An Act to create 97.19 of the statutes; Relating to: serving maple syrup in a public eating place.
Summary
AB205 would create a new state statute governing the use of the term “maple syrup” in public eating places. The bill prohibits restaurants and other public eating places from serving a product identified as maple syrup unless the product is made entirely of maple syrup, using the federal definition in 21 CFR 168.140. It also clarifies that businesses may still serve other syrup-like products so long as they are not labeled or identified as maple syrup.
In practical terms, the bill is a food-labeling and consumer-protection measure aimed at preventing misleading menu or table-service practices in restaurants. It would add a new section to Wisconsin statutes, section 97.19, and would apply to any premise that prepares and sells food for the general public. The measure does not regulate maple syrup production generally; it focuses only on how maple syrup is represented and served in public eating places.
Impact
AB205 would amend Wisconsin law by creating s. 97.19, establishing a specific prohibition on serving products identified as maple syrup in public eating places unless they are entirely maple syrup under the federal standard. The bill would affect restaurants, diners, cafeterias, and similar food-service establishments by limiting how they may label or present syrup products. It would not ban imitation syrup outright, but it would require those products to be marketed under some other name.
Sentiment
The available record shows little to no recorded debate, committee testimony, or roll-call voting on the bill, so there is no documented controversy in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears straightforward and consumer-oriented, with an emphasis on truth-in-labeling rather than broad regulatory change. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not advance to enactment.
Contention
No committee transcripts or votes are provided, so specific objections or supporters are not documented in the record supplied. Potential points of contention, if raised, would likely center on whether the state should regulate a relatively narrow menu-labeling issue, how strictly restaurants would need to police product names, and whether the federal definition is the appropriate standard to incorporate. Any opposition would most likely come from food-service businesses or industry groups concerned about compliance or flexibility, while support would likely come from consumer-protection advocates favoring accurate product descriptions.