CGA Addresses San Mateo County Bag Ban

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum minus ea suscipit porro alias corporis libero at. Perferendis omnis, veniam nemo beatae vel? Tempora numquam a repellat eaque natus, magnam?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

OP-ED: All San Mateo cities should adopt county bag ban
The Daily Journal (San Mateo County)

The recent passage of a model bag ban by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors could be a boon for the Bay without harming businesses. To protect the Bay from trash and level the playing field for businesses from San Jose to San Francisco, all cities in San Mateo County should adopt this simple, effective ordinance.

The ordinance bans single-use plastic bags at all retail stores, except restaurants, and requires businesses to charge customers a minimum of 10 cents for each paper bag. The California Grocers Association supports this regional approach that creates consistency for businesses and consumers while benefiting the environment. Bans combined with store charges are also a powerful incentive to nudge consumers to bring their own reusable bags. According to the association, stores located in cities that require bag charges report that up to 90 percent of customers bring their own, a clear win for the environment.

The impact of plastic bag pollution on our rivers, bays and oceans is well documented. Plastic never biodegrades in a marine environment, and it smothers wetlands and chokes wildlife. Even if people are conscientious about not littering, lightweight bags blow out of uncovered garbage cans, down storm drains and into our waterways. Californians use 19 billion plastic bags annually, and at least 1 million end up in San Francisco Bay. Eliminating this pervasive litter doesn’t just benefit the environment; it saves cities from spending money to unclog storm drains and clean streets and creeks. Regulating bags will help everyone’s bottom line.

San Mateo County partnered with more than 20 cities, including six in neighboring Santa Clara County, and conducted a full environmental impact report to develop this model ordinance. The results speak for themselves in this week’s unanimous vote by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to approve the recommendation. Now it’s time for cities to move forward and adopt a uniform approach throughout the county.

A healthy San Francisco Bay is essential to our quality of life and our economy. As more cities ban plastic bags, and encourage consumer adoption of reusable bags region-wide, it will make a huge difference for the Bay and wildlife, while reducing consumer confusion.

Thanks to the leadership of San Francisco, San Jose and other cities, half the Bay Area population now lives in communities where bans on single-use plastic bags are in force or imminent. All cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties should join them, and make the whole Peninsula plastic bag-free.

David Lewis is executive director of Save The Bay, the San Francisco Bay Area’s oldest and largest organization working to protect and restore the Bay. Ron Fong is president and CEO of the California Grocers Association, a nonprofit, statewide trade association representing the food industry since 1898.

Legislative Session A Decidedly Mixed Bag For California Grocers

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum minus ea suscipit porro alias corporis libero at. Perferendis omnis, veniam nemo beatae vel? Tempora numquam a repellat eaque natus, magnam?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Dave Heylen, V.P. Communications California Grocers Association
Tel: 916.448.3545
Fax: 916.448.2793
E-mail: [email protected]

California Grocers Association
1415 L Street, Suite 450
Sacramento, CA 95814

Job Creating Bills Not A Top Priority

SACRAMENTO, CA — (October 10, 2011) – California Governor Jerry Brown took action on hundreds of bills over the weekend, with the results a very mixed bag for the retail grocery industry. Facing an October 9 deadline to sign or veto legislation, the Governor worked down to the wire on Sunday night with significant issues decided in the final hours.

“We are certainly disappointed at some of the Governor’s actions,” said Ron Fong, President & CEO of the California Grocers Association. “There is a lot of talk about job creation in California but clearly job creators were not a top priority in many instances. Several of the bills this Governor chose to sign will make it much more difficult for grocers to do business in California, to expand operations here and to increase the number of jobs they provide in this state.”

Those negative impacts include:

  • AB 22 (Mendoza) which essentially prohibits the use of pre-employment credit checks for all but managerial employees in the grocery industry.
  • AB 183 (Ma) which bans the sale of alcohol at assisted self-checkout terminals, making it significantly more difficult to deploy the popular technology and increasing labor costs in the industry.
  • AB 688 (Pan) which creates administrative and civil penalties for the presence of expired infant formula, baby food, and pharmaceuticals on store shelves. The bill sets up a “gotcha” scenario for grocers where anyone with an agenda can wreak havoc on a store through health department complaints and private litigation even though no harm to the public exists.

“On the other hand, the Governor did appear to listen on a handful of issues that are significantly important to grocers,” Fong noted in discussing the outcome of this year’s legislative session.

Among the Governor’s vetoes were the following bills:

  • SB 364 (Yee) which would have created financial penalties for companies accepting corporate tax credits or deductions and subsequently experiencing a reduction in workforce in California.
  • SB 931 (Evans) which would have significantly restricted the use of payroll cards in California.

The California Grocers Association is a non-profit trade association representing the food industry since 1898 and represents approximately 500 retail members operating over 6,000 stores in California and Nevada.

Legal Challenge to Paper Bag Charge

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum minus ea suscipit porro alias corporis libero at. Perferendis omnis, veniam nemo beatae vel? Tempora numquam a repellat eaque natus, magnam?

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.

Heading 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Autem ipsum mollitia neque, illum illo excepturi, eum incidunt fugit nostrum est, voluptate eaque minima corporis debitis at, dolores ipsam. Quaerat, dolores.


South Carolina plastic bag manufacturer Hilex Poly has filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County claiming they violated Proposition 26 when requiring a retailer retained 10-cent charge on paper bags.

Proposition 26 was passed by the voters in early November, 2010, and requires local governments to place a tax increases before the voters for a 2/3 vote for passage. In late November, 2010, Los Angeles County passed their bag ordinance which bans the use of plastic carryout bags and requires a 10-cent charge on paper carryout bags.

The lawsuit by Hilex Poly essentially claims the retailer retained paper bag charge is technically a “tax” under Prop. 26. Los Angeles County attorneys, along with attorneys from several other jurisdictions, declared Prop. 26 did not apply to the charge before the Board of Supervisors voted for the ordinance.

If Hilex Poly wins this case the result could mean local governments could no longer require a retailer-retained charge on a bag without bringing the question to the voters.

Many thought a Prop. 26 lawsuit of this type would be filed before the ordinance went into effect this past July. The Los Angeles County ordinance along with several other ordinances have been in effect for months now.

It is worth noting this lawsuit comes on the heels of the plastic bag industry’s loss in the Manhattan Beach case where they tried to require jurisdictions perform expensive environmental reports before passing an ordinance.

The filing of this lawsuit appears to have no immediate effect on the implementation of the Los Angeles County ordinance. Los Angeles County will notify stores if there is a change in legal requirements. Companies with affected stores are urged to confirm with Los Angeles County before making any changes.

PR Newswire article is available here.