Food Labeling Bills

Two onerous California only food labeling bills have been introduced in the State Senate and are moving through legislative policy committees. CLFP is working hard to curtail the advancement of these measures.

Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) introduced Senate Bill 1381 which mandates a California only labeling scheme for genetically engineered (GE) foods. CLFP believes that this bill would provide misleading information and would ultimately result in higher food costs to consumers. 

SB 1381 would impose expensive and unnecessary labeling requirements that would put food processors in California at a competitive disadvantage relative to those in other states, and would ultimately raise food prices for consumers. California specific food labeling mandates would force food processors to re-tool their production and use higher-priced, non-GE ingredients in order to sell food in California. The resulting increase in production costs will ultimately get passed onto consumers. Economic studies of Proposition 37 (2012), a substantially similar initiative to SB 1381, concluded that forcing products to be repackaged or remade with higher priced ingredients would cost the average California family up to $400 per year in higher grocery costs.  

CLFP strongly believes that nationally uniform labeling policy is critical because uniform labeling minimizes confusion, increases consumer confidence, and helps control labeling and distribution costs to consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the labeling of all food, including that of food derived from GE techniques. 

Further, CLFP has argued that the labeling of genetically engineered foods is also not supported by science. According to the American Medical Association (AMA H-480.958 Bioengineered (Genetically Engineered) Crops and Foods):  "(a)There is no evidence that unique hazards exist" and "...there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods...". This statement is backed by all of the major scientific and regulatory bodies including the FDA, World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences and the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Perhaps most troublesome is that SB 1381 allows for a new private right of action for any party to sue on behalf of the state for alleged violations. These "bounty hunter" provisions incentivize litigation by allowing for recovery of attorney’s fees with no need to demonstrate standing to sue. This sort of regulation by litigation will hit small and medium-sized processors the hardest as these companies cannot afford the defense costs and will often be forced to settle, also at great cost to the company.  The food industry has already been hit hard by Proposition 65 lawsuits.  SB 1381 will only increase this type of frivolous bounty hunter litigation. 

The bill passed the Senate Health Committee and now awaits action in the Senate Rules Committee. CLFP is working with other agricultural, food, and bioengineering organizations to stop the further advancement of this measure.

Senator Monning (D-Carmel) introduced Senate Bill 1000, which would establish the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, which would prohibit the distribution and sale of sugar-sweetened beverages in California unless the beverage container or multipack bears a safety warning per the following: "STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay."

The introduction of SB 1000 coincides with the Food and Drug Administration’s recent proposal to update nutrition labels for all food and beverage products. The FDA’s plan would change the way added sugars are listed on the labels of 700,000 products including sports drinks, soft drinks, cereal, and ice cream. Sugar-sweetened beverages—which are already regulated by law—will be included under these new Federal guidelines. CLFP has argued that it does not make sense for the California legislature to spend its time and the taxpayers’ money to mandate an additional California labeling law when a new, national effort on packaging is already going forward.

Further, it is confusing and arbitrary to require warning labels on some products but not others as SB 1000 does. For example, high calorie milk-based products that are also high in sugar, like lattes, mochas and chai tea drinks, are exempt under this legislation, along with beer, wine, and spirits. 

CLFP is working with a large coalition of beverage manufacturers and retailers in opposition to this bill.