Sugar-sweetened beverages: safety warnings.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 203 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 203.
You're tracking SB 203
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 203 — Sugar-sweetened beverages: safety warnings.
Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
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 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, 2016, 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. 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 department 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.
Bill Text
- Amended 04/06/15 - Amended Senate Current pdf April 06, 2015
- Introduced 02/11/15 - Introduced pdf February 11, 2015
- SB203 View text html
Action History
-
Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
-
April 29 set for second hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 4. Noes 1. Page 860.) Reconsideration granted.
-
Set for hearing April 29.
-
April 22 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
-
Set for hearing April 22.
-
Referred to Com. on HEALTH.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 14.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Mitchell · Cosponsor
- Chiu · Cosponsor
- Hancock · Cosponsor
- Leno · Cosponsor
- McCarty · Cosponsor
- Monning · Primary
- Pan · Cosponsor
- Pavley · Cosponsor
- Williams · Cosponsor
- Wood · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 9 co-sponsors · 112 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Monning
Co-sponsors (9)
- Mitchell
- Chiu
- Hancock
- Leno
- McCarty
- Pan
- Pavley
- Williams
- Wood
Not signed on (112)
112 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 112 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Democratic | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 4 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| % of votes cast | 44% | 11% | 0% | 44% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Monning | — | Yea |
| Roth | — | Not Voting |
| Mitchell | — | Yea |
| Hernandez | — | Not Voting |
| Nielsen | — | Nay |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Hall | — | Not Voting |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Monning | — | Yea |
| Roth | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Mitchell | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Hall | — | Yea |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 203 do?
- (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 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, 2016, 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. 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 department 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.
- Who sponsors SB 203?
- SB 203 is sponsored by Mitchell, Chiu, Hancock, Leno, McCarty, Monning, Pan, Pavley, Williams, and Wood.
- What is the current status of SB 203?
- This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 203?
- Track SB 203 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 203
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 203
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →