BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SB 1381 (Evans)
As Amended April 3, 2014
Hearing Date: April 22, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
TMW
SUBJECT
Food Labeling: Genetically Engineered Food
DESCRIPTION
This bill, as of January 1, 2016, would enact the California
Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act and require any
raw agricultural commodity or packaged food that is entirely or
partially produced with genetic engineering, as defined, to be
labeled, clearly and conspicuously, as "Genetically Engineered."
This bill would provide that a manufacturer or retailer who, in
good faith, fails to properly label a product in reliance on the
representations of a farmer, producer, or supplier that the
product is not entirely or partially produced with genetic
engineering, would not be in violation of this bill. This bill
would provide that a farmer, producer, or supplier who is not a
retailer or manufacturer is not required to label a product as
entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering, and
exempt specified products. This bill would also authorize an
injured consumer to bring an action for product mislabeling, as
specified.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in
Committee.)
BACKGROUND
In 1992, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
published a policy on foods derived from new plant varieties,
which applies to foods developed using recombinant
(more)
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 2 of ?
deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology (commonly referred to as
"genetic engineering" (GE) or "biotechnology"). According to
the FDA, this policy was developed to provide guidance for
developers of GE foods and to ensure that GE products are safe
and comply with applicable legal requirements. (U.S. Dept. of
Health & Hum. Svc., Food and Drug Administration, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Guidance for Industry:
Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not
Been Developed Using Bioengineering; Draft Guidance (Jan. 2001)
[as of Apr.
10, 2014].) The FDA reported that, during the policy comment
and review process, there was general agreement that providing
more information to consumers was useful, and focus group data
indicated that consumers would prefer label statements that
disclose and explain the goal of bioengineering technology in
the purchased products. (Id.)
At this time, the FDA's policy on GE labeling is voluntary. The
FDA stated that it "is still not aware of any data or other
information that would form a basis for concluding that the fact
that a food or its ingredients was produced using bioengineering
is a material fact that must be disclosed . . . . FDA is
therefore reaffirming its decision to not require special
labeling of all bioengineered foods." (Id.) Although there is
no special federal labeling requirement for GE foods, the FDA
stated that a food may be characterized as mislabeled under
federal law if statements on the label are false or misleading
as a result of failing to disclose facts that are material.
Various federal laws, including the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, require specified product labeling to ensure the
health and safety of consumers and provide information as to the
ingredients of the products, which is especially important for
consumers with food allergies. California has enacted labeling
standards in large part based on the federal laws.
In 2012, Proposition 27 sought to require GE food labeling in
California. Proposition 27 was defeated by a margin of 51.4
percent to 48.6 percent. However, supporters of this bill note
that a recent poll shows that 67 percent of Californians support
a GE food labeling law. This bill is similar to Proposition 27,
but contains different exemptions and enforcements.
This bill, as of January 1, 2016, would enact the California
Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act and require any
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 3 of ?
raw agricultural commodity or packaged food that is entirely or
partially produced with genetic engineering to be labeled as
genetically engineered and provide specified exemptions from the
labeling requirements. This bill would also authorize an
injured consumer to bring an action for product mislabeling, as
specified.
This bill was heard in the Senate Committee on Health on March
26, 2014, and passed out on a 5-2 vote. Should this bill pass
out of this committee, it will be referred to the Senate
Committee on Agriculture.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing federal law , the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
provides food labeling requirements, including specified
nutrition information and food allergen components. (21 U.S.C.
Sec. 301 et seq.)
Existing federal law provides that a food is mislabeled and in
violation of federal law if statements on its label or in its
labeling are false. (21 U.S.C. Sec. 403(a).)
Existing federal law provides that both the presence and the
absence of information are relevant to whether a label is
misleading. (21 U.S.C. Sec. 201(n).)
Existing state law , the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law
(Sherman Law), provides food safety requirements, including that
food is not adulterated, misbranded, or falsely advertised.
Food labeling requirements generally adopt federal food labeling
laws as the state requirement, including nutrition labeling and
allergen labeling, but the Department of Public Health is
permitted, by regulation, to adopt additional food labeling
regulations. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 109875 et seq.)
Existing law provides that the Attorney General or any district
attorney may bring an action in superior court to grant a
temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from
violating the Sherman Law, and if the defendant has been found
in violation, the court is required to award all reasonable
costs of investigation and prosecution, including the costs of
storage and testing. (Health & Saf. Code Secs. 111900 and
111905.)
Existing law , for products mislabeled pursuant to the California
Organic Products Act of 2003, authorizes a person to bring an
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 4 of ?
action in superior court to obtain a temporary or permanent
injunction and, upon prevailing in the action, an award of
attorney's fees, restraining any other person from violating the
COPA. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 111910.) Existing law does not
require the plaintiff to allege facts necessary to show, or
tending to show, lack of adequate remedy at law, or to show, or
tending to show, irreparable damage or loss, or to show, or
tending to show, unique or special individual injury or damages.
(Id.)
Existing law also authorizes the court to impose as a civil
penalty, damages in the maximum sum of $1,000 for each day the
violation is continued, and such damages shall be paid one-half
to the state and one-half to the county in which the action is
brought if brought by the Attorney General, or entirely to the
county if brought by a district attorney. (Health & Saf. Code
Sec. 111915.)
This bill would provide that a food is misbranded under the
Sherman Law if its labeling does not include information, as
specified, that the food is entirely or partially produced with
genetic engineering.
This bill would enact the California Right to Know Genetically
Engineered Food Act (Act) and would require any raw agricultural
commodity or packaged food, other than an alcoholic beverage or
food sold at certified farmer's markets, field retail stands, or
farm stands, that is entirely or partially produced with genetic
engineering to be labeled. This bill would provide the
following definitions:
"food" includes only food for human consumption and not any
food for consumption by animals;
"genetically engineered" means produced from an organism or
organisms in which the genetic material has been changed
through the application either in vitro nucleic acid
techniques, as defined, or methods of fusing cells beyond the
taxonomic family, as specified; however, "genetically
engineered" does not include an animal who has not itself been
genetically engineered, regardless of whether that animal has
been fed or injected with any food or any drug that has been
produced through means of genetic engineering;
"manufacturer" means the person or entity that makes,
processes, combines, or packages food ingredients into a
finished product;
"organism" means any biological entity capable of
replication, reproduction, or transferring genetic material;
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 5 of ?
"packaged food" means any food offered for retail sale in the
state, other than raw food and food served, sold, or provided
ready to eat in any bake sale, restaurant, or cafeteria;
"retailer" means an establishment engaged in the business of
selling any perishable agricultural commodity or packaged food
via a storefront; and
"supplier" means a person or entity that engages in the
operation of selling or distributing raw agricultural
commodities that the person or entity has produced, purchased,
or acquired from a processor.
This bill would require a manufacturer of a raw agricultural
commodity packaged for retail sale to include the words
"Genetically Engineered" clearly and conspicuously on the front
or back of the package of that commodity.
This bill would require a retailer of a raw agricultural
commodity that is not separately packaged or labeled to place a
clear and conspicuous label on the retail store shelf or bin in
which that commodity is displayed for sale.
This bill would require a manufacturer of packaged food
containing some products of genetic engineering to label the
product in clear and conspicuous language on the front or back
of the package of that food product with the words "Produced
with Genetic Engineering" or "Partially Produced with Genetic
Engineering."
This bill would provide that a person engaged in business as a
manufacturer or retailer of products who in good faith sells,
offers for sale, labels, or advertises any product in reliance
on the representations of a farmer, producer, or supplier that
the product is not entirely or partially produced with genetic
engineering, shall not be found to violate the Act unless the
manufacturer or retailer knew or should have known that the
product was entirely or partially produced with genetic
engineering.
This bill would exempt a farmer, producer, or supplier from
liability for a violation of the Act.
This bill would provide that the failure to label any of the
following is not a violation of the Act: (1) packaged food in
which the materials produced through genetic engineering account
for nine-tenths of 1 percent or less of the total weight; (2)
food produced without knowledge or intent to use genetic
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 6 of ?
engineering; (3) an alcoholic beverage; or (4) food sold at a
certified farmer's market, field retail stand, or farm stand.
This bill would provide that food is produced without knowledge
or intent to use genetic engineering under either of the
following conditions: (1) the food is lawfully certified to be
labeled, marketed, and offered for sale as "organic" pursuant to
the federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. Sec.
6501 et seq.); or (2) an independent organization has
determined, pursuant to a specified sampling and testing
procedure, that the food was produced without knowledge or
intent to use genetic engineering and has been segregated from,
and not knowingly or intentionally commingled with, foods that
may have been genetically engineered.
This bill would require the Department of Public Health to adopt
and enforce regulations necessary to implement this bill.
This bill would extend the private right of action and remedies
available under the California Organic Products Act of 2003 to a
person injured as a result of a violation of this Act.
This bill would become operative on January 1, 2016.
This bill would declare that the provisions of it are severable,
and if any provision of the bill or its application is held
invalid, that invalidity would not affect other provisions or
application that can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
SB 1381 would allow Californians to make more informed
food-buying choices by requiring genetically engineered (GE)
foods sold in California to be labeled as such. Californians
would join more than 64 countries around the world that have
GE food labeling laws. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) does not require the labeling of genetically engineered
foods, giving California a duty to people, environment, and
agricultural economy to enact this provision.
There is overwhelming public support in California for
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 7 of ?
labeling genetically engineered foods. Polls both before and
after the November 2012 election for Proposition 37 showed
that 67 [percent] of Californians supported California having
its own GE food labeling law.
People want the right to know how their food is produced for
environmental, health, economic, religious, and ethical
reasons. Further, because there is no mandatory labeling of
GE foods, health professionals have no way of tracking if
these foods are causing allergic reactions or adverse health
effects. SB 1381 would help provide health professionals and
researchers with this tracking mechanism.
Labeling genetically engineered food is about right to know
and transparency in the marketplace. With clear labels, we can
make our own informed decisions.
2. GE labeling requirements
This bill would require any raw agricultural commodity or
packaged food that is entirely or partially produced with
genetic engineering to be labeled as "Genetically Engineered."
Existing federal law, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FDCA) provides that food labeling that is false or misleading
is generally prohibited, and state law, the Sherman Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Law (Sherman Law), is based upon the FDCA
provisions. (21 U.S.C. Sec. 301 et seq.; Health & Saf. Code
Sec. 109875 et seq.)
Food labeling under the FDCA is considered misleading if it
fails to reveal material facts in light of statements made or
suggested on the label or with respect to consequences that may
result from the use of the food. (21 U.S.C. Sec. 201(n).)
However, the FDCA does not require labeling of genetically
engineered foods but provides nonbinding recommendations for the
voluntary labeling of GE foods. The 1992 policy on foods
derived from new plant varieties includes FDA recommendations
regarding varieties derived from GE technology. According to
the FDA, that policy was derived to ensure that the new products
are safe and comply with applicable legal requirements. (U.S.
Dept. of Health & Hum. Serv., Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Guidance for
Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or
Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering; Draft Guidance
(Jan. 2001) [as of Apr. 10, 2014].) However, "[t]he 1992 policy does
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 8 of ?
not establish special labeling requirements for bioengineered
foods as a class of foods. The policy states that FDA has no
basis for concluding that bioengineered foods differ from other
foods in any meaningful or uniform way . . .", but there has
been "general agreement that providing more information to
consumers about bioengineered foods would be useful."
According to the author, this bill would allow Californians to
make more informed food-buying choices by requiring genetically
engineered foods sold in California to be labeled as such.
Californians for GE Food Labeling, sponsor, argues that
"Californians should have the choice as to whether to purchase
foods that are genetically engineered
. . . . More than 64 other countries have enacted laws
specifically focused on overseeing genetically engineered crops
and foods, or their labeling" and this bill would allow
Californians "the ability to [choose] to avoid GE foods for
environmental, health, economic, religious, and ethical
reasons." The sponsor also notes that this bill "would help
provide researchers with the beginnings of a means to track
ingestion of GE foods in order to determine if there are adverse
health effects. Labeling [GE] food is about transparency and
empowering people. With clear labels, consumers can make their
own informed decisions."
Notably, the Legislature has enacted other food labeling
requirements to better inform consumers about the contents and
production methods of food products. One example of statutory
labeling requirements for the production of food is the
California Organic Products Act of 2003 (COPA), which amended
the 1990 statutes for organic products that were enacted to
eliminate the misrepresentation of organic foods to consumers.
(See AB 2823 (Strom-Martin, Ch. 533, Stats. 2002); AB 2012
(Farr, Ch. 1262, Stats. 1990).) Similarly, this bill would help
inform consumers about food products.
3.GE labeling enforcement
This bill would provide labeling requirements for GE food under
the Sherman Law. Under the Sherman Law, the Attorney General or
any district attorney may bring an action in superior court to
grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person
from violating the Sherman Law, and if the defendant has been
found in violation, the court is required to award all
reasonable costs of investigation and prosecution, including the
costs of storage and testing. (Health & Saf. Code Secs. 111900
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 9 of ?
and 111905.) Further, for organic products, existing law
authorizes a person to bring an action in superior court to
obtain a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any other
person from violating the COPA and, upon prevailing in the
action, the injured party may receive an award of attorney's
fees. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 111910.) That plaintiff does
not have to allege facts necessary to show, or tending to show,
lack of adequate remedy at law, or to show, or tending to show,
irreparable damage or loss, or to show, or tending to show,
unique or special individual injury or damages. (Id.)
This bill, as currently in print, would have provided
conflicting enforcement provisions. For this reason, the author
has agreed to amend the bill as follows to provide the same
injunctive remedies as currently exist under the Sherman Law:
Author's amendments :
1. On page 7, strike lines 15 and 16.
2. On page 10, between lines 20 and 21, insert:
SEC. 5: Section 111910 of the Health and Safety Code is
amended to read:
111910. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section
111900 or any other provision of law, any person may bring
an action in superior court pursuant to this section and
the court shall have jurisdiction upon hearing and for
cause shown, to grant a temporary or permanent injunction
restraining any person from violating any provision of
Article 6.6 (commencing with Section 110808) or Article 7
(commencing with Section 110810) of Chapter 5. Any
proceeding under this section shall conform to the
requirements of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of
Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except
that the person shall not be required to allege facts
necessary to show, or tending to show, lack of adequate
remedy at law, or to show, or tending to show, irreparable
damage or loss, or to show, or tending to show, unique or
special individual injury or damages.
(b) In addition to the injunctive relief provided in
subdivision (a), the court may award to that person,
organization, or entity reasonable attorney's fees as
determined by the court.
(c) This section shall not be construed to limit or
alter the powers of the department and its authorized
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 10 of ?
agents to bring an action to enforce this chapter pursuant
to Section 111900 or any other provision of law.
Notably, this bill's current language provides for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff and would
have required a 60-day notice to be given to the Attorney
General and violating party. Since the Legislature enacted the
Sherman Law to only provide an injured party with injunctive
relief and attorney's fees, but no other damages, it is arguably
unnecessary to provide for a right to cure, as otherwise found
in the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code Secs. 1750 et
seq.). For that reason, the author's amendments do not include
the 60-day right to cure.
Committee staff notes that, should this bill pass out of this
Committee, all author's amendments must be taken in the Senate
Committee on Agriculture due to timing constraints.
1. Immunities
Existing law, under COPA, provides an organic product
distributor or retailer with immunity if the product was sold as
organic in good faith reliance on the representations of a
producer, handler, or other distributor, unless the distributor
or retailer knew or should have known that the product could not
be sold as organic. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 110890.)
Similarly, this bill would provide that a manufacturer or
retailer who, in good faith, fails to properly label a product
in reliance on the representations of a farmer, producer, or
supplier that the product is not entirely or partially produced
with genetic engineering, would not be in violation. This bill
would also provide that a farmer, producer, or supplier who is
not a retailer or manufacturer would not be liable for a
violation of this bill for failing to label a product as
entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering.
Additionally, the failure to label any of the following would
not be a violation of this bill: (1) packaged food in which the
materials produced through genetic engineering account for
nine-tenths of 1 percent or less of the total weight; (2) food
produced without knowledge or intent to use genetic engineering;
(3) an alcoholic beverage; or (4) food sold at certified
farmer's markets, field retail stands, or farm stands. This
bill would also provide that food is produced without knowledge
or intent to use genetic engineering under either of the
following conditions: (1) the food is lawfully certified to be
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 11 of ?
labeled, marketed, and offered for sale as "organic" pursuant to
the federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990; or (2) an
independent organization has determined, as specified, that the
food was produced without knowledge or intent to use genetic
engineering and has been segregated from, and not knowingly or
intentionally commingled with, foods that may have been
genetically engineered.
As currently in print, this bill would have exempted only a
farmer and an unknowing retailer from mislabeling liability.
The author offers to take the following amendments in the next
committee to properly account for all potential parties in the
product chain, acknowledge that farmers in California are
producing very few GE crops, and to support the farmers' efforts
to produce and sell food locally:
Author's amendments :
1. On page 7, on line 39, strike "a dealer engaged in the
business of selling" and strike line 40 and insert "an
establishment engaged in the business of selling any
perishable agricultural commodity or packaged food via a
storefront."
2. On page 8, between lines 13 and 14, insert:
(c) This section does not apply to any food sold
at a certified farmer's market, field retail stand, or farm
stand, as defined by Sections 47004, 47030, and 47050 of
the Food and Agriculture Code.
3. On page 8, below line 39, insert:
(e) This section does not apply to any food sold
at a certified farmer's market, field retail stand, or farm
stand, as defined by Sections 47004, 47030, and 47050 of
the Food and Agriculture Code.
4. On page 9, strike lines 1 through 13, and insert:
10809.2. (a) A person engaged in business as a
manufacturer or retailer of products who in good faith
sells, offers for sale, labels, or advertises any product
in reliance on the representations of a farmer, producer,
or supplier that the product is not entirely or partially
produced with genetic engineering, shall not be found to
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 12 of ?
violate this article unless the manufacturer or retailer
knew or should have known that the product was entirely or
partially produced with genetic engineering.
(b) A farmer, producer, or supplier who is not a
retailer or manufacturer is
not liable for a violation of this article.
(c) It shall not be a violation of this article for
failure to label any of the
5. On page 9, between lines 22 and 23, insert:
(4) Food sold at a certified farmer's market,
field retail stand, or farm stand, as defined by Sections
47004, 47030, and 47050 of the Food and Agriculture Code.
6. On page 10, strike lines 4-14.
1.Opposition concerns
A coalition of opposition argues that this bill would ban the
sale of tens of thousands of perfectly safe, common grocery
products in California unless they are specially repackaged and
relabeled or made with higher cost ingredients, would force
farmers and food companies to implement costly new labeling,
packaging, distribution, and recordkeeping, would create a new
class of lawsuits without proof of harm, and is potentially
unconstitutional based on federal preemption, the First
Amendment, and the Commerce Clause.
In response to the coalition's assertion that the bill would
increase costs and ban GE food, the author notes that this bill
does not ban GE products but would only require GE products to
be labeled. Further the author argues that "mandatory labeling
will not raise food prices enough for anyone to notice - the
industry changes labels all the time for marketing purposes and
are using this as a red herring." Additionally, the author
notes that "[s]ome of California's major trading partners, such
as Japan and Korea, require labels on GE foods and some will not
accept GE food imports. Due to this concern about exports,
labeling and segregating GE crops in our food supply makes good
sense from an economic perspective." Further, the author
asserts that organic farmers across California are concerned
about contamination of their fields by GE crops and labeling is
a key tool to ensure segregation of GE crops and protect organic
farmers in California.
As for preemption of this bill by federal labeling laws,
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 13 of ?
Committee staff notes that the FDA provides recommendations to
follow under its voluntary guidelines on GE product labeling
that specifically suggest using the words "Genetically
engineered," and note that "this kind of simple statement is not
likely to be misleading" or in violation of misbranding laws.
(U.S. Dept. of Health & Hum. Svc., Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Guidance for
Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or
Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering; Draft Guidance
(Jan. 2001) [as of Apr. 10, 2014].) Furthermore,
this bill merely adds supplemental disclosures to be included in
a product label. California case law has determined that
supplemental state labeling requirements are not preempted
unless such provisions are expressly preempted. (See Brod v.
Sioux Honey Ass'n Coop. (2013) 927 F. Supp. 2d 811.) Under the
Brod holding, this bill could be construed as requiring
supplemental labeling requirements that are not preempted by
federal law. Given that the FDA has already authorized GE
labeling, this bill does not require a manufacturer or retailer
to label the product in any particular way in violation of
federal or other state laws, and the supplemental disclosure
requirement in this bill has not expressly supplanted federal
law on GE labeling, this bill arguably would not be found to be
preempted by federal law.
With regard to the opposition's claim that this bill would run
afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause or violate the First
Amendment for compelling speech, the coalition points to the
issues raised in the Maine and Hawaii Attorney Generals' letters
regarding GE labeling legislation. These letters recognize the
uncertainty of predicting whether state legislation requiring GE
labeling could be found by a court to be unconstitutional. The
legislation typically must be shown to provide a legitimate
state interest, the legislation must directly advance that
interest, and the legislation must not be more extensive than
necessary to serve that interest. Since this bill merely
requires a genetically engineered food product to be labeled as
genetically engineered, and federal law has provided guidance on
voluntary GE labeling, along with the specific declarations of
statutory intent provided in this bill, it is possible this bill
would not be unconstitutional, depending upon case law tests
applied by the court.
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 14 of ?
Support : Alliance for Natural Health USA; Biosafety Alliance;
Black Women for Wellness; Breast Cancer Action; California
Certified Organic Farmers; California Farmers' Markets
Association; California Institute for Rural Studies; California
Nurses Association; California Public Interest Research Group;
California State Grange; Californians for Pesticide Reform;
Center for Environmental Health; Center for Food Safety; City of
Santa Monica; Clean Water Action California; Committee for a
Better Shafter; Communities for a New California; Consumers
Union; Delano Guardians; Environmental Working Group; Farmworker
Justice; Food and Water Watch; Food Democracy Now!; Food
Empowerment Project; Friends of the Earth - US; Global Community
Monitor; Good Earth Natural Foods; Greenfield Walking Group,
Bakersfield; Harmony Art; LabelGMOs.org; LaRocca Vineyards; Moms
Advocating Sustainability; Organic Consumers Association;
Pesticide Action Network North America; Pesticide Watch;
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sacramento Chapter;
Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Area
Chapter; Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura and San
Luis Obispo Counties, Inc.; Silo's; Slow Food California;
Sustainable Carmel Valley; Sustainable Marin; Sustainable
Novato; Teens Turning Green; Unitarian Universalist Church of
the Monterey Peninsula, Social Justice/Faith in Action; United
Native Americans Inc.; 6 Individuals
Opposition : Agricultural Council of California; Almond Hullers
and Processors Association; BAYBIO; BIOCOM; Biotechnology
Industry Organization; California Chamber of Commerce;
California Citrus Mutual; California Cotton Ginners Association;
California Cotton Growers Association; California Farm Bureau
Federation; California Grain and Feed Association; California
Grocers Association; California Healthcare Institute; California
League of Food Processors; California Manufacturers and
Technology Association; California Retailers Association;
California Seed Association; California Taxpayers Association;
California Women for Agriculture; Civil Justice Association of
California; Consumer Healthcare Products Association; Family
Winemakers of California; Grocery Manufacturers Association;
International Formula Council; Pacific Egg and Poultry
Association; Southwest California Legislative Council; Western
Agricultural Processors Association; Western Growers; Western
Plant Health Association
HISTORY
Source : Californians for GE Food Labeling
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 15 of ?
Related Pending Legislation : SB 1138 (Padilla, 2014) requires
the label of fresh, frozen or processed fish to clearly identify
the species of fish or shellfish by its common name, as
specified. SB 1138 is pending in the Senate Committee on
Appropriations.
Prior Legislation :
AB 88 (Huffman, 2011) would have required genetically engineered
salmon or other finfish products prepared from those fish of the
progeny of genetically engineered fish to be conspicuously
disclosed on the label. AB 88 failed passage in Assembly
Committee on Appropriations.
SB 1121 (Migden, 2008) would have required cloned animals, their
progeny, and food containing any product from a cloned animal or
its progeny to be labeled. SB 1121 was held under submission in
the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
SB 63 (Migden, 2007) would have required cloned animals, their
progeny, and food containing any product from a cloned animal or
its progeny to be labeled. SB 63 was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger because of his concerns that the bill was
preempted by federal meat and poultry labeling requirements and
the potential cost and unworkability of tracking and labeling
requirements in the bill.
AB 1100 (Ruskin, 2007) would have required cloned animals, their
progeny, and food containing any product from a cloned animal or
its progeny to be labeled. AB 1100 passed out the Senate
Committee on Health but was gutted and amended to provide an
exemption for portable gasoline containers.
AB 2823 (Strom-Martin, Ch. 533, Stats. 2002) See Comment 2.
AB 791 (Strom-Martin, 2002) would have required transgenic fish
to be labeled. AB 791 died on the Assembly Floor pending
concurrence.
SB 1513 (Hayden, 1999) would have authorized the Department of
Food and Agriculture to review and comment on notifications to
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United
States Department of Agriculture for the introduction of genetic
engineering projects that affect California agriculture. SB
1513 failed passage in the Assembly Committee on Agriculture.
SB 1381 (Evans)
Page 16 of ?
AB 2012 (Farr, Ch. 1262, Stats. 1990) See Comment 2.
Prior Vote : Senate Committee on Health (Ayes 5, Noes 2)
**************