BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
173 (Florez)
Hearing Date: 5/26/2009 Amended: 5/6/2009
Consultant: Bob Franzoia Policy Vote: Health 7-3, Ag 3-1
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 173 would require every food grower or food
processor that subjects the food it grows or processes to
testing to determine the presence of a microbe, pathogen,
poisonous chemical, or other harmful substance that may cause
food borne disease to maintain accurate records with the results
of these tests and report to the Department of Public Health
(DPH) the presence of any of the above. This bill would require
the State Public Health Officer (SPHO) to recall food if he or
she believes, based on standard practice or scientific research,
that the food may carry an illness, infection, pathogen, toxin,
or condition that without intervention could transmit an illness
affecting humans. Growers or processors of food that causes the
outbreak of a food-borne disease and is subject to a mandatory
recall shall be subject to certain conditions, including onsite
inspections by the Department of Food and Agriculture at a
specified frequency. The grower or processor would be liable
for the costs of the inspections.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
Food testing Unknown major costs ongoing to
processGeneral and review testing results
Food recalls Unknown costs General
_________________________________________________________________
___
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Based on the 2007 US Department of Agriculture census, there are
approximately 80,000 growers (farms) in the state. There are an
estimated 5,000 food processors in the state.
Likely a very high percentage of the food test results will
indicate the presence of a microbe, pathogen, poisonous chemical
or other harmful substance. Whether the presence of the
microbe, pathogen, poisonous chemical or other harmful substance
is at a level to represent a health hazard is not considered.
These test results would be reported to the Department of Public
Health (DPH) within one hour of receipt in accordance with DPH
regulations. With 85,000 growers and food processors reporting,
and many often reporting multiple times daily, the number of
test results will easily be thousands daily and hundreds of
thousands annually. This process will require a major
investment to process, review, store and respond to test results
overall and to respond on a nearly around the clock basis during
certain periods of the year.
For example, during the 90 day fruit and vegetable processing
season it is possible 8,000 tests for raw food products and
2,500 tests for processed food products may be
Page 2
SB 173 (Florez)
conducted per day. It is likely nearly all test results will be
within legal tolerances or limits. For the other months of the
year, raw food testing reports may average 1,000 per day or
180,000 test results annually.
For the estimated 5,000 food processors in the state, if one
half of those processors are conducting two tests per day, for
up to 180 days, or more, a year, DPH may receive up to 900,000
tests annually.
Staff recommends the bill be amended to require reporting of
only those tests where the result exceed tolerances or limits
set by the department and where the product has entered the
stream of commerce (where a grower or processor fails to destroy
the product upon review of a test result).
Under current law, the SPHO has the authority to embargo food
products suspected of carrying an illness, infection, pathogen,
contagion, toxin, or condition that could cause human illness.
The SPHO may call for a voluntary recall but cannot order a
recall.
The SPHO is assisted with recalls by local environmental health
officers. The level of local assistance depends on the level,
conditions and location of the recall. Local environmental
health officers are responsible for any follow-up and have some
fee authority to factor recall costs into the overall retail
permit fee. They do not have the authority to cost recover.
While local environmental health officers are generally better
positioned to reach consumers and may be able to intercept a
product before it has entered the stream of commerce, not all
have the same level of, or even any, resources and may be unable
to respond fully to complex or extended recalls.