BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 682
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 15, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Joan Buchanan, Chair
AB 682 (Ian Calderon) - As Amended: April 29, 2013
[Note: This bill was double referred to the Assembly
Accountability and Administrative Review Committee and was heard
by that committee as it relates to issues under its
jurisdiction.]
SUBJECT : State procurement: food: plumped poultry
SUMMARY : Prohibits, beginning January 1, 2014, or upon
expiration of an existing contract, whichever occurs later,
chicken or turkey purchased to be sold or served in any
state-owned building, state-leased building, or public school
facility, at food concessions and cafeterias, from being
"plumped" in any way. Defines "plumped" as the injection of
saltwater, chicken stock, seaweed extract, or some combination
thereof into chicken or turkey to increase its weight and price.
Makes findings and declarations that include the following:
1)More than 23 percent of the state's population is obese,
including one in three children between the ages of 10 and 17.
2)"Plumping" can increase the sodium content of chicken or
turkey by 500 percent.
3)A guide published by the federal Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention suggests that state and localities can develop,
adopt, and implement food procurement policies to encourage
healthier food environments.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to
ensure that the nutrition levels of meals served pursuant to
the National School Lunch Act be of the highest quality and
greatest nutritional value possible. (Education Code (EC)
Section 49590)
2)Requires each school district to provide each needy pupil one
nutritionally adequate, free or reduced-price meal during each
AB 682
Page 2
schoolday. (EC 49550)
3)Defines a "nutritionally adequate meal" as one that qualifies
for reimbursement under the federal child nutrition program
regulations. (EC 49553)
4)Requires the CDE to develop and maintain nutrition guidelines
for school lunches and breakfasts and for all food and
beverages sold on public school campuses. These guidelines
shall include recommendations for fat, saturated fat, and
cholesterol. (EC 49531.1)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : AB 682 prohibits all state owned or leased buildings
and school facilities from selling or serving "plumped" chicken
or turkey at food concessions and cafeterias. "Plumped" is
defined as "the injection of saltwater, chicken stock, seaweed
extract, or some combination thereof into chicken or turkey to
increase its weight and price."
Meats that have been plumped are identified on packages as
containing additional ingredients. The terms "enhanced" or
"flavored" are sometimes used. The ingredients may vary from
one meat producer to another. It is unclear whether the list of
ingredients identified in the definition of the bill is
comprehensive. Critics argue that plumping increases the weight
and thereby the price of the product. The author states,
"Plumping not only increases the weight of the poultry but can
also increase the sodium content by up to 500%. A fresh-natural
chicken should have no more than 70 milligrams of sodium per
four ounce serving, whereas plumped chicken can contain up to
400 milligrams of sodium, which is as much or more than a large
order of McDonald's french fries." The author further argues
that with more than 6 million adults and one in three children
ages 10-17 considered overweight or obese, the state should
offer healthy food options in schools and state facilities such
as hospitals, prisons, and workplaces.
School meal programs . This bill affects school meal programs.
Existing law requires local educational agencies to provide one
nutritiously adequate free and reduced-price meal to needy
children once a day during each schoolday. A needy child is
defined as a child who meets the federal eligibility for free
and reduced-price meals. As an example, a pupil is eligible for
AB 682
Page 3
free meals if his/her family income is less than $30,615 for a
family of four, and reduced-price meals if his/her family income
is less than $43,568. School meal programs are funded
predominantly by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) through its National School Lunch (NSL) and School
Breakfast Program (SBP) and supplemented by state funds. These
programs are federal entitlement programs, which mean that
allocations are not fixed; federal funds will be provided as
long as recipients meet income eligibility criteria. According
to the CDE, on an average day, more than 4.7 million meals are
served at approximately 43,000 locations.
Nutrition standards . The USDA requires meals provided under the
NSL and SBPs to meet the recommendations of the federal Dietary
Guidelines for Americans. For sodium, the Dietary Guidelines
recommend reducing sodium intake to less than 2,300 milligrams
(mg) per day for most people and 1,500 mg per day for certain
individuals, including individuals 51 and older and individuals
with hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. Meals
under the NSL and SBP must also provide one-third and
one-fourth, respectively, of the Recommended Dietary Allowance
for protein, calcium, iron, Vitamin A, Vitamin C and calories.
The USDA gives local school food officials the authority to make
decisions about the specific food to serve and how they are
prepared. As a condition for receipt of state funds for the
meal programs, existing state law further limits serving of food
that is deep fried, par fried, or flashed fried, and food
containing artificial trans fat.
Under the federal Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, changes
were made to the NSL and SBP through regulations adopted in
2012, which includes a phased reduction of sodium in the NSL and
SBP over time. Target 1 must be met by the 2014-15 school year
and Target 2 by the 2017-18 school year. According to the CDE,
the Final Target is not yet definitive. If the Final Targets
remain as suggested, it is estimated that sodium levels in
school breakfast and lunches will have to be reduced by between
25-50 percent by 2022. The following chart shows the target
level for each age group. The milligrams identified indicate
the average sodium per meal over a week:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Sodium Reduction: Timeline & Amount |
AB 682
Page 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Age/Grade | Baseline: | Target 1: | Target 2: | Final |
| Group | Average | | | Target: |
| | Current | July 1, | July 1, | |
| | Sodium | 2014 | 2017 | July 1, |
| | Levels | | | 2022 |
| | (based on |School Year |School Year | |
| | School | 2014-15 | 2017-18 |School Year |
| | Nutrition | | | 2022-23 |
| |and Dietary | (mg) | (mg) | |
| | Assessment | | | (mg) |
| | Study-III) | | | |
| | (mg) | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| School Breakfast Program |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
| K-5 | 573 | < 540 | < 485 | < 430 |
| |(elementary)| | | |
| | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 6-8 | 629 | < 600 | < 535 | < 470 |
| | (middle) | | | |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
| 9-12 | 686 | < 640 | < 570 | < 500 |
| | (high) | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| National School Lunch Program |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
| K-5 | 1,377 | < 1,230 | < 935 | < 640 |
| |(elementary)| | | |
| | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 6-8 | 1,520 | < 1,360 | < 1,035 | < 710 |
| | (middle) | | | |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
| 9-12 | < 1,588 | < 1,420 | < 1,080 |< |
| | (high) | | |740 |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA
AB 682
Page 5
The extent to which school districts are currently serving
plumped chicken or turkey is unknown. California does have a
history of regulating nutrition in school meals programs; the
Committee may wish to consider whether other products that
contain high sodium levels should also be prohibited (pork, beef
and even fish are sometimes plumped), or whether the sodium
reduction required by the USDA is sufficient. If the Final
Targets remain in place, there is a strong possibility that
plumped chicken or turkey will naturally not be used.
Arguments in Support . The California Food Policy Advocates
states, "A growing body of evidence strongly suggests that
people across the nation are consuming more salt than needed,
leading to higher incidences of high blood pressure and other
diet related diseases in both adults and children. The average
sodium intake for most Americans ages 2 years and older is about
3,400 mg per day, which greatly exceeds the 2010 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans' recommended sodium intake of 2,300 mg
or less per day. Most sodium comes from salt added during food
processing - such as plumping - and not from salt added at the
table or while cooking."
Arguments in Opposition . The California School Nutrition
Association opposes the bill and expresses concerns that if
enacted, this bill will increase costs to school districts that
will no longer be able to obtain chicken or turkey products
provided by the USDA Foods program. The Association states,
"Much of the food going to schools for their meal programs is
provided by USDA Foods. The food comes to schools as an
allowance based on the number of meals they provide and is sent
from all over the country. Districts cannot control or dictate
what they are sent or by whom. If schools were prohibited from
using the chicken or turkey provided by USDA, the cost to
districts would be enormous and would largely limit what could
be served."
According to the CDE, there are 1027 local educational agencies
that participate in the USDA Foods program (also called the
Commodities program) receiving $144 million worth of food
products in 2013-14. Of this amount, approximately $7.7 million
is derived from chicken or turkey products. Local educational
agencies pay nominal fees for delivery, but receive the food
products practically free.
Committee amendments :
AB 682
Page 6
1)The bill has an effective date of January 1, 2014. Staff
recommends changing the date to January 1, 2015.
2)Staff also recommends striking, in the definition of
"plumped", "to increase its weight and price". If the
Legislature determines that plumped chicken or turkey should
not be served in state and school facilities, the purpose for
the plumping is inconsequential.
This bill was heard in the Assembly Accountability and
Administrative Review Committee on April 29, 2013 and passed on
a 10-0 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Food Policy Advocates
California Poultry Federation
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Foster Poultry Farms
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council
Several individuals
Opposition
California School Nutrition Association
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087