<p class=ldtitle>A BILL to amend and reenact § 1-510 of the Code of Virginia, relating to official emblems and designations; state fruit; pawpaw.</p>
Summary
HB415 amends Virginia Code § 1-510, the statute that lists the Commonwealth’s official emblems and designations, to add the pawpaw fruit (Asimina triloba) as Virginia’s official state fruit. The bill leaves the rest of the long list of state symbols and honorary designations intact, including animals, flowers, songs, festivals, museums, and other cultural or historical recognitions.
In practical terms, the bill would update the Commonwealth’s symbolic designations rather than create a regulatory program or change substantive rights and duties. Its legal effect is limited to the official state-emblem statute, but it would give the pawpaw formal recognition alongside Virginia’s other state symbols and could be used in educational, promotional, or ceremonial contexts.
Impact
The bill would amend § 1-510 of the Code of Virginia, which governs official emblems and designations, by adding pawpaw as the state fruit. It does not appear to alter tax law, licensing, or enforcement provisions, and it would not impose obligations on agencies or private parties beyond recognizing the new designation. The main impact is symbolic and statutory: Virginia’s official list of emblems would expand to include another state agricultural and natural-history symbol.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was noncontroversial and largely symbolic. It was continued to the next session in Rules by voice vote, and there is no record here of recorded opposition, amendments, or substantive committee debate. The absence of votes or transcripts indicates the measure likely drew little public or legislative contention at this stage.
Contention
No specific points of contention are shown in the provided materials. Because the bill concerns a state symbol rather than a policy change, any disagreement would likely have centered on whether Virginia should formally recognize the pawpaw as the state fruit or on the broader practice of adding honorary designations to the Code. However, the record provided does not identify any member, committee, or stakeholder taking a contrary position.