(July 31, 2007) A California Chamber of Commerce-opposed “job killer” bill that would have mandated onerous management practices for the leafy green industry, appears to be stalled in the Assembly Agriculture Committee.

SB 201 (Florez; D-Shafter) threatened agricultural productivity, and would have increased the costs of leafy green vegetables, by mandating day-to-day growing practices in statute and requiring a state waiver for any deviations. The bill was not brought to a vote in the Assembly committee before the summer recess and therefore missed the deadline to move through the committee.

The CalChamber shares the author’s goal of providing safe food product for consumers, but believes that the path the leafy green industry has taken with the development of the California Leafy Green Handler Marketing Agreement is the correct approach. Placing field crop production standards in statute prevents updates and revisions to practices as science provides increased understanding of food safety best practices.

The marketing agreement creates an inspection system to ensure that growers are adhering to the best management practices accepted by the Leafy Green Handler Board. This system allows revisions to the practices as science develops and creates a program that will ensure that consumers always receive the safest food possible. Placing growing practices in statute sets a precedent of allowing the Legislature to mandate day-to-day business practices. The CalChamber believes that the agricultural industry should lead the development of grower practices with scientific review and input, as the industry is the most qualified to create a system that growers can implement successfully.

Recognizing the importance of creating a system based on the best scientific information available, the leafy green industry has requested input from the state Department of Health Services and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as well as the nation’s top food safety experts on the good agricultural practices required by the marketing agreement. Legislating a solution does not allow for the same scientific review and would significantly hamper future changes as the science in this area evolves.

The marketing agreement already requires adherence to good agricultural practices and the leafy green industry is covering the cost of this program in its entirety. SB 201 requires the Department of Public Health to duplicate — at significant cost to the state — the work that has been completed under the marketing agreement. Spending the state’s limited resources on a duplicative program will not improve food safety.

The CalChamber and the leafy green industry share the objective of creating a food safety program that enhances food safety and provides real benefits to the consumer, which is why the industry took the initiative to develop the marketing agreement.

Staff Contact: Valerie Nera