently, much of this revenue is captured by out-of-state producers because local consumers are often unaware of the origins of hemp products. By enforcing labeling requirements, the bill would enable consumers to make informed choices, favoring local products and benefiting Hawaii's farmers financially.

Summary

Senate Bill 516 aims to enhance the identification and labeling of hemp products in Hawaii to improve transparency for consumers and support local agriculture. The bill mandates that producers specify the percentage of Hawaii-grown and Hawaii-processed hemp in their products, as well as the origin and percentage details for non-Hawaii sources. This legislation is seen as a way to promote local hemp agriculture, which has the potential to thrive given the high consumer interest in locally sourced products.

Sentiment

General sentiment surrounding SB 516 is positive among proponents who view it as a step toward bolstering local agriculture and enhancing consumer rights. Advocates argue that the proper labeling will drive more local sales and support the state's economy. However, there may also be concerns regarding the enforcement of these requirements and the additional burdens placed on producers, particularly small-scale farmers, who may struggle with compliance costs.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise around the logistics of implementing these labeling requirements and the impact on agricultural practices. Some farmers and producers may express concerns over the regulations' complexity and feasibility, particularly in maintaining compliance with the labeling standards. The potential penalties for non-compliance, up to $10,000 per offense, could also raise issues among smaller operations that may lack the resources to adapt swiftly to these new regulations.

Companion Bills

HI HB1424

Same As Relating To Hemp.

HI SB516

Carry Over Relating To Hemp.

Previously Filed As

HI HB2285

Relating To Hemp.

HI SB1271

Relating To Hemp.

HI SB1271

Relating To Hemp.

HI HB973

Relating To Hemp.

HI HB973

Relating To Hemp.

HI SB3031

Relating To Hemp.

HI HB2063

Relating To Hemp.

HI SB3025

Relating To Hemp.

Similar Bills

HI SB516

Relating To Hemp.

HI HB1424

Relating To Hemp.

HI HB1424

Relating To Hemp.

HI SB2986

Relating To Hemp.

HI SB2791

Relating To The Establishment Of A Hemp Task Force.

MS HB378

Mississippi Development Authority; require to conduct review of infrastructures in counties with high rates of poverty.

HI HB1359

Relating To Hemp.

CA AB3098

California Agriculture Relief Act: severe heat impacts.