BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: SB 622 HEARING: 4/24/13
AUTHOR: Monning FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 4/17/13 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Lui
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX
Imposes an excise tax of $0.01 per fluid ounce on bottled
sugar sweetened beverages and concentrates. Establishes
the Children's Health Promotion Fund.
Background and Existing Law
State and local sales and use taxes are imposed on the sale
or transfer of tangible personal property. The total
combined sales and use tax rates range from 7.5% to 10%
based on the location of the sale. Currently, state law
exempts the sale, storage, use, or consumption of food
products, including fruit juices, vegetable juices, bottled
water, and snack foods, from the sales and use tax.
Carbonated beverages are not exempt. No other Board of
Equalization (BOE)-administered program imposes a tax or
fee on nonalcoholic sweetened beverages.
In efforts to prevent childhood obesity, the Legislature
enacted a series of policies that regulate the types of
sweetened beverages available and amount of milk fat
content in beverages served in licensed child care
facilities (AB 2084, Brownley, 2010), as well as when fruit
and vegetable-based drinks, non-sweetened water, and
specified milk beverages may be sold in schools (SB 677,
Ortiz, 2003; SB 965, Escutia, 2005). Seven other states --
Hawaii, Mississippi, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont,
and West Virginia -- have introduced similar measures as SB
622 for this legislative session. None have been enacted.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 622 establishes the Sweetened Beverage Tax Law,
which imposes an excise tax, at a rate of one cent per
fluid ounce of added caloric sweetener in a bottled
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageB
sweetened beverage or concentrate, on every distributor for
distributing bottled sweetened beverages and concentrates
in the state. The Board of Equalization administers and
collects the fee and deposits all taxes, penalties, and
interest collected under the law in the Children's Health
Promotion Fund. SB 622 specifies:
I. How the excise tax is calculated.
II. Who is exempt from the excise tax, and exemption
procedures.
III. How the Board of Equalization will administer
and collect the tax.
IV. How the Legislature must allocate the Children's
Health Promotion
Fund.
I. Excise tax . SB 622 imposes an excise tax on bottled
sweetened beverages and concentrates in the state, in the
following formula:
One cent ($0.01) per fluid ounce on bottled
sweetened beverages, and
One cent ($0.01) per fluid ounce of sweetened
beverage produced from concentrate, based on the
largest volume resulting from the concentrate's use
according to any manufacturer's instructions.
A distributor must include on each receipt, invoice, or
other form of accounting for the bottled sweetened
beverages or concentrate's distribution, the following:
The distributor's name and address;
The purchaser's name and address;
The date of sale and invoice number;
The kind, quantity, size, and capacity of packages
of bottled sweetened beverages, sweetened beverages,
or concentrate;
The amount of excise tax due to the BOE from the
distributor; and ,
Any other information required by the BOE.
SB 622 requires that the taxes are due and payable to the
BOE on or before the last day of the month after each
quarterly period.
II. Exemption and credit . To prevent double-taxation and
taxation on sales shipped out-of-state, Senate Bill 622
provides the following exemptions to the tax by a
distributor to:
A distributor registered with the BOE, as supported
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageC
by a completed exemption certificate;
o The exemption certificate must include a
statement signed under penalty of perjury by a
person authorized to bind the distributor. The
certificate must be dated, include the
distributor's name and account number. A new
certificate must be given if any information in
the current certificate changes. The certificate
may be included as part of business records used
to document a sale or distribution.
A person when the bottled sweetened beverages or
concentrate are required to be shipped outside the
state by the distributor by:
o Distributor-operated facilities, or
o Delivery to a carrier, customs broker, or
forwarding agency, for shipment out-of-state.
A person where the state is prohibited from taxing
that sale, use, or consumption under the state
constitution, U.S. laws, or U.S. Constitution.
SB 622 also provides that a distributor who has a paid an
excise tax, either directly to California or another
registered distributor, and makes a subsequent distribution
of bottled sweetened beverages or concentrate may claim a
credit on its return for the period when that subsequent
sale or distribution occurs.
III. Board of Equalization's administration . Senate Bill
622 requires the Board of Equalization (BOE) to administer
and collect the tax according to the Fee Collection
Procedures Law in state statute. The bill clarifies
definitions in the Fee Collection Procedures Law, as
applied to the bill:
"Fee" means the tax imposed by the Sweetened
Beverage Tax Law.
"Feepayer" means a person required to pay the tax
as imposed by the Sweetened Beverage Tax Law.
SB 622 authorizes the BOE to prescribe, adopt, and enforce
regulations, including emergency regulations as necessary,
related to the Sweetened Beverage Tax Law's administration
and enforcement, including: collections, reporting,
refunds, and appeals. Any emergency regulation must be
adopted according to state law, and the Office of
Administrate Law must consider the regulation as necessary
for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health,
safety, and general welfare.
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageD
SB 622 requires that on or before the last day of the month
following each quarterly calendar quarter of three month, a
distributor must file return for the preceding calendar
quarter must be filed using electronic media. Taxes under
the Sweetened Beverage Tax Law are due on or before the
last day of each month following each calendar quarter.
The bill authorizes the BOE to prescribe forms and
reporting requirements, including information on the total
amount of bottled sweetened beverages and concentrate sold
and the amount of tax due. The bill requires the BOE to
authenticate returns.
SB 622 requires every person, who must pay the excise tax,
to register with the BOE. Every registration application
must include the name under which the applicant transacts
or intends to transact business, the location of the places
of business, and other information as the BOE may require.
The bill requires the BOE to also authenticate an
application.
IV. Children's Health Promotion Fund . Senate Bill 622
establishes the Children's Health Promotion Fund in the
state treasury. The Fund consists of all taxes, interest,
penalties, and other amounts collected under the Sweetened
Beverage Tax Law -- less refunds and reimbursement to the
BOE for its administrative and tax collection expenses.
The bill provides, upon the Legislature's appropriation,
allocations for statewide childhood obesity prevention
activities and programs, specifically:
20% to the California Department of Public Health
(CDPH) to coordinate and fund statewide childhood
obesity prevention activities and children's dental
programs;
35% for community-based childhood obesity
prevention programs;
o CDPH must be responsible for distributing
these funds to community-based organization and
local health departments, with priority to
counties that have the highest rates of childhood
obesity.
10% to evidence-based prevention, early
recognition, monitoring, and weight management
intervention activities in the medical setting;
o CDPH is responsible for identifying
activities and allocating these funds.
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageE
35% to elementary and secondary schools for
approaches that promote nutrition and physical
activity, like improving recreational facilities used
for recess, hiring qualified physical education
teachers, implementing Safe Routes to Schools
programs, improving the quality and nutrition of
school meals, and incorporating nutrition education
into curriculum
o The Superintendent of Public Instruction
is responsible for these funds' allocation and
distribution.
SB 622 requires that funds in the Children's Health
Promotion Fund be expended only for purposes specified in
the Sweetened Beverage Tax Law and to supplement existing
levels of service. The bill prohibits any moneys from the
Fund from supplanting current federal, state, or local
funding for existing levels of service.
The bill authorizes the State Public Health Officer and
Superintended of Public Instruction to make rules and
regulations, which may provide specific program to be
funded, to implement the fund allocation.
Definitions . SB 622 provides the following definitions:
"Beverage container" means any closed or sealed
container, of any size or shape, including but not
limited to glass, metal, plastic, or other material or
combination.
"Bottled sweetened beverage" means a sweetened
beverage contained in a beverage container.
"Beverage dispensing machine" means a device that
mixes concentrate with other ingredients and dispenses
the resulting mixture into an open container as a
ready-to-drink beverage.
"Caloric sweetener" means any caloric substance
suitable for consumption that humans perceive as
sweet, including but not limited to sucrose, fructose,
high fructose corn sweetener, glucose, other sugars,
and fruit juice concentrates.
"Caloric" means a substance that adds calories to
the diet of a person who consumes that substance.
"Concentrate" means a syrup, powder, or base
product used for mixing, compounding, or making
sweetened beverages in a dispensing machine.
Concentrate does not include any of the following:
o Any product used solely in coffee or tea
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageF
preparation;
o Any product for infant consumption, known
as "infant formula;"
o Any product for weight reduction;
o Milk or milk products;
o Any frozen concentrate or freeze-dried
concentrate to which water is added to produce a
sweetened beverage containing more than 50%
natural fruit juice or more than 50% natural
vegetable juice or more than 50% combined natural
fruit juice and natural vegetable juice;
o Any product sold and intended for an
individual consumer mixing a sweetened beverage;
o Medical food, as defined in state law and
meets the definition under the federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and ,
o Any product to which no caloric
sweeteners have been added.
"Consumer" is a person who purchases a bottled
sweetened beverage or concentrate for a non-resale
purpose in the ordinary course of business;
"Distribution" means:
o The sale of bottled sweetened beverages
or concentrate to a retailer.
o The receipt of untaxed bottled sweetened
beverages or concentrate from an unregistered,
out-of-state distributor by a retailer.
o The retail sale of untaxed bottle
sweetened beverages, sweetened beverages, or
concentrate in California.
o The use or consumption, as defined, of
untaxed bottled sweetened beverages or
concentrate in California by a distributor or
retailor.
"Distributor" means any person who distributes
bottled sweetened beverages, sweetened beverages, or
concentrates in California, whether or not the person
also sells products to consumers.
"Milk" means natural liquid milk, regardless of
animal source, plant source, butterfat content,
natural milk concentrate, or dehydrated natural milk,
reconstituted or not.
"Natural fruit juice" means the original liquid
from the fruit pressing, the reconstitution of natural
fruit juice concentrate, or the rehydration of natural
fruit juice.
"Natural vegetable juice" means the liquid
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageG
resulting from pressing vegetables, the reconstitution
of natural vegetable juice concentrate, or the
rehydration of natural vegetable juice.
"Nonalcoholic beverage" means any beverage not
subject to the Alcoholic Beverage Tax, like beer,
wine, or distilled spirits.
"Person" means an individual, trust, firm, joint
stock company, business concern, business trust,
receiver, trustee, syndicate, social club, fraternal
organization, estate, corporation, including a
government corporation, partnership, limited liability
company, and association or any other group or
combination acting as a unit. "Person" also includes
any city, county, city and county, district,
commission, California, or any department, agency, or
political subdivision, any interstate body, and the
United States and its agencies and instrumentalities,
as permitted by law.
"Powder" or "base product" means a solid or liquid
mixture of ingredients with added caloric sweetener
used in making, mixing, or compounding sweetened
beverages by mixing powder or the base product with
other ingredients like water, ice, syrup, simple syrup
(a mixture of sugar and water), fruits vegetables,
carbonation, or other gas.
"Retail sale" is the sale of sweetened beverages to
a consumer.
"Retailer" means any person who sells sweetened
beverages to a consumer in California.
"Sale" means the transfer of title or possession
for consideration.
"Simple syrup" means a mixture of sugar and water.
A "sweetened beverage" means any sweetened
nonalcoholic beverage sold for human consumption that
has caloric sweeteners and contains more than 25
calories per 12 ounces, including soda water, ginger
ale, root beer, beverages referred to as cola, lime,
lemon, lemon-lime, and other flavored beverages
including any fruit or vegetable beverage containing
less than 50% natural fruit or vegetable juice; and,
all other drinks referred to as "soda," "soda pop,"
"soft drinks," "sports drinks," "energy drinks,"
"juice drinks," "ice teas," and "vitamin fortified
waters." A sweetened beverage does not include any of
the following:
o Any product sold in liquid form for
infant consumption, known as "infant formula" or
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageH
any product whose purpose is infant rehydration.
o Any product sold in liquid form for
weight production;
o Water with no added caloric sweeteners;
o Milk or milk products;
o Medical food; and ,
o Any sweetened beverage containing more
than 50% of natural fruit or natural vegetable
juice.
"Syrup" means the liquid mixture used in making,
mixing, or compounding sweetened beverages using
ingredients like water, ice, powder, simple syrup,
fruits, vegetables, fruit or vegetable juice,
carbonation, or other case.
Operative date . SB 622 will become operative on July 1,
2014.
Mandate . The California Constitution provides that
reimbursement may be provided for a new or higher level of
service. SB 622 provides that no reimbursement is
necessary because a local agency or school district's costs
are incurred because of a new crime of infraction.
Findings and declarations . SB 622 makes findings and
declarations to support its purpose.
State Revenue Impact
According to the Board of Equalization's preliminary
figures, a one-cent excise tax on sweetened beverages would
result in revenues of $2.623 billion in 2014-15,and $2.717
billion in FY 2015-16. In addition to excise tax, the
additional estimated sales tax revenues are $ 135.4 million
in 2014-15, and $140.2 million in 2015-16.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . In 2009, Americans consumed 13.8
billion gallons of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB). That's
nearly 45 gallons per capita annually of soda, fruit punch,
sweetened teas, sports drinks, and other beverages with
added caloric sweeteners.2 Overweight, obesity, and
physical inactivity cost the state of California an
estimated $52 billion annually in health care costs and
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageI
lost productivity.<1> An excess of calorie-dense but
nutrient poor foods in the market, high prices of fresh
produce, and increased consumption of non-satiating SSBs
have contributed to the obesity epidemic among adults and
children. Academic studies find that raising the price of
a soda by twenty cents would reduce net caloric intake,
translating to weight loss and reduced obesity prevalence
among adults and children's at-risk-of-overweight
prevalence.<2> Soft drinks were the single largest
contributor to energy intake during the last decade<3>, and
soft drink consumption increased by almost 500% during the
past 50 years<4>. By levying an excise tax, SB 662
generates $2.62 billion in revenue that will directly fund
obesity prevention services, physical activity programs,
and nutrition education. Proponents of a SSB tax find a
parallel to tobacco taxes, which contributed to reduced
smoking rates. Public health advocates believe that
taxation will help reduce SSB consumption, and in turn,
reduce health care costs. Research estimates that SSB tax
would reduce the incidence type II diabetes by 2.6% and
obesity prevalence by 1.5%. These percentage reductions
would result in 95,000 fewer instance s of coronary heart
disease, 8,000 fewer strokes, and 26,000 fewer premature
deaths across the nation.<5> Epidemiological research
shows the case for assessing an excise tax: the societal
-------------------------
<1> Clayton, S. California School Health Centers
Association. 17 April 2013.
Silva, C. Latino Coalition for Health California. 9 April
2013.
<2> Smith, T.A., Lin, B., & Lee, J. United States
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service 100
(2010). Taxing caloric sweetened beverages: Potential
effects on beverage consumption, calorie intake, ERR-100
<3> Block, G. (2004). "Foods Contributing to Energy Intake
in the US: Data from NHANES III and
NHANES 1999-2000." Journal of Food Composition and
Analysis, 17: 439-447
<4> Fletcher, J.M., Fisvold, D.E., & Tefft, N. The effects
of soft drink taxes on child and adolescent consumption and
weight outcomes [Internet]. [cited 17 April 2013].
Available from:
http://www.bates.edu/economics/files/2010/05/fletcher_frisvo
ld_tefft_2011_JPE.pdf
<5> Wang, Y. C., Coxon, P., Shen, Y., Goldman, L., &
Bibbins-Domingo, K. (n.d.). A penny-per-ounce tax on
sugar-sweetened beverages would cut health and cost burdens
of diabetes . (2012). Health Affairs, 31(1), 199-207.
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageJ
costs, like lost productivity and health care costs of
obesity are linked with sweetened beverages but not paid
for by the consumer, representing an externality not
accounted in the price system. SB 662 attempts to correct
this market failure by taxing sweetened beverages at a
price to account for the societal costs.
2. Implications . SB 662 would impact more than 350
bottled and fountain beverages in California, including
traditional sodas, sweetened iced teas, fruit drinks,
sports drinks, and energy drinks. The excise tax would add
$0.72 per six-pack, $1.44 per 12-pack, and $2.88 per case
of 12 ounce cans. With the five cent California Redemption
Value (CRV) deposit, a six-pack's additional cost would be
$1.02, $2.04 per 12-pack, and $4.08 per case.<6>
Opponents to SB 662 state that the beverage industry
responded to consumer demand for healthier alternatives
with offerings of diet beverages and other low-calorie
sweetened options. Further, they argue that a SSB tax is
regressive. Low-income households purchase more
sugar-sweetened beverages than higher-income households.4
Specifically, lower income households spend a larger
proportion of their home beverage purchases on sugar
sweetened beverages.<7> Enacting additional taxes on
sweetened beverages would depress demand and could lead to
3,600 jobs losses for beverage bottlers and producers,
14,700 jobs across wholesalers and distributors, and 6,900
jobs from linked industries, like truck fleet operators,
fuel dealers, and finance professionals.6
3. Unintended consequences . If SB 662 is enacted,
distributors and retailers will adjust their behavior to
account for the tax. They will normalize the cost of the
additional tax and spread it evenly across all products,
regardless of if the beverage has added caloric sweetener
or not. This means that the tax would be applied to
beverages not subject to the tax, like non-sweetened water.
Beverage distributors can also adjust wholesale prices to
recover the tax, and retailers will likely retain
price-parity across diet and full-calorie soda. If the
-------------------------
<6> American Beverage Association. SB 622 Economic Impact
Analysis. 15 April 2013.
<7> French, S.A., Wall, M., & Mitchell, N.R. Household
income differences in food sources and food items
purchased. (2010) International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity (2010) [Internet].
Available from: http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/7/1/77
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageK
excise tax is not directly placed onto the bottled
sweetened beverage, will the consumer receive a price
signal that would change his or her consumption decision?
Proponents argue that the $2.6 billion in tax revenues will
increase education, thereby helping reduce consumption, and
mitigate the price-parity argument.
4. City measures . The cities of Richmond (Contra Costa
County) and El Monte (Los Angeles County) put a
penny-per-ounce tax measures on the November 6, 2012
ballot. Richmond's Measure N failed (67% against), and El
Monte's Measure H failed (76% against). However, the
cities' accompanying measures (Richmond's Measure O, and El
Monte's Measure C), which would have allocated revenues to
pay for obesity and diabetes prevention programming, passed
at 65% support and 61% support, respectively. These
results are consistent with a February 2013 California
Field Poll, which found overwhelming support for a SSB tax
when funds were directly used to improve school nutrition
and physical activity programs (68% in favor vs. 29%
opposed). Furthermore, support is strong among Latinos
(79%), Asian Americans (73%), and African Americans
(70%).<8> If current obesity trends continue, it is
predicted that one in three children -- nearly half of
Latino and African American children -- born in the year
2000 will develop type II diabetes. Because low-income
persons and minority communities bear a large burden of
chronic diseases related to obesity, a SSB tax is
beneficial to reduce the risk of chronic disease and would
likely result in saving to the state from preventable
chronic conditions.2
5. Universal consumption . Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth
of Nations, "Sugar, rum, and tobacco are commodities which
are nowhere necessaries of life, [but] which are?objects of
almost universal consumption, and which are therefore
extremely proper subjects of taxation." The BOE also
administers and collects the alcoholic beverage tax.
Opponents argue that this bill would tax SSBs at a higher
rate than on alcoholic beverages. Currently, California
alcoholic beverages tax rates are:
-------------------------
<8> DiCamillo, M. & Field, M. Two in three voters support
taxing sugary-sweetened beverages if proceeds are tied to
improving school nutrition and physical activity programs.
The Field Poll (2013) 2436. Available at:
http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2436.pdf
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageL
-------------------------------------------------------------
| Categories | Rate per wine gallon |
| | (2008-2013) |
|------------------------------+------------------------------|
|Distilled spirits (100 proof | $3.30 |
|or less) | |
|------------------------------+------------------------------|
|Distilled spirits (over 100 | $6.60 |
|proof) | |
|------------------------------+------------------------------|
|Beer | $0.20 |
|------------------------------+------------------------------|
|Wine | $0.20 |
|------------------------------+------------------------------|
|Sparkling hard cider | $0.20 |
|------------------------------+------------------------------|
|Champagne and sparkling wine |$0.30 |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents cite that the proposed SSB tax would result in a
rate of $1.28 gallon, nearly 6.4 times higher than the
excise tax on wine or beer. However, this is consistent
with nation's lower alcohol excise tax rates. As proposed,
all 50 states would have a lower excise tax on beer than
the proposed soda rate, and 39 states would have a lower
excise tax on wine than the proposed SSB rate.<9>
6. Additional policies . Reducing the obesity epidemic
must include a multi-prong policy approach that promotes
education, healthy eating, reduced cost for healthier foods
and drinks, and access to physical activity. California
limits the provision or sale of sweetened beverages in
childcare facilities and schools. Some cities, like
Baldwin Park, San Jose, and Visalia, and counties, like
Santa Clara and San Diego, have specific healthy vending
policies in place. Another approach to reduce access to
sugar sweetened beverages may be to analyze land use
patterns for zoning density or the number of sweetened
beverage retailers near schools or playgrounds. Lastly,
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Fair
Packaging Labeling Act govern food product labeling
practices. While California has adopted state and local
policies to address SSB and healthy food options, there is
no stable and consistent funding for nutrition education
and physical activity programs to prevent childhood
-------------------------
<9> Drenkard, S. Soda Tax Proposals Bubbling Up in
California. TaxFoundation, (332) 25 October 2012.
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageM
obesity. By taxing SSB and creating a Children's Health
Promotion Fund, SB 622 provides a stable financial
mechanism, which in conjunction with existing state and
local policies, combats the childhood obesity epidemic.
7. Double-referred . The Senate Rules Committee ordered a
double-referral of SB 662 to the Senate Governance and
Finance Committee, which will consider the bills' excise
tax provisions, and to the Senate Health Committee, which
has jurisdiction over public health measures.
8. Similar efforts . SB 662 is not the only bill this
legislative session that seeks to address increasing access
to healthy foods and reducing obesity.
AB 38 (Pérez) creates the Office of Farm to Fork,
and a related fund, in the state's Department of Food
and Agriculture, to promote food access.
AB 459 (Mitchell) would require that foods in
vending machines meet accepted nutritional guidelines
by specified benchmarks in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The
bill is currently in the Assembly Business,
Professions, and Consumer Protection Committee.
9. Related legislation . SB 622 is not the first bill
seeking to tax sweetened beverages.
AB 669 (Monning, 2011) was this bill's predecessor.
It was held in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation
Committee.
AB 2100 (Coto, 2010) would have imposed a one cent
tax per teaspoon of added sweetener in a bottled
sweetened beverage or in a sweetened concentrate.
Assembly Bill 2100 was held in the Assembly Revenue
and Taxation Committee.
SB 1210 (Florez, 2010), a similar measure, was
placed on the former Senate Revenue and Taxation
Committee's suspense file.
SB 1520 (Ortiz, 2002), which would have imposed an
excise tax upon every distributor, manufacturer, or
wholesale dealer at a rate of $2 per gallon of soft
drink syrup or simple syrup and $0.21 per gallon of
bottled soft drinks, and $0.21 per gallon of soft
drink that may be produced from powder, that is sold
in this state. The soda tax provisions were removed
from the April 29, 2002, version of the bill.
AB 105 (Moore, 1983) would have imposed an excise
tax on the distribution of nonalcoholic carbonated
beverages, except carbonated water and carbonated
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageN
fruit juice, at the rate of seven cents ($0.07) per
gallon. The provisions of that bill also included an
excise tax on the distribution of nonalcoholic
carbonated beverage syrup at the rate of fifty cents
($0.50) per gallon of liquid syrup. That bill also
died in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee.
Support and Opposition (4/18/13)
Support : California Center for Public Health Advocacy;
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO; American Heart Association;
California Academy of Physician Assistants; California
Association of Food Banks; California Association for
Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (CAHPERD);
California Association of Nutrition and Activity Program
(CAN-Act); California Black Health Network; California
Chiropractic Association (CCA); California Conference of
Local Health Department Nutritionists; California Food
Policy Advocates; California Optometric Association;
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network (CPEHN); California
Public Health Association - North (CPHA-N); California
Primary Care Association (CPCA); California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation; California School Health Centers
Association; California WIC Association; Center for
Collaborative Solution (CCS); Center for Ecoliteracy;
Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI); Edible
Schoolyard Project (ESYP); Mayor Andre Quintero, City of El
Monte; Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula; County
of Santa Clara; County of Sonoma Department of Health
Services; First 5 Yolo; Health Access California; Health
Education Council; Health Officers Association of
California (HOAC); Health Promotion Policy; Latino
Coalition for a Healthy California; Latino Health Access;
Los Olivos School District; Lucile Packard Children's
Hospital; Mission Hospital; Prevention Institute; Public
Health Institute; San Francisco Unified School District;
The School Gardens Program; Southern California Public
Health Association; Strategic Alliance for health food and
Activity Environments; 2 individuals.
Opposition : Asian Business Association; Brea Chamber of
Commerce; California Automatic Vendors Council (CAVC);
California Chamber of Commerce; California Nevada Soft
Drink Association; California Restaurant Association;
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council; Empire Bowling
SB 622 -- 4/17/13 -- PageO
Center; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Korean
American Chamber of Commerce of Los Angeles; PepsiCo;
Producers Dairy.