BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date: September 3, 2013 |Bill No:SB |
| |667 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Ted W. Lieu, Chair
Bill No: SB 667Author:Roth
As Amended:August 6, 2013Fiscal: No
SUBJECT: Retail sale of shelled eggs.
SUMMARY: Adds a "knowing or should have known" clause to the
liability standard for the sale of shelled eggs that are not in
compliance with California animal welfare standards.
NOTE : The Assembly amendments to this measure create a new bill as
passed by the Senate which has been referred to this Committee
pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10 (d) for consideration. The Committee
may by a vote of the majority either: (1) hold the bill, or (2)
return the bill to the Senate floor for consideration of the bill as
amended in the Assembly.
Existing law:
1)Prohibits tethering or confining any covered animal on a farm, for
all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such
animal from:
(Health and Safety Code (HSC) � 25990 et seq.)
a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending its limbs; and
b) Turning around freely.
1)Prohibits, beginning January 1, 2015, a shelled egg from being sold
or contracted for sale for human consumption in California if it is
the product of an egg-laying hen that was confined on a farm or
place that is not in compliance with the animal care standards
above.
(HSC � 25996)
SB 667
Page 2
2)Makes violation of the animal care standards or for violation of the
shelled egg standards a misdemeanor (crime) with fines up to $1000
or up to six month in a county jail.
(HSC �� 25993, 25997)
This bill: Prohibits, beginning January 1, 2015, a shelled egg from
being sold or contracted for sale for human consumption in California
if the seller knows or should have known that the egg is the product
of an egg-laying hen that was confined on a farm or place that is not
in compliance with animal care standards set forth in existing law.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has not been keyed "non-fiscal" by
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. This bill is sponsored by California Grocers Association
(Sponsor) to provide businesses that sell shelled eggs a defense
from liability if those eggs are not found to be in compliance with
California's food safety and animal treatment laws.
According to the Author, in 2008, voters passed Proposition 2, which
addressed confinement of farm animals. The law requires that
certain farm animals, including egg-laying hens, have room to move
freely. In addition, in 2010 the Legislature enacted AB 1437
(Huffman, Chapter 51, Statutes of 2010) prohibiting the sale of
shelled eggs in California which come from hens which are not kept
according to the standards established in Proposition 2. The Author
indicates that this prohibition applies to eggs produced within
California as well as those produced out of state, but sold in
California.
The Author contends that current law places liability on a grocer who
sells eggs not meeting the Proposition 2 standards. This liability
exists even if the producer of the eggs lies and falsely represents
that the eggs meet the Proposition 2 standards, when they don't,
according to the Author.
The Author states: "SB 667 adds the element of knowledge to the
liability standard for the sale of shelled eggs not in compliance
with Proposition 2. The 'knew or should have known' standard will
give a level of certainty to grocers, if they can show through their
contracts with egg producers, that they in good faith believe the
products they are buying conform to animal welfare standards."
SB 667
Page 3
This bill is before this Committee to consider the retail sale
implications of the business practice of a seller who knowingly
sells shelled eggs that are not in compliance with the existing
animal care standards.
2.Background. In November 2008, California passed Proposition 2 with
63.5 percent of the vote. Proposition 2 specifies that on January
1, 2015, calves for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs be
confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand
up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. The
proposition provides exceptions for transportation, rodeos, fairs,
4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes.
Failure to comply with the proposition can be punished with
misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or
imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.
Building upon Proposition 2, in 2010, AB 1437 (Huffman) prohibited
selling shelled eggs for human consumption in California produced by
egg-laying hens on farms not in compliance with animal care
standards. That bill cited the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm
Production, stating that food animals that are treated well and
provided with at least minimum accommodation of their natural
behaviors and physical needs are healthier and safer for human
consumption. The bill further cited the World Health Organization
and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
Salmonella Risk Assessment finding that reducing flock prevalence
results in a directly proportional reduction in human health risk,
and that egg-laying hens subjected to stress are more likely to have
higher levels of pathogens in their intestines and the conditions
increase the likelihood that consumers will be exposed to higher
levels of food-borne pathogens
3.Shelled Eggs. This bill would prohibit selling shelled eggs that the
seller knows or should have known are from hens that are kept
contrary to the animal welfare laws enacted by Proposition 2 in
2008. It is important to point out what is meant by shelled eggs in
this context. The California Food and Agriculture Code (FAC)
defines "shell eggs" as eggs, and defines to mean eggs in the shell
from chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, or any other species of fowl.
(FAC � 27519, 27513)
4.Prior Legislation. AB 1437 (Huffman, Chapter 51, Statutes of 2010)
prohibited the sale of shelled eggs in California which come from
hens which are not kept according to the standards established in
Proposition 2.
SB 667
Page 4
5.Arguments in Support. In sponsoring this bill, the California
Grocers Association states that its members support the goal of
improving the conditions of animals raised for human consumption.
"We also support a level playing field for California's eggs
producers required to comply with the higher standard adopted by the
voters. However, we are concerned that under current law, grocers
could be held to a standard which will only create needless
litigation. SB 667 seeks to achieve a middle ground by adding a
'knowing' element to existing law."
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support:
California Grocers Association (Sponsor)
Opposition:
None received as of September 3, 2013
Consultant: G. V. Ayers