BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND WATER RESOURCES
Jim Costa, Chairman
SB 1513 (Hayden)
As proposed to be amended
Hearing Date: April 11, 2000
Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Dennis Albiani
PURPOSE OF BILL:
To provide consumers with information concerning whether a food
product contains genetically engineered or transgenic organism
(GE/TO) by requiring food to be labeled on its package, in the
store bin, or as served in restaurants and other food
establishments. In addition, to create a process for foods in
California to be labeled as "free" of GE/TO. To require foods,
except organically labeled foods, to be tested for proof that
they do not contain GE/TO.
BACKGROUND:
The technology:
Biotechnology applications by humans date back to 1800 B.C.,
when people began using yeast to leaven bread and ferment wine.
By the 1860's, Gregor Mendel and others started breeding plants
through deliberate cross-pollination.
In the 1970's, a series of complementary advances in the field
of molecular biology provided scientists with the ability to
readily move DNA between more distantly related organisms.
Today, this recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology has reached a
stage that allows scientists to take a piece of DNA containing
one or more specific genes from nearly any organism, including
plants, animals and bacteria, and introduce it into a specific
crop species.
The ability to easily incorporate genetic material from
virtually any organism into many different crop plants has
reached the stage of commercial applicability. Examples of the
two most widely accepted commercial applications of rDNA
technology are: Soybeans and cotton varieties that are
resistant to herbicide and a corn variety that produces a
naturally occurring protein that is toxic to certain
Page 2
caterpillars, eliminating the need for many conventional
pesticides.
In 1999, approximately 99 million acres of GE/TO crops were
grown worldwide. It is believed that nearly 70% of all
processed food contains some GE/TO.
The issues :
Over the last several years mandatory labeling of foods
containing GE/TO has become an issue in some foreign countries.
In the European Union, foods containing GE/TO must be labeled.
A few European countries require restaurants to label if they
serve food made with GE/TO. Several other importing countries
are beginning to discuss mandatory labeling of this food
including Mexico and Japan.
Importing and exporting food containing GE/TO is becoming a
trade issue. Some countries are beginning to demand segregation
of food imports while others see this issue as a non-tariff
trade barrier. The controversy over this issue and trade was
demonstrated this past year at the World Trade Organization
talks in Seattle. Demonstrators protested and many of the
meetings were canceled.
In an attempt to address many of these trade concerns the United
Nations Convention on Biodiversity recently announced the
creation of the Biodiversity Protocol. This Biodiversity
Protocol will provide a regulatory framework for international
trade in bio-engineered products referred to as living modified
organisms (LMO). The protocol preserves countries' rights under
other international agreements. It requires that regulatory
decisions be based on risk assessments and sound science.
Countries should not be able to use unfounded concerns about
biodiversity as disguised trade barriers.
The protocol establishes a biosafety clearinghouse to help
countries exchange scientific, technical, environmental and
legal information about LMO's. Processed foods are not covered
by the protocol.
In 1992 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
developed its guidelines for foods containing GE/TO. Consistent
with the regulations governing all food, the FDA requires that
all food be safe and that food labels be accurate and not
misleading. If the content of a food is altered through the
Page 3
introduction of GE/TO in a manner that changes the food's
nutritional content, allergenic principles, and toxicity it must
be labeled accordingly. Under the federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act, companies have a legal obligation to ensure that
any food they sell meets the safety standards of the law. This
applies equally to conventional food and bioengineered food.
FDA has developed a consultation process for industry to work
directly with FDA as new foods containing GE/TO are developed.
PROPOSED LAW:
This bill establishes definitions for several scientifically
based terms relating to genetic engineering in foods including:
Defines "Genetically Engineered and Transgenic Products" by
the technique used to alter the molecular cell biology. The
definition includes, but is not limited to, the transfer of
non species related DNA through any technique. The definition
excludes some techniques including wide crosses, embryo
rescue, and induced mutation.
Defines "Genetically Engineered and Transgenic Organism" as
any living organism whose genetic makeup has been altered
through the techniques outlined in the above definition.
The bill requires labels for all fresh fruit and vegetables,
processed foods, food supplements, vitamins, and foodstuffs that
contain a "detectable" portion of genetically engineered,
transgenic organisms. The label must say "Consumer Notice:
Contains Genetically Engineered or Transgenic Organisms." This
measures prescribes requirements for the label including size,
color, density, and format.
This bill would allow for products to be labeled free of GE/TO
if they have been tested at a "certified laboratory" and provide
evidence that the product contains less than .01% GE/TO
ingredients.
This bill provides an exemption for products that are properly
labeled as "certified organic" from the labeling requirement.
This measure creates exemptions for foods that use GE/TO aids
during processing, such as enzymes for fermentation, but do not
contain detectable residues and an exemption for animals
intended for human consumption that eat feed or are given
prescription drugs containing GE/TO.
Page 4
This bill would require restaurants, bakeries, or other
establishments that prepare food to label with the consumer
notice if the end product is made from ingredients with GE/TO.
This measure requires testing by the California Department of
Food and Agriculture of samples from food producers who wish to
not have to label their product as containing GE/TO and creates
a misdemeanor punishable by not more than 30 days in jail and/or
a fine of $2,500 for violation of these provisions.
COMMENTS:
Supporters of mandatory labeling of foods containing GE/TO state
that it is simply the "consumers right to know" what they are
eating and labels will provide a means for consumers to make
informed choices about their food. They site polls that find
consumers desire mandatory labels for food products created with
GE/TO. Labels for these products are required in some European
countries, and consumers in the United States should receive the
same information as European consumers.
The bills supporters state that precedent for labeling food
production processes exist with "organically grown" and "kosher"
labels, although it should be noted these are not mandatory
labels. The supporters believe the current process of approving
new foods in the United States has no requirement that the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) take an affirmative action to
approve a food containing elements that have been genetically
engineered. Finally, it is proposed by the bills supporters that
a clear and unambiguous label could provide a simple means of
tracing a potential food safety problem in the event of an
adverse reaction.
Opponents of this measure believe that federal uniformity in
food labeling is paramount. They believe that if each state
chooses a different labeling scheme, requirements, and
definition it will lead to many challenges concerning food
labeling, distribution, and production. Additionally, national
uniformity provides consumers with consistent product
information across the nation.
Furthermore, opponents state FDA's existing guidelines for
genetically engineered food is consistent with the manner that
all food is treated. FDA labels food based on the contents of
the food item, not the process in which it was produced. If the
addition of a genetically engineered organism leads to the food
Page 5
content being altered in one of three ways, allergenic
principle, toxicity, or nutritional content it would require
appropriate labeling. Finally, opponents note that no
scientific study has identified any health or food safety
concerns linked to foods containing GE/TO.
The measure proposes to create three classes of food in
California: 1) food created with GE/TO that must be labeled
with the prescribed consumer notice; 2) food that is certified
as "GE/TO free" and is labeled accordingly; and 3) food that
does not contain GE/TO but the producers do not want to go
through the expense and process of certifying their food as
"GE/TO free".
The way the bill is currently written it requires the default
class of food to carry the consumer notice that the product
contains GE/TO. Section 17598 creates a requirement that food
producers who do not want to place the consumer notice on all
their food would at least need to submit samples to the
Department of Food and Agriculture to prove the "absence of
GE/TO." Therefore, if a farmer or producer was growing food as
he or she has for many years on the same trees or vines, he or
she has two alternatives; label the food with the consumer
notice even though it was clearly not grown with GE/TO or be
required to submit samples to the department for testing. To
alleviate this problem, the committee may wish to consider
either removing this section, or delete the section and develop
a section that gives the proper state agency the power to
develop a regulatory scheme of random testing for the purpose of
policing this article.
If the committee chooses to retain this section, the measure
should be amended to allow the Department of Food and
Agriculture to develop regulations and collect fees to
administer this "sampling" program.
The definition of "Genetically Engineered and Transgenic
Products" uses the term " includes, but is not limited to , the
transfer of non species related DNA through any technique."
Some researchers argue that this definition is too broad and may
encompass some techniques not intended. The definition excludes
some techniques including wide crosses, embryo rescue, and
induced mutation. The authors office indicates they are most
concerned with the process of transferring recombinant DNA
(rDNA). The committee may wish to discuss narrowing the
definition to more precisely focus on the authors intent.
Page 6
The measure as proposed contains three standards that are
inconsistent. Foods can have no " detectable portion of the
novel DNA or its gene products," or they require the consumer
notice. To be labeled "GE/TO free," food may contain no more
than "0.1 percent GE/TO ingredients ." A third standard requires
samples to have an " absence of GE/TO " to avoid a label.
It is unclear whether this bill attempts to create an exemption
from the consumer notice for properly labeled organic foods, or
if it requires food carrying the "certified organic" label to be
free of GE/TO. The committee may wish to clarify this provision
of the bill.
The measure creates an exemption for livestock and fowl grown or
produced on GE/TO " feedstuffs " and " prescription " drugs. Many
drugs that require a "prescription" for humans such as
antibiotics, parasitic controlling drugs, and penicillin, do not
require a prescription for animal uses. By including the
qualifier "prescription drugs" livestock produced with
prescription drugs will be exempt, while livestock produced with
non-prescription drugs will require the consumer notice.
Limiting the exemption to feedstuffs will require labeling for
livestock produced with growth hormones containing GE/TO and
many other implements of husbandry while exempting livestock
raised on GE/TO feed. The committee may wish to include all
drugs and supplements in this exemption.
The section establishing a method for labeling as "GE/TO free"
requires testing at a "certified laboratory." The bill does not
define what a "certified laboratory" is or establish the
parameters for certification. The committee may wish to
consider authorizing the proper state agency, such as the
Department of Food and Agriculture, to develop a certification
process for laboratories.
It is unclear what requirements would be placed on a restaurant
or other food preparation establishment such as a school lunch
program or bakery. This article, when referencing food,
discusses labeling on the package or the food itself and
prescribes certain requirements for the label. Once the food is
prepared and presented on a plate, obvious challenges with
labeling arise. The authors office states that other labeling
schemes such as the Proposition 65 warning sign or placing the
consumer notice on the menu may be adequate. Nevertheless, the
committee may wish to consider specific considerations for
Page 7
restaurants and other food preparation establishments.
The Senate Committee on Rules requests that any do-pass motion
include a re-referral of this bill to the Senate Rules
Committee.
SUPPORT:
Abiquiu Organics
Alliance for Bio-diversity
Alliance for Democracy of Indiana
American Corn Growers Association
Breast Cancer Fund
California Public Interest Research Group
California State Naturopathy Medical Association
Calvary Church Tennessee
Campaign for Food Safety
Center for Environmental Health
Center for environmental Health
Center for Ethics and Toxics
Center of Concern, Washington D.C.
Community Health Advocates
Consumers Choice Council
Consumers Union
Corporate Agribusiness Research Project
Council for Responsible Genetics
Earth Communications Office
Earth Justice Ministries
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
Environmental Health Coalition
Environmental Health Fund
Environmental Media Association
Episcopal Diocese of California, Commission for the Environment
Food and Farming Forum
Food First/Institute for food and policy development
Foundation on Economic Trends
Friends of the Earth
Green Party of St. Louis
Health Care Without Harm
Indicators Program, Redefining Progress
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Institute for World Religions
Mendocino Environmental Center
Mothers and Others for a Livable Planet
Mothers for Natural Law
Natural Resource Defense Council
Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides
Page 8
Occidental Arts and Ecology Center
Organic Consumers Association
Our Lady of Victoria Missionary Sisters
Pesticide Action Network of the United States
Pesticide Watch
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Rural Advancement Foundation
Rural Vermont
Shalom Center, Philadelphia
Sierra Club
Soul of Agriculture
Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
Texas Organic Growers Association
The Constellation Fund
The Edmonds Institute
The Foundation on Economic Trends
The Humane Society of the United States
The Natural Law Party of the US
United States Public Interest Research Group
Washington Biotechnology Action Council
Western Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
7 individuals
OPPOSED:
Agricultural Council of California
California Bean Shippers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grain and Feed Association
California Grocers Association
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers Association
California Poultry Industry Federation
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Seed Association
Grocery Manufacturers of America
National Food Processors Association
Western Growers Association