Public health: sugar-sweetened beverages: safety warnings.
Summary
(1) Existing federal law, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, regulates, among other things, the quality and packaging of foods introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce and generally prohibits the misbranding of food. Existing federal law, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, governs state and local labeling requirements, including those that characterize the relationship of any nutrient specified in the labeling of food to a disease or health-related condition. Existing state law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, generally regulates misbranded food and provides that any food is misbranded if its labeling does not conform with the requirements for nutrient content or health claims as set forth in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the regulations adopted pursuant to that federal act. Existing law requires that a food facility, as defined, make prescribed disclosures and warnings to consumers, as specified. A violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing state law, the Pupil Nutrition, Health, and Achievement Act of 2001, also requires the sale of only certain beverages to pupils at schools. The beverages that may be sold include fruit-based and vegetable-based drinks, drinking water with no added sweetener, milk, and in middle and high schools, an electrolyte replacement beverage if those beverages meet certain nutritional requirements. This bill would establish the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, which would prohibit a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale a sugar-sweetened beverage in a sealed beverage container, or a multipack of sugar-sweetened beverages, in this state unless the beverage container or multipack bears a specified safety warning, as prescribed. The bill also would require every person who owns, leases, or otherwise legally controls the premises where a vending machine or beverage dispensing machine is located, or where a sugar-sweetened beverage is sold in an unsealed container to place a specified safety warning in certain locations, including, on the exterior of any vending machine that includes a sugar-sweetened beverage for sale. (2) Under existing law, the State Department of Public Health, upon the request of a health officer, as defined, may authorize the local health department of a city, county, city and county, or local health district to enforce the provisions of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. Existing law authorizes the State Department of Public Health to assess a civil penalty against any person in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per day, except as specified. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General or any district attorney, on behalf of the State Department of Public Health, to bring an action in a superior court to grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining a person from violating any provision of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. This bill, commencing July 1, 2015, would provide that any violation of the provisions described in (1) above, or regulations adopted pursuant to those provisions, is punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $50, but no greater than $500. By imposing additional enforcement duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also create the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Fund for the receipt of all moneys collected for violations of those provisions. The bill would allocate moneys in this fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the local enforcement agencies for the purpose of enforcing those provisions. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, and dental disease. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Bill status
failed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2014
Committee Review
Jun 2014
Senate Passage
May 2014
Assembly Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 13, 2014
Last action Nov 30, 2014
Floor votes
How they voted
No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
17
Key actions
3
Committee
6
Jun 17, 2014
Committee
Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee. Reconsideration granted.
lower
Jun 9, 2014
Committee
Referred to Coms. on HEALTH and B.,P. & C.P.
lower
May 23, 2014
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 3706.) (May 23).
upper
Apr 10, 2014
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 3162.) (April 9). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Mar 27, 2014
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
upper
Feb 27, 2014
Committee
Referred to Com. on HEALTH.
upper
1 primary · 6 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 1000
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 1000. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline