BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Senator Ed Hernandez, O.D., Chair
BILL NO: SB 1000
AUTHOR: Monning
AMENDED: March 27, 2014
HEARING DATE: April 9, 2014
CONSULTANT: Diaz
SUBJECT : Public health: sugar-sweetened beverages: safety
warnings.
SUMMARY : Establishes the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety
Warning Act, to be administered by the Department of Public
Health, and requires a safety warning on all sealed
sugar-sweetened beverage containers; multipacks of sealed
containers; packages of concentrates, as defined; vending
machines; and self-serve beverage dispensing machines. Requires
the safety warning to be affixed to beverage containers, as
specified, if the safety warning is not printed directly on the
container. Requires the label to be posted in a place that is
easily visible at the point-of-purchase of an establishment
where a beverage dispensing machine is not self-serve. Allows
the department and local enforcement agencies to inspect the
records, as specified, of a person, as defined, to determine the
quantity and type of sugar-sweetened beverages distributed,
purchased, or sold.
Existing law:
1.Establishes the Department of Public Health (DPH) to protect
and improve the health of communities through education,
promotion of healthy lifestyles, and research for disease and
injury prevention.
2.Establishes the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (Sherman
Act), which is administered by DPH, to regulate the contents,
packaging, labeling, and advertising of food, drugs, and
cosmetics in California.
3.Allows DPH, upon the request of a health officer, to authorize
the local health department of a city, county, city and
county, or local health district to enforce the provisions of
the Sherman Act and its regulations that pertain to retail
food establishments, as defined, if DPH determines that the
local health department has sufficient personnel with adequate
training to do so, and requires that the enforcement be
Continued---
SB 1000 | Page 2
limited to the area under the jurisdiction of the local health
department.
This bill:
1.Establishes the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act
(SSBSWA) whereby a person, as defined, is prohibited from
distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state
sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) in a sealed beverage
container; in a multipack of sealed beverage containers; in
concentrate form, as defined; on the premises where a vending
machine or beverage dispensing machine, as defined, is located
and where SSBs are sold in unsealed beverage containers unless
the container bears a safety warning, as specified, or the
safety warning is posted on the premises, as specified, and
otherwise meets all the requirements of this bill.
2.Defines "sugar-sweetened beverage" as any sweetened
non-alcoholic beverage, carbonated or non-carbonated, sold for
human consumption that has added caloric sweeteners and
contains 75 calories or more per 12 fluid ounces. Specifies
that SSBs do not include any beverage containing 100 percent
natural fruit juice or natural vegetable juice with no added
caloric sweeteners; any liquid product commonly referred to as
a dietary aid; any product for consumption by infants and that
is commonly referred to as infant formula; or any beverage
whose principal ingredient by weight is natural liquid milk.
3.Defines "non-alcoholic beverage" as any beverage that contains
less than one-half of one percent alcohol per volume. Defines
"caloric sweetener" as any substance containing calories,
suitable for human consumption, that humans perceive as sweet
and includes, without limitation, sucrose, fructose, glucose,
and other sugars and fruit juice concentrates. Defines
"caloric" as a substance that adds calories to the diet of a
person who consumes that substance.
4.Requires the safety warning to read "STATE OF CALIFORIA SAFETY
WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to
obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay" on the front of SSB sealed
beverage containers, separate and apart from all other
information, on a contrasting background, and entirely in bold
type. Requires the safety warning to be affixed to an SSB
beverage container in a manner that it cannot be removed
without thorough application of water or other solvents if the
warning is not printed directly on a sealed container.
Requires the warning to be placed on a vending machine and on
a self-serve beverage dispensing machine. Requires the safety
SB 1000 | Page
3
warning to be posted at the point-of-purchase if a beverage
dispensing machine is not self-serve.
5.Requires every person, as defined, that distributes, sells, or
offers for retail SSBs to maintain on its business premises,
for a period of two years following each distribution,
purchase, or sale, all records, including legible invoices and
purchase orders as may be necessary to determine the quantity
and type of SSBs distributed, purchased, or sold. Allows DPH
and a local enforcement agency to inspect, examine, and copy
those records at any time during normal business hours to
ensure compliance by distributors with the requirements of the
SSBSWA. Specifies that refusal to allow full inspection,
examination, or copying of records constitutes a violation,
which beginning July 1, 2015, is punishable by a civil penalty
of not less than $50 but no greater than $500. Specifies that
a person is not to be found in violation of the SSBSWA more
than once during any one inspection visit.
6.Creates in the State Treasury the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages
Safety Warning Fund consisting of moneys collected for the
violation of the SSBSWA, which is to be appropriated by the
Legislature for allocation to local enforcement agencies for
the purpose of enforcing the SSBSWA.
7.Requires DPH to adopt regulations to implement the SSBSWA.
Allows the department to adopt regulations to develop new
language for the safety warning, if necessary.
8.Specifies that the provisions of the SSBSWA are severable and
that any provision or its application that is held invalid
cannot affect other provisions or applications that can be
given effect without the invalid provisions or applications.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal
committee.
COMMENTS :
1.Author's statement. According to the author, California is in
the midst of an obesity and diabetes epidemic that is wreaking
havoc on the public's health. Sugary drinks are a major
contributor to the problem. SB 1000 would provide information
to consumers to make informed choices by requiring warning
labels, similar to those on tobacco and alcohol, that explain
the proven health risks associated with drinking these
SB 1000 | Page 4
beverages.
The science is clear and conclusive. Overwhelming research has
unequivocally shown that sugary drinks are major contributors
to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay, which cost California
billions of dollars in health care and lost productivity
annually.
Nearly 40 percent of California children are currently
overweight or obese. Liquid sugar has a unique role in driving
today's skyrocketing cases of preventable diabetes.
Individuals who drink 1 or 2 sugary drinks per day have a 26
percent higher risk for developing type-2 diabetes and if
current trends are not reversed, it is predicted that one in
three children, and nearly half of Latino and African American
children, born in the year 2000 will develop type-2 diabetes
in their lifetime.
Sugary drinks are the biggest contributor of added calories in
the American diet and are unique in not providing any
nutritional value.
2.Obesity and other chronic diseases. DPH issued a study, The
Burden of Chronic Disease and Injury, in 2013 that highlights
some of the leading causes of death, such as heart disease,
cancer, stroke, and respiratory disease, all of which have a
strong connection to obesity. Diabetes is another serious
chronic disease stemming from obesity that adversely affects
quality of life and results in serious medical costs. The last
decade has witnessed a 32 percent rise in diabetes prevalence,
affecting some 3.9 million people and costing upwards of $24
billion per year. According to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, more than one-third of U.S. adults are obese,
and approximately 12.5 million children and adolescents ages 2
to 19 years are obese. Research indicates a tripling in the
youth obesity rate over the past three decades. While this
increase has stabilized between the years 2005 and 2010, in
2010, 38 percent of public school children were overweight and
obese. Overweight youth face increased risks for many serious
detrimental health conditions that do not commonly occur
during childhood, including high cholesterol and type-2
diabetes. Additionally, more than 80 percent of obese
adolescents remain obese as adults.
3.SSBs. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in
2009, Americans consumed 13.8 billion gallons of SSBs, which
SB 1000 | Page
5
equates to nearly 45 gallons per capita annually of SSBs with
added caloric sweeteners. According to the UCLA Center for
Health Policy Research, in California, 62 percent of
adolescents ages 12-17 and 41 percent of children ages 2-11
drink at least one SSB every day. In addition, 24 percent of
adults drink at least one SSB on an average per day. Adults
who drink SSBs occasionally (not every day) are 15 percent
more likely to be overweight or obese, and adults who drink
one or more SSBs per day are 27 percent more likely to be
overweight or obese than adults who do not. According to a
report produced by the Robert Wood Johnson Scholar's Program,
SSBs were the single largest contributor to energy intake
during the last decade, and SSB consumption has increased by
almost 500 percent during the past 50 years.
4.Field poll. In February 2014, the Field Research Corporation
released a poll of 1,002 registered voters in California on
behalf of The California Endowment. The poll determined that
statewide 74 percent of voters support a requirement that
beverage companies post health warning labels on SSBs to alert
consumers that their daily consumption contributes to
diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay. The requirement also
carries strong bipartisan support. The poll also finds that
nearly two in three voters continue to support taxing the sale
of SSBs and to use the proceeds for school nutrition and
physical activity programs for kids and distributing the
revenues to schools, public health departments, and local
community programs across the state based on each community's
diabetes and obesity rates, so places with higher rates would
get more. Further, the poll finds that 7 in 10 Californians
support changing the rules governing the food assistance
program so that recipients cannot use the food assistance
benefit to buy SSBs.
5.Nutrition Facts label update. In February 2014, the FDA
announced an update to the Nutrition Facts label on food
packages to reflect new public health and scientific
information, including evidence on nutrition, obesity, and
chronic diseases. According to the FDA Web site, the update
will reflect amounts of food people are actually eating and
drinking now as opposed to 20 years ago when the Nutrition
Facts label was first introduced. The FDA further states that
serving sizes must be based on amounts of food and drink that
people customarily consume, not on what people should be
eating. People are generally eating more today than 20 years
SB 1000 | Page 6
ago, and the FDA set current reference values in 1994, based
primarily on Nationwide Food Consumption Surveys conducted in
1977-78 and 1987-88, according to the FDA's Web site.
The FDA states that the changes reflect new dietary
recommendations, consensus reports, and national survey data
and also reflect input obtained through four advance notices
of proposed rulemaking and numerous citizens' petitions.
According to the FDA, Americans on average eat 16 percent of
their total calories from added sugars, the major sources
being soda, energy and sports drinks, grain-based desserts,
sugar-sweetened fruit drinks, dairy-based desserts, and candy.
The proposed requirement to declare "added sugars" in addition
to the total sugar requirement on the Nutrition Label was
decided after taking into account new data and information,
including U.S. consensus reports and recommendations, a
citizen's petition, and public comments, according to the FDA.
The proposed rules are open for comment for 90 days, and any
final rule resulting from the proposal will become effective
60 days after the final rule's publication in the Federal
Register with a compliance date two years after the effective
date, according to the FDA.
6.Prior legislation. SB 622 (Monning) of 2013 would have enacted
the Sweetened Beverage Tax Law, which imposed a one-cent per
fluid ounce tax on any beverage that adds caloric sweeteners,
such as sodas, energy drinks, sweet teas, and sports drinks.
SB 622 would have required funds generated by the Sweetened
Beverage Tax to be directed to the newly created Children's
Health Promotion Fund and allocated to statewide childhood
obesity prevention activities and programs. SB 622 was held
under submission in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 669 (Monning) of 2011 was SB 622's predecessor. AB 669 was
held in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee.
AB 2100 (Coto) of 2010 would have imposed a one cent tax per
teaspoon of added sweetener in a bottled sweetened beverage or
in a sweetened concentrate. AB 2100 was held in the Assembly
Revenue and Taxation Committee.
SB 1210 (Florez) of 2010 was a measure similar to SB 622. SB
1210 was placed on the former Senate Revenue and Taxation
Committee's suspense file.
SB 1000 | Page
7
SB 1520 (Ortiz) of 2002 would have imposed an excise tax upon
every distributor, manufacturer, or wholesale dealer at a rate
of $2 per gallon of soft drink syrup or simple syrup and $0.21
per gallon of bottled soft drinks, and $0.21 per gallon of
soft drink that may be produced from powder, that is sold in
this state. The soda tax provisions were removed from the
April 29, 2002, version of the bill.
AB 105 (Moore) of 1983 would have imposed an excise tax on the
distribution of non-alcoholic carbonated beverages, except
carbonated water and carbonated fruit juice, at the rate of
$0.07 per gallon. The provisions of that bill also included an
excise tax on the distribution of non-alcoholic carbonated
beverage syrup at the rate of $0.50 per gallon of liquid
syrup. This bill died in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation
Committee.
7.Support. The sponsors and many other supporters of this bill
argue that overweight, obesity, and physical inactivity cost
California's economy an estimated $52 billion a year in
unforeseen medical expenses and lost productivity. They
further state that research shows that over the past 30 years
the average American's daily caloric intake has increased by
nearly 300 calories, and 43 percent of those additional
calories come from additional soda consumption.
The California Food Policy Advocates states that a recent
focus group of CalFresh participants in the Central Valley
revealed that while many were generally aware that SSBs are
unhealthy, several participants were unclear how SSBs are
connected to the rising obesity rates even though there is
overwhelming science linking the obesity epidemic to the
consumption of soda and other sugary drinks.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) argues
that major soft drink companies have steadily increased the
sizes of popular single-serving containers in order to
encourage ever greater consumption. CSPI states that soft
drinks have become the most consumed food or beverage in the
United States.
8.Opposition. The California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
(CTPAC) writes in opposition of this bill and states that
almost any food that is consumed in excessive amounts can have
negative health effects. CTPAC is concerned that this bill
SB 1000 | Page 8
will have a negative effect on employment for its members and
states that this bill would likely result in warning labels on
everything that can be unhealthy.
A coalition of opponents writes in opposition of this bill
arguing that it contains inconsistencies that would be
confusing to consumers, such as requiring warning labels on
some products but not on others, such as- high calorie
milk-based products that are also high in sugar. They also
argue that it does not make sense for the state legislature to
mandate additional California labeling when a new, national
effort is already going forward, through the FDA's proposal to
update nutrition labels for all food and beverage products.
9.Policy comments.
a. Implementation date. This bill does not include an
implementation date, so if chaptered it would take effect
on January 1, 2015. It is not likely feasible for the
industry to comply with the SSBSWA by that date. The
author may wish to consider including an implementation
date that gives the industry sufficient time to comply
with the provisions of the SSBSWA.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION :
Support: California Black Health Network (Co-Sponsor)
California Center for Public Health Advocacy
(Co-Sponsor)
California Medical Association (Co-Sponsor)
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California (Co-Sponsor)
A World Fit For Kids!
Alameda County Public Health Commission
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Asian Pacific Islander Obesity Prevention Alliance
Berkeley Media Studies Group
Bike San Gabriel Valley
Blue Shield of California
California Association for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance
California Chiropractic Association
California Conference of Local Health Department
Nutritionists
California Convergence
SB 1000 | Page
9
California Food Policy Advocates
California Optometric Association
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California Primary Care Association
California Public Health Association - North
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California State Alliance of YMCAs
California WIC Association
Center for Collaborative Solutions
Center for Ecoliteracy
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Central California Alliance for Health
Central California Regional Obesity Prevention Program
ChangeLab Solutions
Congress of California Seniors
Day One
Dignity Health
FAME Corporations
First 5 Alameda County
First 5 Association of California
First 5 Santa Clara County
Greenlining Institute
Guam Communications Network
Health Improvement Partnership of Santa Cruz
Health Officers Association of California
Los Angeles Trust for Children's Health
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Stanford
Orfalea Foundation
Pacific Islander Cancer Survivors Network
Pacoima Beautiful
Pajaro Valley Community Health Trust
Partners for Fit Youth
Public Health Institute
San Diego Hunger Coalition
San Francisco County and City
Santa Cruz County Child Care Planning Council
Santa Cruz County Children's Network
SF Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility
Shape Up San Francisco Coalition
Southern CA Public Health Association
Strategic Alliance for Healthy Food and Activity
Environments
Street Level Health Project
United Way of Santa Cruz County
SB 1000 | Page 10
Oppose: Asian Business Association
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Attractions and Parks Association
California Automatic Vendors Council
California Chamber of Commerce
California Grocers Association
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California League of Food Processors
California Independent Grocers Association
California Independent Oil Marketers Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Nevada Soft Drink Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Service Station and Auto Repair Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Can Manufacturers Institute
Grocery Manufacturers Association
International Franchise Association
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Theatre Owners of
California/Nevada
National Federation of Independent Business
Neighborhood Market Association
SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association
-- END --