BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1960
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 24, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Cathleen Galgiani, Chair
AB 1960 (Ma) - As Introduced: February 17, 2010
SUBJECT : Agriculture: fruits, nuts, and vegetables: California
Grown Act.
SUMMARY : Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding
California grown agricultural commodities. Requires the State
of California and its agencies to purchase California Grown
fruit, nuts and vegetables whenever possible if the quality is
comparable to, and the price is equal to or less, than imported
fruits, nuts and vegetables.
EXISTING LAW establishes the terms "California grown",
"California-grown" and similar terms with the same meaning, used
in labeling and advertising, only to identify food or
agricultural products that have been produced in the state or
harvested in its surface or coastal waters; allows the Secretary
(secretary) of the California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA) to further define "California Grown" and similar terms;
and, establishes penalties for mislabeling or fraudulent
labeling. (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) 43100)
Existing law also establishes the "Buy California Program"
within CDFA to encourage consumer nutritional and food awareness
and to foster purchases of high-quality California agricultural
products. (FAC 58750)
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed fiscal by Legislative
Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the author, California farmers compete
with farmers in other states and countries to provide fresh
produce paid for by state and federal funds. The author also
states that giving California grown produce a preference in
state purchasing will help California farmers stay in business,
helping to ensure Californians have access to fresh and healthy
foods, and reduce green house gasses associated with the
transportation of agricultural products into California.
Supporters of this bill state that California farmers are faced
with a competitive disadvantage due to subsidized imported
AB 1960
Page 2
produce and regulations that are more restrictive than other
state's and countries' regulations. Supporters believe this
bill will help with the competitive disadvantages farmers
contend with and reinvest tax dollars back into the California
economy.
According to the Buy California (BC) website, California is the
largest agricultural state in the United States (U.S.),
producing over 350 commodities. It is the sole U.S. producer of
many fruits and vegetables. Ironically, Californians take less
advantage of this agricultural bounty than other U.S. citizens,
eating 24% less fresh fruits and vegetables than the level
recommended by leading health experts. At the same time,
California farmers are losing their markets to foreign
competitors, rural unemployment is at an all time high, and
family farms are struggling.
The BC program created a partnership between government and
industry to promote consumption of California-grown agricultural
products to California consumers, benefiting both public health
and the state's economy.
The goal of the BC program is to create a cross-commodity
marketing campaign for agricultural products targeted at
Californians. The focus is on the concept of "California Grown"
to communicate quality and local pride and to prompt increased
consumer purchase of California products.
The California agricultural industry has consistently stated
that the California regulatory frame work has imposed added cost
on it that other states and countries do not have. The
regulatory framework, while making California produce safer and
healthier for consumers and the environment, does not add a
marketable value to the products.
While compliance with such a regulatory framework may not add
value, by directing the purchase of California produce, AB 1960
could contribute back to the local and state economies, and
local communities. The committee may wish to consider if the
policies of AB 1960, benefiting both public health and the
state's economy, is an appropriate use of state purchasing
dollars.
Previous legislative attempts to grant purchasing preference for
California grown agricultural commodities, or other California
AB 1960
Page 3
produced products, have either been vetoed or held in the
Legislature. Reasons for the Governors' vetoes ranged from cost
to the general fund, cost to local governments, and concerns
that the legislation "could result in costly legal challenges,
retaliation by other states and nations, and bid protests from
those claiming the preference should be granted and those
objecting to it."
RELATED LEGISLATION : AB 2994 (Frommer), of 2004 proposed
requiring state agencies to give preference to the purchase of
lumber and certain solid wood products harvested from forests in
California when price, fitness and quality are equal. This bill
was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
AB 801 (Salinas), of 2001 proposed requiring California state
owned or state run institutions to purchase agricultural
products grown in California before those that are grown outside
this state, provided the prices for California grown products do
not exceed the lowest price of products grown outside California
by more than five percent. It also included California public
schools, but only when price and quality were equal to products
grown outside California. This bill was vetoed by Governor
Davis.
SB 1893 (Perata), of 2000 proposed requiring state agencies and
school districts to purchase agricultural products produced in
California if the cost and quality are equal or superior to
those produced outside California. If California products were
not found to be equal, preference was to be given to products
produced in other states over foreign products, if the cost and
quality are equal. This bill was held on the Senate
Appropriations suspense file.
AB 214 (Wiggins), of 1999 proposed establishing preferences for
the purchase of U.S. and California manufactured materials, with
respect to public works contracts entered into by public
entities. The bill was vetoed by Governor Davis.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 1960
Page 4
California Apple Commission (Sponsor)
California Citrus Mutual
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Tomato Growers Association
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Victor Francovich / AGRI. / (916)
319-2084