BILL ANALYSIS
SB 550
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 550 (Florez)
As Amended August 31, 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 a general retail
merchandise store with a 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 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)Exempts retail stores that generate more than 25% of their gross
revenues from the sales of prescriptions and over the counter
drugs and medical devices from the provisions of this bill.
SB 550
Page 2
3)Defines the following terms:
a) "Grocery department" to mean 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
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
SB 550
Page 3
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,
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, there is no
SB 550
Page 4
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) 319-3301
FN: 0002627