BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1965 Page 1 Date of Hearing: March 25, 2014 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH Richard Pan, Chair AB 1965 (Yamada) - As Introduced: February 19, 2014 SUBJECT : Outdoor dining facilities: pet dogs. SUMMARY : Allows food facilities to permit a person to bring a pet dog to outdoor dining areas, but allows cities and counties to pass a local ordinance to prohibit pet dogs in food facilities' outdoor dining areas. EXISTING LAW : 1)Prohibits live animals in food facilities, except provides that live animals may be allowed, if contamination cannot result, in the following circumstances: a) Fish in aquariums and shellfish on ice, under refrigeration, or in display tank systems; b) Animals intended for consumption, provided that specific storage, handling, and slaughter requirements are met; c) Dogs under the control of a law enforcement officer or private patrol employees, as specified; d) Service animals that are controlled by a disabled employee or person in areas that are not used for food preparation, if a health or safety hazard will not result; e) Pets in the common dining areas of restricted food service facilities (bed and breakfast inns or agricultural homestays) at times other than during meals, provided specified conditions are met; f) In non-food areas, as specified, of a facility that contains caged animals, such as in a variety store that sells pets or a tourist park that displays animals; g) If the animal is kept at least 20 feet away from any mobile food facility, temporary food facility, or certified farmers' market. AB 1965 Page 2 2)Makes law enforcement officers, private patrol operators, and disabled people who bring dogs into a food facility liable for any damage done to the premises by the dog. 3)Defines "food facility" to mean an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption at the retail level. Includes, within the definition of food facility, any place used in conjunction with a facility's operations, including, but not limited to, storage facilities for food-related utensils, equipment, and materials. 4)Under the California Retail Food Code (CRFC), states the intent of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities, and makes standards set forth in CRFC exclusive of all local health and sanitation standards relating to retail food facilities, with exceptions in 5) below. Finds and declares that the public health interest requires that there be uniform statewide health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities to assure the people of this state that the food will be pure, safe, and unadulterated. 5)Provides an exception to 4) above for local governing bodies that: a) adopt food facility evaluation or grading systems; b) prohibit any type of food facility; c) adopt an employee health certification program; d) regulate the provision of consumer toilet and handwashing facilities; or e) adopt specified requirements related to food trucks. FISCAL EFFECT : None COMMENTS : 1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL . According to the author of this bill, a number of counties, including Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, have policies and guidelines for restaurants that allow dogs in outdoor dining areas. However, the author notes that state law currently prohibits the presence of dogs in food facilities, thus preempting any county policy on pet dogs on patios. The author writes that, while local health officials can choose to selectively enforce this prohibition, business owners and local health departments may be subject to litigation for failure to comply with or enforce state law. Moreover, the author states there is currently confusion over AB 1965 Page 3 current law on pet dogs on patios, with a number of counties erroneously indicating that the law does not apply to outdoor dining areas as they believe these areas do not qualify as part of the legal definition of a food facility. The author writes that many dog owners have an interest in dining with their dogs, many restaurant owners want to accommodate these potential customers, and many local governments want to assist these groups by creating carefully considered guidelines to accommodate them. This bill is intended to give restaurants the choice to serve these customers while preserving the authority of local governments to determine what policy best serves their community. 2)BACKGROUND . a) Local environmental health enforcement. In 2012, in response to the advocacy of dog and restaurant owners, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) implemented a new policy permitting pet dogs in outdoor dining areas, provided certain conditions are met, including the following: i) a separate entrance to the patio; ii) no food preparation or utensil storage on the patio; iii) no employee-pet contact; and iv) immediate cleaning and sanitization of areas where excrement or bodily fluids are deposited. In an advisory bulletin, Los Angeles DPH acknowledges that the CRFC continues to prohibit live animals inside food facilities, but also notes that local jurisdictions have varying interpretations of the law. Indeed, a Ventura County Fact Sheet on animals in food facilities writes that the prohibition on animals "does not apply to outdoor dining areas such as patio dining," and a number of other county environmental health departments, including Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Barbara, provide guidance indicating dogs may be allowed in outdoor dining areas or that such areas are not considered part of the food facility. b) Transmission of disease from dogs to humans. According to a 2011 report by the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians (NASPHV) and endorsed by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, animals in public settings pose various risks for humans, the greatest of which is infection with enteric (gut) bacteria and parasites. The report, which covers a broad array of AB 1965 Page 4 public settings and types of animals, notes that enteric disease outbreaks among visitors to fairs, farms, petting zoos, and other public settings are well documented. Outbreaks are caused by various Escherichia coli strains, Salmonella enterica, Cryptosporidium, Campylobacter, and other pathogens. The primary mode of transmission for enteric pathogens is fecal-oral. Because animal fur, hair, skin, and saliva harbor fecal organisms, transmission can occur when persons pet, touch, feed, or are licked by animals. Transmission also has been associated with contaminated animal bedding, flooring, barriers, other environmental surfaces, and contaminated clothing and shoes. The report notes that cattle, sheep, or goats are often the sources for infection, but other animals, including live poultry, rodents, reptiles, amphibians, and other domestic and wild animals also are potential sources. Dogs in particular can carry and transmit Salmonella, Cryptosporidium, and Campylobacter, pathogens which, in humans, usually result in a mild to severe infection of the gastrointestinal system, including diarrhea, fever, abdominal cramps, nausea, and vomiting, but sometimes lead to more serious complications. The NASPHV report recommends that venues should be divided into three types of areas: nonanimal areas (where animals are not permitted, with the exception of service animals), transition areas (located at entrances and exits to animal areas), and animal areas (where animal contact is possible or encouraged). The report recommends that no animals, except service animals, be permitted in nonanimal areas, and that food and beverages be prepared, served, and consumed only in nonanimal areas. c) Australian risk assessment. Food Standards Australia New Zealand, an Australian governmental entity that develops standards that regulate food in Australia and New Zealand, conducted an assessment of the risk posed by allowing pet dogs in outdoor dining areas. The study concluded that the potential risk of foodborne transmission of disease agents from dogs in outdoor dining settings to humans is very low to negligible. The reasons given for this conclusion are: i) the likelihood of direct contact of food or food preparation areas with infected dogs or feces is negligible; ii) acquiring diseases through indirect foodborne transmission routes requires the AB 1965 Page 5 involvement of an intermediate vector; iii) potential contamination of food directly from dogs, or indirectly through contaminated intermediate vectors, in outdoor dining settings is managed through compliance with general food safety standards; iv) studies on human-dog interactions indicate that, in general, contact between people and dogs that are not their own pets is limited, minimizing the potential for contact and consequently the transmission of pathogens from dogs in outdoor dining settings to humans. 3)SUPPORT . The sponsor of this bill, Social Compassion in Legislation, writes that this bill will support business owners that choose to allow dogs on their patios and will encourage more businesses to do the same. The sponsor writes this bill will allow local jurisdictions to set their own policy on this issue. In support, the California Restaurant Association writes that rules established by local environmental health departments like Los Angeles are technically in conflict with California law, which prohibits non-service animals in eating establishments, and that this bill will allow a restaurant owner to determine what best suits their business model as well as their customers without the threat of a citation. 4)PREVIOUS LEGISLATION . a) AB 1252 (Committee on Health), Chapter 556, Statutes of 2013, made numerous changes to the CRFC, including clarifying that a service animal in training qualifies as a service animal for purposes of the CRFC and deleting a requirement that the work or tasks performed by a service animal be directly related to an individual's disability. b) SB 144 (George Runner), Chapter 23, Statutes of 2006, repeals and reenacts the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law as the CRFC. 5)DOUBLE REFERRAL . This bill is double referred and upon passage of this Committee, it will be referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee. 6)POLICY COMMENT . Los Angeles County, in its policy allowing pet dogs on food facility patios, implemented a number of conditions to protect health and safety of consumers in those AB 1965 Page 6 facilities. In contrast, this bill allows food facilities statewide to allow pet dogs on patios but does not create any health and safety protections for consumers in these facilities. Therefore, the Committee may wish to amend this bill to create a set of baseline health and safety requirements for restaurants that choose to allow pet dogs on their patios. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor) California Restaurant Association Opposition None on file. Analysis Prepared by : Ben Russell / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097