Overview
Title
To establish Golden Sea Bream as an acceptable market name for Stenotomus chrysops.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 1832 wants to make it okay to call a certain type of fish, Stenotomus chrysops, by the name "Golden Sea Bream" at stores. This means people can use that name without getting in trouble for having wrong labels.
Summary AI
H.R. 1832 proposes that the name "Golden Sea Bream" can be officially used in the market to refer to the fish species Stenotomus chrysops. This bill aims to ensure that using this name will not cause the fish to be considered improperly labeled or violate any rules under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
House of Representatives Bill 1832, introduced in the 119th Congress, seeks to establish "Golden Sea Bream" as an acceptable market name for the species Stenotomus chrysops. This means that products labeled "Golden Sea Bream" would not be considered misbranded or in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as long as they truly refer to Stenotomus chrysops. The bill is particularly focused on the proper labeling and marketing of this fish species.
Significant Issues
Several concerns arise regarding the clarity and implications of this bill:
Financial Implications: The bill does not clearly outline any financial implications or funding considerations related to its implementation. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to assess its potential fiscal impact, including concerns about possible wasteful spending or favoritism.
Lack of Context or Background: The bill does not provide context on why there is a need to establish "Golden Sea Bream" as a market name. Without an explanation, the public might view this as an unnecessary change, potentially catering to special interests.
Potential Favoritism: The bill offers no insights into why "Golden Sea Bream" is chosen over other possible names, leading to suspicions of favoritism toward certain seafood vendors or industries. This decision might affect competition within the seafood market.
Market Name Ambiguity: There is ambiguity regarding whether "Golden Sea Bream" is to be the sole market name for Stenotomus chrysops or if other names may also be used. This could confuse consumers and suppliers, potentially disrupting market dynamics.
Legal Interpretation Challenges: The bill references the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act without specifying sections, creating potential legal ambiguities and challenges in enforcement or interpretation.
Public Impact
Broadly speaking, the bill could simplify labeling for those familiar with or preferring the term "Golden Sea Bream." However, without clear reasoning or transparency around its introduction, it might face skepticism or opposition from parts of the public, who could perceive it as serving narrow interests rather than public good.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Seafood Vendors and Industry: Those favoring or marketing "Golden Sea Bream" may benefit from clearer branding and potentially increased demand. However, vendors using alternative names may face adaptation challenges or competitive disadvantages if "Golden Sea Bream" becomes the predominant market term.
Consumers: Consumers could benefit from consistent product naming if "Golden Sea Bream" becomes widely recognized. On the flip side, those who prefer existing terminology may find the market change confusing or unwelcome unless accompanied by educational efforts.
Regulatory Agencies: Agencies tasked with enforcing food labeling laws might face challenges due to the lack of specific legal guidelines in the bill, potentially complicating oversight and compliance efforts.
In conclusion, while the bill proposes a straightforward change in market nomenclature, the absence of detailed context and financial considerations leaves room for both interpretation and potential controversy among various stakeholders.
Issues
The section does not provide a clear definition of any financial implications or funding related to the labeling of 'Golden Sea Bream,' making it difficult to assess any potential financial impact, including wasteful spending or favoritism. This issue is significant given public concern over government spending and the potential for financial waste. [Section 1]
The section lacks context or background on why labeling 'Golden Sea Bream' is necessary, which can lead to public confusion and skepticism about the rationale behind the bill. Without understanding the necessity of this change, it may be perceived as unnecessary or serving special interests. [Section 1]
There is insufficient explanation on the potential impacts of the name 'Golden Sea Bream,' including why it is specifically chosen over other names. This raises concerns over potential favoritism towards specific seafood vendors or industries, potentially impacting competitiveness in the seafood market. [Section 1]
There is ambiguity over whether 'Golden Sea Bream' is the exclusive market name for Stenotomus chrysops or if other names are acceptable. This lack of clarity could create confusion among consumers and suppliers, affecting market dynamics and adherence to labeling standards. [Section 1]
The text refers to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act without citing specific sections. This general reference can lead to legal ambiguity and challenges in enforcement or interpretation, raising concerns about the legal robustness of the bill. [Section 1]
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Golden Sea Bream as acceptable market name Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
A food product labeled as "Golden Sea Bream" is considered properly marketed and is not in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, so long as it refers to the species Stenotomus chrysops.