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
follows:
a) Fifty-one percent must be allocated to Department of
Public Health (DPH), to be divided among the following
activities:
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
Program.
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
service.
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
ingredient;
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
committee.
COMMENTS:
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
premiums<1>.
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. www.caldiabetes.org
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.
6)POLICY INTERVENTIONS AND UNHEALTHY PRODUCTS. Mounting
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
13%.
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.
11)RELATED LEGISLATION.
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
Committee.
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.
12)PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
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
Committee.
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
Committee.
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.
13)SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS.
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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Heart Association / American
Stroke Association (cosponsor)
California Dental Association (cosponsor)
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
(cosponsor)
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
Angeles
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
Advocacy
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
Foundation
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
California
Earth Mama Healing
El Camino Children and Family Services,
Inc.
El Quinto Sol de America
Farmer Veteran Coalition
Fresno Center for New Americans
Fresno Interdenominational Refugee
Ministries
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
California
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
Network
South Asian Network
SSG/Pals for Health
Street Level Health Project
Sustainable Economic Enterprises of Los
Angeles
The Council of Mexican Federations
United Farm Workers
Vision y Compromiso
Young Invincibles
AB 1357
Page A
Opposition
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
California/Nevada
National Federation of Independent
Business
AB 1357
Page C
Analysis Prepared by:Dharia McGrew / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097