BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                         Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
                              2013-2014 Regular Session


          SB 1381 (Evans)
          As Amended April 3, 2014
          Hearing Date: April 22, 2014
          Fiscal: Yes
          Urgency: No
          TMW


                                        SUBJECT
                                           
                     Food Labeling:  Genetically Engineered Food

                                      DESCRIPTION  

          This bill, as of January 1, 2016, would enact the California  
          Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act and require any  
          raw agricultural commodity or packaged food that is entirely or  
          partially produced with genetic engineering, as defined, to be  
          labeled, clearly and conspicuously, as "Genetically Engineered."  
           

          This bill would provide that a manufacturer or retailer who, in  
          good faith, fails to properly label a product in reliance on the  
          representations of a farmer, producer, or supplier that the  
          product is not entirely or partially produced with genetic  
          engineering, would not be in violation of this bill.  This bill  
          would provide that a farmer, producer, or supplier who is not a  
          retailer or manufacturer is not required to label a product as  
          entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering, and  
          exempt specified products.  This bill would also authorize an  
          injured consumer to bring an action for product mislabeling, as  
          specified.

          (This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in  
          Committee.)

                                      BACKGROUND  

          In 1992, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)  
          published a policy on foods derived from new plant varieties,  
          which applies to foods developed using recombinant  
                                                                (more)



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 2 of ?



          deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology (commonly referred to as  
          "genetic engineering" (GE) or "biotechnology").  According to  
          the FDA, this policy was developed to provide guidance for  
          developers of GE foods and to ensure that GE products are safe  
          and comply with applicable legal requirements.  (U.S. Dept. of  
          Health & Hum. Svc., Food and Drug Administration, Center for  
          Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Guidance for Industry:  
          Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not  
          Been Developed Using Bioengineering; Draft Guidance (Jan. 2001)  
           [as of Apr.  
          10, 2014].)  The FDA reported that, during the policy comment  
          and review process, there was general agreement that providing  
          more information to consumers was useful, and focus group data  
          indicated that consumers would prefer label statements that  
          disclose and explain the goal of bioengineering technology in  
          the purchased products.  (Id.)

          At this time, the FDA's policy on GE labeling is voluntary.  The  
          FDA stated that it "is still not aware of any data or other  
          information that would form a basis for concluding that the fact  
          that a food or its ingredients was produced using bioengineering  
          is a material fact that must be disclosed . . . . FDA is  
          therefore reaffirming its decision to not require special  
          labeling of all bioengineered foods."  (Id.)  Although there is  
          no special federal labeling requirement for GE foods, the FDA  
          stated that a food may be characterized as mislabeled under  
          federal law if statements on the label are false or misleading  
          as a result of failing to disclose facts that are material.

          Various federal laws, including the Federal Food, Drug, and  
          Cosmetic Act, require specified product labeling to ensure the  
          health and safety of consumers and provide information as to the  
          ingredients of the products, which is especially important for  
          consumers with food allergies.  California has enacted labeling  
          standards in large part based on the federal laws.

          In 2012, Proposition 27 sought to require GE food labeling in  
          California.  Proposition 27 was defeated by a margin of 51.4  
          percent to 48.6 percent.  However, supporters of this bill note  
          that a recent poll shows that 67 percent of Californians support  
          a GE food labeling law.  This bill is similar to Proposition 27,  
          but contains different exemptions and enforcements.  

          This bill, as of January 1, 2016, would enact the California  
          Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act and require any  
                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 3 of ?



          raw agricultural commodity or packaged food that is entirely or  
          partially produced with genetic engineering to be labeled as  
          genetically engineered and provide specified exemptions from the  
          labeling requirements.  This bill would also authorize an  
          injured consumer to bring an action for product mislabeling, as  
          specified.

          This bill was heard in the Senate Committee on Health on March  
          26, 2014, and passed out on a 5-2 vote.  Should this bill pass  
          out of this committee, it will be referred to the Senate  
          Committee on Agriculture.

                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
           Existing federal law  , the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,  
          provides food labeling requirements, including specified  
          nutrition information and food allergen components.  (21 U.S.C.  
          Sec. 301 et seq.)
           Existing federal law  provides that a food is mislabeled and in  
          violation of federal law if statements on its label or in its  
          labeling are false.  (21 U.S.C. Sec. 403(a).)

           Existing federal law  provides that both the presence and the  
          absence of information are relevant to whether a label is  
          misleading.  (21 U.S.C. Sec. 201(n).)

           Existing state law  , the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law  
          (Sherman Law), provides food safety requirements, including that  
          food is not adulterated, misbranded, or falsely advertised.   
          Food labeling requirements generally adopt federal food labeling  
          laws as the state requirement, including nutrition labeling and  
          allergen labeling, but the Department of Public Health is  
          permitted, by regulation, to adopt additional food labeling  
          regulations.  (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 109875 et seq.)

           Existing law  provides that the Attorney General or any district  
          attorney may bring an action in superior court to grant a  
          temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from  
          violating the Sherman Law, and if the defendant has been found  
          in violation, the court is required to award all reasonable  
          costs of investigation and prosecution, including the costs of  
          storage and testing.  (Health & Saf. Code Secs. 111900 and  
          111905.)

           Existing law  , for products mislabeled pursuant to the California  
          Organic Products Act of 2003, authorizes a person to bring an  
                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 4 of ?



          action in superior court to obtain a temporary or permanent  
          injunction and, upon prevailing in the action, an award of  
          attorney's fees, restraining any other person from violating the  
          COPA.  (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 111910.)  Existing law does not  
          require the plaintiff to allege facts necessary to show, or  
          tending to show, lack of adequate remedy at law, or to show, or  
          tending to show, irreparable damage or loss, or to show, or  
          tending to show, unique or special individual injury or damages.  
           (Id.)

           Existing law  also authorizes the court to impose as a civil  
          penalty, damages in the maximum sum of $1,000 for each day the  
          violation is continued, and such damages shall be paid one-half  
          to the state and one-half to the county in which the action is  
          brought if brought by the Attorney General, or entirely to the  
          county if brought by a district attorney.  (Health & Saf. Code  
          Sec. 111915.)

           This bill  would provide that a food is misbranded under the  
          Sherman Law if its labeling does not include information, as  
          specified, that the food is entirely or partially produced with  
          genetic engineering.

           This bill  would enact the California Right to Know Genetically  
          Engineered Food Act (Act) and would require any raw agricultural  
          commodity or packaged food, other than an alcoholic beverage or  
          food sold at certified farmer's markets, field retail stands, or  
          farm stands, that is entirely or partially produced with genetic  
          engineering to be labeled.  This bill would provide the  
          following definitions:
           "food" includes only food for human consumption and not any  
            food for consumption by animals;
           "genetically engineered" means produced from an organism or  
            organisms in which the genetic material has been changed  
            through the application either in vitro nucleic acid  
            techniques, as defined, or methods of fusing cells beyond the  
            taxonomic family, as specified; however, "genetically  
            engineered" does not include an animal who has not itself been  
            genetically engineered, regardless of whether that animal has  
            been fed or injected with any food or any drug that has been  
            produced through means of genetic engineering;
           "manufacturer" means the person or entity that makes,  
            processes, combines, or packages food ingredients into a  
            finished product;
            "organism" means any biological entity capable of  
            replication, reproduction, or transferring genetic material;
                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 5 of ?



            "packaged food" means any food offered for retail sale in the  
            state, other than raw food and food served, sold, or provided  
            ready to eat in any bake sale, restaurant, or cafeteria;
           "retailer" means an establishment engaged in the business of  
            selling any perishable agricultural commodity or packaged food  
            via a storefront; and
           "supplier" means a person or entity that engages in the  
            operation of selling or distributing raw agricultural  
            commodities that the person or entity has produced, purchased,  
            or acquired from a processor.

           This bill  would require a manufacturer of a raw agricultural  
          commodity packaged for retail sale to include the words  
          "Genetically Engineered" clearly and conspicuously on the front  
          or back of the package of that commodity.

           This bill  would require a retailer of a raw agricultural  
          commodity that is not separately packaged or labeled to place a  
          clear and conspicuous label on the retail store shelf or bin in  
          which that commodity is displayed for sale.

           This bill  would require a manufacturer of packaged food  
          containing some products of genetic engineering to label the  
          product in clear and conspicuous language on the front or back  
          of the package of that food product with the words "Produced  
          with Genetic Engineering" or "Partially Produced with Genetic  
          Engineering."

           This bill  would provide that a person engaged in business as a  
          manufacturer or retailer of products who in good faith sells,  
          offers for sale, labels, or advertises any product in reliance  
          on the representations of a farmer, producer, or supplier that  
          the product is not entirely or partially produced with genetic  
          engineering, shall not be found to violate the Act unless the  
          manufacturer or retailer knew or should have known that the  
          product was entirely or partially produced with genetic  
          engineering.

           This bill  would exempt a farmer, producer, or supplier from  
          liability for a violation of the Act. 

           This bill  would provide that the failure to label any of the  
          following is not a violation of the Act:  (1) packaged food in  
          which the materials produced through genetic engineering account  
          for nine-tenths of 1 percent or less of the total weight; (2)  
          food produced without knowledge or intent to use genetic  
                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 6 of ?



          engineering; (3) an alcoholic beverage; or (4) food sold at a  
          certified farmer's market, field retail stand, or farm stand.

           This bill  would provide that food is produced without knowledge  
          or intent to use genetic engineering under either of the  
          following conditions:  (1) the food is lawfully certified to be  
          labeled, marketed, and offered for sale as "organic" pursuant to  
          the federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. Sec.  
          6501 et seq.); or (2) an independent organization has  
          determined, pursuant to a specified sampling and testing  
          procedure, that the food was produced without knowledge or  
          intent to use genetic engineering and has been segregated from,  
          and not knowingly or intentionally commingled with, foods that  
          may have been genetically engineered.

           This bill  would require the Department of Public Health to adopt  
          and enforce regulations necessary to implement this bill.

           This bill  would extend the private right of action and remedies  
          available under the California Organic Products Act of 2003 to a  
          person injured as a result of a violation of this Act.
           
          This bill  would become operative on January 1, 2016.

           This bill  would declare that the provisions of it are severable,  
          and if any provision of the bill or its application is held  
          invalid, that invalidity would not affect other provisions or  
          application that can be given effect without the invalid  
          provision or application.

                                        COMMENT
           
          1.  Stated need for the bill  
          
          The author writes:
          
            SB 1381 would allow Californians to make more informed  
            food-buying choices by requiring genetically engineered (GE)  
            foods sold in California to be labeled as such. Californians  
            would join more than 64 countries around the world that have  
            GE food labeling laws.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration  
            (FDA) does not require the labeling of genetically engineered  
            foods, giving California a duty to people, environment, and  
            agricultural economy to enact this provision.

            There is overwhelming public support in California for  
                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 7 of ?



            labeling genetically engineered foods.  Polls both before and  
            after the November 2012 election for Proposition 37 showed  
            that 67 [percent] of Californians supported California having  
            its own GE food labeling law.
            People want the right to know how their food is produced for  
            environmental, health, economic, religious, and ethical  
            reasons.  Further, because there is no mandatory labeling of  
            GE foods, health professionals have no way of tracking if  
            these foods are causing allergic reactions or adverse health  
            effects.  SB 1381 would help provide health professionals and  
            researchers with this tracking mechanism.
             
            Labeling genetically engineered food is about right to know  
            and transparency in the marketplace. With clear labels, we can  
            make our own informed decisions.
          
          2.  GE labeling requirements  

          This bill would require any raw agricultural commodity or  
          packaged food that is entirely or partially produced with  
          genetic engineering to be labeled as "Genetically Engineered."   
          Existing federal law, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act  
          (FDCA) provides that food labeling that is false or misleading  
          is generally prohibited, and state law, the Sherman Food, Drug  
          and Cosmetic Law (Sherman Law), is based upon the FDCA  
          provisions.  (21 U.S.C. Sec. 301 et seq.; Health & Saf. Code  
          Sec. 109875 et seq.)

          Food labeling under the FDCA is considered misleading if it  
          fails to reveal material facts in light of statements made or  
          suggested on the label or with respect to consequences that may  
          result from the use of the food.  (21 U.S.C. Sec. 201(n).)   
          However, the FDCA does not require labeling of genetically  
          engineered foods but provides nonbinding recommendations for the  
          voluntary labeling of GE foods.  The 1992 policy on foods  
          derived from new plant varieties includes FDA recommendations  
          regarding varieties derived from GE technology.  According to  
          the FDA, that policy was derived to ensure that the new products  
          are safe and comply with applicable legal requirements.  (U.S.  
          Dept. of Health & Hum. Serv., Food and Drug Administration,  
          Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Guidance for  
          Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or  
          Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering; Draft Guidance  
          (Jan. 2001)  [as of Apr. 10, 2014].)  However, "[t]he 1992 policy does  
                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 8 of ?



          not establish special labeling requirements for bioengineered  
          foods as a class of foods.  The policy states that FDA has no  
          basis for concluding that bioengineered foods differ from other  
          foods in any meaningful or uniform way . . .", but there has  
          been "general agreement that providing more information to  
          consumers about bioengineered foods would be useful."
          
          According to the author, this bill would allow Californians to  
          make more informed food-buying choices by requiring genetically  
          engineered foods sold in California to be labeled as such.   
          Californians for GE Food Labeling, sponsor, argues that  
          "Californians should have the choice as to whether to purchase  
          foods that are genetically engineered 
          . . . .  More than 64 other countries have enacted laws  
          specifically focused on overseeing genetically engineered crops  
          and foods, or their labeling" and this bill would allow  
          Californians "the ability to [choose] to avoid GE foods for  
          environmental, health, economic, religious, and ethical  
          reasons."  The sponsor also notes that this bill "would help  
          provide researchers with the beginnings of a means to track  
          ingestion of GE foods in order to determine if there are adverse  
          health effects.  Labeling [GE] food is about transparency and  
          empowering people.  With clear labels, consumers can make their  
          own informed decisions."

          Notably, the Legislature has enacted other food labeling  
          requirements to better inform consumers about the contents and  
          production methods of food products.  One example of statutory  
          labeling requirements for the production of food is the  
          California Organic Products Act of 2003 (COPA), which amended  
          the 1990 statutes for organic products that were enacted to  
          eliminate the misrepresentation of organic foods to consumers.   
          (See AB 2823 (Strom-Martin, Ch. 533, Stats. 2002); AB 2012  
          (Farr, Ch. 1262, Stats. 1990).)  Similarly, this bill would help  
          inform consumers about food products.

           3.GE labeling enforcement  
           
           This bill would provide labeling requirements for GE food under  
          the Sherman Law.  Under the Sherman Law, the Attorney General or  
          any district attorney may bring an action in superior court to  
          grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person  
          from violating the Sherman Law, and if the defendant has been  
          found in violation, the court is required to award all  
          reasonable costs of investigation and prosecution, including the  
          costs of storage and testing.  (Health & Saf. Code Secs. 111900  
                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 9 of ?



          and 111905.)  Further, for organic products, existing law  
          authorizes a person to bring an action in superior court to  
          obtain a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any other  
          person from violating the COPA and, upon prevailing in the  
          action, the injured party may receive an award of attorney's  
          fees.  (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 111910.)  That plaintiff does  
          not have to allege facts necessary to show, or tending to show,  
          lack of adequate remedy at law, or to show, or tending to show,  
          irreparable damage or loss, or to show, or tending to show,  
          unique or special individual injury or damages.  (Id.)

          This bill, as currently in print, would have provided  
          conflicting enforcement provisions.  For this reason, the author  
          has agreed to amend the bill as follows to provide the same  
          injunctive remedies as currently exist under the Sherman Law:

             Author's amendments  :

             1.   On page 7, strike lines 15 and 16.
             2.   On page 10, between lines 20 and 21, insert: 

               SEC. 5: Section 111910 of the Health and Safety Code is  
               amended to read:

               111910.  (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section  
               111900 or any other provision of law, any person may bring  
               an action in superior court pursuant to this section and  
               the court shall have jurisdiction upon hearing and for  
               cause shown, to grant a temporary or permanent injunction  
               restraining any person from violating any provision of  
                Article 6.6 (commencing with Section 110808) or  Article 7  
               (commencing with Section 110810) of Chapter 5. Any  
               proceeding under this section shall conform to the  
               requirements of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of  
               Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except  
               that the person shall not be required to allege facts  
               necessary to show, or tending to show, lack of adequate  
               remedy at law, or to show, or tending to show, irreparable  
               damage or loss, or to show, or tending to show, unique or  
               special individual injury or damages.
                  (b) In addition to the injunctive relief provided in  
               subdivision (a), the court may award to that person,  
               organization, or entity reasonable attorney's fees as  
               determined by the court.
                  (c) This section shall not be construed to limit or  
               alter the powers of the department and its authorized  
                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 10 of ?



               agents to bring an action to enforce this chapter pursuant  
               to Section 111900 or any other provision of law.

          Notably, this bill's current language provides for an award of  
          attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff and would  
          have required a 60-day notice to be given to the Attorney  
          General and violating party.  Since the Legislature enacted the  
          Sherman Law to only provide an injured party with injunctive  
          relief and attorney's fees, but no other damages, it is arguably  
          unnecessary to provide for a right to cure, as otherwise found  
          in the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code Secs. 1750 et  
          seq.).  For that reason, the author's amendments do not include  
          the 60-day right to cure.

          Committee staff notes that, should this bill pass out of this  
          Committee, all author's amendments must be taken in the Senate  
          Committee on Agriculture due to timing constraints.

          1.  Immunities
                                                                               
          Existing law, under COPA, provides an organic product  
          distributor or retailer with immunity if the product was sold as  
          organic in good faith reliance on the representations of a  
          producer, handler, or other distributor, unless the distributor  
          or retailer knew or should have known that the product could not  
          be sold as organic.  (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 110890.)   
          Similarly, this bill would provide that a manufacturer or  
          retailer who, in good faith, fails to properly label a product  
          in reliance on the representations of a farmer, producer, or  
          supplier that the product is not entirely or partially produced  
          with genetic engineering, would not be in violation.  This bill  
          would also provide that a farmer, producer, or supplier who is  
          not a retailer or manufacturer would not be liable for a  
          violation of this bill for failing to label a product as  
          entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering.  

          Additionally, the failure to label any of the following would  
          not be a violation of this bill:  (1) packaged food in which the  
          materials produced through genetic engineering account for  
          nine-tenths of 1 percent or less of the total weight; (2) food  
          produced without knowledge or intent to use genetic engineering;  
          (3) an alcoholic beverage; or (4) food sold at certified  
          farmer's markets, field retail stands, or farm stands.  This  
          bill would also provide that food is produced without knowledge  
          or intent to use genetic engineering under either of the  
          following conditions:  (1) the food is lawfully certified to be  
                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 11 of ?



          labeled, marketed, and offered for sale as "organic" pursuant to  
          the federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990; or (2) an  
          independent organization has determined, as specified, that the  
          food was produced without knowledge or intent to use genetic  
          engineering and has been segregated from, and not knowingly or  
          intentionally commingled with, foods that may have been  
          genetically engineered.

          As currently in print, this bill would have exempted only a  
          farmer and an unknowing retailer from mislabeling liability.   
          The author offers to take the following amendments in the next  
          committee to properly account for all potential parties in the  
          product chain, acknowledge that farmers in California are  
          producing very few GE crops, and to support the farmers' efforts  
          to produce and sell food locally:

             Author's amendments :

             1.   On page 7, on line 39, strike "a dealer engaged in the  
               business of selling" and strike line 40 and insert "an  
               establishment engaged in the business of selling any  
               perishable agricultural commodity or packaged food via a  
               storefront."

             2.   On page 8, between lines 13 and 14, insert:

                         (c)  This section does not apply to any food sold  
               at a certified farmer's market, field retail stand, or farm  
               stand, as defined by Sections 47004, 47030, and 47050 of  
               the Food and Agriculture Code.

             3.   On page 8, below line 39, insert:

                         (e)  This section does not apply to any food sold  
               at a certified farmer's market, field retail stand, or farm  
               stand, as defined by Sections 47004, 47030, and 47050 of  
               the Food and Agriculture Code.

             4.   On page 9, strike lines 1 through 13, and insert:

               10809.2.  (a) A person engaged in business as a  
               manufacturer or retailer of products who in good faith  
               sells, offers for sale, labels, or advertises any product  
               in reliance on the representations of a farmer, producer,  
               or supplier that the product is not entirely or partially  
               produced with genetic engineering, shall not be found to  
                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 12 of ?



               violate this article unless the manufacturer or retailer  
               knew or should have known that the product was entirely or  
               partially produced with genetic engineering.
                    (b) A farmer, producer, or supplier who is not a  
               retailer or manufacturer is 
               not liable for a violation of this article. 
                    (c) It shall not be a violation of this article for  
               failure to label any of the
             5.   On page 9, between lines 22 and 23, insert:

                         (4)  Food sold at a certified farmer's market,  
               field retail stand, or farm stand, as defined by Sections  
               47004, 47030, and 47050 of the Food and Agriculture Code.

             6.   On page 10, strike lines 4-14.

           1.Opposition concerns
           
          A coalition of opposition argues that this bill would ban the  
          sale of tens of thousands of perfectly safe, common grocery  
          products in California unless they are specially repackaged and  
          relabeled or made with higher cost ingredients, would force  
          farmers and food companies to implement costly new labeling,  
          packaging, distribution, and recordkeeping, would create a new  
          class of lawsuits without proof of harm, and is potentially  
          unconstitutional based on federal preemption, the First  
          Amendment, and the Commerce Clause.

          In response to the coalition's assertion that the bill would  
          increase costs and ban GE food, the author notes that this bill  
          does not ban GE products but would only require GE products to  
          be labeled.  Further the author argues that "mandatory labeling  
          will not raise food prices enough for anyone to notice - the  
          industry changes labels all the time for marketing purposes and  
          are using this as a red herring."  Additionally, the author  
          notes that "[s]ome of California's major trading partners, such  
          as Japan and Korea, require labels on GE foods and some will not  
          accept GE food imports.  Due to this concern about exports,  
          labeling and segregating GE crops in our food supply makes good  
          sense from an economic perspective."  Further, the author  
          asserts that organic farmers across California are concerned  
          about contamination of their fields by GE crops and labeling is  
          a key tool to ensure segregation of GE crops and protect organic  
          farmers in California.

          As for preemption of this bill by federal labeling laws,  
                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 13 of ?



          Committee staff notes that the FDA provides recommendations to  
          follow under its voluntary guidelines on GE product labeling  
          that specifically suggest using the words "Genetically  
          engineered," and note that "this kind of simple statement is not  
          likely to be misleading" or in violation of misbranding laws.   
          (U.S. Dept. of Health & Hum. Svc., Food and Drug Administration,  
          Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Guidance for  
          Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or  
          Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering; Draft Guidance  
          (Jan. 2001)  [as of Apr. 10, 2014].)  Furthermore,  
          this bill merely adds supplemental disclosures to be included in  
          a product label.  California case law has determined that  
          supplemental state labeling requirements are not preempted  
          unless such provisions are expressly preempted.  (See Brod v.  
          Sioux Honey Ass'n Coop. (2013) 927 F. Supp. 2d 811.)  Under the  
          Brod holding, this bill could be construed as requiring  
          supplemental labeling requirements that are not preempted by  
          federal law.  Given that the FDA has already authorized GE  
          labeling, this bill does not require a manufacturer or retailer  
          to label the product in any particular way in violation of  
          federal or other state laws, and the supplemental disclosure  
          requirement in this bill has not expressly supplanted federal  
          law on GE labeling, this bill arguably would not be found to be  
          preempted by federal law.

          With regard to the opposition's claim that this bill would run  
          afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause or violate the First  
          Amendment for compelling speech, the coalition points to the  
          issues raised in the Maine and Hawaii Attorney Generals' letters  
          regarding GE labeling legislation.  These letters recognize the  
          uncertainty of predicting whether state legislation requiring GE  
          labeling could be found by a court to be unconstitutional.  The  
          legislation typically must be shown to provide a legitimate  
          state interest, the legislation must directly advance that  
          interest, and the legislation must not be more extensive than  
          necessary to serve that interest.  Since this bill merely  
          requires a genetically engineered food product to be labeled as  
          genetically engineered, and federal law has provided guidance on  
          voluntary GE labeling, along with the specific declarations of  
          statutory intent provided in this bill, it is possible this bill  
          would not be unconstitutional, depending upon case law tests  
          applied by the court.  


                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 14 of ?



           Support  :  Alliance for Natural Health USA; Biosafety Alliance;  
          Black Women for Wellness; Breast Cancer Action; California  
          Certified Organic Farmers; California Farmers' Markets  
          Association; California Institute for Rural Studies; California  
          Nurses Association; California Public Interest Research Group;  
          California State Grange; Californians for Pesticide Reform;  
          Center for Environmental Health; Center for Food Safety; City of  
          Santa Monica; Clean Water Action California; Committee for a  
          Better Shafter; Communities for a New California; Consumers  
          Union; Delano Guardians; Environmental Working Group; Farmworker  
          Justice; Food and Water Watch; Food Democracy Now!; Food  
          Empowerment Project; Friends of the Earth - US; Global Community  
          Monitor; Good Earth Natural Foods; Greenfield Walking Group,  
          Bakersfield; Harmony Art; LabelGMOs.org; LaRocca Vineyards; Moms  
          Advocating Sustainability; Organic Consumers Association;  
          Pesticide Action Network North America; Pesticide Watch;  
          Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sacramento Chapter;  
          Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Area  
          Chapter; Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura and San  
          Luis Obispo Counties, Inc.; Silo's; Slow Food California;  
          Sustainable Carmel Valley; Sustainable Marin; Sustainable  
          Novato; Teens Turning Green; Unitarian Universalist Church of  
          the Monterey Peninsula, Social Justice/Faith in Action; United  
          Native Americans Inc.; 6 Individuals

           Opposition  :  Agricultural Council of California; Almond Hullers  
          and Processors Association; BAYBIO; BIOCOM; Biotechnology  
          Industry Organization; California Chamber of Commerce;  
          California Citrus Mutual; California Cotton Ginners Association;  
          California Cotton Growers Association; California Farm Bureau  
          Federation; California Grain and Feed Association; California  
          Grocers Association; California Healthcare Institute; California  
          League of Food Processors; California Manufacturers and  
          Technology Association; California Retailers Association;  
          California Seed Association; California Taxpayers Association;  
          California Women for Agriculture; Civil Justice Association of  
          California; Consumer Healthcare Products Association; Family  
          Winemakers of California; Grocery Manufacturers Association;  
          International Formula Council; Pacific Egg and Poultry  
          Association; Southwest California Legislative Council; Western  
          Agricultural Processors Association; Western Growers; Western  
          Plant Health Association

                                        HISTORY
           
           Source  :  Californians for GE Food Labeling
                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 15 of ?




           Related Pending Legislation  :  SB 1138 (Padilla, 2014) requires  
          the label of fresh, frozen or processed fish to clearly identify  
          the species of fish or shellfish by its common name, as  
          specified.  SB 1138 is pending in the Senate Committee on  
          Appropriations.

           Prior Legislation  :

          AB 88 (Huffman, 2011) would have required genetically engineered  
          salmon or other finfish products prepared from those fish of the  
          progeny of genetically engineered fish to be conspicuously  
          disclosed on the label.  AB 88 failed passage in Assembly  
          Committee on Appropriations.

          SB 1121 (Migden, 2008) would have required cloned animals, their  
          progeny, and food containing any product from a cloned animal or  
          its progeny to be labeled.  SB 1121 was held under submission in  
          the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

          SB 63 (Migden, 2007) would have required cloned animals, their  
          progeny, and food containing any product from a cloned animal or  
          its progeny to be labeled.  SB 63 was vetoed by Governor  
          Schwarzenegger because of his concerns that the bill was  
          preempted by federal meat and poultry labeling requirements and  
          the potential cost and unworkability of tracking and labeling  
          requirements in the bill.

          AB 1100 (Ruskin, 2007) would have required cloned animals, their  
          progeny, and food containing any product from a cloned animal or  
          its progeny to be labeled.  AB 1100 passed out the Senate  
          Committee on Health but was gutted and amended to provide an  
          exemption for portable gasoline containers.

          AB 2823 (Strom-Martin, Ch. 533, Stats. 2002) See Comment 2.

          AB 791 (Strom-Martin, 2002) would have required transgenic fish  
          to be labeled.  AB 791 died on the Assembly Floor pending  
          concurrence.

          SB 1513 (Hayden, 1999) would have authorized the Department of  
          Food and Agriculture to review and comment on notifications to  
          the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United  
          States Department of Agriculture for the introduction of genetic  
          engineering projects that affect California agriculture.  SB  
          1513 failed passage in the Assembly Committee on Agriculture.
                                                                      



          SB 1381 (Evans)
          Page 16 of ?



          AB 2012 (Farr, Ch. 1262, Stats. 1990) See Comment 2.

           Prior Vote  :  Senate Committee on Health (Ayes 5, Noes 2)

                                   **************