California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 820 — Fish and shellfish: labeling and identification.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there are no live odds of enactment. 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 labeling of foods introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce and generally prohibits the misbranding of food. Existing state law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, generally regulates misbranded food, which includes food that is not properly labeled. A violation of these provisions is a crime. This bill would provide that it is unlawful and constitutes misbranding to sell or offer for sale any fresh, frozen, or processed fish or shellfish intended for human consumption without clearly identifying at the point of sale whether the fish or shellfish was wild caught or farm raised. The bill would exempt a person who sells or offers for sale any fish or shellfish and acts in reasonable reliance on the fish or shellfish package labeling and product invoice from being found in violation of these requirements. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature to increase penalties for a violation of these requirements. Because any violation of these provisions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, provides for the regulation of health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities, as defined, by the State Department of Public Health. Under existing law, local health agencies are primarily responsible for enforcing the California Retail Food Code. A violation of any of these provisions is punishable as a crime. Existing law requires fish that are received for sale or service to be commercially and legally caught or harvested. This bill would require a retail food facility that sells or offers for sale any fresh, frozen, or processed fish or shellfish intended for human consumption to identify at the point of sale whether the fish or shellfish was wild caught or farm raised, and would prohibit a retail food facility from knowingly misidentifying that the fish or shellfish was wild caught or farm raised. The bill would exempt a retail food facility or restaurant that sells or offers for sale any fish or shellfish and acts in reasonable reliance on the fish or shellfish package labeling and product invoice from being found in violation of these requirements. Because any violation of these provisions would be a crime, and by imposing additional duties on local health officers, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law regulates commercial fishing and imposes regulations on various salt water fish. This bill would prohibit Pacific red snapper or butterfish from being used as an alternate name for specified fish, including the sebastes entomelas (widow rockfish) and the anoplopoma fimbria (sablefish) . (4) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Article IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  4. Re-referred to Com. on AGRI.

  5. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on AGRI. Read second time and amended.

  6. Re-referred to Com. on AGRI.

  7. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on AGRI. Read second time and amended.

  8. Referred to Com. on AGRI.

  9. From printer. May be heard in committee March 29.

  10. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"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.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

public-safety agriculture
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 820 do?
(1) Existing federal law, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, regulates, among other things, the labeling of foods introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce and generally prohibits the misbranding of food. Existing state law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, generally regulates misbranded food, which includes food that is not properly labeled. A violation of these provisions is a crime. This bill would provide that it is unlawful and constitutes misbranding to sell or offer for sale any fresh, frozen, or processed fish or shellfish intended for human consumption without clearly identifying at the point of sale whether the fish or shellfish was wild caught or farm raised. The bill would exempt a person who sells or offers for sale any fish or shellfish and acts in reasonable reliance on the fish or shellfish package labeling and product invoice from being found in violation of these requirements. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature to increase penalties for a violation of these requirements. Because any violation of these provisions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, provides for the regulation of health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities, as defined, by the State Department of Public Health. Under existing law, local health agencies are primarily responsible for enforcing the California Retail Food Code. A violation of any of these provisions is punishable as a crime. Existing law requires fish that are received for sale or service to be commercially and legally caught or harvested. This bill would require a retail food facility that sells or offers for sale any fresh, frozen, or processed fish or shellfish intended for human consumption to identify at the point of sale whether the fish or shellfish was wild caught or farm raised, and would prohibit a retail food facility from knowingly misidentifying that the fish or shellfish was wild caught or farm raised. The bill would exempt a retail food facility or restaurant that sells or offers for sale any fish or shellfish and acts in reasonable reliance on the fish or shellfish package labeling and product invoice from being found in violation of these requirements. Because any violation of these provisions would be a crime, and by imposing additional duties on local health officers, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law regulates commercial fishing and imposes regulations on various salt water fish. This bill would prohibit Pacific red snapper or butterfish from being used as an alternate name for specified fish, including the sebastes entomelas (widow rockfish) and the anoplopoma fimbria (sablefish) . (4) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors AB 820?
AB 820 is sponsored by Mark Stone.
What is the current status of AB 820?
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 AB 820?
Track AB 820 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 820

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.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 820

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →