BILL ANALYSIS
SB 550
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 7, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Mary Hayashi, Chair
SB 550 (Florez) - As Amended: May 20, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 26-11
SUBJECT : Public health: food product recall technology.
SUMMARY : Requires a grocery store or grocery department to
notify employees and customers of product recalls though their
point of sale system, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a grocery store or grocery department that uses a
point-of-sale system and is informed that a product that the
grocery store or grocery department offers for sale is subject
to a recall that applies to all products with the same
Universal Product Code (UPC) to ensure that the point-of-sale
system notifies the employee and the consumer that the product
is subject to a recall when the product is scanned through the
point-of-sale system.
2)Defines the following terms:
a) "Grocery department" means a food facility, as defined,
within a general retail merchandise store that is engaged
primarily in the retail sale of packaged food, instead of
food prepared for immediate consumption on or off the
premises;
b) "Grocery store" means a food facility, as defined, that
is engaged primarily in the retail sale of packaged food,
instead of food prepared for immediate consumption on or
off the premises; and,
c) "Point-of-sale system" means any computer or electronic
system used by a retail establishment such as UPC scanners,
price lookup codes, or an electronic price lookup system as
a means for determining the price of the item being
purchased by a consumer.
EXISTING LAW requires a meat or poultry supplier, distributor,
broker, or processor that sells meat or poultry related products
in California meeting the criteria for a Class I or Class II
SB 550
Page 2
recall according to the United States Department of Agriculture
guidelines to immediately notify the State Department of Public
Health (DPH) and to provide DPH with a list of all customers,
and additional specified information, that have received or will
receive any product subject to recall that the supplier,
distributor, broker, or processor has handled or anticipates
handling.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS :
Purpose of this bill . According to the author's office, "The
latest major recall involving peanut butter tainted with
salmonella - impacting items from snacks, to dog food to diet
products - demonstrated the challenges a widespread outbreak
presents in identifying which products are or are not impacted.
"There is no fail-proof way to ensure all recalled products
which have already been shelved are identified and pulled, other
than to have those items trigger an alert when scanned at
check-out. Once an item has made it out of the plant, off the
truck and onto the shelves and is recalled, it is unreasonable
to think an individual stocker can go through every shelf and
identify every item that could pose a threat. In fact, I have
had staffers from my office easily purchase items subject to
recall at local grocery stores. I believe grocers have the
tools at their disposal to give consumers the final line of
defense they need and expect. Currently, a retail scanning
system can easily track price changes. It is not impossible to
use technology to avoid a public health problem. Grocery stores
such Kroger's and Food 4 Less currently implement a food recall
procedure where a customer is alerted at the check-out register.
"The recent salmonella outbreak in peanut products is the latest
example of how contaminated foods can end up on store shelves,
threatening consumer safety. The largest recall in U.S. history
is linked to approximately 650 illnesses and nine deaths across
44 states. Over 2,100 products have been voluntarily recalled
by more than 200 companies, and the list continues to grow.
There must be measures in place to ensure that recalled food is
not sold to unsuspecting customers.
SB 550
Page 3
"There is a lack of confidence that recalled products are
actually recalled. It is for these reasons that I have
introduced SB 550."
Background .
Recent Salmonella and E. coli outbreaks and recalls . The
recent Salmonella outbreak in peanut products is the latest
example of how contaminated foods can end up on store shelves,
threatening consumer safety. This was the largest recall in
U.S. history, linked to nearly 700 illnesses and nine deaths
across 44 states. The products were originally produced in
southwest Georgia, but were distributed across the U.S.
According to the Center for Disease Control, this outbreak began
in September of 2008. A recall wasn't issued until January of
2009, listing several hundred recalled products. It seems to
demonstrate that we are playing "catch-up" with a flawed
food recall system. Over 2,100 products have been voluntarily
recalled by more than 200 companies, and the list continues to
grow. In light of these facts, the Author contends there must
be measures in place to ensure that recalled food is not sold to
unsuspecting customers.
In the last two years alone, there have been food-borne illness
outbreaks in spinach, lettuce, tomatoes, and 2008 saw the
largest beef recall in US history.
California has been the source of a number of food-borne illness
outbreaks. Most recently, a California pistachio processor was
identified as the source of a nationwide recall of
salmonella-contaminated pistachios. First identified on March
26 of this year by a food-borne illness test, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) was able to trace back the contamination to
the California producer, resulting in a nationwide recall of
pistachios and pistachio products.
Earlier, California was identified as the source of a nationwide
outbreak of E. coli from spinach production. The spinach
outbreak sickened 204 people across 26 states and lead to the
death of three people.
Federal Authority to Order Food Recalls . Food recalls are
voluntary and federal agencies responsible for food safety
generally have no authority to compel companies to carry out
SB 550
Page 4
recalls. In recent years, the FDA has fielded
increasing numbers of questions regarding recalls of unsafe
imports, including jalape?o peppers, pet food, the blood thinner
heparin, and toothpaste. Additionally, several domestic food
products, including peanut butter contaminated with salmonella,
spinach linked to E. coli, and canned meat products spoiled by
clostridium botulinum, have been voluntarily recalled by
businesses in recent years. Recalls have been found decrease
consumer confidence in the recalling company, the food importer,
and food safety agencies such as the FDA when products later
subject to a recall sicken or kill people and pets. The FDA
only has the authority to order recalls in three types of
products: infant formula, medical devices, and human tissue
products. However the agency may request that a company recall
other products, such as food, drugs, and cosmetics.
State Authority to Order Food Recalls . Currently there is no
specific authority for any state agency to order the recall of
food items in California. While SB 173 (Florez) proposes to
establish that authority, as noted below, there is no current
mandate or authority to order the recall of a food item. Under
the current system, recalls of tainted foods are voluntary and
are ordered by the manufacturer or producer of the food
products. The DPH currently has the authority to embargo
produce from being sold into the food supply chain. However,
that embargo authority stops the movement of the produce, not
recall the produce.
Arguments in support . The Consumer Federation of California
writes in support, "The latest major recall involving peanut
butter tainted with salmonella demonstrated the challenges a
widespread outbreak presents in identifying which products are
or are not impacted. In the wake of repeated deadly outbreaks
of E. coli and salmonella, SB 550 offers a last line of defense
to protect consumers from these deadly diseases.
"Current law only requires that the supplier, distributor,
broker, or processor immediately notify the State Department of
Public Health with a list of all customers that have received
any product subject to recall. With today's technology, where
most grocery products are electronically tracked, consumers can
be made aware of a product recall at the point of sale, thus
providing consumers with a final line of defense against
purchasing tainted products."
SB 550
Page 5
Also in support, the California Alliance for Retired Americans,
writes, "The most recent recalls stem from a deadly strain of
salmonella contaminated peanut butter... There were more than
2100 products containing peanut butter or peanut butter paste
being recalled nationwide. Crackers, cookies and nutritional
bars are only a small fraction of items that have been affected.
The broad scope of this recall demonstrates the need for SB
550. Just one missed recalled product out of 2100 products
might have been miss-shelved by a grocery store employee. There
is great potential for a customer to plan an item subject to
recall in his or her car allowing that product to be sold and
thereby endangering more individuals."
Proposed amendments . The author has indicated he would like to
amend this bill as follows, to clarify that the recall
information may come to the grocery store from either the FDA or
by voluntary recall by a manufacturer; the UPC code shall
contain the lot number, manufacturer sale date and manufacturer
location; and that notification to the consumer can be verbal or
by the point-of-sale system "locking out" or stopping the sale
of the product:
Page 2, line 7, after "informed", insert:
"by the Food and Drug Administration or voluntarily by
manufacturer"
Page 2, line 10, after "Code" insert:
Which contains product lot numbers, manufacture date and
manufacture location"
Page 2, end of line 12, insert:
The employee shall verbally notify the customer when the
point-of-sale system prevents the sale due to the product being
subject to a recall"
Related legislation . SB 173 (Florez) allows the California
Public Health Officer to implement regulations for voluntary
recall of food that, without intervention, could transmit
illnesses or cause a secondary illness or infection that can
kill or cause serious health problems in people. This bill is
currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Previous legislation . SB 200 (Florez) of 2007 would have
required establishments that slaughter cattle and that are
subject to existing state and federal inspections to install
SB 550
Page 6
video surveillance for certain activities and required the DPH
to notify appropriate local health officers and environmental
health directors within 24 hours after receiving information
that a meat or poultry supplier, distributor, broker, or
processor has sold meat or poultry related products that meet
the criteria for a federal recall, and to inform the public.
This bill was held in the Assembly Agriculture Committee.
SB 201 (Florez) of 2007 would have established the Fresh Raw
Milk Act of 2008 to require raw milk dairy farms that choose to
comply with the requirements of this bill to develop and
maintain an individualized Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Point plan, as specified. This bill was vetoed by the Governor,
citing that the bill created a convoluted and undefined
regulatory process with no enforcement authority or clear
standards to protect public health.
SB 202 (Florez) of 2008 would have required growers, handlers,
and processors of leafy green vegetables to (1) use a Julian
code dated lot numbering system, or other scientifically
validated system, for the purpose of tracing a product
throughout the production and distribution, (2) to conduct
periodic mock recalls, and (3) to identify a recall coordination
team within its operation to rapidly identify and remove
products. The bill also authorized the DPH to adopt regulations
to carry out these provisions. This bill failed passage in the
Assembly Agriculture Committee.
SJR 16 (Machado) of 2005 urged the President to allow private
companies to test cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy
using approved testing protocols and requested the President and
Congress to close loopholes in the cattle feed rules and
maintain the ban on using "downer" animals for human
consumption. This resolution failed passage in the Senate Food
and Agriculture Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Alliance for Retired Americans
Consumer Federation of California
Opposition
SB 550
Page 7
California Grocers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Rebecca May / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301