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.
ANALYSIS :
CONTINUED
SB 1381
Page
2
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.
4. Exempts from the definition of "GE" an animal that has not
CONTINUED
SB 1381
Page
3
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
food labeling law.
CONTINUED
SB 1381
Page
4
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
Local: Yes
CONTINUED
SB 1381
Page
5
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
Greenfield Walking Group
Harmony Art
CONTINUED
SB 1381
Page
6
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
California Grocers Association
California Healthcare Institute
CONTINUED
SB 1381
Page
7
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
provide researchers with the means to track ingestion of GE
foods in order to determine if there are adverse health effects.
CONTINUED
SB 1381
Page
8
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
economic studies of Proposition 37 concluded that genetic
engineering labeling mandates will cost the average California
CONTINUED
SB 1381
Page
9
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.
JL:d 5/27/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED