Source: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/FC/2013HB-06527-R000863-FC.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:02:06+00:00

Document:
[(24)] (25) "Sale" means any and every sale and includes (A) manufacture, processing, packing, canning, bottling or any other production, preparation or putting up; (B) exposure, offer or any other proffer; (C) holding, storing or any other possessing; (D) dispensing, giving, delivering, serving or any other supplying; and (E) applying, administering or any other using.
(9) "Manufacturer" means a person who produces food intended for human consumption or seed or seed stock that is intended to produce food for human consumption and sells such item to a retailer or distributor.
Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2013) (a) On and after the occurrence of the following: (1) Any five states, not including this state, enact a mandatory labeling law for genetically-engineered foods that is substantially consistent with the provisions of sections 1 to 4, inclusive, of this act, (2) the aggregate population of such states is more than twenty-five million, and (3) two of such states border Connecticut or are New York and New Jersey, no person shall sell, offer for sale or distribute in this state any (A) food intended for human consumption, or (B) seed or seed stock that is intended to produce food for human consumption that is entirely or partially genetically-engineered, except a processed food subject to the provisions of this section solely because one or more processing aids or enzymes were produced or derived from genetic engineering, unless such food, seed or seed stock is labeled as follows: (i) In the case of such wholesale food that is not intended for retail sale, on the bill of sale accompanying such food during shipping, with the clear and conspicuous words: "Produced with Genetic Engineering"; (ii) in the case of such food for retail sale contained in a package, with the clear and conspicuous words: "Produced with Genetic Engineering"; (iii) in the case of such food that is a raw agricultural commodity, on the package offered for retail sale or, in the case of any such commodity that is not separately packaged or labeled, on the retail store shelf or bin that holds such commodity displayed for sale with the clear and conspicuous words: "Produced with Genetic Engineering"; and (iv) in the case of any such seed or seed stock, on the container holding the seed or seed stock displayed for sale or any label identifying ownership or possession of the commodity with the clear and conspicuous words: "Produced with Genetic Engineering". Such food labeling shall be displayed in the same size and font as the ingredients in the nutritional facts panel on the food label.
(5) Products derived from a single type of crop raised on a farm that produces not more than one million five hundred thousand dollars in gross sales for the farmer on whose farm such crop was raised in the previous twelve months.
(c) Any person selling, offering for sale or distributing in this state any food, seed or seed stock required to be labeled as provided in this section shall be responsible for ensuring that such food, seed or seed stock is so labeled.
(d) The provisions of this section shall be enforced, within available appropriations, by the Commissioner of Consumer Protection.
(e) Any person found to knowingly violate this section shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars per day, per product. Calculation of such civil penalty shall not be made or multiplied by the number of individual packages of the same product displayed or offered for retail sale. Civil penalties assessed under this section shall accrue and be assessed per each uniquely named, designated or marketed product.
(f) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, a retailer shall not be liable for the failure to label pursuant to this section unless the retailer is the producer or the manufacturer of the genetically-engineered food, seed or seed stock and sells the genetically-engineered food under a brand it owns, unless the failure to label was knowing and wilful.
(g) The Commissioner of Consumer Protection may adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54 of the general statutes, to implement and enforce the provisions of this section.
(a) A food shall be deemed to be misbranded: [(a)] (1) If its labeling is false or misleading in any particular. A statement on the label or labeling either directly or indirectly implying that the product is recommended or endorsed by any agency of the federal or state government shall be considered misleading, unless the agency concerned has approved the statement prior to its use; [(b)] (2) if it is offered for sale under the name of another food; [(c)] (3) if it is an imitation of another food, unless its label bears, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word "imitation" and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated; [(d)] (4) if its container is so made, formed or filled as to be misleading; [(e)] (5) if in package form, unless it bears a label containing [(1)] (A) the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer or distributor; and [(2)] (B) an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure or numerical count; provided, under [subdivision (2) of this subsection] this subparagraph, reasonable variations shall be permitted, and exemptions as to small packages shall be established by regulations promulgated by the commissioner and director, acting jointly; [(f)] (6) if any information or other word or statement, required by or under authority of this chapter to appear on the label or labeling, is not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness, as compared with other words, statements, designs or devices, in the labeling, and in such terms, as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use; [(g)] (7) if it purports to be or simulates or is represented as a food for which a definition and standard of identity has been prescribed by regulations as provided by section 21a-100, unless [(1)] (A) it conforms to such definition and standard, and [(2)] (B) its label bears the name of the food specified in the definition and standard, and, so far as may be required by such regulations, the common names of optional ingredients, other than spices, flavoring and coloring, present in such food; [(h)] (8) if it purports to be or is represented as [(1)] (A) a food for which a standard of quality has been prescribed by regulations as provided by section 21a-100 and its quality falls below such standard, unless its label bears, in such manner and form as such regulations specify, a statement that it falls below such standard; [or (2)] (B) a food for which a standard or standards of fill of container have been prescribed by regulations as provided by section 21a-100, and it falls below the standard of fill of container applicable thereto, unless its label bears, in such manner and form as such regulations specify, a statement that it falls below such standard; [(3)] or (C) a food for which no definition and standard of identity and no standard of quality has been prescribed by regulations as provided by section 21a-100, and it falls below the standard of purity, quality or strength which it purports or is represented to possess; [(i)] (9) if it is not subject to the provisions of [subsection (g)] subdivision (7) of this [section] subsection, unless its label bears [(1)] (A) the common or usual name of the food, if any, and [(2)] (B) if it is fabricated from two or more ingredients, the common or usual name of each such ingredient; except that spices, flavorings and colorings, other than those sold as such, may be designated as spices, flavorings and colorings without naming each; provided, to the extent that compliance with the requirements of [subdivision (2) of this subsection] this subparagraph is impracticable, or results in deception or unfair competition, exemptions shall be established by regulations promulgated by the commissioner and director, acting jointly; [(j)] (10) if it purports to be or is represented to be for special dietary uses, unless its label bears such information concerning its vitamin, mineral and other dietary properties as is necessary in order fully to inform purchasers as to its value for such uses, as provided by regulations promulgated by the commissioner and director, acting jointly; [(k)] (11) if it bears or contains any artificial flavoring, artificial coloring, artificial sweetening or chemical preservative, unless it bears labeling stating that fact; provided, to the extent that compliance with the requirements of this subsection is impracticable, exemptions shall be established by regulations promulgated by the commissioner and director, acting jointly; (12) if it is intended for human consumption and genetically-engineered, as defined in section 2 of this act, and does not bear labeling as required in accordance with section 3 of this act, unless (A) it is a food intended for human consumption produced without the producer's knowledge that a seed or other component of such food was genetically-engineered, or (B) on or before July 1, 2019, it is a processed food, as defined in section 2 of this act, that is subject to the provisions of section 3 of this act, solely because it contains one or more materials that have been produced with genetic engineering, as defined in section 2 of this act, provided such genetically-engineered materials do not, in the aggregate, account for more than nine-tenths of one per cent of the total weight of the processed food.
(b) Seed or seed stock that is intended to produce food for human consumption shall be deemed misbranded if it is genetically-engineered, as defined in section 2 of this act, and does not bear labeling as required in accordance with section 3 of this act.
All such proceedings for the enforcement, or to restrain violations, of this chapter and section 3 of this act shall be by and in the name of the state of Connecticut.
The bill is not anticipated to result in a cost in either FY 14 or FY 15 as the requirement of any person to not sell, offer for sale, or distribute certain products is not anticipated to be implemented until the out years due to the bill's requirements needed prior to implementation.
The bill specifies that the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) implement the provisions within available appropriations. However, if the bill were to be implemented the cost to the state would be an estimated $117,632 in the out years due to requiring certain products to be labeled “Produced with Genetic Engineering” and adopting mandatory labeling laws for genetically engineered food. DCP may incur costs of $90,000 for a Consumer Protection Food Inspector and a part-time paralegal to respond to complaints and issues related to genetically engineered products. This includes salaries ($80,000) and other expenses ($10,000) including computers, software, travel and fringe benefits ($27,632). The additional staff will need to examine the chain of production of suspect products in order to determine if such products meet the requirements of the bill. The cost could vary depending on the timing of implementation.
House “A” was a strike all amendment that altered the implementation requirements with the resulting impact identified above.
The impact identified above is anticipated in the out years only subject to inflation.
AN ACT CONCERNING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED BABY FOOD.
This bill generally prohibits anyone from selling, offering for sale, or distributing in the state certain foods that are entirely or partially genetically-engineered unless they are labeled as produced with genetic engineering. It generally deems such items misbranded if they do not contain the required label. But these requirements only go into effect when five other states meeting certain criteria enact a substantially similar law. The five states must have a total population of over 25 million, and they must include (1) two states bordering Connecticut or (2) New York and New Jersey.
The bill generally applies to food intended for human consumption, or seed or seed stock intended to produce such food. But certain food items are exempt, such as (1) alcohol, (2) food not packaged for retail sale that is intended for immediate consumption, and (3) certain farm products. There are also two situations where the labeling requirement applies, but failure to comply does not render the food items misbranded.
The bill generally subjects knowing violators to a daily fine of up to $1,000 per product. But retailers are only liable for failure to label under certain conditions.
By deeming food that violates the bill's labeling requirements to be misbranded, the bill also allows the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) to place an embargo on, and in some circumstances, seize, the food. A person who misbrands food or sells misbranded food in Connecticut may be subject to criminal penalties (see BACKGROUND).
The bill requires the DCP commissioner to enforce the bill's labeling requirements, within available appropriations. It authorizes him to adopt regulations to implement and enforce these requirements.
2. specifically excludes genetically-engineered foods from the definition of “natural food,” for purposes of the laws regulating the advertisement, distribution, or sale of food as natural.
*House Amendment “A” replaces the underlying bill. It (1) expands the type of items to which the labeling requirement applies (in the underlying bill, the requirement applied only to baby food and infant formula) and (2) adds the provision that the labeling requirement only goes into effect when five other states enact similar laws (in the underlying bill, the requirement would go into effect on July 1, 2015). Among other things, the amendment also adds and changes certain exceptions to the labeling requirement.
2. fusing cells that are not in the same taxonomic family (in taxonomy, a family is a group of related species), in a way that overcomes natural physiological reproductive or recombinant barriers and that is not used in traditional breeding and selection (such as conjugation, transduction, and hybridization).
“Genetically-engineered” or “genetic engineering” also includes food intended for humans, or seed or seed stock intended to produce such food, that (1) contains an ingredient, component, or substance produced as described above or (2) is treated with a material produced as described above for, among other purposes, increasing a raw agricultural commodity's resistance to herbicides and pesticides. By law, a raw agricultural commodity is a food in its raw or natural state, including fruit that is washed, colored, or otherwise treated in its unpeeled, natural form before marketing.
The bill defines “in vitro nucleic acid techniques” as techniques, including recombinant DNA techniques, that use vector systems and techniques involving the direct introduction into organisms of hereditary material (e.g., genes) prepared outside the organisms, such as microinjection, macroinjection, chemoporation, electroporation, microencapsulation, and liposome fusion.
The bill generally prohibits anyone from selling, offering for sale, or distributing in the state food intended for human consumption, or seed or seed stock intended to produce such food, that is entirely or partially genetically-engineered, unless the item is labeled with the clear and conspicuous words “Produced with Genetic Engineering.” Such food, seed, and seed stock is deemed misbranded if it does not contain the required label, subject to the exceptions set forth below.
The labeling requirement goes into effect when five other states, with a total population of over 25 million, enact a mandatory labeling law for genetically-engineered food that is substantially consistent with the bill. These states must include (1) two bordering states or (2) New York and New Jersey.
The label must be displayed in the same size and font as the ingredients in the food label's nutritional facts panel. (It is unclear how this provision applies to products that do not have such panels.) The specifics of the labeling location vary depending on the type of item, as shown in Table 1.
(1) The container holding the items displayed for sale or (2) any label identifying the commodity's ownership or possession.
Responsibility for Labeling. Under the bill, anyone selling, offering for sale, or distributing in this state food, seed, or seed stock subject to the labeling requirement must ensure that the item is labeled. But despite this provision, a retailer is not liable for failing to label such items unless the retailer is the producer or manufacturer of the item and sells it under a brand the retailer owns, unless the failure to label was knowing and willful.
The bill defines a retailer as a person or entity that engages in the sale of food intended for human consumption to a consumer. A manufacturer is a person who produces such food, or seed or seed stock intended to produce such food, and sells such items to a retailer or distributor. A distributor is a person or entity that sells, supplies, furnishes, or transports food intended for human consumption in this state that the person or entity did not produce.
6. processed foods that would be subject to such labeling solely because one or more processing aids or enzymes were produced or derived from genetic engineering.
Under the bill, a “processed food” is any food intended for human consumption other than a raw agricultural commodity. The term includes food produced from a raw agricultural commodity that has been processed through canning, smoking, pressing, cooking, freezing, dehydration, fermentation, or milling.
3. was added for its technical or functional effect in processing but is present in the finished food at insignificant levels without any technical or functional effect in the finished food.
2. on or before July 1, 2019, processed food subject to the bill's labeling requirement solely because it contains one or more genetically-engineered materials that in the aggregate do not account for more than 0.9% (9/10 of 1 percent) of the processed food's total weight.
However, it appears that knowing violations of the labeling requirement in regard to such items are still subject to the civil penalty described below.
Under the bill, anyone found to knowingly violate the labeling provisions is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per day. The penalty applies per each uniquely named, designated, or marketed product, but not per individual item of the same product.
Under existing law, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines food as (1) articles used for food or drink for people or other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of these. The bill specifically includes infant formula in the definition. Presumably, infant formula already fits within the act's definition of food.
Thus, the bill specifies that genetically-engineered infant formula is subject to the bill's labeling requirement unless an exception applies, as set forth above. Also, all infant formula is subject to the other provisions applicable to food in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Among other things, the act bans the sale in intrastate commerce of food that is adulterated or misbranded.
The bill defines “infant formula” as a milk- or soy-based powder, concentrated liquid, or ready-to-feed substitute for human breast milk that is commercially available and intended for infants.
Under existing law, “natural food” means food that has not been (1) treated with preservatives, antibiotics, synthetic additives, or artificial flavoring or coloring and (2) processed in a way that makes it significantly less nutritious.
Under the bill, food also cannot be described as “natural” if it is genetically-engineered. By law, foods that are advertised, distributed, or sold as “natural” without meeting the definition of that term are deemed misbranded.
Under the bill, the definitions of distributor and manufacturer (see above) apply to an existing provision providing that packaged food is deemed misbranded if it does not have a label indicating the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor. As this provision applies to food intended for humans as well as animals, the effect of this is unclear.
The law prohibits misbranding food, or selling, or receiving and then selling misbranded food, in Connecticut (CGS § 21a-93). A first violation of this law is punishable by up to six months in prison, a fine of up to $500, or both. Subsequent violations, or violations done with the intent to defraud or mislead, are punishable by up to one year in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both (CGS § 21a-95).
Generally, a person is not subject to criminal penalties for selling misbranded food within the state, or receiving and then selling it, if he or she obtains a document signed by the person from whom he or she received the food in good faith, stating that the food is not misbranded in violation of this law. But this exemption does not apply to violations committed with the intent to defraud or mislead (CGS § 21a-95).
The law authorizes the DCP commissioner to embargo food that he determines or has probable cause to believe is misbranded. Once the commissioner embargoes an item, he has 21 days to either begin summary proceedings in Superior Court to confiscate it or to remove the embargo.
Once the commissioner files a complaint, the law requires the court to issue a warrant to seize the described item and summon the person named in the warrant and anyone else found to possess the specific item. The court must hold a hearing within five to 15 days from the date of the warrant. The court must order the food confiscated if it appears that it was offered for sale in violation of the law.
If the seized food is not injurious to health and could be brought into compliance with the law if it is repackaged or relabeled, the court may order it delivered to its owner upon payment of court costs and provision of a bond to DCP assuring that the product will be brought into compliance (CGS § 21a-96).
In general, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulate labeling requirements of certain foods through the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC § 301 et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 USC § 451 et seq.), and the Meat Inspection Act (21 USC § 601 et seq.). These acts generally prohibit states from requiring that these foods be labeled in a manner inconsistent with federal labeling requirements.
The constitutionality of state laws requiring specific food labeling has been raised in federal courts, including the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a case involving a Vermont law requiring dairy manufacturers to label milk and milk products derived from or that may have been derived from cows treated with recombinant bovine somatrotropin (a synthetic hormone used to increase milk production), the Second Circuit ruled the law was likely unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. The district court below had denied the dairy manufacturers' request to prevent the law's enforcement by ruling that they had not shown a likelihood of success under the First Amendment or Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. But the Second Circuit concluded that Vermont's asserted state interest of a public “right to know” and strong consumer interest was inadequate to compel the commercial speech (i.e., the labeling requirement). Because the Second Circuit ruled on First Amendment grounds, it did not reach the Commerce Clause claims (International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy, 92 F. 3d 67 (2d Cir. 1996)).
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8). It has also been held to mean that states cannot pass laws that improperly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce (i.e., the “dormant” Commerce Clause). Under this doctrine, a law that, on its face, discriminates against interstate commerce violates the Constitution unless there is no other means to advance a legitimate local interest. If a law is facially nondiscriminatory, supports a legitimate state interest, and only incidentally burdens interstate commerce, it is constitutional unless the burden is excessive in relation to local benefits.

References: § 21
 § 21
 § 21
 § 21
 § 301
 § 451
 § 601
 v. 
 § 8