BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1381| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1381 Author: Evans (D), et al. Amended: 5/5/14 Vote: 21 SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE : 5-2, 3/26/14 AYES Beall, DeSaulnier, Evans, Monning, Wolk NOES: Hernandez, Anderson NO VOTE RECORDED: De León, Nielsen SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-2, 4/22/14 AYES: Jackson, Corbett, Lara, Leno NOES: Anderson, Vidak NO VOTE RECORDED: Monning SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/23/14 AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg NOES: Walters, Gaines SUBJECT : Food labeling: genetically engineered food SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill enacts The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act (Act) to require the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods sold within California, as specified. CONTINUED SB 1381 Page 2 ANALYSIS : Existing federal law: 1. Establishes, through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), various requirements for food labels under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which includes the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act and the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act. These include requiring specified nutrition information, a listing of all ingredients, and whether a produce contains any of eight major food allergens, such as milk, eggs, shellfish, tree nuts, etc. 2. Permits, under the United States Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program, products to be labeled as "100% organic" if they are comprised of 100% certified organic ingredients, or as "organic" if they are comprised of 95% certified organic ingredients. Prohibits the use of GE, or genetically modified organisms, in organic products. Existing state law enacts the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, enforced by the Department of Public Health (DPH), which provides broad authority for DPH to enforce 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 DPH is permitted, by regulation, to adopt additional food labeling regulations. This bill: 1. Establishes the Act and states the intent of the Legislature, with this Act, to require the labeling of all foods produced with genetic engineering sold within the state, and deems a food misbranded if its labeling does not conform to the provisions of the Act. 2. States numerous legislative findings and declarations related to GE food. 3. Defines "GE" for purposes of the Act, as produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed, as specified. CONTINUED SB 1381 Page 3 4. Exempts from the definition of "GE" an animal that has not itself been GE, 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. 5. Defines various terms for purposes of the Act, including "food," "label," "organism," "packaged food," and "supplier." 6. Requires any raw agricultural commodity or packaged food that is entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering to be labeled in accordance with this Act, and deems it misbranded if not so labeled. 7. Requires a manufacturer of a raw agricultural commodity packaged for retail sale to include the words "GE" clearly and conspicuously on the front or back of the package of that commodity. 8. Requires 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. 9. Provides that a manufacturer or retailer who acts in good faith shall not be in violation of the Act, unless the manufacturer or retailer should have known that the product was GE. Comments According to the author's office, this bill allows Californians to make more informed food-buying choices by requiring GE foods sold in California to be labeled as such. California would join more than 64 countries around the world that have GE food labeling laws. The FDA does not require the labeling of GE foods, giving California a duty to the people, the environment, and the agricultural economy to enact this requirement. The author's office states that there is overwhelming public support in California for labeling GE foods. Polls both before and after the November 2012 election for Proposition 37 showed that 67% of Californians supported California having its own GE CONTINUED SB 1381 Page 4 food labeling law. Labeling laws in other states and countries . Last year, Connecticut and Maine became the first two states to adopt laws requiring the labeling of GE foods. However, both contain trigger mechanisms that delay implementation until other adjoining states also adopt GE labeling laws. Connecticut's law will not take effect until a combination of Northeastern states adding up to 20 million residents adopt similar labeling requirements, while Maine's law will not take effect until five nearby states have adopted a labeling requirement. Related/Previous legislation AB 88 (Huffman) of 2012 would have required GE salmon or other finfish products prepared from those fish of the progeny of GE fish to be conspicuously disclosed on the label. The bill failed passage in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. SB 63 (Migden) of 2007 would have required cloned animals and their progeny to be labeled. The bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. AB 1100 (Ruskin) of 2007 and SB 1121 (Migden) of 2008 were substantially similar to SB 63. The bill was held in Senate Appropriations Committee and the bill, after passing the Assembly and the Senate Health Committees, was amended into another subject. AB 791 (Strom-Martin) of 2002 would have required transgenic fish to be labeled. The bill died on the Assembly Floor pending concurrence. SB 245 (Sher, Chapter 871, Statutes of 2003), prohibits the spawning, incubation, or cultivation of any species of finfish belonging to the family Salmonidae or transgenic fish species, or any exotic species of finfish, in the waters of the Pacific Ocean that are regulated by California. SB 1513 (Hayden) of 2000 would have created a task force in state government to assess the need for labeling of GE foods. The bill failed in the Assembly Agriculture Committee. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes CONTINUED SB 1381 Page 5 Local: Yes According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, first year costs of $1.1 million and ongoing costs of $850,000 per year for enforcement of this bill's labelling requirements on manufacturers, distributors, and retailers by DPH (General Fund). SUPPORT : (Verified 5/23/14) Alliance for Natural Health Bayliss Botanicals 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 CalPIRG Californians for Pesticide Reform California State Grange Center for Environmental Health Center for Food Safety Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance Clean Water Action Committee for a Better Shafter Communities for a New California Community Alliance with Family Farmers Consumers Union County of Mendocino Culver City Democratic Club Delano Guardians Ecological Farming Association Environment California Environmental Working Group Food & Agriculture Caucus of the Democratic Party Food & Water Watch Food Democracy Now! Food Empowerment Project Friends of the Earth Global Community Monitor Good Earth Organic & Natural Foods Green America CONTINUED SB 1381 Page 6 Greenfield Walking Group Harmony Art Hooked Health and Wellness Club Keena's Kitchen LabelGMOs.org La Rocca Vineyards Moms Advocating Sustainability Organic Consumers Association Pesticide Action Network Pesticide Watch Physicians for Social Responsibility (Sacramento and San Francisco chapters) Planned Parenthood of California Planting Justice Rancho de los Proyectos Rural Communities Resource Center Sacramento Community Grange #843 Santa Monica City Councilmember Kevin McKeown Sierra Club California Silo's Slow Food California Sustainable Carmel Valley Unitarian Universalist Church of Monterey Peninsula United for Change in Tooleville United Native Americans Inc. Wild Farm Alliance OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/23/14) Agricultural Council of California Almond Hullers and Processors Association BAYBIO BIOCOM Biotechnology Industry Organization Butte County Farm Bureau California Alfalfa & Forage Association California Bean Shippers Association California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse California Chamber of Commerce California Citrus Mutual California Cotton Ginners Association California Cotton Growers Association California Farm Bureau Federation California Grain & Feed Association CONTINUED SB 1381 Page 7 California Grocers Association California Healthcare Institute California League of Food Processors California Manufacturers and Technology Association California Retailers Association California Seed Association California State Floral Association California Taxpayers Association California Warehouse Association California Women for Agriculture Chamber of Commerce of the Santa Barbara Region Chambers of Commerce of Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties Consumer Healthcare Products Association Farmworker Justice Fullerton Chamber of Commerce Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce Grocery Manufacturers Association International Formula Council Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Monterey County Farm Bureau Pacific Egg & Poultry Association San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau Southwest California Legislative Council Tulare County Farm Bureau Valley Industry & Commerce Association Western Agricultural Processors Association Western Growers Western Plant Health Association Yolo County Farm Bureau ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : This bill is supported by a coalition of organizations, which include the Environmental Working Group, Consumers Union, the California State Grange, the California Nurses Association, the California Farmers' Markets Association, and Eden Foods, among other organizations. Supporters state that Californians should have the choice as to whether to purchase foods that are GE, and this bill permits people to make informed choices by requiring GE foods sold in California to be labeled as such. Supporters state that more than 64 other countries have enacted laws specifically focused on overseeing GE crops and foods, or their labeling, and that polls continue to indicate that the majority of Californians want the labeling of GE foods. Supporters also state that this bill will help CONTINUED SB 1381 Page 8 provide researchers with the means to track ingestion of GE foods in order to determine if there are adverse health effects. Supporters argue that labeling GE foods is about transparency and empowering people so that consumer can make their own informed choices. Supporters assert that contrary to the opposition's claim that genetic engineering labeling will cost consumers at the cash register, label changes and updates are a routine part of business for the food industry and don't result in additional costs to shoppers. Supporters point to an economic assessment of Proposition 37 conducted by a professor at Emory University School of Law that found that "prices for many food products will not change as a result of the Right to Know Act." Additionally, supporters state that GE food labeling has not increased food prices in Europe, citing a statement to that effect by the former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament. CALPIRG states in support that genetic engineering-centric agriculture has increased the use of toxic chemicals. According to CALPIRG, most GE foods in the US are designed to withstand herbicides and pesticides, and therefore enable increased use of these toxic chemicals. CALPIRG states that high pesticide exposure is associated with cognitive decline, cancer, and negative birth outcomes. According to CALPIRG, increased pesticide and herbicide use also lead to chemical-resistant weeds and insects, which pushes farmers to both increase the dosages still further, and return to older, more toxic chemicals to which pests are not yet resistant. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : This bill is opposed by a number of organizations, including the Agricultural Council of California, BAYBIO, BIOCOM, California Citrus Mutual, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Farm Bureau Federation, the California Grocers Association, the California Retailers Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the California Healthcare Institute. Opponents state that this bill mandates a California-only labeling scheme that will increase food costs for California families and raise liability and compliance costs for farmers, grocers and food manufacturers. According to opponents, it will confuse consumers with a label that lacks context and scientific basis and stigmatize food ingredients that are safe and healthy. Opponents state that CONTINUED SB 1381 Page 9 economic studies of Proposition 37 concluded that genetic engineering labeling mandates will cost the average California family up to $400 per year in higher grocery bills, and that this will disproportionately impact low and fixed income populations. Opponents argue that as food costs increase, the allocated dollars for programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will not purchase as much nutritional food as before and will hurt California's most vulnerable populations. Opponents also assert that more than 400 scientific studies have shown foods made with GE ingredients are safe, and that the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, and the US Food and Drug Administration all agree. JL:d 5/27/14 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED