BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE FOOD and AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
Senator Dean Florez, Chairman
BILL NO: SB 416 HEARING: 4/21/09
AUTHOR: Florez FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 4/16/09 CONSULTANT: John Chandler
Antibiotics.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Pupil Nutrition, Health, and Achievement Act of 2001 (Act)
established by SB 19 (Chapter 913, Statues of 2001) specifies
school nutrition standards for elementary schools. The Act also
identifies nutrition standards for beverages and snacks for
secondary schools.
Existing law specifies that the California Department of Food
and Agriculture is responsible for the enforcement of
regulations relating to the sale, manufacture, and use of
livestock drugs in California.
Current law identifies specific "restricted drugs" which might
present a hazard to human health if administered directly to
humans or if improperly administered to livestock is dangerous
to the health of the livestock or to humans who consumer the
products from the livestock. Restricted drugs must be sold from
a CDFA-licensed business. A licensed facility may be inspected
by CDFA for proper storage and handling. CDFA may restrict what
drugs may be sold by the business. Licensed businesses must
maintain records of the quantity of restricted drugs sold, date
of sale, purchaser, and other information. The list of
"restricted drugs" includes all of the following: arsenic
compounds and preparations, diethylstilbestrol and other
substances which have a hormone like action, antibiotic
preparations, and other drugs and their preparations which CDFA
determines are hazardous to the health of livestock or public
safety.
PROPOSED LAW
SB 416 will do the following:
Prohibit schools or school districts from serving
poultry or meat products treated with nontherapeutic
antibiotics to students by January 1, 2012.
Prohibit the use of antibiotics for nontherapeutic or
prophylactic use in any animal raised for human consumption
SB 416 - Page 2
by January 1, 2015.
Require state and local government officials purchasing
meat products for human consumption to prefer meat products
produced without the use of medically important antibiotics
as feed additives.
COMMENTS
1.According to the author, SB 416 would reduce human exposure to
antibiotics through their food supply which may lead to
increased antibiotic resistance in human bacteria or a
"superbug." SB 416 starts California along the path already
taken by many countries in Europe and in South Korea toward
reducing public consumption of antibiotic-treated meat
products.
In 2003, the World Health Organization concluded there is
evidence of human health consequences from agricultural use of
antibiotics, including infections that would not have
otherwise occurred, increased frequency of treatment failures,
and increased severity of infections. That same year, the
National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine stated
that there needs to be reductions in both overuse of
antibiotics in humans and overuse in agriculture to address
concerns of bacterial resistance. In 2007, a Consumer Reports
study of store-bought chicken found 84% of the chicken carried
some form of bacteria, a majority of which showed resistance
to one or more antibiotics.
2.Opponents of this bill argue that prohibiting the use of
nontherapeutic antibiotics in California will lead to
increased use of therapeutic antibiotics, many commonly used
on humans, as they state was found in some European countries
that currently ban nontherapeutic antibiotics. Further, some
of the most common nontherapeutic antibiotics such as
"ionophores" are not used on humans and may not be related to
human resistance. In 2006, an Institute of Food Technologies
report indicated human health benefits from subtherapeutic
antibiotic use to prevent disease in food animals and reduce
levels of Salmonella-contaminated poultry.
Opponents also argue that banning nontherapeutic antibiotics
will reduce animal welfare by taking away illness prevention
tools from the rancher. Opponents feel the bill does not
address the needs of managing disease outbreaks in large herds
SB 416 - Page 3
or flocks as it is not always practical to "spot treat"
diseased animals in a large population. The loss of
nontherapeutic antibiotics would also reduce the productivity
of California animal agriculture, putting California at a
disadvantage against imported meat and poultry products where
nontherapeutic antibiotics are permitted.
3.SB 416 would seek to prohibit the use of nontherapeutic
antibiotics in California agriculture by 2015. However, there
is currently no clear definition for "nontherapeutic
antibiotic." The committee may want to consider adding an
amendment to clearly define "nontherapeutic antibiotic."
4.The Senate Rules Committee has doubled referred this bill to
the Senate Education Committee as the second committee of
referral. Therefore, if this measure is approved by this
committee, the motion should include an action to re-refer the
bill to the Senate Committee on Education.
SUPPORT
Consumers Union
Food & Water Watch
OPPOSITION
Alpharma
California Dairies Inc.
California Dairy Campaign
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grain & Feed Association
California Poultry Federation
California Veterinary Medical Association
Central Coast Fryer Farms
Foster Poultry Farms
Land O' Lakes Inc.
Milk Producers Council
Neighborhood Market Association
Pacific Egg & Poultry Association
Pitman Farms
Squab Producers of California
United Food and Commercial Workers
Western United Dairymen
Willie Bird Turkeys
Woodland Farms
SB 416 - Page 4