BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HEALTH
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
Senator Sheila J. Kuehl, Chair
BILL NO: SB 1420
S
AUTHOR: Padilla
B
AMENDED: As introduced
HEARING DATE: March 26, 2008
1
FISCAL: Appropriations
4
CONSULTANT:
2
Park/sh
0
SUBJECT
Food facilities: nutritional information
SUMMARY
This bill requires food facilities, as defined, to make
specified nutritional information available to customers.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing federal law:
Existing federal law establishes the Nutrition Labeling and
Education Act, which requires all packaged foods sold
outside of restaurants to include nutritional content
information on the packaging. Existing federal law also
requires restaurants to provide nutritional content
information on food items for which a nutrient or
health-related claim is made by the restaurant.
Existing state law:
Existing state law establishes the California Retail Food
Code (CRFC), which imposes various health and safety
requirements on restaurants, and makes violations of these
requirements subject to criminal penalties. CRFC
establishes the authority of local environmental health
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1420 (Padilla) Page
2
jurisdictions to adopt a food safety inspection program
with oversight by the State Department of Public Health.
This bill:
This bill would require each food facility that shares the
same trade name with at least fourteen other food
facilities in the state, regardless of ownership, to make
nutritional information available to consumers for all
standard menu items, defined as items that are on a menu
for six months or longer, exclusive of condiments,
alcoholic beverages, and other items placed on a table or
counter for general use without charge. The nutritional
information that would be required would include, but not
be limited to, total calories, saturated fat, trans fat,
carbohydrates and sodium.
The bill would also require a conspicuous statement
regarding recommended limits for saturated fat and sodium
in a 2,000 calorie daily diet on each page of a menu.
Food facilities that use only a menu board would be
required to provide, on the menu board, the total number of
calories per item and to make the nutritional information,
mentioned above, available upon request, in writing, and at
the point of sale. Food facilities that use a menu board
in addition to a printed menu would be allowed to limit the
nutritional information listed on the menu board to the
total number of calories per item.
The bill would require nutritional information to be based
on verifiable analyses and would allow certain disclaimers
to be provided on menus and menu boards. The bill would
exempt certified farmers' markets, commissaries, licensed
health care facilities, mobile support units, public and
private school cafeterias, restricted food service
facilities, temporary food facilities, vending machines,
and grocery stores, as specified, from the provisions of
the bill, and would provide for enforcement and penalties.
FISCAL IMPACT
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis
of a similar measure, the bill would result in one-time
costs in excess of $100,000 for the Department of Public
Health to develop regulations to clarify implementation and
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1420 (Padilla) Page
3
enforcement, and on-going annual costs of approximately
$100,000 to maintain and update the list of applicable
restaurants and to monitor local enforcement activities.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Purpose of the bill
The author believes that, because Americans are
increasingly relying on restaurants for their meals, it is
vital that nutrition information be available at the point
of purchase in order that consumers may make an informed
decision. The author posits that few people would guess
that a tuna salad sandwich from a typical deli has 50
percent more calories than a roast beef sandwich with
mustard; that a small milkshake has more calories than a
Big Mac; or that the barbecue ribs on a children's menu has
fewer calories than chicken nuggets. The author further
highlights that appetizers and desserts can account for
more than half of one's daily calorie intake, such as a
slice of carrot cake from the Cheesecake Factory (at 1,560
calories), or a caf? mocha and pastry from Starbucks (at
1,000 calories).
The author states that Americans rank nutrition second only
to taste in determining their food purchases and that
studies have found that consumers make more healthful
choices when nutrition information is placed directly on
the menu. The author underscores that basic nutritional
information is extremely important to consumers who are
dealing with chronic diseases like heart disease and
diabetes, and believes that this measure is an important
step in fighting the growing obesity epidemic.
Eating out
Studies have shown that eating out more frequently is
associated with obesity, higher body fat or higher BMI, and
that eating more fast-food meals is linked to eating more
calories, more saturated fat, fewer fruits and vegetables,
and less milk.
According to a report issued by the Center for Science in
the Public Interest (CSPI) in 2003, Americans spent about
46 percent of their food dollars at restaurants (source:
National Restaurant Association), compared with 26 percent
in 1970. According to the USDA, calories consumed at
restaurants (or away-from-home foods) as a part of the diet
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1420 (Padilla) Page
4
had doubled from 18 percent to 34 percent by 1995.
Obesity epidemic
Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United
States, affecting one-third of all adults, 27 percent of
children, and 21 percent of adolescents. Former Surgeon
General David Satcher has stated that, "Overweight and
obesity may soon cause as much preventable disease and
death as cigarette smoking."
A recent RAND study (March, 2002) reported that, "The
health risks of obesity [are] worse than smoking, drinking
or poverty." The study reports that obesity is linked to
higher medical costs and very high rates of chronic
illnesses, higher than living in poverty, and much higher
than smoking or drinking.
In some school districts in California, 50 percent of the
students are overweight. Overweight youth face increased
risks of many serious health problems that, traditionally,
have not commonly occurred during childhood, including type
2 diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis, and
osteoporosis. More than 80 percent of obese adolescents
remain obese as adults, with even more severe consequences,
including higher risks of heart disease and cancer.
California Obesity Prevention Plan
In September 2006, the Department of Health Services
released the California Obesity Prevention Plan to serve as
a guide for each sector of society to take part in creating
the shift to healthy eating and active living. The plan
identifies recommendations for action for all sectors to
make sustainable changes in physical activity and food
environments. The plan organized strategic actions around
four goals, including "supporting local assistance grants
and implementing multi-sectoral policy strategies to create
healthy eating and active living community environments."
(Goal 3) Within the framework of this larger goal, the plan
recommends posting calorie information per serving on all
menus and menu boards at restaurants and encourage healthy
food options on all menus.
Governor's veto
In October 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 120
(Padilla), a measure identical to this one. The veto
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1420 (Padilla) Page
5
message stated:
As written, SB 120 would place burdens and costs upon
some restaurant owners while imposing no burdens or
costs on others. In addition, this bill provides
restaurants with little flexibility for how they
provide consumers with nutritional information. From
brochures to tray liners, many restaurants are
responding to consumer demand by providing nutritional
information to their customers in a variety of ways.
Further, more and more companies are making detailed
information available online, allowing consumers to
compare one restaurant's healthy dining options to
another.
Inflexible mandates applied sporadically are not an
effective way to continue our
progress in educating Californians about healthy
living. Restaurants throughout
California have demonstrated that they are committed
to working with me to promote this goal. In vetoing
this bill, I am calling upon the restaurant community
to reiterate this commitment and continue to work with
me, the proponents of this bill, and all Californians
in developing effective ways to promote healthy dining
options.
Related legislation
AB 2572 (Parra) of 2008 would require chain restaurants
with more than 20 locations in California to disclose
prescribed nutrition information for standard food items by
several methods within the facility. The bill would allow
food facilities to provide calorie information only under
specified circumstances. The bill would provide for
enforcement and penalties after January 1, 2010. Pending in
Assembly Health.
SB 120 (Padilla) of 2007 was identical to this measure.
Vetoed by the Governor.
SB 180 (Migden) of 2007 would have required a food facility
to make nutritional information available to the consumer
upon request. These provisions were amended out of the
bill.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1420 (Padilla) Page
6
Prior legislation
SB 679 (Ortiz) of 2003 would have required restaurants to
make nutritional information immediately available to
customers, upon request, in a take-away form, and post a
sign stating that the information is available. This bill
failed passage in the Assembly Health Committee.
SB 1171 (Ortiz) of 2004 would have required restaurants to
make nutritional information immediately available to
customers, upon request, in a take-away form, and post a
sign stating that the information is available. The bill
was never heard.
Arguments in support
Supporters like the California Center for Public Health
Advocacy and the American Cancer Society write that people
need access to nutritional information to make informed
choices about diets. Supporters believe that, without the
type of information that SB 1420 provides, people are
forced to guess about a food's nutritional content, and
those guesses are often wrong. They believe the bill
ensures that barriers to information are minimized and that
consistency would exist across facilities.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors and the Berkeley
City Council write that approximately two-thirds of the
largest chain restaurants do not provide any nutritional
information about their foods and that the current system
of voluntary labeling at restaurants is inadequate given
the large role that restaurant foods play in Americans'
diets.
The California Medical Association (CMA) writes that
obesity results from a complex interaction of many
dynamics-socio-economic, environmental, cultural, genetic,
and physiological, and, therefore, no individual approach
is enough. CMA states that, in addition to counseling
patients about the importance of healthy eating and
exercise, arming consumers with more information about the
nutritional value of food they consume outside the home is
an appropriate way to address the obesity epidemic.
Arguments in opposition
Several restaurants and individuals write that this measure
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1420 (Padilla) Page
7
does not take into consideration the realities and
impracticality of a one-size-fits-all menu labeling
mandate. Some opponents instead support a competing
measure, AB 2572 (Parra), which would apply to chain
restaurants of 20 or more and would allow restaurants to
provide information to their consumers in the ways they
believe work best for both their customers and the
restaurant.
The California Retailers Association and the California
Restaurant Association, which support AB 2572 (Parra),
state that many California restaurants already provide
nutritional information to their customers, and that, while
they share the goal of this measure, they disagree on the
"mechanics."
The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) writes that
providing nutritional information on all foods served is
impractical as there are hundreds, if not thousands, of
possible combinations of foods that can be ordered in
restaurants. CalChamber also states that, while experts
acknowledge that obesity is a function of how much an
individual consumes in relation to how much physical
activity is undertaken, responsibility still lies with the
individual, and that providing nutritional information will
not prevent obesity. CalChamber also writes that it will be
costly for restaurants to determine the nutritional content
of every menu item and have their menus reprinted, and that
some of these costs will likely be passed on to the
consumer or result in fewer offerings.
The California Alliance for Consumer Protection believes
that this measure should not be limited to chain
restaurants.
POSITIONS
Support: California Center for Public Health Advocacy
(sponsor)
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
American Cancer Society
American College of Cardiology, California Chapter
American Heart Association
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1420 (Padilla) Page
8
Berkeley City Council
California Association for Health, Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance
California Center for Public Health Advocacy
California Chiropractic Association
California Medical Association
California Nurses Association
California Optometric Association (co-sponsor)
Catholic Healthcare West
California WIC Association
Consumer Federation of California
Dental Health Foundation
Gray Panthers, California
Health Officers Association of California
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital
Marin County Board of Supervisors
PolicyLink
Prevention Insitute
Roll International
Stanford Hospital & Clinics
Stanford School of Medicine
St. Joseph Health System
Strategic Alliance for Healthy Food and Activity
Hundreds of individuals
Oppose:
California Alliance for Consumer Protection
CalChamber
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
Councilmember Jerry Duncan, City of Fresno
International Franchise Association
Rodrick Management Group
Rubio's Fresh Mexican Grill
Wendy's International, Inc.
Hundreds of individuals
-- END --