BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2782
Page A
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Jim Wood, Chair
AB 2782
(Bloom) - As Amended March 30, 2016
SUBJECT: Healthy California Fund.
SUMMARY: Imposes a health promotion fee of $0.02 per fluid
ounce on bottled sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) and
concentrates. Establishes the Healthy California Fund (Fund)
and allocates moneys from the Fund to various state departments
for purposes of reducing the incidence and impact of diabetes,
obesity, and dental disease in California. Authorizes the Board
of Equalization (BOE) to administer and collect the fee and
deposit all fees, penalties, and interest collected into the
Fund. Specifically, this bill:
1)Imposes a health impact fee on bottled SSBs and concentrates
in the state using the following formula:
a) Two cents ($0.02) per fluid ounce on bottled sweetened
beverages; and,
b) Two cents ($0.02) per fluid ounce of sweetened beverages
produced from concentrate, based on the largest volume
AB 2782
Page B
resulting from the concentrate's use according to any
manufacturer's instructions.
2)Establishes the Fund within the State Treasury. Requires the
Fund to support culturally and linguistically appropriate
programs to improve access to healthy and affordable foods and
beverages, reduce access to calorie-dense and nutrient-poor
foods, encourage physical activity, and raise awareness of the
importance of nutrition and physical activity in the
prevention of obesity, diabetes, and dental disease.
Specifies the allocation of funds, by percentage, to various
entities as follows:
a) Fifty-one percent to the Department of Public Health
(DPH), to be divided, as specified, among the following
activities:
i) A regular grant program to all county and city
health departments, or their nonprofit designees, seeking
to invest in obesity, diabetes, and dental disease
prevention activities;
ii) A competitive grant program to nonprofit
organizations and community based organizations seeking
to invest in obesity, diabetes, and dental disease
prevention activities. Requires a percentage of these
funds to be used for the following:
(1) To support nonprofit organizations working
statewide, including those that provide capacity
building and technical assistance services; and,
(2) For statewide priority population leadership
AB 2782
Page C
networks, including African American, Hispanic,
American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian American,
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander and low
socioeconomic status populations.
iii) A competitive grant program for licensed clinics to
invest in obesity, diabetes, and dental disease
prevention and treatment activities, and to support
programs that use education, and other public health
approaches that raise awareness about the importance of
nutrition and physical activity;
iv) Statewide advertising and media campaigns, including
social media initiatives, to change social and cultural
norms around risk factors for chronic diseases, including
diet and physical activity, and dental disease
prevention;
v) Dental health programs through the DPH Oral Health
Program; and,
vi) Administration, independent evaluation, and disease
surveillance.
b) Twenty-five percent to the Department of Education
(CDE), to be divided among the following activities:
AB 2782
Page D
i) Competitive grant programs for school districts for
educational, environmental, policy, and other public
health approaches that promote physical activity,
improved nutrition and ensure access to clean drinking
water throughout the school day. Permits these funds to
be used for school recreational facility improvements and
improving quality of school meals; and,
ii) The CDE Farm to School Program.
c) Twenty percent to the Office of Farm to Fork in the
Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA), to support
consumer incentive programs and to administer a competitive
grant program to aid community food producers; and,
d) Four percent of funds to the Department of Health Care
Services (DHCS) for the 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 target populations to be the focus of the campaign
implemented pursuant to this bill, and all moneys in the fund
to be allocated with no less than 60% priority given to
communities located in zip codes with the highest 30
percentile of type II diabetes, as reported by the California
Health Interview Survey (CHIS). Specifies the following target
populations:
a) African American, Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska
Native, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific
Islander;
AB 2782
Page E
b) Low socioeconomic status populations;
c) Zip codes with the top 30th percentile of rates of type
II diabetes;
d) Communities identified as dentally underserved or with
high rates of dental disease; and,
e) At-risk populations, as determined by CHIS and other
data sources.
4)Requires that DPH funding for local government activities be
focused and primarily expended on programs directly serving
African American, Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native,
Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander
communities and where consumption of bottled sugar-sweetened
beverages is the highest, in neighborhoods with schools with a
high concentration of students who qualify for supplemental
and concentration grants, and in neighborhoods with a
demonstrated need for services, including a high concentration
of Medi-Cal eligible residents.
5)Requires DPH to develop a funding formula to provide a minimum
base level to all county and city health departments with the
additional amount weighted to reflect the number of residents
in each jurisdiction living below 150% of the federal poverty
level. Makes funding dependent on each local health
department submitting an approved implementation plan and
maintaining a community coalition to support the objectives of
AB 2782
Page F
the funding. Requires at least one third of each
jurisdiction's funds be subgranted to community partners
selected through a competitive process with a priority and
focus on directly serving African American, Hispanic, American
Indian and Alaska Native, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and
Pacific Islander communities.
6)Limits administrative expenses to 3% of funds allocated to
DPH, DHCS, CDE, and DFA.
7)Requires that moneys in the Fund be expended only for purposes
specified and to supplement existing levels of service.
Prohibits moneys in the Fund from supplanting current federal,
state, or local funding for existing levels of service.
8)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.
9)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 bill.
10) Creates the 13-member Healthy California Fund Oversight
Committee (Committee) to advise DPH, CDE, DFA, and DHCS with
respect to policy development, integration, and evaluation of
the state and local programs funded under this bill, and
AB 2782
Page G
requires the Committee to develop a master plan for the future
implementation of diabetes, obesity, and dental disease
prevention programs. Requires the Committee to submit to the
Legislature an annual report detailing the number and scope of
programs enabled by the Fund, the amount of Fund moneys spent
and unspent and recommendations, if any for policy changes.
11)Requires, by July 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, DPH,
DHCS, CDE, and DFA to prepare a program budget for the
following year 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.
12)Creates the Healthy California Fund Administration Account
for the purpose of reimbursing DPH, DHCS, CDE, and DFA for
administrative and implementation costs of the program.
13)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 SSB and concentrate sold, and the amount of
fee due. Limits BOE's administrative expenses to 3%.
14)Requires distributors subject to the fee to register with
BOE.
15)Requires fee payers to file with BOE a return on or before
the last day of the calendar month following the calendar
AB 2782
Page H
quarter, together with a remittance for the amount of fee due
for that period.
16)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; and,
b) Specifies that SSBs do not include:
i) Beverages sold to the U.S. government and American
Indian tribal governments;
ii) Certain transactions where beverages are sold by
one distributor to another;
iii) Beverages sweetened with noncaloric sweeteners;
iv) Beverages sweetened with 100% natural fruit or
vegetable juice;
v) Beverages in which milk (including plant based
milk-substitutes) is the primary or first-listed
ingredient;
AB 2782
Page I
vi) Beverages with fewer than five grams of added
sugar or other caloric sweeteners per 12 ounces;
vii) Coffee or tea without added caloric sweetener;
viii) Infant formula;
ix) Beverages for medical use; and,
x) Water without any caloric sweetener.
17)Makes various findings and declarations regarding the
negative impact of sugar on human health.
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
AB 2782
Page J
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
carbonated beverages.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal
committee.
COMMENTS:
1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, California is
facing a diabetes and obesity epidemic, yet spends less than
any other state on prevention. There are approximately 2.5
million Californians, about 9% of the state's population,
living with diabetes today. An estimated 13 million
Californians, about 46% of the state's population, have
pre-diabetes and up to 70% of these individuals will go on to
develop type 2 diabetes in their lifetime. From 1980 to 2010,
the national obesity rate more than doubled among adults and
tripled among children. These rates are even higher in
low-income communities and communities of color and unless
current trends are reversed, one out of every three Americans
will have diabetes.
AB 2782
Page K
The author states that soda and other sugary drinks are the
number one source of added sugar in the American diet, and are
linked to increased risk of diabetes, heart and liver disease,
stroke, obesity, and tooth decay. This bill will create a
dedicated revenue source to address the harmful effects of
overconsumption of SSBs. The revenues from the fee will go to
diabetes prevention programs, as well as oral health programs,
programs to increase access to clean drinking water in
schools, and physical education programs. This bill will not
only help improve public health outcomes, but will also save
taxpayers billions of dollars every year on healthcare costs
in the long run.
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.
AB 2782
Page L
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
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
AB 2782
Page M
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
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.
---------------------------
<1> March 2012 fact sheet. California Diabetes Program,
Diabetes Information Resource Center. www.caldiabetes.org
AB 2782
Page N
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
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
AB 2782
Page O
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
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
AB 2782
Page P
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.
In October 2013, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto approved
a one 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%.
--------------------------
<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 2782
Page Q
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 first 11
months of implementation Berkeley's soda tax has generated
$1.5 million. In the same election, a similar measure in San
Francisco failed. 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. In November 2016 a
new San Francisco penny-per-once soda tax initiative will be
on the ballot. It will require a simple majority for passage.
9)SUPPORT. The American Heart Association, cosponsor of this
bill, states that SSBs have a direct link to obesity and
diabetes, as well as many other diseases and are the largest
source of daily calories for adolescents in the U.S. Moreover,
SSB consumption is highest among groups that have the highest
risk of type 2 diabetes. If nothing is done, it is predicted
that 50% of Latino and African American children born since
the year 2000 will develop type 2 diabetes during their
lifetime. This bill will enable the state to invest in
communities disproportionately burdened by diseases related to
the consumption of SSBs. The American Diabetes Association
(ADA), a cosponsor of this bill, argues that this bill can
play an important role in preventing diabetes by deterring
consumption of SSBs and appropriating monies from the health
impact fee for educational and health purposes in communities
hardest hit by the disease. The ADA states that diabetes
costs $37.1 billion annually in California alone and argues
that California cannot afford to wait to address this growing
epidemic. The Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
AB 2782
Page R
argues that the investment in communities of color made
possible by the fee on SSBs, which will raise over $2 billion,
will comprehensively address the root causes of poor health
outcomes in these communities. The American Academy of
Pediatrics, California supports this bill because it will
bring awareness of the hazardous effects of SSBs, provide
dedicated resources to impacted communities, and reduce SSB
consumption.
10)OPPOSITION. Californians for Food and Beverage Choice (CFB)
argues that this tax does not just impact soda, it also would
place a misguided tax on juice drinks, sports drinks, iced
teas, and enhanced waters and result in higher prices on
hundreds of products sold at convenience and grocery stores
and restaurants. These increased prices will especially
impact middle- and lower-income Californians. CFB argues that
obesity and diabetes are complex health issues so it is unfair
and inaccurate to portray SSBs as the main culprit. While
obesity and diabetes are serious concerns, consumption of SSBs
has steadily declined over the past decade while the rates of
obesity and diabetes have increased. The California
Restaurant Association argues that this bill is an overreach
of government. Singling out and increasing costs on one
specific product is a misguided tactic and will likely force
higher costs on all drinks. Placing higher taxes on beverages
or food will not singularly make people healthier. PepsiCo
states that data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show
that over the last 40 years calorie intake from "added fat"
and "refined grains" have risen while calories from products
with "added sugar" have been flat, with total calories from
the former two sources each being larger than calories from
added sugar. Pepsi also argues that this bill endangers good
jobs in California.
11)RELATED LEGISLATION. AB 2696 (Beth Gaines) requires DPH to
submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1,
2018, that includes a summary and compilation of
recommendations on diabetes prevention and management.
AB 2782
Page S
12)PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
a) AB 1357 (Bloom) of 2015 was largely similar to this
bill. AB 1357 failed passage in the Assembly Health
Committee.
b) AB 572 (Beth Gaines) would have required 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 was held on the Suspense
File in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
c) SB 203 (Monning) of 2015 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 203 failed
passage in the Senate Health Committee.
d) SCR 34 (Monning) of 2015 proclaimed the month of
September 2015, and each year thereafter, as Childhood
Obesity Awareness Month, and expressed the Legislature's
support of various programs that work to reduce obesity
among children.
AB 2782
Page T
e) SR 47 (Hall) of 2015 proclaimed November 2016 as
Diabetes Awareness Month, and expressed the Senate's
support of aggressive early detection and treatment of
diabetes.
f) SB 1000 (Monning) of 2014 was largely similar to SB 203.
SB 1000 failed passage in the Assembly Health Committee.
g) 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.
h) AB 669 (Monning) of 2011 was similar to SB 622. AB 669
was held in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee.
i) 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.
j) SB 1210 (Florez) of 2010, a similar measure to AB 2100,
was placed on the former Senate Revenue and Taxation
Committee's Suspense File.
aa) 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
AB 2782
Page U
tax provisions were removed from the April 29, 2002,
version of the bill.
bb) 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)TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
a) On page 12, line 36, insert the word "media" before
"campaign" to clarify what campaign this refers to.
b) On page 13, it appears that lines 8 and 9 should be
deleted as they are duplicative of language already
included in this paragraph on page 12, line 39.
c) Three technical amendments are recommended related to
section 104895.57 of this bill, as follows:
i) In order to clarify the definition of "program" as
used in section 104895.57 beginning on page 19, line 11
of the bill, the following should be inserted on page 20
after line 10: "(d) For purposes of this section,
"program" shall mean all of the activities paid for by
the Fund."
AB 2782
Page V
ii) In section 104895.57 beginning on page 19, line 11,
as drafted, this bill requires DPH, DHCS, CDE and DFA to
prepare an annual program budget, including the amount of
fees that have been paid to BOE. The bill should add BOE
to that list of departments which will coordinate to
provide the necessary information for preparing the
annual budget.
iii) Paragraph (c) of section 104895.57 beginning on page
20, line 1, states that DPH, DHCS, DFA, and CDE "shall
deposit all moneys submitted for reimbursement by the
program into the Healthy California Fund Administration
Account . . ." The bill should clarify the meaning of
this provision or delete it.
14)DOUBLE REFERRAL. This bill has been double-referred. Should
this bill pass out of this committee, it will be referred to
the Assembly Revenue and Tax Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Diabetes Association (cosponsor)
American Heart Association (cosponsor)
California Black Health Network (cosponsor)
AB 2782
Page W
California Dental Association (cosponsor)
California Primary Care Association (cosponsor)
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California (cosponsor)
Public Health Institute (cosponsor)
Roots of Change (cosponsor)
100 Black Men of Sacramento
ACT for Women and Girls
AFSMC District Council 36
Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association
Alchemist CDC
Alliance for Rural Community Health
AltaMed Health Services Corporation
American Academy of Pediatrics
AB 2782
Page X
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
(AFL-CIO)
Asian Pacific Islander Obesity Prevention Alliance
California Academy of Physician Assistants
California Chronic Care Coalition
California Food Policy Advocates
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California School-Based Health Alliance
California School Nurses Association
Cambodian Family Community Center
AB 2782
Page Y
Children Now
Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County
Community Clinic Consortium
Community Health Partnership
Community Water Center
County Health Executives Association of California
Cultiva La Salud
Dignity Health
Ecology Center
Families in Good Health
Farmers Guild
Having our Say!
Health and Life Organization, Inc.
AB 2782
Page Z
Health Trust
Kheir Center
Long Beach Fresh
Los Angeles Trust for Children's Health
Mathiesen Memorial Health Clinic
Mountain Valleys Health Centers
National Hmong American Farmers
North Coast Clinics Network
North East Medical Services
Orange County Food Access
PDI Surgery Center
Pico Union Project
Sacramento Native American Health Center, Inc.
AB 2782
Page A
San Ysidro Health Center
SEIU California
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Sonoma County Indian Health Project
South Asian Network
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Street Level Health Project
Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center
UFCW Western States Council
United Nurses Association of California
Vision y Compromiso
Opposition
California Restaurant Association
AB 2782
Page B
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Californians for Food and Beverage Choice
PepsiCo
Analysis Prepared by:John Gilman / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097