BILL ANALYSIS
SB 550
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 550 (Florez)
As Amended July 9, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :26-11
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS 7-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Hayashi, Eng, Hernandez, | | |
| |Nava, | | |
| |John A. Perez, Ruskin, | | |
| |Monning | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Emmerson, Conway, Niello, | | |
| |Smyth | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 (POS) system and is informed by the federal Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) or by the manufacturer 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), containing a product lot number, date of
manufacture and location of manufacture, to ensure that when the
product is scanned through the POS system, both of the following
occur:
a) The POS system prevents the sale of the product and notifies
the employee that the product is subject to a recall; and,
b) The employee verbally notifies the consumer that the sale was
prevented because of the product recall.
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
SB 550
Page 2
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 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 : 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. 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,
SB 550
Page 3
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. 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.
Food recalls are voluntary and federal agencies responsible for food
safety generally have no authority to compel companies to carry out
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.
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Rebecca May / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301FN:
0001825