BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                          SB 1334  
                                                         Page 1

Date of Hearing: June 11, 1997

                 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                     Dennis Cardoza, Chairman

        SB 1334  (Costa) - As Introduced: February 28, 1997

  SENATE VOTE  :  37-0

  SUBJECT  :  False or disparaging comments about agricultural  
products.

  SUMMARY  :  This bill requires the California Department of Food and  
Agriculture (CDFA) to commission a study, with an appropriate  
entity, to determine the economic effect of false or disparaging  
remarks made against agricultural products produced in California.  
 Specifically,  this bill  :

1) Directs CDFA to conduct research and report to the legislature  
   by March 15, 1998 the effect that false and disparaging  
   statements against California agricultural products has had on  
   the state's economy in the last ten years.

  EXISTING LAW  :  

1) Provides for CDFA and gives the department the responsibility  
   of executing the provisions of the Food and Agriculture Code.

  FISCAL EFFECT  : Potential cost to CDFA of $36,000 to $75,000.

  COMMENTS  :  The bill before the committee is a study bill.  The  
arguments employed by the support and opposition of this bill will  
pertain to larger legal and constitutional issues. One such issue  
is the adequacy of existing torts and statute relative to group  
libel causes of action. Proponents will argue that there is  
ambiguity in the law that precludes group libel causes of action.   
Opponents will argue that existing law is adequate.

Proponents of SB 1334, offer anecdotal evidence of events where  
false or disparaging statements about agricultural products have  
precipitated a drop in the market price for those products.  
Proponents believe that the state's economy suffers when false and  
disparaging statements are made about California grown  
agricultural products.  It is reasoned that the study authorized  
by this bill will measure any affects that statements of this  
nature have on the state's economy. 

Opponents argue that this bill is merely a prelude to the  
re-introduction of last session's AB 558 (Bordonaro) which would  
have created a cause of action for persons injured by false or  
disparaging statements made about their agricultural product.   
They argue that the study is tailored to examine the effects of  
mostly farm worker union and environmentalist activities.  
Moreover, the study's completion date is timed to coincide with  
policy committee hearings in 1998, which opponents argue is ideal  
timing to roll out the results of the study, presumably in support  







                                                          SB 1334  
                                                         Page 2

of a bill similar to AB 558.

In the larger context of the debate opponents contend that these  
bills are aimed at quieting labor union and environmentalist  
activities. They argue that growers are looking for another legal  
tool to use against individuals or 
organizations that may make unflattering claims about how growers  
use labor or pesticides. 

Any single agricultural commodity is grown by a multitude of  
different farmers who utilize numerous different cultural and  
labor practices. Generally, an agricultural producer's fate is in  
hands of the public's perception of his or her product without  
regard to the grower's farming or labor practices.

Agricultural markets, especially perishable commodities, tend to  
be some of the most volatile markets in the economy.  Market  
responses to externalities are realized in minutes not hours or  
days.  Often, these markets are characterized by short production  
seasons, which require growers to recapture their entire costs for  
a year within a short time frame.

At least twelve other states including Arizona and Florida have  
enacted statutory protections for perishable agricultural  
commodities. 

Assemblyman Tom Bordonaro carried a similar bill this session, AB  
1311.



  REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

  Support  

Agricultural Council of California
California Cattlemen's Association
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Growers Association
California Egg Commission
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fisheries and Seafood Institute
California Grain and Feed Association
California Grape and Tree Fruit League
California Rice Industry Association
California Seed Association
California State Floral Association
California Strawberry Commission
Pacific Egg and Poultry Association
Western Growers Association
Western United Dairymen

  Opposition  

California Labor Federation
Consumer Attorneys of California







                                                          SB 1334  
                                                         Page 3

Department of Finance
Planning and Conservation League
United Farm Workers of America


  Analysis prepared by  :  Dominic DiMare  / aag  / (916) 445-1918