BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  SB 359
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  July 3, 2012

                            ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
                              William W. Monning, Chair
                  SB 359 (Ed Hernandez) - As Amended:  June 27, 2012

           SENATE VOTE  :  38-0
           
          SUBJECT  :  Food facilities: hand washing.

           SUMMARY  :  Makes a number of technical, clarifying, and 
          conforming changes to existing law governing food safety and 
          sanitation requirements for retail food facilities in 
          California.  Specifically,  this bill  :

          1)Allows the hot holding of nonprepackaged, potentially 
            hazardous food to be part of limited food preparation under 
            certain conditions.

          2)Requires food handler employees to wash their hands before 
            initially donning gloves for working with food; when changing 
            tasks; prior to working with ready-to-eat or raw foods; and, 
            when gloves become damaged or soiled.  Clarifies that 
            handwashing is not required between glove changes when no 
            contamination of the gloves or hands has occurred.

          3)Prescribes requirements for the use of single-use gloves and 
            prohibits them from being washed for subsequent use.

          4)Requires an employee with a cut, sore, rash, lesion, or wound 
            to take specified precautions when contacting food, and 
            prohibits an employee who has an open or draining lesion or 
            wound from handling food.

          5)Authorizes food facilities to use temporary alternative 
            storage methods and locations for food storage as approved by 
            the local environmental health department (LEHD). 

          6)Makes various clarifying changes to provisions governing 
            adequate water heater capacity for mobile food facilities with 
            dish washing sinks.

          7)Clarifies that existing law prohibiting the use of trans fats 
            in all food facilities and governing compliance and 
            enforcement apply to both temporary and mobile food 








                                                                  SB 359
                                                                  Page  2

            facilities.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Establishes the California Retail Food Code (CRFC) to govern 
            all aspects of retail food safety and sanitation in California 
            and makes LEHDs primarily responsible for enforcing the CRFC 
            through local food safety inspection programs.

          2)Defines a food handler to mean an individual who is involved 
            in the preparation, storage, or service of food in a food 
            facility, other than an individual holding a valid food safety 
            certificate or an individual involved in the preparation, 
            storage, or service of food in a temporary food facility.

          3)Requires all food employees to follow specified hygienic 
            practices, including handwashing and the use of gloves.

          4)Requires food employees to report to the person in charge of a 
            food facility when a food employee has a lesion or wound that 
            is open or draining, unless specified conditions to cover or 
            protect the lesion are met.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Senate Appropriations 
          Committee, this bill's provisions are not anticipated to impose 
          any significant additional costs on local enforcement agencies.  
          Because local enforcement agencies have the authority to impose 
          regulatory fees, this bill does not impose a reimbursable state 
          mandate.

           COMMENTS  :

           1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL  .  According to the author, this bill is 
            intended as a clean up measure to make several technical, 
            non-controversial clarifications and conforming changes to the 
            CRFC.  The author states that the changes in this bill are 
            needed to ensure the best and most effective implementation of 
            the state's principal retail food sanitation law. 

          Specifically, among other things, this bill clarifies provisions 
            in the CRFC related to hand-washing procedures and glove use 
            when working with food and establishes sanitary precautions 
            that an employee with a cut, sore, rash, lesion, or wound must 
            take when coming into contact with food in order to eliminate 
            cross-contamination and food-borne illness risk. Additionally, 








                                                                  SB 359
                                                                  Page  3

            the author notes that refrigerated food trailers are commonly 
            used by restaurants and grocery stores during holidays, 
            emergencies, remodels, or other high sales volume times, but 
            the CRFC does not specifically authorize the use of any 
            alternate storage methods and, as a result, LEHDs lack the 
            ability to approve their use.  The author states that this 
            bill will allows LEHDs to authorize the use of trailers and 
            other temporary food storage alternatives.

           2)BACKGROUND  .  The CRFC is modeled after the federal Food and 
            Drug Administration's Model Food Code (Food Code), which is 
            updated every four years to enhance food safety laws based on 
            the best available science.  Between each four-year period, 
            the FDA makes available a Food Code Supplement that updates, 
            modifies, or clarifies certain provisions.  The Food Code 
            assists food control jurisdictions at all levels of government 
            by providing them with a scientifically sound technical and 
            legal basis for regulating the retail and food service segment 
            of the industry, such as restaurants, grocery stores, and 
            institutions like nursing homes.  48 states and territories 
            have adopted food codes patterned after the Food Code, 
            representing 80% of the U.S. population.  The California 
            Retail Food Safety Coalition, a broad-based stakeholder group 
            of federal, state, and local regulators and the retail food 
            industry, reports that the CRFC is over 90% equivalent to the 
            Food Code in terms of its substantive food safety and 
            sanitation content.  

           3)SUPPORT  .  Yum Brands, Inc. writes in support that this bill 
            makes the further clarifications to the CRFC that are 
            necessary to ensure uniform health and sanitation standards 
            for mobile and other retail food facilities in California.


           4)PRIOR LEGISLATION  .  

             a)   SB 946 (Steinberg), Chapter 650, Statutes of 2011, would 
               have, among other things, enacted provisions substantially 
               similar to this bill.  These provisions were deleted and 
               the chaptered version of SB 946 was amended to deal with 
               health care coverage for pervasive developmental disorder 
               or autism.

             b)   SB 241 (Runner), Chapter 571, Statutes of 2009, makes a 
               number of clean up changes to the CRFC and provides for the 








                                                                  SB 359
                                                                  Page  4

               regulation of temporary and mobile food facilities under 
               the CRFC.

             c)   SB 1359 (Runner) of 2008, which was substantially 
               similar to SB 241, was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger 
               who, in his veto message, stated that it was due to the 
               historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget and 
               the bill did not meet the standard of the highest priority 
               for California.

             d)   SB 744 (Runner), Chapter 96, Statutes of 2007, makes 
               numerous technical, clarifying, and nonsubstantive changes 
               to the CRFC.

             e)   SB 144 (George Runner), Chapter 23, Statutes of 2006, 
               repeals and reenacts the California Uniform Retail Food 
               Facilities Law as the CRFC.

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support 
           
          Yum Brands, Inc.
          
            Opposition 
           
          None on file.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Cassie Royce / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097