Massachusetts legislators are considering a bill that would allow food stores in the Bay State to do away with price tags on individual items.

The change is among a handful that would take effect if a compromise bill now under consideration is enacted before the legislative session closes at the end of the month.

Individual item pricing has been a requirement in Massachusetts for more than 20 years and the state is one of only two that require food stores to tag individual items. Michigan is the other. Rhode Island law allows retailers to post prices in a variety of ways, including individual tags as an option.

The pricing law is a ritual target for Massachusetts retailers, who’ve challenged it for five years running, and is once again a priority of the Massachusetts Food Association and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts. They contend that the bill would refine regulations to account for competitive and technological changes in retailing, allow stores to shift workers to more productive tasks and save customers money.

“I would fully expect the savings would go to the consumer,” said Jon B. Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts.

Retailers now have the backing of House Speaker Sal DiMasi, who says he hopes to get the newest version of the bill passed before the current legislative session ends. DiMasi’s stance has consumer groups worried.

“This bill is a one-sided, anti-consumer piece of legislation benefiting retailers at the expense of consumers,” said Deirdre Cummings, legislative director of the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group.

Labor union officials say doing away with pricing individual items will mean doing away with some jobs, as grocers and other retailers that sell food look to save money.

Language in the bill covers unionized workers but even that is too weak to protect those employees, said Peter Derouen, political and legislative director for Local 791 of the United Food and Commercial Workers. Local 791 represents workers at 25 Shaw’s stores in southeastern Massachusetts and 12 Shaw’s in Rhode Island.

“I don’t thing it could be really enforced, managed or tracked,” he said. “There are a number of jobs directly affected by [the proposal]. We don’t want to sit idly by and see future full-time jobs be lost forever.”

The proposal’s supporters see it differently.

“Their concerns are not justified,” said Christopher Flynn, president of the Massachusetts Food Association. “It’s not like they’re going to stop item pricing and get rid of jobs.”

Instead, he asserted, retailers could shift workers to more productive tasks, such as staffing specialty-goods departments, where items carry high profits.

At least four bills dealing with item-pricing were introduced this year, leading to a compromise proposal, (H4858) “An Act Relative to Clear and Conspicuous Price Disclosure,” which is sponsored by Rep. Steven Walsh, a Democrat from Lynn.

“I think the consumer groups are so used to being opposed, they didn’t take a look at it,” said Walsh, who chairs the Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business.

Under the bill, stores would be required to display prices on signs near the goods, but would not have to place stickers on each product. The bill exempts 17 categories of goods and also exempts warehouse clubs.

“The shelf price would still have to be there,” said Flynn.

Stores would also have to install one price scanner in every 5,000 square feet of selling space.

The bill calls for scanners to be inspected once a year, but inspections could also be triggered by consumer complaints. Inspections would fall to the Division of Standards, which regulates food stores. The division would take oversight of non-food stores from the attorney general’s office.

Consumers who find a mistake on an item valued at less than $10 would get that item free. A mistake on a higher-priced item would earn a $10 discount.

Fines for pricing mistakes would be reduced, from a $2,500 weekly maximum, to $100 for the first offense, $250 for the second offense and $500 thereafter. The division would have the authority to raise the fines.

The bill made it out of Walsh’s committee late last month and now could go to the full house for a vote. It then would be sent to the Senate for review.

“It’s only taken one step,” said Hurst, of the retailers group.

That’s one step too far, say the unions that represent grocery workers in Massachusetts.

“We are actively working to defeat the proposal,” said Derouen, of Local 791.

Still, retail group representatives are encouraged by the bill’s progress.

“We’re hopeful we can get it done,” Flynn said.

pgrimald@projo.com