12 replies to this topic

[Scampi]

FYI for everyone selling/manufacturing in California

 

 

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a landmark law aimed at banning red dye No. 3 and other potentially harmful food additives in consumer goods.

On Saturday, the Golden State became the first in the country to forbid the use of the ingredients found in many popular candies, drinks and more, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit environmental health organization that cosponsored the law with Consumer Reports.

Also known as the California Food Safety Act, Assembly Bill 418 — introduced by Assemblymembers Jesse Gabriel and Buffy Wicks in February — prohibits the manufacture, sale or distribution of food products in California containing red dye No. 3, potassium bromate, brominated vegetable oil or propylparaben.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a landmark law aimed at banning red dye No. 3 and other potentially harmful food additives in consumer goods.

On Saturday, the Golden State became the first in the country to forbid the use of the ingredients found in many popular candies, drinks and more, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit environmental health organization that cosponsored the law with Consumer Reports.

Also known as the California Food Safety Act, Assembly Bill 418 — introduced by Assemblymembers Jesse Gabriel and Buffy Wicks in February — prohibits the manufacture, sale or distribution of food products in California containing red dye No. 3, potassium bromate, brominated vegetable oil or propylparaben.

[MDaleDDF]

I saw this, and I'm interested to hear what others think about it.  Personally I feel this kind of stuff should remain on a federal level.   These 4 ingredients don't interfere with my products, but if they did, it'd likely be a 'too bad for California' response, as I am not going to adjust a formulation special for cali.   I'm not for or against using these four ingredients, but imho when each state starts legislating their own food law, what you get is a damned mess, and create impossible conundrum for manufacturers.   I'm not going to have different labels for different states, different formulations for different states, etc.

If I currently made anything with those four substances, I wouldn't be ditching the substances, I'd stop selling in Cali, unless it was shipped to a customer only in Cali or something like that.   But otherwise, buh-bye cali.....

 

Thoughts?

[MDaleDDF]

I also found it hilarious they removed titanium dioxide from the bill, so they don't have to give up their skittles.  

 

Like: "Look, we're worried about food safety, but not THAT much.   Gotta have dem skittles...."

[TylerJones]

It all depends on your customer base and who your customers are. Costco and Walmart will follow suit and prohibit the same ingredients as California so they can continue to sell in that state. California for what its worth is the 5th largest economy in the world. Some companies cannot just say bye to the business.

 

We all know what starts in California will eventually be the US standard. My family and I fled that state and still feel shackled by their over regulation. Example: Go order fast food in any state and there will be a prop 65 warning on the window. Go buy bottled water anything, these all have California specific lables that are common place across the nation.

 

I apologize if it got political but regulations are a direct result of politics.  They removed  titanium dioxide because an elected offical has skin in the game- has nothing to do with food safety. 

[MDaleDDF]

I would take exception with the 'what starts in California will eventually be the us standard'.   Perhaps at one time, but I think (again trying to dodge politics) people are starting to see some of the ideas California has taken to, not working out.    I mean they can't keep their power grid going, but are confident they can add millions of electric car chargers to the mix without an issue.

But I digress.   Really I guess what my post was asking, is:   Why don't the feds lock this down, and do our ilk think it's better to have the FDA make such laws instead of states.

 

I honestly question the legality of states making food laws that challenge laws in place by the FDA.   (not that I think the FDA is doing a great job at the moment either)  Not that what I think matters much, I was more curious what you all think.

I just don't see how the industry will do well having to answer to multiple political agendas/food laws, instead of one.   If we have the possibility of 50 states making up laws as they see fit with no accountability to the feds, it just seems to me it's going to eventually run amok.   States should petition the feds for such changes maybe?   I dunno...   

 

[olenazh]

I would take exception with the 'what starts in California will eventually be the us standard'.   Perhaps at one time, but I think (again trying to dodge politics) people are starting to see some of the ideas California has taken to, not working out.    I mean they can't keep their power grid going, but are confident they can add millions of electric car chargers to the mix without an issue.

But I digress.   Really I guess what my post was asking, is:   Why don't the feds lock this down, and do our ilk think it's better to have the FDA make such laws instead of states.

 

I honestly question the legality of states making food laws that challenge laws in place by the FDA.   (not that I think the FDA is doing a great job at the moment either)  Not that what I think matters much, I was more curious what you all think.

I just don't see how the industry will do well having to answer to multiple political agendas/food laws, instead of one.   If we have the possibility of 50 states making up laws as they see fit with no accountability to the feds, it just seems to me it's going to eventually run amok.   States should petition the feds for such changes maybe?   I dunno...   

 

So far, I haven't seen such outrage in Canada with regard to food safety legislation. Never heard of OMAFRA, say, making their own rules, contradicting or even adding to CFIA... 

[Gelato Quality Lead]

It is a confusing state to be in (physically and metaphorically!). 

 

In general, when state laws differ from federal laws, people know what to do. But when it comes to food laws differing, it becomes confusing, especially when there is interstate commerce and not just sales in one state. 

 

Example from California Dept. of Food and Ag website:

 

5.  How do California's milk standards differ from other states?
A.  From the nutritionist's standpoint, California's fluid milk standard is healthier because lower fat (i.e., 2 percent, 1 percent and nonfat varieties) fluid milk is fortified with nonfat solids (calcium, protein and assorted vitamins and mineral). Whereas the national fluid standard for solids-not-fat (SNF) are 8.25 percent by volume, and 3.25 percent fat in whole milk, California requires 8.7 percent SNF by volume, and 3.5 percent fat. In 2 percent milk, the SNF percentage jumps to 10 in California, while it remains at 8.25 percent under the federal standard. Put another way, the Dairy Council of California reports that the federal standard requires 261 milligrams of calcium in an eight-ounce glass of milk, regardless of its fat content. The California standard fortifies this number to 276 milligrams of calcium in whole milk, 317 milligrams in 2 percent milk and 348 milligrams in 1 percent milk. Nonfat milk sold in California is required to have 285 milligrams of calcium.

 

This becomes confusing for milk producers in other states. As stated above, they either change their production or they just stop selling in California. 

[olenazh]

Food Safety News, related topic:

https://www.foodsafe...an/#more-233096

[Gelato Quality Lead]

A related opinion piece: https://www.foodsafe...it-for-the-fda/

 

Sharing because they do bring up some good arguments regarding the issues going on at the FDA. But ultimately, the solution cannot be each state having their own food safety regs, overriding FDA, as the article author seems to want. 

[G M]

I foresee the popularity of shopping for groceries just over the state line booming.  Perhaps someone in Nevada or whatever has already opened Bacon 'R Us. 

[jfrey123]

I foresee the popularity of shopping for groceries just over the state line booming.  Perhaps someone in Nevada or whatever has already opened Bacon 'R Us. 

 

I have a bunch of friends who indeed do some shopping in my state.  Not just for the banned foods, but other banned goods that CA wants to save their people from...

 

I don't mind CA folks visiting to shop in a free state, but dang it they keep invading and resettling in my quiet little town of Reno/Sparks NV.  They let their politicians run amok until they got fed up and decided to escape, but they're bringing their politics with 'em to Californicate my Nevada.  I don't like it lol.

[Gelato Quality Lead]

https://www.food-saf...9139D0681990G1D

 

Newsom at it again

[TylerJones]

Newsom will be running for president shortly so we wont have to worry about individual restrictions per state as it will be across the US.

 

Made me laugh when you mentioned buying out of state. Alot of friends run up the hill to Reno to buy gas powered tools / generators which you cannot buy in CA come 2024, so much for red dye they cannot blow leaves or mow lawns with new gas powered equipment

 

At least they can still eat skittles while waiting for their batteries to charge.....