BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó

                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page A

          Date of Hearing:  May 12, 2015

                            ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

                                  Rob Bonta, Chair

          AB 1357  
          (Bloom) - As Amended April 29, 2015

          SUBJECT:  Children and Family Health Promotion Program.

          SUMMARY:  Imposes a health promotion fee of $0.02 per fluid  
          ounce on bottled sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) and  
          concentrates.  Establishes the Children and Family Health  
          Promotion Trust Fund (Fund) and allocates moneys from the Fund  
          to various state departments for purposes of statewide diabetes  
          and childhood obesity treatment and prevention activities and  
          programs.  Authorizes the Board of Equalization (BOE) to  
          administer and collect the fee and deposit all fees, penalties,  
          and interest collected under the law into the Fund.  Contains an  
          urgency clause to ensure that the provisions of this bill go  
          into immediate effect upon enactment.  Specifically, this bill:   

          1)Imposes a health impact fee on bottled sweetened beverages and  
            concentrates in the state using the following formula:

             a)   Two cents ($0.02) per fluid ounce on bottled sweetened  


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page B

               beverages; and,

             b)   Two cents ($0.02) per fluid ounce of sweetened beverages  
               produced from concentrate, based on the largest volume  
               resulting from the concentrate's use according to any  
               manufacturer's instructions. 

          2)Establishes the Fund within the State Treasury.  Specifies the  
            allocation of funds, by percentage, to various entities as  

             a)   Fifty-one percent must be allocated to Department of  
               Public Health (DPH), to be divided among the following  

               i)     A competitive grant program to county governments,  
                 nonprofit organizations, and community based  
                 organizations seeking to invest in childhood obesity and  
                 diabetes prevention activities.  Requires funding to  
                 support programs that use educational, environmental,  
                 policy, and other public health approaches to achieve all  
                 the following goals:  improve access to, and consumption  
                 of, healthy and affordable foods and beverages; reduce  
                 access to, and consumption of, calorie-dense and  
                 nutrient-poor foods; encourage physical activity and  
                 decrease sedentary behavior; and, raise awareness about  
                 the importance of nutrition and physical activity in the  
                 prevention of childhood obesity and diabetes;

               ii)    A competitive grant program for licensed clinics to  
                 invest in childhood obesity and diabetes prevention and  
                 treatment activities, children's dental programs to  
                 support program that use education, and other public  
                 health approaches that raise awareness about the  
                 importance of nutrition and physical activity; and, 


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page C

               iii)   Dental health programs through the DPH Oral Health  

             b)   Twenty-five percent of funds must be allocated to the  
               Department of Education (CDE), to be divided among the  
               following activities: 

               i)     A competitive grant program for school districts for  
                 educational, environmental, policy, and other public  
                 health approaches that promote physical activity, and  
                 nutrition, and ensure access to clean drinking water  
                 throughout the school day; and, 

               ii)    The CDE Farm to School Program.

             c)   Twenty percent of funds must be allocated to the  
               Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA), for the purposes  
               of supporting nutritious food incentives programs through  
               the DFA Office of Farm to Fork and administering a  
               competitive grant program to support producers of fresh  
               fruits and vegetables and other specialty crops. 

             d)   Four percent of funds must be allocated to the  
               Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) Expanded Access  
               to Primary Care, Rural Health Services Development,  
               Seasonal Agricultural Migratory Workers, and Indian Health  
               programs.  Requires the funds to be used to support  
               clinic-based obesity and diabetes prevention and related  
               disease management.  

          3)Requires DPH to develop an application and process for the  
            grant programs established pursuant to this section. 


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page D

          4)Requires that allocation of money from the fund give priority  
            to communities exhibiting high prevalence of type 2 diabetes,  
            as reported by the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS),  
            using the most current survey data available.

          5)Requires that funds in the Fund be expended only for purposes  
            specified and to supplement existing levels of service.   
            Prohibits any moneys from the Fund from supplanting current  
            federal, state, or local funding for existing levels of  

          6)Authorizes the State Public Health Officer, the Secretary of  
            DFA, the Director of DHCS, and the Superintendent of Public  
            Instruction to coordinate to make rules and regulations to  
            implement the fund allocation. 

          7)Requires the State Auditor to conduct periodic audits,  
            starting no later than 24 months after the bill's effective  
            date, to ensure annual allocation to individual programs is  
            awarded in a timely fashion consistent with the requirements  
            of this chapter.

          8)Requires DPH, beginning July 1, 2016, to appoint an advisory  
            committee to provide input regarding the implementation of the  
            program.  Specifies that the advisory committee must be a  
            purely advisory body and must have no final decision making  
            authority in implementing this bill.  Requires the advisory  
            committee to submit to the Legislature an annual report  
            regarding the process and outcome performance of the Fund.   
            Specifies that the committee will be composed of at least  


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page E

            seven members as follows: 

             a)   One member each from DPH, DFA, DHCS, and CDE; and,

             b)   One appointee each from the Governor, the Speaker of the  
               Assembly and the President pro Tempore of the Senate.   
               Requires the appointees to have expertise in childhood  
               obesity and diabetes prevention, experience in researching  
               public health issues or evaluating related public health  
               programs, or experience with community-based chronic  
               disease prevention organizations.

          9)Requires, by July 1, 2016, DPH, in consultation with DHCS,  
            CDE, and DFA to prepare an annual budget for the Children and  
            Family Health Promotion Program, including anticipated  
            revenues and costs of implementing the program, a recommended  
            funding level to operate the program, and the amount of fees  
            collected by the state.  Requires DPH to adopt final program  
            budget by October 1 of each year.  Creates the Children and  
            Family Health Promotion Administration Account, within the  
            Fund, for the purposed of reimbursing DPH for administrative  
            and implementation costs of the program.  

          10)Requires the BOE to administer and collect the fees under the  
            Fee Collection Procedures Law.  Allows the BOE to adopt  
            regulations and prescribe reporting requirements necessary to  
            implement the fee, including information regarding the total  
            amount of bottled sweetened beverage and concentrate sold, and  
            the amount of fee due. 

          11)Requires distributors required to pay the fees imposed to  
            register with the BOE.  


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page F

          12)Requires fee payers to file with BOE a return on or before  
            the last day of the calendar month following the calendar  
            quarter, together with a remittance for the amount of fee due  
            for that period.

          13)Provides several definitions including , but not limited to,  
            the following: 

             a)   A "sugar-sweetened beverage" means a nonalcoholic  
               beverage, carbonated or not, that contains added caloric  
               sweetener.  Specifies that SSBs do not include: 

                 i)       Beverages sweetened with noncaloric sweeteners;

                 ii)      Beverages sweetened with 100% natural fruit or  
                   vegetable juice;

                 iii)     Beverages in which whole milk (including plant  
                   based milk-substitutes) is the primary or first-listed  

                 iv)      Beverages with fewer than five grams of added  
                   sugar or other caloric sweeteners per 12 ounces;

                 v)       Coffee or tea without added caloric sweetener;

                 vi)      Infant formula;


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page G

                 vii)     Beverages for medical use; and,

                 viii)    Water without any caloric sweetener.

          EXISTING LAW: 

          1)Establishes DPH to protect and improve the health of  
            communities through education, promotion of healthy  
            lifestyles, and research for disease and injury prevention. 

          2)Establishes restrictions on the sale of certain beverages in  
            schools by placing restrictions on the types of beverages  
            allowed to be sold in elementary, middle, and junior high  
            schools and high schools.

          3)Establishes the BOE to collect California state sales and use  
            tax, as well as fuel, alcohol, and tobacco taxes and fees that  
            provide revenue for state government and essential funding for  
            counties, cities, and special districts.

          4)Imposes sales tax on the retail sale of tangible personal  
            property.  Imposes use tax on the storage, use, or other  
            consumption of tangible personal property from any retailer.   
            Requires the sale or use tax to be computed on the retailer's  
            gross receipts or sales price, respectively, unless the law  
            provides a specific exemption or exclusion.  Provides an  
            exemption for the sale of, and the storage, use, or other  
            consumption of, food products for human consumption including,  
            in part, all fruit juices, vegetable juices, and other  
            beverages, including bottled water, but not to include  


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page H

            carbonated beverages. 

          FISCAL EFFECT:  This bill has not yet been analyzed by a fiscal  


          1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL.  According to the author, this bill  
            would establish the Children and Family Health Promotion  
            Program.  The program will administer a competitive grant  
            process to provide counties, nonprofit organizations,  
            community-based organizations, and licensed clinics to fund  
            childhood diabetes and obesity prevention activities and oral  
            health promotion programs.  The program will also fund  
            existing programs designed to increase access to  
            California-grown healthy and fresh foods, encourage increased  
            physical education in California's public schools, and ensure  
            access to clean drinking water. 

            The revenues from this bill will be used to help diminish the  
            human and economic costs of diabetes, obesity, heart disease,  
            and dental disease in California.  The author asserts that  
            diabetes alone adds an extra $1.6 billion every year to state  
            hospitalization costs with the attendant increased cost in all  
            of our public health programs - money which would be better  
            invested in preventive health and education.  Although the  
            number of Californians with diabetes has increased  
            significantly over the past decade, DPH received 22% less  
            federal funding for diabetes prevention in fiscal year  
            2013-14.  At a funding level of $0.03 per capita, California  
            has the lowest per capita funding for diabetes prevention in  
            the nation.  The author states that California needs to step  
            up its efforts to combat and prevent childhood obesity and  
            diabetes and that there is a great need for a new program to  


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page I

            fund more effective local prevention and treatment programs. 

          2)Obesity, DIABETES, and other chronic diseases.  According to  
            the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than  
            one-third of U.S. adults are obese, and approximately 12.5  
            million children and adolescents ages two to 19 years are  
            obese.  Research indicates a tripling in the youth obesity  
            rate over the past three decades.  While this increase has  
            stabilized between the years 2005 and 2010, in 2010, 38% of  
            public school children were overweight and obese.  Overweight  
            youth face increased risks for many serious detrimental health  
            conditions that do not commonly occur during childhood,  
            including high cholesterol and type 2 diabetes.  Additionally,  
            more than 80% of obese adolescents remain obese as adults.   
            Obese children and teenagers also remain at greater risk for  
            developing serious chronic diseases including type 2 diabetes,  
            heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer and other health  
            conditions including asthma, sleep apnea, and psychosocial  
            effects such as decreased self-esteem.  In one large study,  
            61% of overweight five to 10 year-olds already had at least  
            one risk factor for heart disease, and 26% had two or more  
            risk factors.  An overweight adolescent has a 70% chance of  
            being overweight or obese as an adult.

            According to the September 2014 Burden of Diabetes in  
            California report by DPH, over 2.3 million California adults  
            report having been diagnosed with diabetes, representing one  
            out of every 12 adult Californians.  The vast majority of  
            diabetes cases in California are type 2, representing 1.9  
            million adults.  The prevalence increases with age-one out of  
            every six adult Californians aged 65 and above have type 2  
            diabetes-and is higher among ethnic/racial minorities and  
            Californians with low education attainment and/or family  
            income.  Compared with non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics and  
            African Americans have twice the prevalence of type 2 diabetes  
            and are twice as likely to die from their disease.  Diabetes  
            is the seventh leading cause of death in California, and  
            determined to be the underlying cause of death in almost 8,000  


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page J

            people each year.  As diabetes is a contributing factor to  
            many deaths from heart disease and stroke, diabetes may be  
            under-represented as a contributing cause of death.  

          3)THE ECONOMIC BURDEN.  The last decade has witnessed a 32% rise  
            in diabetes prevalence, affecting some 3.9 million people and  
            costing upwards of $24 billion per year. 
          Overall health care spending on obesity continues to  
            significantly burden the nation, however, and the most recent  
            research data available estimate obesity-related health care  
            costs at nearly $150 billion annually.  According to the  
            National Conference on State Legislatures, taxpayers fund  
            about half of these costs, at approximately $60 billion,  
            through Medicare and Medicaid.  Recent research indicates that  
            if obesity rates are reduced by as little as 5%, health care  
            savings could exceed $29 billion.  Childhood obesity also  
            poses a national security challenge, as obesity has become one  
            of the most common disqualifiers for military service;  
            affecting 25% of those who apply to serve.

          The medical costs and associated costs of diabetes jumped to  
            $245 billion in 2012, meaning that the diabetes toll on the  
            economy has increased by more than 40% since 2007, according  
            to a recent report from the American Diabetes Association.   
            The 2007 figures were $116 billion for diabetes and the  
            indirect costs (disability, work loss, premature mortality)  
            were $58 billion.  According to the California Diabetes  
            Program total health care and related costs for the treatment  
            of diabetes in California are about $24.5 billion each year.   
            Direct medical costs (e.g., hospitalizations, medical care,  
            treatment, supplies) account for about $18.7 billion, with the  
            other $5.8 billion including indirect costs such as disability  
            payments, time lost from work, and premature death.  The  
            average annual treatment cost per case for diagnosed diabetes  
            in the U.S. was nearly $10,000 in 2007.  The economic burden  
            of diabetes and prediabetes on the average person is estimated  
            to be over $700 for every man, woman, and child - representing  


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page K

            a hidden 'tax' paid by all through higher insurance  
          4)CAUSE, CORRELATION, AND RISK.  It is very difficult to  
            scientifically prove a direct causal relationship between diet  
            and disease in humans.  In laboratory animal studies, a single  
            variable can be changed while all others are held constant to  
            determine a direct cause-and-effect relationship.  It is  
            nearly impossible to exert the same level of control in human  
            dietary studies.  However, while it may be impossible to  
            completely eliminate alternate hypotheses, a causal  
            relationship between the intake of added sugar and obesity is  
            supported by strong epidemiological evidence.  A meta-analysis  
            published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked  
            at 30 studies of sugary drink consumption published from 1966  
            to 2005 and found that sugary drink consumption was associated  
            with weight gain and obesity.  Another study concluded that  
            sugary drinks are likely to account for at least 20% of the  
            weight gained by Americans between 1977 and 2007.  Numerous  
            studies indicate that higher consumption of sugary drinks is  
            associated with higher risk of weight gain and also with  
            higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

          5)EFFORTS TO REDUCE CALORIE CONSUMPTION.  Along with increasing  
            physical activity and providing nutritious food, reducing  
            calories from all sources is a necessary component to reduce  
            obesity and associated chronic health conditions.  Research  
            shows that people generally underestimate the number of  
            calories in the foods they consume.  A recent study asking  
            participants to estimate the caloric content of nine  
            restaurant entrées found that 90% underestimated the caloric  
            content of less healthy items by an average of more than 600  
            calories.  Controlling the intake of added sugars represents  
            an important component of lifestyle management for weight  
            control and maintenance.  A recent report by the Institute of  
            Medicine identified sugary drinks as the single largest  


          <1> March 2012 fact sheet.  California Diabetes Program,  
          Diabetes Information Resource Center.


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page L

            contributor of calories and added sugars to the U.S. diet.   
            The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published every  
            five years jointly by the U.S. Department of Health and Human  
            Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, admonished  
            individuals to reduce consumption of SSBs, recommended that  
            adult Americans should eat a maximum of 10% of their daily  
            calories from added sugars.  In March 2015, the World Health  
            Organization's (WHO) new Guideline: Sugars Intake for Adults  
            and Children recommends reduced intake of sugar throughout the  
            life course.  In both adults and children, the intake of sugar  
            should be reduced to less than 10% of total energy intake.   
            For a person who consumes 2,000 calories per day that means  
            intake of added sugars should be limited to less than 30 grams  
            (or two tablespoons).  WHO found that a further reduction to  
            below 5% of total energy intake would provide additional  
            health benefits.  

            evidence suggests that effectively curbing the obesity  
            epidemic and reversing the upward trend will require  
            comprehensive approaches across sectors involving public and  
            private stakeholders at the local, state, and federal level.   
            Many believe that the comprehensive approach must be similar  
            to policy efforts previously employed to improve motor vehicle  
            safety or curb usage of alcohol or tobacco.  After passage of  
            the California Tobacco Tax and Health Promotion Act of 1988  
            (Proposition 99), the state created the California Tobacco  
            Control Program (CTCP), implemented a variety of grassroots  
            efforts to educate consumers about the harmful effects of  
            tobacco use, and passed several anti-tobacco laws, such as  
            local and statewide policies to limit smoking in public  
            places, prohibit the incidence of tobacco sales to minors, and  
            restrictions on tobacco advertising; all designed to address  
            smoking prevalence.  California's early efforts have shaped  
            best practices for comprehensive tobacco control efforts  
            throughout the nation and the world.  According to CTCP, these  
            efforts have so far saved more than one million lives and over  
            $86 billion in health care costs.  While tobacco use continues  


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page M

            to be pervasive and costly, California has been successful at  
            significantly curbing the burden of tobacco use on California  
            families, our health care system and our economy. 

            Since the early 1980s, a growing number of economists have  
            examined the impact of the price of alcoholic beverages on  
            alcohol consumption.  Studies investigating such a  
            relationship found that alcohol prices were one factor  
            influencing alcohol consumption among youth and young adults.   
                                   Other studies determined that increases in the total price of  
            alcohol can reduce drinking and driving and its consequences  
            among all age groups; lower the frequency of diseases,  
            injuries, and deaths related to alcohol use and abuse; and  
            reduce alcohol-related violence and other crime.  A large body  
            of research supports the view that increases in the monetary  
            prices of alcoholic beverages, which can be achieved by  
            raising federal, state, and local alcohol taxes, significantly  
            reduce alcohol consumption<2>.

          7)POTENTIAL EFFECT OF SSB FEE.  Over the past decade, states and  
            localities have begun to consider taxing SSBs in order to  
            generate revenue, reduce consumption of unhealthy beverages,  
            and promote public health.  According to a 2009 issue brief by  
            the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, emerging studies suggest  
            that small taxes on SSBs are unlikely to affect obesity rates,  
            but they can generate revenue that states can invest in  
            improving public health.  In addition, while there is only  
            limited research on the impact of taxes on SSB consumption  
            rates and related weight outcomes, existing research on the  
            impact of prices on food-purchasing behaviors in general  
            suggest that substantive taxes on SSBs could significantly  
            affect consumption patterns and thereby have an impact on  
            overweight and obesity rates.  

          <2> Chaloupka FJ, Grossman M, and Saffer H. 2002. The Effects of  
          Price on Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol-Related Problems   
          Alcohol Res Health. 2002;26(1):22-34. 


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page N


            In October 2013, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto approved  
            a 1 peso (about $0.07) tax per liter of SSB, which national  
            health experts saw as one antidote to Mexico's alarming  
            diabetes rates.  The measure took effect January 1, 2014.  A  
            year later, preliminary data suggest consumption rates are  
            falling, though it's too early to say precisely how much.   
            Mexico's National Institute of Public Health earliest results  
            suggest that in the first three months of 2014, purchases of  
            sugary drinks dropped by 10% from the same period in 2013.   
            Meanwhile purchases of untaxed drinks, like 100% fruit juice  
            and milk, went up 7%, and purchases of bottled water went up  


          8)RECENT LOCAL EFFORTS.  In November 2014, Berkeley, California  
            became the first city in the nation to adopt a soda tax after  
            30 other cities and states around the country failed.  Its  
            Measure D levied a penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened  
            drinks.  Its revenues were not dedicated to any particular  
            purpose, therefore needing only a simple majority vote to  
            pass.  It won the support of 75% of voters.  In the same  
            election, a similar measure in San Francisco failed, however.   
            San Francisco's Proposition E would have levied $0.02  
            per-ounce tax, and it needed two-thirds of the votes to pass  
            because it would have directed revenue to physical education  
            and nutrition programs for children.  Proposition E failed to  
            secure two-thirds support, and only received a simple  
            majority, 55%, of votes.  The Berkeley Measure D soda tax went  
            into effect on January 1, 2015.

          9)SUPPORT.  The American Heart Association, cosponsor of this  
            bill, states that the adverse health effects of the  


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page O

            overconsumption of SSBs are harming our communities, and its  
            effects pose a significant economic burden on our state that  
            requires urgent action.  They further state that soda and  
            other SSBs are the number one source of added sugar in the  
            American diet, and are linked to increased risk of diabetes  
            and other serious diseases such as heart and liver disease,  
            obesity, and tooth decay.  The Center for Science in the  
            Public Interest and other supporters state that definitive  
            scientific studies have concluded that SSB intake is a major  
            cause of rising obesity rates.  Most people consume nearly 300  
            more calories per day than 30 years ago and 43% of that  
            caloric increase comes from the consumption of SSBs.  Latino  
            Coalition for a Healthy California, a cosponsor of this bill,  
            states that the revenue generated by this fee will enable the  
            state to improve access to healthy foods and invest in  
            diabetes-related healthcare services and prevention in  
            communities that are disproportionately impacted by type 2  
            diabetes and other diseases related to high sugar consumption.  

          10)OPPOSITION.  The California League of Food Processors states  
            that they understand and share the concerns about the  
            nationwide problem with obesity, but do not believe that this  
            bill is the right policy approach.  The personal decision to  
            purchase and consume a SSB should not be regulated by the  
            Legislature through the imposition of new fees or taxes.   
            Californians for Food and Beverage Choice state that singling  
            out one group of products is discriminatory and will not  
            reduce obesity or diabetes.  Obesity and diabetes are complex  
            health issues that have myriad contributing factors including  
            genetics, physical activity, and calorie intake from all  
            sources - not just beverages.  As a result, it is unfair and  
            inaccurate to portray SSBs as the main culprit.  It needs to  
            be made clear that obesity and related diseases, like  
            diabetes, have multiple risk factors, including diet,  
            genetics, age, and stress.  Dealing with these health issues  
            is more complicated than simply taxing a sub-set of beverages.  
             The California-Nevada Beverage Association and others state  


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page P

            that targeting a specific industry to pay for a problem that  
            has multiple causes is short sighted and will impede economic  
            growth and eliminate jobs in that industry.  The business  
            community consistently maintains that if a fee or tax is  
            necessary, it should only be temporary and broad based so that  
            the impact is minimized as it is shared by all instead of an  
            individual business or industry.


             a)   AB 572 (Beth Gaines) requires DPH to create a detailed  
               diabetes action plan for the state, and to report the  
               results of the plan to the Legislature biennially.   
               Requirements include the development of a detailed budget  
               blueprint identifying needs, costs, and resources required  
               to implement the plan and a proposed budget for each action  
               step, as well as policy recommendations for the prevention  
               and treatment of diabetes.  AB 572 is pending in the  
               Assembly Appropriations Committee. 

             b)   SB 203 (Monning), establishes the Sugar-Sweetened  
               Beverages Safety Warning Act, to be administered by DPH,  
               and requires a safety warning on all sealed SSB containers,  
               as specified.  Requires the warning label to be posted in a  
               place that is easily visible at the point-of-purchase of an  
               establishment where a beverage container is not filled by  
               the consumer.  SB 203 failed passage in the Senate Health  

             c)   SCR 34 (Monning), proclaims the month of September 2015,  
               and each year thereafter, as Childhood Obesity Awareness  
               Month, and expresses the Legislature's support of various  
               programs that work to reduce obesity among children,  
               including those that increase access to affordable  
               healthful foods and beverages and provide less access to  
               high-calorie foods and SSBs.  SCR 34 was approved by the  


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page Q

               Senate on April 16, 2015 with a vote of 29-4, and is  
               currently pending action in the Assembly.


             a)   SB 1000 (Monning) of 2014 would have established the  
               Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, to be  
               administered by DPH, and required a safety warning on all  
               sealed SSB containers.  Would have required the warning  
               label to be posted in a place that is easily visible at the  
               point-of-purchase of an establishment where a beverage  
               container is not filled by the consumer.  SB 1000 failed  
               passage in the Assembly Health Committee. 

             b)   SB 622 (Monning) of 2013 would have imposed $0.01 per  
               fluid ounce tax on bottled SSBs and concentrates.   SB 622  
               was held on the Suspense File in the Senate Appropriations  

             c)   AB 669 (Monning) of 2011 was similar to SB 622.  AB 669  
               was held in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee.

             d)   AB 2100 (Coto) of 2010 would have imposed a $0.01 per  
               teaspoon of added sweetener tax on SSBs and concentrates.   
               AB 2100 was held in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation  

             e)   SB 1210 (Florez) of 2010, a similar measure to AB 2100,  
               was placed on the former Senate Revenue and Taxation  
               Committee's Suspense File. 


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page R

             f)   SB 1520 (Ortiz) of 2002 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, $0.21 per gallon of bottled soft drinks, and $0.21  
               per gallon of soft drink produced from powder.  The soda  
               tax provisions were removed from the April 29, 2002,  
               version of the bill. 

             g)   AB 105 (Moore) of 1983 would have imposed an excise tax  
               on the distribution of nonalcoholic carbonated beverages,  
               except carbonated water and carbonated fruit juice, at the  
               rate of $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 $0.50 per gallon  
               of liquid syrup.  AB 105 also died in the Assembly Revenue  
               and Taxation Committee.


             a)   Technical amendment.  On page 11, line 4, the following  
               sentence should be corrected as follows: 

               Section 104895.51(i) In establishing these regulations, the  
                department  departments shall give particular consideration  
               to reducing the prevalence of diabetes in at-risk  
               communities  , as  identified by data from the CHIS. 

             b)   Departments will need to collaborate with BOE to prepare  
               program budget.  As drafted, this bill requires DPH and the  
               other departments to prepare an annual program budget,  


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page S

               including the amount of fees that have been paid to BOE.   
               The bill should specify that BOE will also coordinate with  
               the departments to provide the necessary information for  
               preparing the annual budget. 



          American Heart Association / American 

            Stroke Association (cosponsor)

          California Dental Association (cosponsor)

          Latino Coalition for a Healthy California 


          ACCESS Women's Health Justice 

          ACT for Women and Girls 

          AltaMed Health Services Corporation


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page T

          Alturas Health

          American Federation of State, County and 

            Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO

          Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los 


          Asian Law Alliance

          Asian Pacific Partners for Empowerment, 

            Advocacy, and Leadership

          Black Women for Wellness 

          California Alliance of Boys & Girls Clubs

          California Association of Environmental 

            Health Administrators

          California Black Health Network


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page U

          California Center for Public Health 


          California Chronic Care Coalition

          California Food Policy Advocates

          California Immigrant Policy Center 

          California Latinas for Reproductive Justice 

          California Pan-Ethnic Health Network

          California Partnership 

          California Primary Care Association

          California Rural Indian Health Board, Inc.

          California Rural Legal Assistance 


          Cal-Islanders Humanitarian Association 


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page V

          Center for Science in the Public Interest 

          Central Valley Partnership for Citizenship 

          Centro Binacional para el Desarrollo 

            Indígena Oaxaqueño - Fresno 

          Centro Binacional para el Desarrollo 

            Indígena Oaxaqueño - Greenfield 

          Centro Binacional para el Desarrollo 

            Indígena Oaxaqueño - Los Angeles 

          Chinese Progressive Association 

          Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of 

            Los Angeles 

          Community Alliance with Family Farmers

          Community Clinic Association of Los 


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page W

            Angeles County

          Consejo de Federaciones Mexicanas

          County Health Executives Association of 


          Earth Mama Healing 

          El Camino Children and Family Services, 


          El Quinto Sol de America 

          Farmer Veteran Coalition

          Fresno Center for New Americans 

          Fresno Interdenominational Refugee 


          Guam Communications Network 


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page X

          Having Our Say Coalition

          Health Officers Association of California

          Healthy and Active Before 5

          Korean Community Center of the East Bay 

          Korean Resource Center 

          Latino Health Alliance

          Libreria del Pueblo 

          Madera Coalition 

          Maternal and Child Health Access

          Mexican American Legal Defense Fund

          Mid-City CAN

          National Council of La Raza

          National Hmong American Farmers


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page Y

          Nile Sisters Development Initiative 

          North County Health Services

          Orange County NAACP

          Pacific Islander Cancer Survivors Network

          PDI Surgery Center

          Prevention Institute

          Providence Health & Services Southern 


          Roots Community Health Center/Roots 

            Community Health Alliance

          Roots of Change

          Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

          San Ysidro Health Center


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page Z

          Saban Community Clinic

          Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education 


          South Asian Network

          SSG/Pals for Health

          Street Level Health Project

          Sustainable Economic Enterprises of Los 


          The Council of Mexican Federations 

          United Farm Workers

          Vision y Compromiso 

          Young Invincibles



                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page A


          American Beverage Association

          Association of Food, Beverage, and 

            Consumer Products Companies

          CalAsian Chamber of Commerce

          California Attractions and Parks Association

          California Chamber of Commerce 

          California Grocers Association

          California League of Food Processors

          California Restaurant Association

          California Retailers Association

          California Right to Life Committee, Inc.


                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page B

          California Taxpayers Association

          California Teamsters Public Affairs Council

          California-Nevada Beverage Association

          Californians for Food and Beverage Choice

          Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

          IFA Franchising

          Juice Products Association

          Los Angeles County Business Federation

          National Association of Theatre Owners of 


          National Federation of Independent 



                                                                    AB 1357

                                                                     Page C

          Analysis Prepared by:Dharia McGrew / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097