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: April 18, 2012
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 23, 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.
3) Sunsets the above provisions January 1, 2013.
This bill :
1) Prohibits the manufacture of reusable bags that do 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 from food-borne
pathogens.
2) Requires that the warning also be conspicuously displayed
SB 1106
Page 2
near any display where reusable bags are sold, or in a
written form available to the consumer.
3) Requires that the Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (DRRR or CalRecycle), in consultation with the
Department of Public Health, on or before October 1, 2013,
complete a study to evaluate if the use of reusable bags,
without frequent cleanings, increases an individual's risk
of serious illness.
4) Permits CalRecycle to authorize a California research
university or a statewide health organization to conduct
the study and requires that the study monitor health
effects in communities that have principally gone to
reusable bags and also determine the validity of specified
findings from previous studies.
5) Requires CalRecycle, in consultation with the Department of
Public Health, to conduct a one-year statewide education
and awareness campaign upon completion of the study to
inform the public about the health risks associated with
unwashed reusable bags.
6) Strikes the sunset on the at-store recycling program.
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
environmentally friendly option to single-use carryout
bags, they remind consumers of the potential for
SB 1106
Page 3
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
those reported for reusable bags.
SB 1106
Page 4
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
for proper and frequent cleaning?
SB 1106
Page 5
SB 1106 would require the warning label specify that
serious illness 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. 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 places 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
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,
SB 1106
Page 6
prohibits reusable bags, as defined, 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.
AB 298 (Brownley), currently in the Senate Environmental
Quality Committee, would require reusable bags have
instructions for cleaning on or attached to the bag.
6) Significant costs . SB 1106 requires that CalRecycle, in
consultation with the Department of Public Health, complete
a study to evaluate if reusable bags pose a health risk and
also monitor health effects in areas that have recently
seen upsurges in reusable bag use. CalRecycle, in
consultation with DPH, is also required to complete a
year-long awareness and educational campaign. These
activities will require significant financial and personnel
resources. With the strapped budgets of CalRecycle and DPH,
are these additional requirements an appropriate use of the
taxpayer's money?
7) Unbiased study ? The study is required to examine if a
link exists between reusable bag use, without frequent
cleanings, and foodborne illness and also whether certain
areas that have seen significant increases in reusable bag
use are experiencing a higher incidence of adverse health
effects. The study is also required to determine the
validity of specified findings from previous studies
including, among other things, that there is a potential
significant risk of bacterial cross contamination from
using reusable bags to carry groceries and that a sudden or
significant increase in the use of reusable bags without a
major public education campaign on how to reduce the risk
of cross contamination would create the risk of significant
adverse public health impacts. The bill also requires, upon
completion of the study, the state embark on a year-long
SB 1106
Page 7
awareness and educational campaign regarding the hazards of
reusable bag use, without frequent cleanings. If the
committee believes this bill is needed, would it not be
more appropriate to make this awareness campaign contingent
upon the findings of the study?
8) Opposition . Groups in opposition claim that the two
reusable bag studies are attempts by the plastic industry
to derail local efforts to phase out single-use bags.
Opponents cite a consumer reports study with a senior
scientist quoted as saying in response to the University of
Arizona and Loma Linda studies that, "a person eating an
average bag of salad greens gets more exposure to these
bacteria than if they had licked the insides of the
dirtiest bag from this study". The opposition also notes
that, to date, there have been 43 California jurisdictions
that have adopted ordinances banning single-use plastic
bags and promoting reusable bags, but there has been no
reported increase in the incidence or reporting of
foodborne illness.
9) Conflicting sections . This bill strikes the sunset on the
at-store recycling program, which SB 1219 (Wolk) extends.
These conflicts will need to be resolved to avoid
chaptering out issues.
10)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)
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
SB 1106
Page 8
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 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).
e) 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.
f) 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.
g) SB 1159 (Calderon) of 2011 requires plastic bags to
display the phrase "Please Recycle This Bag" and
contains definitions and penalties. SB 1159 is pending
referral in Senate Rules Committee.
h) SB 1219 (Wolk) of 2012 Extends the sunset on the
at-store recycling program which currently expires next
year and deletes a preemption which prohibits local
governments from imposing fees upon stores or additional
recycling requirements for plastic bags. SB 1219 is
currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
i) AB 1834 (Brownley) of 2012 defines reusable bags
and is on the Assembly Floor.
11) 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
SB 1106
Page 9
Judiciary Committee.
SOURCE : Environmental Safety Alliance
SUPPORT : None on file
OPPOSITION : The 5 Gyres Institute
Azul
Californians Against Waste
California Grocer's Association
California Retailer's Association
Chico Bag
Clean Water Action
Earth Resource Foundation
Environment in the Public Interest
Heal the Bay
Los Angeles, the city of
Natural Resources Defense Council
Seventh Generation Advisors
Stepping Stones
Surfrider Foundation
1 Individual