April 17, 2018
The Honorable Jim Wood, Chair
Assembly Committee on Health
California State Capitol, Room 6005
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: AB 2212 California Retail Food Code – OPPOSE
Dear Chairperson Wood,
We write to express our concerns regarding AB 2212 (Ting) as it seeks to amend Section 113985 of the Health and Safety Code and add subscriptions-based meal delivery services to the existing definition of “retail;” a change that would include food processors that sell direct to consumers. We would note the language in AB 2212 is the exact same language approach used last year in AB 1461, which Governor Brown vetoed just six months ago.
As a technology advocacy organization, we seek to support California’s advancement as a state where innovative ideas blossom into new industries, companies and jobs while maintaining well-crafted rules and regulations to protect the public.
California’s food processing industry is evolving rapidly to keep pace with consumer demand and competition in the marketplace. Applying regulations as outlined in AB 1461 and mirrored in AB 2212 will inhibit this industry from modernizing and maintaining a competitive advantage with other agriculture states. AB 2212 will only encourage food processors to locate their facilities outside our state and ship to California customers from places like Nevada and Texas. Additionally, the language in AB 2212 will not only directly impact California-based food processors currently package foods for this intended purpose, it has the potential to impact all food processors and stifle their ability to expand their business model to include direct-to-consumer services.
AB 2212 is not necessary as food processors and manufacturers are already heavily regulated by both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) as they often distribute food throughout the contiguous United States (including those that do so via subscription and provide recipes).
In contrast, the Food Handler Card program is a retail requirement enforced by local public health officers on the county level. It makes little sense, and would be impossible, for one food processor to be subject to the oversight of California’s 58 different local health
agencies, especially given that they are already required to comply with stricter food- safety and training standards enforced by CDPH and FDA.
Governor Brown recognized this in his veto message of AB 1461 last year where he encouraged the Legislature to work with the Department of Public Health and interested stakeholders to ensure food safety is protected and innovation is encouraged.
CALinnovates is fundamentally opposed to AB 2212 as it stifles innovation by adding excessive and unwarranted regulation to food processors that sell direct to consumers. We respectfully urge the Assembly Committee on Health to oppose AB 2212.
Sincerely,
Kish Rajan
Chief Evangelist
CC:
Assembly Member Mayes (Vice Chair)
Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry
Assembly Member Bigelow
Assembly Member Bonta
Assembly Member Burke
Assembly Member Carillo
Assembly Member Flora
Assembly Member Limon
Assembly Member McCarty
Assembly Member Nazarian
Assembly Member Rodriguez
Assembly Member Santiago
Assembly Member Thurmond
Assembly Member Waldron