BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HEALTH
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
Senator Sheila J. Kuehl, Chair
BILL NO: SB 120
S
AUTHOR: Padilla
B
AMENDED: March 8, 2007
HEARING DATE: March 14, 2007
1
FISCAL: Appropriations
2
0
CONSULTANT:
Park/
SUBJECT
Food facilities: nutritional information.
SUMMARY
This bill requires food facilities, as defined, to make
specified nutritional information available to customers.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing federal law establishes the Nutrition Labeling and
Education Act, which requires all packaged foods sold
outside of restaurants to include nutritional content
information on the packaging. Existing federal law also
requires restaurants to provide nutritional content
information on food items for which a nutrient or
health-related claim is made by the restaurant.
Existing state law establishes the California Uniform
Retail Food Facilities Law (CURFFL), which imposes various
health and safety requirements on restaurants, and makes
violations of these requirements subject to criminal
penalties. CURFFL establishes the authority of local
environmental health jurisdictions to adopt a food safety
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 120 (Padilla) Page
2
inspection program with oversight by the DHS Food and Drug
Branch. As of July 1st, 2007, CURFFL will be superseded by
the California Retail Food Code and oversight duties will
be transferred to the State Department of Public Health.
This bill requires each food facility that shares the same
trade name with at least nine other food facilities in the
state, regardless of ownership, to make nutritional
information available to consumers for all standard menu
items, defined as items that are on a menu for six months
or longer. The information provided shall include total
calories, saturated fat, carbohydrates and sodium. Food
facilities that use only a menu board may post calorie
information only, provided the additional information is
made available in writing upon request. The bill also
requires a conspicuous statement regarding recommended
limits for saturated fat and sodium in a 2,000 calorie
daily diet on each page of a menu and provides for
enforcement and penalties.
FISCAL IMPACT
Unknown
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Need for the bill
The author states that people are eating out more and eat
more when they eat out. The author points to increasing
rates of obesity in adults and children, and states that
the current system of voluntary labeling at restaurants is
inadequate given the large role that restaurant food plays
in our diets. The author intends for the bill to provide
consumers with reliable information at the point of sale to
help them make more informed and healthy food choices.
Eating out
Studies have shown that eating out more frequently is
associated with obesity, higher body fat or higher BMI, and
that eating more fast-food meals is linked to eating more
calories, more saturated fat, fewer fruits and vegetables
and less milk.
According to a report issued by the Center for Science in
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 120 (Padilla) Page
3
the Public Interest (CSPI) in 2003, Americans spend about
46 percent of food dollars at restaurants (source: National
Restaurant Association), compared with 26 percent in 1970.
According to the USDA, calories consumed at restaurants (or
away-from-home foods) as a part of the diet had doubled
from 18 percent to 34 percent by 1995.
Obesity epidemic
Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United
States, affecting one-third of all adults, 27% of children,
and 21% of adolescents. Former Surgeon General David
Satcher stated that, "Overweight and obesity may soon cause
as much preventable disease and death as cigarette
smoking."
A recent RAND study (March, 2002) reported that, "The
health risks of obesity [are] worse than smoking, drinking
or poverty." The study reports that obesity is linked to
higher medical costs and very high rates of chronic
illnesses, higher than living in poverty, and much higher
than smoking or drinking.
In some school districts in California, 50 percent of the
students are overweight. Overweight youth face increased
risks of many serious health problems that, traditionally,
have not commonly occurred during childhood, including type
2 diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis, and
osteoporosis. More than 80 percent of obese adolescents
remain obese as adults, with even more severe consequences,
including higher risks of heart disease and cancer.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 120 (Padilla) Page
4
Related legislation
SB 180 (Migden, 2007) would have required a food facility
to make nutritional information available to the consumer
upon request. This bill has been held at the author's
request.
Prior legislation
SB 679 (Ortiz, 2003) would have required restaurants to
make nutritional information immediately available to
customers, upon request, in a take-away form, and post a
sign stating that the information is available. This bill
failed passage in the Assembly Health Committee.
SB 1171 (Ortiz, 2004) would have required restaurants to
make nutritional information immediately available to
customers, upon request, in a take-away form, and post a
sign stating that the information is available. The bill
was never heard.
Arguments in support
The American Cancer Society writes that any strategy for
addressing obesity and improving public health through diet
must begin with informed choices about what we eat,
including those meals we eat out. The American Diabetes
Association points out that at least one recent study has
shown that people significantly underestimate the number of
calories in food items, further highlighting the need for
better access to such information. The American Heart
Association underscores that basic nutritional information
is extremely important to consumers who are dealing with
chronic diseases like cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Arguments in opposition
The California Alliance For Consumer Protection, while in
agreement with the intent, opposes the bill stating that
the measure doesn't go far enough. The group believes the
measure should apply to every restaurant in California.
The California Restaurant Association (CRA) writes that
market realities in the foodservice market make
implementation of this bill impractical, if not impossible.
CRA cites difficulties such as customization of orders by
the consumer, differing nutritional content on a similarly
sized portion (example of fat in steak or how it is
cooked), or even variation of portion size, such as the
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 120 (Padilla) Page
5
size of a baked potato. CRA also expresses concern that
creativity in the kitchen, especially in fine dining
establishments, will be discouraged under this bill. CRA
also believes that the cost of compliance will be
significant and that the bill opens food service
establishments to potential liability. The California
Grocers Association is concerned with the penalty regarding
inaccuracy of information and expects the nutritional
analysis to cost several hundred dollars per item.
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
1. In order to clarify what information must be
supplied on menu boards versus printed menus, the
committee staff recommend the following clarifying
amendments on page 3 of the bill:
114375. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (e),
each food facility in this state that shares the same
trade name with at least nine other food facilities in
the state, regardless of whether the food facilities
are subject to the same ownership or type of
ownership, that offer for sale substantially the same
menu items shall make nutritional information
available to consumers for all standard menu items.
This information shall include, but not be limited to,
all of the following, per item, as usually prepared
and offered for sale:
(1) Total number of calories.
(2) Total number of grams of saturated fat plus
(3) Total number of grams of trans fats.
( 3 4) Total number of carbohydrates.
( 4 5) Total number of milligrams of sodium.
(b) Each food facility that uses a
standard menu shall provide
the nutritional information next to each item on the
menu in a size
and typeface similar to other information about each
menu item.
(c) Each food facility that uses only a
menu board may limit
the nutritional information listed on the menu board
to the total
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 120 (Padilla) Page
6
number of calories per item in a size and typeface
similar to other
information about the item. For food facilities that
use only a menu board, the facility shall make
available to consumers the additional nutritional
information in writing upon request at the
point-of-sale. if the additional nutritional
information is made available to consumers in writing
upon request.
(d) The bottom of each page of a menu
shall include, in a clear
and conspicuous manner, the following statement:
"Recommended
limits for a 2,000 calorie daily diet are 20 grams of
saturated fat
and 2,300 milligrams of sodium. Saturated fat numbers
include
trans fat." If no items on the menu contain more than
0.5 grams
of trans fat from partially hydrogenated oil per item,
the statement,
"saturated fat numbers include trans fat," can be
omitted.
2. On page 4, lines 11-15 (subdivision (f)), it is
unclear whether the author intends for erroneous or
false nutritional information (stated claim is more
than 20 percent lower than outside nutrient analysis)
to be subject to the penalties outlined in 114376 for
any violation, a single violation or a pattern of
violation. It is also unclear if there is a prescribed
method for determining average content and whose
responsibility it would be to determine average
content. As of this writing, the author and sponsors
have not clarified these points.
POSITIONS
Support: American Cancer Association (co-sponsor)
American Heart Association (co-sponsor)
California Center for Public Health Advocacy
(co-sponsor)
California Optometric Association (co-sponsor)
American Diabetes Association
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 120 (Padilla) Page
7
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
California Adolescent Nutrition and Fitness Program
California Chapter of the American College of
Cardiology
California Chiropractic Association
California Food Policy Advocates
Contra Costa Healthy Services, Public and
Environmental Health Advisory Board
Gray Panthers
Latino Health Access
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Center for
Healthy Weight
Stanford School of Medicine
Three individuals
Oppose: The California Alliance For Consumer Protection
California Grocers Association
California Independent Grocers Association
California Restaurant Association
One individual
-- END --