| Referral History: |
| Dr. William B. Walker, Contra Costa Health Services, requested support from the Board of Supervisors on SB 1000. |
| Referral Update: |
SUBJECT: Public Health: Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: Warnings
CURRENT STATUS: 05/29/2014: In SENATE. Read third time. Passed SENATE. *****To ASSEMBLY.
SUMMARY: This bill establishes the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act (SSBSWA), to be administered by the Department of Public Health (DPH), and requires a safety warning on all sealed sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) 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.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1. Establishes 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 limited to the area under the jurisdiction of the local health department.
This bill:
1. Establishes the SSBSWA whereby a person, as defined, is prohibited from distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state 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, as specified.
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% 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 CALIFORNIA 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 warning to be posted at the point-of-purchase if a beverage dispensing machine is not self-serve.
5. Beginning July 1, 2015, any violation of the SSBSWA 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 Treasurer's Office, 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. Allows DPH 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.
Background
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2009, Americans consumed 13.8 billion gallons of SSBs, which 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% of adolescents ages 12-17 and 41% of children ages 2-11 drink at least one SSB every day. In addition, 24% of adults drink at least one SSB on an average per day. Adults who drink SSBs occasionally (not every day) are 15% more likely to be overweight or obese, and adults who drink one or more SSBs per day are 27% 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% during the past 50 years.
Prior Legislation
SB 622 (Monning, 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, 2011) was SB 622's predecessor. AB 669 was held in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee.
AB 2100 (Coto, 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, 2010) was a measure similar to SB 622. SB 1210 was placed on the former Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee's suspense file.
SB 1520 (Ortiz, 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, 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.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/28/14)
California Black Health Network (co-source)
California Center for Public Health Advocacy (co-source)
California Medical Association (co-source)
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California (co-source)
A World Fit For Kids!
Alameda County
Alameda County Public Health Commission
Alameda County Public Health Department
AltaMed Health Services
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
American Heart Association
Asian Pacific Islander Obesity Prevention Alliance
Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum
Berkeley Media Studies Group
Bike San Gabriel Valley
Blue Shield of California
California Academy of Family Physicians
California Academy of Physician Assistants
California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
California Association of Environmental Health Administrators
California Children's Hospital Association
California Chiropractic Association
California Conference of Local Health Department Nutritionists
California Convergence
California Dental Association
California Dietetic Association
California Food Policy Advocates
California Optometric Association
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California Park & Recreation Society
California Primary Care Association
California Public Health Association - North
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California School-Based Health Alliance
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 CA Regional Obesity Prevention Program
ChangeLab Solutions
Children's Hospital Oakland
City of Berkeley
City of Carson
City of Santa Ana
Community Health Improvement Partners
Congress of California Seniors
Consumer Federation of California
Courage Campaign
Day One
Dignity Health
Ecology Center
FAME Corporations
First 5 Alameda County
First 5 Association of California
First 5 California
First 5 LA
First 5 Santa Clara County
Greenlining Institute
Guam Communications Network
Having Our Say Coalition
Health Education Council
Health Improvement Partnership of Santa Cruz
Health Officers Association of California
Healthy & Active Before 5
Libreria Del Pueblo, Inc.
Los Angeles Trust for Children's Health
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Stanford
Network of Ethnic Physicians
Orfalea Foundation
Pacific Islander Cancer Survivors Network
Pacoima Beautiful
Pajaro Valley Community Health Trust
Partners for Fit Youth
Philippine Medical Society of Northern California
Public Health Institute
San Diego County Childhood Obesity Initiative
San Diego Hunger Coalition
San Francisco County and City
San Mateo County
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
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
Vision y Compromiso
Worksite Wellness LA
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/28/14)
Asian Business Association
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Automatic Vendors Council
California Chamber of Commerce
California Grocers Association
California Hotel & Lodging Association
California League of Food Processors
California Independent Oil Marketers Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Nevada Soft Drink Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Service Station & Auto Repair Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Grocery Manufacturers Association
International Franchise Association
The Latino Coalition
Los Angeles County Business Federation
National Association of Theatre Owners of CA/NV
Neighborhood Market Association
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: 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. This bill provides 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 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% 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 one or two sugary drinks per day have a 26% 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.
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% 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 argues that major soft drink companies have steadily increased the sizes of popular single-serving containers in order to encourage ever greater consumption. The Center states that soft drinks have become the most consumed food or beverage in the United States.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Teamsters Public Affairs Council writes in opposition of this bill and states that almost any food that is consumed in excessive amounts can have negative health effects. The Council is concerned that this bill 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.
|
| Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): |
| ADOPT a position of "support" on SB 1000, as amended (Monning): Public Health: Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: Warnings, as recommended by Contra Costa Health Services. |
| Fiscal Impact (if any): |
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
* One-time costs likely between $150,000 and $300,000 to develop and adopt regulations to implement the bill (General Fund). DPH indicates that the language of the bill is specific enough that it will not necessarily require implementing regulations to clarify terms or set forth compliance requirements. In addition, the existing regulations that allow the DPH to delegate authority for enforcement of portions of the Sherman Act to local agencies do not include the new sections added to the Health and Safety Code by this bill.
* Ongoing costs of about $400,000 per year for DPH to enforce labelling and public notice requirements (General Fund). Under current law, DPH enforces requirements of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law at food processing and distribution sites. DPH indicates it could enforce the provisions of this bill at those sites using existing resources. However, the bill also requires enforcement at a very large number of retail food sale sites. Under current practice, the DPH does not inspect or enforce food safety laws at retail sites. Because local environmental health officers do not generally have the legal infrastructure to impose civil penalties, DPH will likely need to respond to complaints, conduct spot inspections, and assess civil penalties for violations of the bill's requirements. To the extent that local environmental health officers opt to enforce the bill's provisions at retail food facilities, the costs for DPH to conduct spot checks at such facilities will be reduced.
* Unknown impacts on state agencies that own or operate cafeterias, vending machines, or other retail sales locations (various funds). To the extent that state agencies will be subject to the regulatory requirements of the bill, there could be administrative costs to comply. For example, the requirement to maintain records of sales of covered beverages could impose additional administrative costs. It is not clear, however, the extent to which state agencies will be regulated under the bill. Typically, state agencies that host food facilities contract out for those services. In those cases, the costs of compliance should generally be a responsibility of the vendor. If the costs of compliance are large, a vendor could seek to pass those costs along to customers and/or to the contracting state agency. The bill also requires that owner of premises where covered beverages are sold or dispensed are obligated to comply with the bill's requirements. Even if state agencies contract out for services that sell covered benefits, there could be some administrative cost to ensure that vendors are complying with the law.
* Unknown potential savings to state health programs (various funds). Obesity-related health conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, and other conditions are a major driver of health care costs in the United States. There is a clear association between the increased consumption of high-calorie, sugar-sweetened beverages and the rise of obesity in the United States over the last several decades. If this bill is successful in reducing the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (and consumers do not switch to other high-sugar beverages not covered by the bill), there will likely be some long-run reduction in overweight and obesity rates. The extent of this impact is unknown. To the extent that the bill is able to reduce overweight and obesity rates in the state, there are likely to be corresponding reductions in spending by state health programs, such as Medi-Cal and CalPERS health care programs. |
|