BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 1372
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 20, 2009

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Kevin De Leon, Chair

                     AB 1372 (Feuer) - As Amended:  May 6, 2009 

          Policy Committee:                              HealthVote:13 - 5

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          Yes    Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires certain food processing facilities (FPFs) to  
          adopt and implement a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control  
          Points (HACCP) plan, conduct regular testing of ingredient and  
          product samples or specimens, and report any test result that is  
          positive for poisonous or deleterious substances to the  
          Department of Public Health (DPH) within 24 hours. Specifically,  
          this bill: 

          1)Requires an FPF that generates more than $______ of gross  
            annual revenue to implement a HACCP plan by January 1, 2012.

          2)Requires an FPF that generates less than $______ of gross  
            annual revenue to implement a HACCP plan by January 1, 2013.

          3)Requires DPH to adopt regulations that establish minimum  
            requirements for the HACCP program by January 1, 2011.

          4)Requires an FPF to report to DPH any test result this is  
            positive for poisonous or deleterious substances or other  
            contaminants within 24 hours.

          5)Requires an FPF to maintain a record of all testing that is  
            done pursuant to this bill for a minimum period of unspecified  
            years.  Directs the FPF to make these records available to DPH  
            for inspection upon request.

          6)Directs DPH to conduct inspections to ensure that an FPF  
            complies with its HACCP plan.

          7)Requires the inspections to be conducted as part of DPH's  
            existing authority to inspect FPFs and requires the existing  








                                                                  AB 1372
                                                                  Page  2

            fee for inspections to be increased by an additional  
            unspecified amount to cover, but not exceed, the cost of the  
            inspections required by this bill.

          8)Allows DPH, upon reasonable grounds to suspect that food or  
            ingredients, or both, at a FPF may be injurious to health, to  
            order the FPE to test samples or specimens of its food or  
            ingredients, or both, for the presence of any poisonous or  
            deleterious substances or other contaminants.   




           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Costs in excess of $3 million GF for DPH to review 3,600 HACCP  
          plans annually, along with the corresponding HACCP plan  
          monitoring documentation, and to investigate all positive  
          pathogen test reports. In addition, DPH would need at least one  
          new research scientist to provide the necessary technical  
          support for the program. 

          While the bill contains fee authority for DPH, in its current  
          form the fee amount has been left blank.  Until that change is  
          made, costs for the program would need to be covered by the GF.  
          Increasing fees to cover the entire cost of the program would  
          necessitate a doubling of the existing fees for food processors.  
          In addition, any upfront costs for equipment, computer systems  
          changes, and training would be GF costs.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Purpose  . The author states that current recalls of products  
            both in California and around the nation have illustrated the  
            need for more robust state oversight.  Last summer, a  
            salmonella outbreak made 1,400 people sick in 43 states, and  
            initially tomatoes were identified as the source.  However,  
            the author notes that the outbreak was later traced to  
            jalape?os and serrano peppers, but the author points out that  
            the tomato industry still has not fully recovered as a result.  
             According to the author, estimates suggest that tomato  
            growers lost $100 million in sales. 

            Most recently, the author cites a nationwide recall of  
            salmonella-contaminated pistachios issued by a California  








                                                                  AB 1372
                                                                  Page  3

            pistachio processor.  The author states that the contaminated  
            product was initially identified on March 26, 2009, by a Kraft  
            Foods food-borne illness test, and then traced back to Setton  
            Farms of Terra Bella in California.  The author asserts that  
            the entire domestic pistachio industry, 96% of which is in  
            California, is currently in turmoil because consumers do not  
            know which companies' pistachio products are safe to eat.  The  
            author indicates that over 2 million pounds of pistachios have  
            been recalled and the state's entire $540 million pistachio  
            industry is facing the consequences.

            Furthermore, the author notes that the state does not  
            currently require the adoption of plans that detail which  
            procedures will be used to prevent the presence of hazards  
            that may render finished food products or ingredients  
            manufactured at the establishment injurious to health.  The  
            author maintains that DPH is not informed if testing samples  
            of food are found to contain poisonous substances and lacks  
            the ability to order testing if it believes there are  
            reasonable grounds to do so.  The author contends that  
            establishing HACCP plans at individual processing plants will  
            make California's food safety system more preventative.

           2)Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) Plans  .  
            HACCP, which is already a requirement in the meat-processing  
            sector, is an international food safety standard designed to  
            prevent, eliminate, or reduce to acceptable levels the  
            microbial, chemical, and physical hazards associated with food  
            production. After the 2006 e-coli outbreaks traced to spinach,  
            California instituted a HACCP program for the spinach and  
            leafy green industry known as the Leafy Greens Handler Market  
            Program (LGMP).  That program now has nearly 120 participating  
            producers throughout the state, representing 99% of the total  
            volume of leafy greens grown in California. The program has  
            been so successful that in 2007 there were no reported cases  
            of food borne illnesses related to leafy greens grown by LGMP  
            Association members.

            According to the federal Food and Drug Administration, an  
            HACCP plan is a systematic approach to identifying,  
            evaluating, and controlling food safety hazards. For example,  
            a dairy HACCP plan covers the entire dairy foods manufacturing  
            process starting with the cow and finishing with the  
            consumption of the final product. The HACCP plan identifies  
            chemical, physical, or microbial hazards associated with the  








                                                                  AB 1372
                                                                  Page  4

            production and distribution of milk and minimizes these  
            hazards by monitoring and controlling the process at carefully  
            selected points known as critical control points (CCPs) to  
            ensure safe dairy products. 

            In instituting a HACCP plan, microbial and operational  
            expertise is needed to systematically and scientifically  
            evaluate a product's process from raw materials through  
            distribution. The dairy HACCP plan includes a process to  
            verify that the CCPs have been met, a corrective action plan  
            to address instances in which the CCPs are not met, and a  
            record keeping system to document compliance with the HACCP  
            plan. The plan is reviewed as part of a facility's routine  
            permitting inspection. 

           3)This Bill Contains a Series of Blanks  . Three critical pieces  
            of this legislation remain blank. The author has not  
            determined which of the FPFs will be required to submit their  
            HACCP plans to DPH by January 1, 2012 and which will be given  
            an extra year to implement the program.  The timing will be  
            based on the annual gross revenues of the FPF.  

            In addition, the author has not determined how many years  
            worth of testing records will need to be retained by the FPFs.  
             

            Finally, and critical to the fiscal analysis of this bill, the  
            maximum allowable licensing fee for these facilities has not  
            been determined. However, as noted in the fiscal section of  
            the analysis, licensing fees would need to double in order to  
            offset the costs of this legislation. 

           
           

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081