BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1106
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1106
AUTHOR: Strickland
AMENDED: March 26, 2012
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 16, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Rebecca
Newhouse
SUBJECT : LABELING: REUSABLE BAGS
SUMMARY :
Existing law , under the At-Store Recycling Program (Public
Resources Code �42250 et seq.) (part of the California
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989):
1) Defines "Reusable bag" to mean a bag made of cloth or other
machine washable fabric that has handles, or a durable
plastic bag with handles that is at least 2.25 mm thick and
is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple
uses.
2) Among other provisions, requires operators of stores,
defined as supermarkets and stores over 10,000 square feet
that include pharmacies, to make reusable bags available to
customers.
This bill :
1) Prohibits the manufacture, distribution or sale of reusable
bags that does not contain the following warning in
10-point type:
WARNING: Reusable bags must be cleaned and disinfected
between uses to prevent food cross contamination. Failure
to do so can cause serious illness, cancer, or birth
defects resulting from food-borne pathogens. Once used for
other purposes, reusable bags should not be used for
carrying groceries.
SB 1106
Page 2
2) Requires that the warning also be conspicuously displayed
with 18-point type font near any display where reusable
bags are sold to consumers.
3) Defines "reusable bags" to mean a washable bag intended to
be used repeatedly and made from a durable material.
4) Imposes a civil liability on any person in violation of the
warning label requirements not to exceed $2,500 dollars per
day per violation.
5) Authorizes the following individuals to take action against
any violation of the warning label provisions:
a) The Attorney General.
b) A district attorney.
c) A city attorney of a city with a population greater
than 750,000.
d) A city prosecutor, with the permission of the
district attorney, in a city that has a full-time city
prosecutor.
e) Any member of the public if the following conditions
are met:
i) The private action is commenced more than 60
days after notification of the alleged violation is
given to the Attorney General, any district
attorney, city attorney or prosecutor.
ii) The Attorney General, any district attorney,
any city attorney, or prosecutor is not pursuing
action against the violation.
6) Requires that persons bringing action against an alleged
violation report the following to the Attorney General and
requires the Attorney General to maintain a record of the
following:
a) Notification of the filing of action against an
SB 1106
Page 3
alleged violation.
b) Documentation detailing the results of the case.
c) Information on any corrective action being taken as a
part of the settlement or resolution of the action.
7) Requires the plaintiff to file an affidavit verifying that
the report has been completed and submitted to the Attorney
General, at the time of the judgment filing.
8) Requires the Attorney General to develop a reporting form
that specifies the information that must be reported for
purposes of persons bringing action in which a violation is
alleged.
9) Requires the plaintiff to submit the settlement to the
court for approval if there is a settlement of an action
brought by a person in the public interest.
10)Allows the Attorney General, district attorney, city
attorney, or prosecutor to seek and recover costs and
attorney's fees on behalf of members of the public bringing
action against an alleged violation.
11)Makes related legislative declarations and findings.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "There is no
provision in existing law requiring consumers and grocery
workers are informed of the cross contamination risks of
soiled reusable grocery bags. Very, very few consumers or
grocery workers are aware of this risk when using
un-sanitized reusable grocery bags. This bill seeks to
inform consumers and workers of these risks and remind
consumers of the importance of cleaning reusable grocery
bags between uses."
2) Background : In 2011, Health Canada made public
recommendations on their website that encourage frequent
cleaning of reusable grocery bags. Although the website
praises the increased use of reusable bags as an
SB 1106
Page 4
environmentally friendly option to single-use carryout
bags, they remind consumers of the potential for
cross-contamination of harmful bacteria when meats and
produce are stored in the same bag, or when bags are not
cleaned frequently.
a) What's growing in our reusable bags ? Several
independent studies have been performed to probe average
bacteria counts and types. A Canadian study in 2009
funded by the Environment and Plastics Industry Council,
and a University of Arizona study in 2010, funded by the
American Chemical Council, tested consumer's reusable
bags for total bacteria count, coliforms (a class
bacteria typically found in the intestinal tract),
Escherichia coli (or E. coli, a type of coliform
bacteria) and Salmonella. The Canadian study found that
more than half of the bags showed some level of
bacterial contamination and 30% of the bags had a
bacterial count higher than the concentration acceptable
for safe drinking water, although no E. coli or
Salmonella was detected. The University of Arizona
report found bacterial contamination in most of the
bags, and an average total bacteria count six times
higher than the Canadian study, coliform contamination
in half of the bags sampled, and identified E. coli in
12 percent of tested bags. Both studies surveyed
shoppers and found that over ninety percent never washed
their reusable bags.
b) The findings in context . Although there exists
inconsistency regarding the exact findings from these
two studies, it should not come as a surprise that
significant numbers of bacteria were identified. In
fact, bacteria "contamination" is ubiquitous; our skin,
drinking fountains, kitchen objects and money have all
been found to harbor significant quantities and various
types of bacteria. According to Health Canada,
"heterotrophic plate count" (HPC), reported by both
studies to express the overall bacterial contamination
of reusable bags "should not be used as an indicator of
potential adverse human health effects." Multiple
articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals
report kitchen sponges with HPC levels comparable to
SB 1106
Page 5
those reported for reusable bags.
Both studies also identify coliforms in reusable bags,
and the Canadian study points to this result as
particularly alarming, since the EPA specifies a maximum
allowable limit for coliforms in drinking water of zero.
However, the EPA also notes that coliforms "are not a
health threat in itself; (but) used to indicate whether
other potentially harmful bacteria may be present." E.
coli is a subgroup of coliforms, and indicates fecal
contamination, although most strains are benign.
Of course, some types of bacteria are dangerous and pose
a legitimate public health threat. Certain strains of
E-coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter and Listeria are all
relatively common bacterial pathogens that are all known
to contaminate some fraction of our food supply, and can
cause illnesses that range in severity depending on the
strain and quantity. The USDA estimates that there are
as many as 48 million illnesses and 3,000 deaths that
result from food contaminated in the U.S. each year. A
large portion of these illnesses result from
cross-contamination and are preventable with proper food
handling and preparation. None of the reusable bags in
the studies summarized above identified Salmonella or
Listeria (neither study tested for Campylobacter) and
only the University of Arizona study identified E. coli
contamination. However, the study fails to report which
strain of E. coli was identified, an important point
since most E. coli strains are innocuous.
3) Other warning labels needed ? This bill requires warning
labels to be added to all reusable bags alerting consumers
of the dangers of cross-contamination. It is conceivable
that placing contaminated meat and produce in the same
reusable bag or using a reusable bag on numerous occasions
without washing increases the risk for cross-contamination.
By this same logic, cross-contamination could potentially
occur anywhere that meat and produce are placed or stored
near each other, including the grocery basket, shopping
cart, refrigerator, kitchen counters and cutting boards.
Should we require all of the aforementioned items to
contain labels warning of cross-contamination and the need
SB 1106
Page 6
for proper and frequent cleaning?
SB 1106 would require the warning label specify that
serious illness, cancer or birth defects could result from
using reusable bags without disinfecting between uses.
Although rare, certain food-based bacterial pathogens can
cause serious illness that can result in death, as well as
pregnancy complications resulting in miscarriages.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that the use of
reusable bags without frequent cleaning would increase an
individual's risk of these afflictions.
4) Are reusable bags unsafe ? If reusable bags present a real
hazard for food cross-contamination, jurisdictions that
have seen recent upsurges in reusable bag use should also
be reporting higher numbers of food poisoning and foodborne
illnesses. San Francisco, Washington DC, Ireland and
Bangladesh, have all experienced significant increases in
reusable bag use. Are these areas experiencing a
significant increase in contaminated food-related
illnesses?
No reported foodborne illness has been linked to
cross-contamination from the use of reusable bags.
However, as the studies on reusable bags show, bacteria,
and in a few cases bacteria indicative of fecal
contamination, can be found in reusable bags. Although the
results should not be alarming, ideally reusable bags
should be cleaned on a regular basis. This conclusion is
hardly extraordinary, as most individuals frequently clean
and disinfect a variety of objects and surfaces in their
daily lives including kitchen cutting boards and counters,
bathrooms, dirty clothes and themselves. The University of
Arizona study showed that proper cleaning of reusable bags
reduced bacteria levels below detection limits.
Although bacteria growth in reusable bags has not been
linked to any adverse health effects, a report from the
Center for Consumer Freedom identified unsafe levels of
lead (greater than 100 ppm) in 16 out of 44 organizations
selling or distributing reusable bags. The bags containing
lead were painted plastic bags imported from China.
Although lead is a potent toxin, it is unclear whether the
SB 1106
Page 7
lead identified in reusable bags is readily able to leach,
and more investigations are underway. AB 298 (Brownley)
currently in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee,
prohibits reusable bags from containing lead, cadmium, or
any other heavy metal in toxic amounts.
5) Warning label or cleaning instructions ? Proper cleaning
and disinfecting of reusable bags eliminates most bacteria,
and therefore any potential hazard of bacterial
cross-contamination. However, because reusable bags are
constructed out of various materials, proper cleaning and
disinfecting procedures vary. The committee may wish to
suggest that, instead of warning labels on reusable bags,
cleaning instructions for different reusable bags be
developed by the manufacturers and disseminated to stores.
6) Potential liability . Under SB 1106, any manufacturer
creating bags without the specified label, and stores
selling those bags and failing to place warning signs near
displays of reusable bags would be subject to civil
penalties. The language also specifies that any member of
the public may bring civil action against violators,
further subjecting businesses to costly settlements and
attorney's fees.
7) More work for the office of the AG and the courts . Under
SB 1106, the Attorney General's office would be required to
take on additional responsibilities, including document
preparation and recordkeeping of notices of alleged
violations, results of final case dispositions and
documentation of corrective actions being taken. With the
strapped budgets of agencies and the courts, are these
additional requirements an appropriate use of the
taxpayer's money?
8) Related Legislation . The following bills relate to
reusable bags:
a) AB 2058 (Levine) of 2007 would have prohibited the
free dispensing of carryout plastic bags by a store to
its customers, unless the store can demonstrate to the
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)
SB 1106
Page 8
that 70% of the plastic bags it dispensed had been
diverted from the waste stream. AB 2058 was held in
Senate Appropriations Committee.
b) SB 531 (DeSaulnier) of 2009 would have required
manufacturers of plastic carryout bags to consult with
various entities, including the CIWMB, when developing
specified educational materials to encourage the reduced
use or recycling of those bags and authorized the CIWMB
to modify those materials. SB 531 was held in Assembly
Natural Resources Committee without further action.
c) AB 68 (Brownley) of 2009 and AB 87 (Davis) of 2009
both would have required a 25-cent fee on the
distribution of single-use carry-out bags. Both bills
were held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
d) AB 2138 (Chesbro) of 2010 would have established
recycling and composting requirements for take-out food
packaging, including bags. AB 2138 was held on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.
e) AB 1998 (Brownley) of 2010 would have repealed the
at-store recycling program and instead prohibited stores
from providing a single-use plastic carryout bag to a
customer and required stores to provide reusable bags
for purchase or recycled paper bags for a fee. AB 1998
failed in the Senate on August 31, 2010 (14-21).
f) SB 915 (Calderon) of 2011 sets plastic bag reduction
and recycled content goals. A hearing in the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee was canceled at the
request of the author.
g) AB 298 (Brownley) of 2011 requires cleaning
instructions to be included on reusable bags and
prohibits them from containing toxic materials, and is
currently with the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee.
h) AB 1834 (Brownley) of 2012 defines reusable bags and
is on the Assembly Floor.
SB 1106
Page 9
9) Referral to Judiciary Committee . If this measure is
approved by this committee, the do pass motion must include
the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
SOURCE : Environmental Safety Alliance
SUPPORT : None on file
OPPOSITION : None on file