Another Fruitful Lobby Day in Sacramento!

The morning session included a meeting with CA Air Resources Board’s Director of Legislative Affairs – David Garcia. He was able to share valuable insight into the current Cap-and-Trade negotiations currently taking place at the Capitol. CARB has asked the legislature to extend the current program, set to end in 2030. Both the Senate and the Assembly have formed working groups and are evaluating the program and proposing possible changes. Attendees were able to lobby on this issue, sharing first-hand experiences such as implemented technologies that have helped reduce emissions across the industry. CLFP supports a clean reauthorization of the program so we may continue to see the benefits of our members’ efforts. Some of the changes being discussed would remove free allowances, or, move up targeted deadlines for emissions reductions, which could drive up costs and possibly lead to the shuttering of more plants throughout the state.

The afternoon was filled with meeting members of the Senate, Assembly, and Both Democratic and Republican members to discuss CLFP’s priority issues. In addition to Cap-and-Trade, members lobbied on several bills including, AB 1264 (Gabriel) Ultraprocessed foods, AB 1148 (Sharp-Collins) food packaging, SB 682 (Allen) PFAS, and AB 1331 (Elhawary) workplace surveillance. Currently, CLFP holds an “Oppose” position on all of these bills.

As many of you may recall, Assemblymember Gabriel has been running food dye and additive bills these last few years. This year’s bill, AB 1264, would define foods with naturally occurring, common ingredients to be considered “ultraprocessed foods.” Furthermore, it would ban certain foods from being sold or distributed in schools.  This definition could impact tomato sauces and paste, salad dressings, and fruit cups, to name a few; foods that we think are important choices to offer our students. The confusion over the broad definition is why CLFP is highly concerned about defining “ultraprocessed food” in statute. Late last year, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Advisory Committee, which is composed of the leading nutrition scientists, was unable to conclusively develop a definition of ultraprocessed foods and stated that there was not enough robust data to develop guidelines. If these experts could not develop a workable solution, we would strongly caution against defining “ultraprocessed” in our laws.

CLFP also has concerns with AB 1148 as it would ban for sale food packaging that contains intentionally added bisphenols and ortho-phalates. As producers of shelf-stable food products, CLFP members are committed to packaging food products into safe materials. Unfortunately, this bill does not take into consideration California’s existing regulatory structure that analyzes chemicals of concerns. DTSC is currently evaluating food contact articles under the Safer Consumer Products Program and has previously denied a petition to designate food cans with BPA resin linings as a priority product for regulation because there was not enough detail for rigorous evaluation. In addition, the effective dates of the bill prose compliance challenges with no sell through date, meaning products manufactured prior to January 1, 2027, would not be allowed to be sold in to California. We continue to work with the author’s office on possible amendments to remove our opposition.

SB 682 also has to do with food packaging, but specifically PFAS. The author has made promises to significantly amend the bill, however the proposed changes would not remove food packaging from the bill. While we are still waiting to review the proposed amendments to SB 682, we are still concerned with the definition of “food packaging.” The bill proposes a broad definition that could pull in secondary and tertiary packaging, which are not necessarily food contact packaging. Additionally, the bill does not consider that shelf-stable foods are often manufactured well in advance of sale, therefore the bill should have a sell through date.

Lastly, members focused on the implications of AB 1331 which would interfere with workplace surveillance measures. It prohibits an employer from using a workplace surveillance tool to monitor workers in off-duty areas, including their personal residence and vehicle, and on off-duty hours. This is critically important to CLFP members who also monitor workplaces for food safety issues.  AB 1331 also contains provisions requiring workplace surveillance tools to be disabled in a manner that cannot be feasibly implemented due to overbroad terms. The author made a number of promises of future amendments in order to get the bill off the Assembly floor—including elimination of the private right of action.  CLFP will continue to hold the author to these commitments and continue to work to narrow the bill and balance employee privacy with legitimate business and safety needs for surveillance in some contexts.

The busy day ended with a legislative reception in which dozens of legislators were able to attend and mix with members. Although we were not able to secure a meeting with every Assemblymember or Senator who represents our members, most of them were able to attend the reception and chat with members one-on-one to learn more about the facilities in their own districts. We look forward to next year’s event! Please reach out to Katie with any questions: katie@clfp.com