BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 682
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 23, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 682 (Calderon) - As Amended: January 16, 2014
Policy Committee: Accountability and
Administrative Review Vote: 10-0
Education Vote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill, effective January 1, 2015, prohibits poultry,
purchased to be sold or served in any state-owned, state-leased,
or public school facility, from being "plumped." "Plumped" is
defined poultry injected with saltwater, chicken stock, or
seaweed extract.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Potential GF costs of $190,000, combined, to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the Department of State
Hospitals (DSH), and the Department of Developmental Services
(DDS). The Department of General Services (DGS), which
contracts for $1.3 million of turkey annually on behalf of
these departments, indicates costs for unplumped turkey
products appear significantly higher than that of plumped
products (in one example, $1.74/lb for boneless, skinless,
pre-cooked turkey breast versus $2.80/lb for the no salt-added
version). The reason for this cost differential is unclear,
but it appears that no salt-added products are generally
considered premium products.
The estimate is based on the volume and cost differences
between plumped versus unplumped turkey products. Actual costs
would depend on the outcome of the competitive bidding process
when the contracts are re-bid. Higher costs may be passed on
to the state in contract bids if, for example, a current
lowest-price contractor is forced to work with new processors
or reconfigure current processes in order to source turkey
that meets this bill's requirements. Chicken products are not
AB 682
Page 2
similarly affected by this prohibition, as they are processed
by the Prison Industry Authority (PIA); PIA does not plump.
2)A plumping ban may make it more difficult and expensive for
DGS to source specialty items, such as halal meats, that are
already difficult to source because there are few suppliers.
Potential costs are unknown, but would likely be minor.
3)DGS would incur minor GF administrative costs to ensure
contracts comply with the bill's requirements. The State
Department of Education could also incur GF costs if it
chooses to enforce the ban at the state level by, for example,
reviewing contracts between school districts and food services
vendors for compliance. The bill does not explicitly address
enforcement.
4)Likely minor and absorbable GF-funded workload costs to
reconfigure menus at the approximately 45 dietary services
locations within CDCR, DDS, and DSH to account for the
unavailability of plumped turkey.
5)Potentially significant increased costs to local school
districts to provide meals. The fiscal effect would vary by
school district and is difficult to estimate precisely, but
overall this bill could result in cost pressure to school
districts in the millions of dollars statewide if they
purchase more expensive, no salt-added poultry products to
replace plumped poultry. However, increased costs would not
result in a direct GF/98 cost. Each school district is
responsible for providing nutrition services that meet state
and federal rules, and receives a standard level of federal
and state reimbursement regardless of actual costs. In
addition, schools could avoid increased costs by choosing
cheaper alternative protein sources instead. Staff costs to
reconfigure menus in response to the plumping ban, at schools
where plumped poultry is currently served, would be likely be
minor.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The author's stated purpose is "to make sure that
Californians eating in state-owned or state-leased buildings
or public school facilities at food concessions and cafeterias
are being provided with the natural poultry option, not the
"plumped" option," in order to reduce sodium. The author
AB 682
Page 3
indicates the idea for a plumping ban was hatched in his
district as a 7th-grade school project.
2)Who is Affected by the Plumping Ban? This bill would apply to
the departments noted above in the fiscal analysis (CDCR, DDS,
and DSH). It would also apply to food services in public
schools. In addition, it would affect the operators of about
50 cafeterias throughout state government buildings, many of
which are operated through the Department of Rehabilitation's
Business Enterprise Program which assists blind vendors in
managing these facilities. No fiscal impact is noted for this
program, since any increased costs would be borne by the
operators of those facilities. The same would apply to any
public college or university facilities that fall under this
ban: any increased costs would be borne by the operators of
campus food services.
3)Sodium Reduction . In general, there is consensus among
nutrition experts that Americans consume far too much salt.
Overall, it appears that comprehensive and phased-in
approaches to sodium reduction-as opposed to dramatic changes
or one-off bans of specific foods-are considered the most
promising ways to meet healthy sodium targets. One such
example is the ongoing mandatory federal sodium reduction
targets that California schools must meet, with an ultimate
target of reducing weekly sodium intake by 25-50% by 2022-23.
Similarly, DSH is in the process of establishing nutrition
goals that reduce daily sodium intake of its patients.
4)Staff Comments . This bill addresses sodium in an extremely
narrow way by prohibiting poultry that has undergone a certain
type of processing (injection) with specific ingredients
(saltwater, chicken broth, or seaweed extract) from being sold
or served. It does not, for example, prohibit marinating or
vacuum tumbling the meat in salty solution, set sodium
standards for the individual product or for meals, or limit
salt that is added during cooking or serving. It does not
prohibit buying or serving other processed meats or foods that
are extremely high in sodium, such as French fries, bacon,
cured ham, or canned beef stew. Additionally, it does not
appear to prohibit poultry that has been injected with other
related substances- for example, turkey broth. An example of
a related product that would not be banned by this bill is
specified in a current DGS contract: a turkey breast and
turkey thigh product labeled "no added salt" (where salt
AB 682
Page 4
refers to sodium chloride, per federal regulations) which also
is labeled "Moisture enhanced up to 15% with a solution
containing: turkey broth, sodium phosphate. *Not a sodium
free food. 150 mg sodium per 4 oz portion."
It would, however, prohibit poultry that has been injected
with no added-sodium chicken broth, a process that presumably
would not affect sodium content. It also prohibits poultry
that has been injected with seaweed extract, which enhances
texture and promotes water binding in processed meats, but
itself does not appear to add significant amounts of sodium.
As compared to ongoing, more comprehensive efforts within
local, state and federal public agencies to reduce sodium, the
overall impact of a plumping ban on sodium intake is unclear
at best. In some cases, it may lead to increased consumption
of sodium if plumped poultry is replaced by cheaper, even
higher-sodium options that would still be allowed. School
nutrition representatives note that in many cases, school
districts tend to rely on pre-processed meat and poutlry
products due to concerns about food safety, and because they
lack the trained personnel and necessary facilities to process
raw products. If such schools could not ensure processed
products had not been plumped, they would either need
significant and expensive upgrades to food preparation
infrastructure to handle raw products or be forced to
substitute other protein products for poultry.
5)Opposition . California School Nutrition Association opposes
this bill as unnecessary, given federal regulations specify
acceptable sodium levels for school meals. They indicate it
will be costly to comply with, and that it may jeopardize
their ability to receive poultry through the USDA Commodity
Foods Program, which offers significant cost savings to
schools. Opposition from the California Association of
School Business Officials (CASBO) echoes these concerns and
also indicates school districts may incur significant costs to
comply.
Analysis Prepared by : Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081