BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2137
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Cathleen Galgiani, Chair
AB 2137 (Chesbro) - As Introduced: February 18, 2010
SUBJECT : Fertilizing material: misbranding: labels.
SUMMARY : Provides an exemption to labeling claims under
California fertilizer misbranding laws for certified lab (lab)
analysis that show nutrient contents of compost, cocompost or
mulch.
EXISTING LAW prohibits a person from distributing misbranded
fertilizing materials and provides specified conditions under
which a fertilizing material will be deemed to be misbranded.
Violations for misbranding range from $1,000 to $5,000 for each
offense. (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) Section 14681,
14651-14651.5)
Requires CDFA to evaluate organic input materials, which include
compost, and report if and how these materials should be
regulated. The report is due by January 1, 2012. (FAC Section
14853.5)
Defines compost as a controlled biological decomposition of
organic materials; cocompost as a blend of compost and
biosolids, animal manure, food residue or fish processing
byproducts; and, mulch as material, including, but not limited
to, lawn clippings and wood byproducts, broken down by chipping
and grinding. Compost, cocompost and mulch must also be
produced by a public or private supplier that is in compliance
with the Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery's
composting operations regulatory requirements. (Public Contract
Code Section (PCC) Section 12207)
For the purpose of fertilizer, defines compost as biologically
stable material derived from the composting process. (FAC
Section 14525)
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal by Legislative
Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the author, composters regularly provide
independent analysis of the nutrient content in their compost.
AB 2137
Page 2
The results of recent lab analyses are provided to customers as
an indication of nutrient levels in the compost. This is done
on a voluntary basis and in concurrence with a variety of
certification programs. Lab analysis also tests for pathogens
and heavy metals, per the United State's Environmental
Protection Agency's Class A standards.
Supporters state that the nutrient content of finished compost
is subject to significant variability based on the many factors.
Nutrient levels determined in these voluntarily-provided lab
analyses fluctuate. This limits the guarantee that nutrient
content will remain the same over time.
According to the author, composters have been informed by the
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) they are
not allowed to provide nutrient lab analysis with bulk compost
sales without that lab analysis representing a labeling claim.
Once a labeling claim has been made, a product must be
registered with CDFA and the nutrient levels must remain
consistent. Supporters maintain this is a difficult standard
for compost to maintain, due to the nature of the product. This
action is a result of AB 856 (Caballero), Chapter 257, Statutes
of 2009, which was responding to a lack of oversight by CDFA in
dealing with the organic fertilizers industry.
Supporters state the farmer and nursery customers
request/require the full analysis of nutrient information, not
just the report on pathogens and heavy metals. It is the
nutrient portion of the lab analysis that provides the most
value to the compost customers. Without that component to the
lab analysis, composters say they will lose customers and in
turn harm the industry as a whole. This is the reason why
industry and the author state the bill is necessary.
Opponents state that plant nutrient products must meet the
nutrient guarantees of lab analysis provided to growers and
agricultural retailers. To expect growers or retailers to
differentiate between when a lab analysis is being presented as
a guarantee and when it is not, is unfair to consumers and will
contribute to confusion in the marketplace. Opponents also say
this bill is inappropriate until the stakeholder committee has
reviewed the issue and made its recommendations to CDFA and is
contrary to the intent of AB 856.
Compost is defined in FAC twice: for the purpose of fertilizer
AB 2137
Page 3
(FAC Section 14525) and for the purpose of pesticide
contamination of compost (FAC Section 13190). FAC has no
specific definition for cocompost or mulch. The definitions of
compost, cocompost and mulch used in this bill are related to
the State Agency Buy Recycled Campaign and are to be used in
state purchasing programs (PCC Section 12153-12217).
Furthermore, PCC Section 12207 definitions mean items used for
soil amendments, erosion controls, soil toppings, ground covers,
weed suppressants, and organic materials used for water
conservation. While soil amendments are listed as fertilizing
materials in FAC (FAC Section 14533), they are defined as any
substance used for plant growth or crop improvement through
solely physical means. (FAC Section 14552)
1)The committee may wish to consider if the FAC definition for
compost as it relates to fertilizer or the PCC definition as
it relates to soil amendments is better suited to fulfill the
purpose of California's fertilizer misbranding laws.
2)If PCC definition is better suited for the purpose of this
law, the committee may wish to consider adding the PCC
definitions of compost, cocompost and mulch to FAC.
CDFA's Fertilizer Inspection Advisory Board (FIAB) is forming a
committee to evaluate organic input materials, which include
compost, and report if and how these materials should be
regulated. The report is due by January 1, 2012, and may affect
compost, cocompost and mulch products. The committee may wish
to consider placing a sunset date in this bill of December 31,
2015. With a sunset, the Legislature will revisit this issue
again after CDFA and FIAB have issued its report and the
industry has had a chance to review and respond.
On page 2, lines 23-24 state "does not constitute a label claim
for purpose of this chapter." This may be overly broad and have
unintended consequences. The committee may wish to consider the
following language to cover the stated intent of the author:
" is not deemed a misbranded label for the purpose of this
article. "
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION : AB 856 expanded definitions and added a
new definition to CDFA's fertilizer program statutes, adding new
requirements, fees and penalties.
AB 2137
Page 4
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Bio-Mass, Inc
California Compost Coalition
Californians Against Waste
Nortech Waste
Recology
Tracy Delta Solid Waste Management, Inc
Tulare County Compost and Biomass, Inc
Zanker Road Resource Management, Ltd.
Z-Best Products
Opposition
Western Plant Health Association
Analysis Prepared by : Victor Francovich / AGRI. / (916)
319-2084