Industry Supports National GMO Label Standard

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.

Two national grocery associations praised President Obama for signing into law a biotechnology labeling bill that creates a national labeling standard for food products made with genetically engineered ingredients and genetically modified organisms. President Obama signed S. 764 into law, a bi-partisan, bi-cameral action that sets in place one national standard for GMO disclosure that brings consistency, certainty and an end to restrictions on interstate commerce facing retailers, manufacturers and customers.

Leslie G. Saracen, President, Food Marketing Institute

“I am proud of the food retail industry’s role in helping get this legislation approved on Capitol Hill and now signed into law by President Obama. I am convinced it will help circumvent further consumer confusion on the already misunderstood and complex topic of GMOs.

“I am grateful that this law will help avoid further disruption in the interstate commerce of food products.  And I am encouraged that this law allows our industry to move beyond the traditional label and toward exploration of new and unprecedented ways of providing our customers with the information they need in making the wisest food choices for themselves and their families. In addition to the President’s role in signing it into law, we are most appreciative of the part U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack and his team played during critical times in the legislative history of this law and will now play in implementation.

“The journey for this legislation from introduction on Capitol Hill to ratification in the Oval Office was a long and bumpy one, but this law will go a long way in helping us better achieve our mission of successfully feeding families and enriching lives.

“We sincerely extend our thanks to the President, Secretary Vilsack, and leaders in Congress who worked so diligently on a compromise, especially Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Ranking Democrat Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), as well as House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway (R-TX) and Ranking Democrat Collin Peterson (D-MN).”

Peter Larkin, President/CEO, National Grocers Association

“We appreciate President Obama taking action and signing into law this important bill that creates a national standard for the labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. With this new law, consumers will have access to more information and the confidence that the label they are reading contains the same information from coast to coast.

“NGA is proud to have been a part of the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food, a coalition that brought together over 1,100 entities that represent our nation’s food supply system, to advocate for a commonsense solution for the confusing and harmful patchwork of state labeling disclosure laws. We will continue to work on behalf of the independent supermarket industry throughout the rule making process at USDA to ensure implementation of this law is aligned with Congressional intent.”

 

Recycling centers close amid plummeting prices

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.

Reprinted from Orange County Register (7/19/2016)

SACRAMENTO – More than a fifth of California’s recycling redemption centers have closed in the last year, stripping consumers of easy access to recycling and limiting their ability to collect the deposits they made when purchasing bottles and cans.

More closures may follow, as the state’s subsidy payment program, meant to help centers survive market fluctuations, has failed to keep up with rapid decreases in the value of plastic, glass and aluminum. The payment formula, advocates say, is too slow to cover the real costs of recycling.

The Legislature hasn’t been able to agree on a solution to prevent further closures or solve the program’s problems.

California is one of 10 states to charge residents a refundable fee, or deposit, when they buy bottles and cans. Consumers can then claim those deposits at redemption centers.

The nonprofit Container Recycling Institute fears lower numbers of redemption centers will lead to reduced recycling statewide and an inability for consumers to get their money back. They estimate that closures have inconvenienced roughly 3 million California residents.

“The extent that consumers give up and put containers in trash or recycling bins, those are people who were denied the opportunity to get their refund,” said Susan Collins, the group’s president. “And we know that is affecting consumers to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.”

So far, redemption center closures don’t appear to have lowered the number of total recyclables the state collects through buy-back centers and curbside pickup. Beverage container recycling rates fell by a percentage point in the second half of 2015, the most recent figures available, compared to the same time a year earlier.

Advocates expect the rate to drop further in 2016 and are concerned rural areas that don’t operate curbside pickup will start to see the impact of redemption center closures.

Lawmakers say the state’s three-decade-old recycling program needs a major redesign. The business model no longer matches the reality of state recycling rates and the fund used to pay out refunds has suffered in recent years.

Historically, the state has operated around 2,100 centers, said Mark Oldfield, a CalRecycle spokesman. More than 450 centers closed in the year that ended in June, eliminating hundreds of state jobs; today there are 1,773 centers and more are expected to close in the coming months.

“If regular California consumers find it too difficult and inconvenient to redeem and recycle their containers, they may begin to view the program as a tax,” said Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste, an advocacy group. “Why am I paying this CRV tax at the grocery store without a path for me to conveniently get my money back?”

Measures intended to protect the centers from market fluctuations are not working, Murray said. The state’s formula for allocating subsidies to the centers fails to keep up with real time pricing and includes a minimum three-month lag.

That gap means the centers haven’t received sufficient state payments to make up for the income they’ve lost from the sharp decline in scrap value. Since 2012, the centers have been underpaid by more than $50 million, Collins said.

Even when prices rebound, recycling centers are unlikely to earn that money back. “Once you come up with a number like that, it’s woefully obvious why so many centers couldn’t take it anymore and had to close,” she said.

Of the 10 states with mandatory deposits, only California and Hawaii have a responsive payment formula for redemption centers. Others have a set handling fee in state law, which can sometimes mean lower payments for operators, but also offers more stability, as they don’t experience the volatility of scrap values that comes from selling recyclables on the open market.

The state Assembly last month approved a quick-fix measure to curb the closures that the Senate didn’t take up.

Instead, a deal reached by Senate leaders and Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration helps retailers concerned about the closures’ impact on their operation – without addressing the problems of struggling recycling centers.

For recycling, there is no state more important than California, the source of two out of every 11 beverage containers recycled in the country, Collins said.

“It would be a blow of enormous proportion to the nation’s beverage container recycling rate if (California) were to continue to decline,” she said. “It would have a real impact on the industry.”

Editorial: Make California bag ban permanent

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.

From East Bay Times (7/20/2016)

It’s a shame that Californians are having to vote on two plastic bag ballot measures — Propositions 65 and 67 — that should have been tossed in the garbage long ago.

Both represent the plastics industry’s efforts to undo the state’s first-in-the-nation plastic bag ban. Don’t fall for their twisted logic. Vote yes on Proposition 67 upholding the ban on plastic bags. Vote no on Proposition 65, which would require grocery stores to direct proceeds from paper bag sales toward an environmental fund.

Proposition 65 deserves consideration as one the most disingenuous ballot measures in state history. It’s crucial that California voters understand that key environmental groups oppose Proposition 65, even though it could supply millions of dollars for some of their pet causes. That’s how bad it is.

They know the real intent by the plastics industry is to entice grocers to give up their support for the overall ban. The law as written by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown allows grocers to keep the money from sales of paper bags to help offset the extra costs they incur from the ban.

“Bag makers will spend big to try to buy this election, but in the end common sense will override this polluting industry’s vast expenditures,” said Kathryn Phillips, executive director of Sierra Club California.

The plastics industry will argue that rather than ban plastic bags, they should be recycled instead. We tried that. Despite the state’s green reputation, Californians recycled only 3 percent of them, meaning an estimated 15 billion were sent to landfills, or worse, scattered throughout our highways, streams, beaches and neighborhoods. Taxpayers spend an estimated $400 million trying to prevent litter from polluting our waterways, and plastic bags are one of the worst culprits.

Bag bans work. San Jose conducted a study before and after it enacted a citywide plastic bag ban, and it showed that trash had been reduced by an eye-popping 59 percent on city streets, 89 percent in storm drains and 60 percent in creeks.

Opponents of the ban argue that manufacturing plastic bags takes less energy than paper bags. But they fail to mention that the billions of plastic bags require more than 2 million barrels of oil in the manufacturing process.

More than 115 cities and counties, including San Jose, San Francisco and Los Angeles already have ordinances. They deserve credit for having the vision and courage to prove they work. But a statewide ban is far preferable and more effective.

California can re-establish its claim as a national environmental leader. Vote yes on Proposition 67 upholding the ban on plastic bags and no on Proposition 65’s misguided effort to direct proceeds from paper bag sales.

San Diego Approves Plastic 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.

Reprinted from the San Diego Union-Tribune (7/19/16)

City is 150th municipality in California to eliminate single-use plastic bags in certain stores, food retailers

The San Diego City Council on Tuesday voted 6-3 to ban single-use plastic bags at large grocery stores, pharmacies and corner markets — becoming one of the last major cities in California to limit the disposable products.

“Citizen across the state have demonstrated the ability to transition to more sustainable, reusable bags, and I’m confident that the citizens of San Diego will quickly adopt this beneficial practice,” City Council President Sherri Lightner said during the council’s afternoon meeting.

“I strongly believe that now is the time to demonstrate local leadership on this issue and make a clear statement that we value our environment,” she added.

Mayor Kevin Faulconer said he plans to sign the ordinance, which would make San Diego the 150th municipality in California with a ban on plastic checkout bags, which often end up in landfills or as litter in storm drains, rivers, canyons and beaches.

Councilmen Mark Kersey, Scott Sherman and Chris Cate voted in opposition, citing broad concerns about local government overreach.

“All this trash, all this litter was put there by somebody or carelessly left behind because they were too lazy to haul this stuff home,” Sherman said at the meeting. “We need to start dealing with those laws that are on the books, the littering, the dumping, and making those fines and those penalties so people think twice.”

A second reading of the ordinance is expected within a few weeks. Once finalized, the rules would give large food stores about six months to comply and approximately a year for smaller drug and convenience stores.

The proposed ban drew wide support from the audience in council chambers Tuesday, which included advocacy organizations such as the Surfrider Foundation’s San Diego County chapter and San Diego Coastkeeper to business-minded groups such as the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Equinox Project.

“The vast majority of plastic bags we see are entangled in the brushes next to our rivers and streams,” said Kristin Kuhn, community engagement manager for Coastkeeper. “After every rain event, these bags clog and choke our city’s already damaged waterways.”

The stated goal of the new ordinance is to encourage shoppers to bring their own reusable sacks in order to decrease the roughly 700 million plastic checkout bags distributed locally every year. Only 3 percent of those bags are recycled, according to the city.

Like most plastic-bag bans in the state, San Diego’s policy requires grocery stores and other food retailers to charge at least 10 cents for each paper bag or for a sturdier reusable bag, which often costs considerably more.

“Stakeholders have worked tirelessly with local jurisdictions throughout the state to find a solution that makes sense for both the environment and businesses,” Sophie Barnhorst, policy coordinator for the chamber of commerce, said at the council meeting. “A ban on plastic and a charge for paper has the potential to achieve maximal environment gain with minimal business disruption.”

The city’s policy comes a few months ahead of a referendum vote in this fall’s general election on whether to uphold a statewide prohibition on single-use checkout bags.

After California in 2014 passed the nation’s only statewide ban on such products, the plastics industry launched a signature drive to overturn the law, criticizing it as a tax on shoppers and an ineffective way to fight pollution.

The American Progressive Bag Alliance has raised more than $6.4 million — funded largely by out-of-state bag manufacturers — to overturn the statewide ban in November. If that ban is voided, the municipal ones — including San Diego’s — would remain in place.

“Like other local bag ordinances in California, this law will do nothing to benefit the environment or residents while letting grocers make millions annually in new bag fees,” said Lee Califf, executive director of the bag alliance.

Bag manufacturers also have spearheaded another ballot measure this fall that would require stores to redirect money from bag sales to a fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board. The bag fees are estimated to bring in tens of millions of dollars annually, according to the Independent Legislative Analyst’s Office.

“While San Diego residents should have been given the opportunity to vote to repeal the bag ban, they will still be able to vote in November to allow their local government to redirect bag fees to the environment,” Califf said.

Supporters of eliminating single-use plastic bags see the San Diego council’s vote as a boon for the campaign to uphold the statewide ban.

“Polling has shown that people already living under a ban are more likely to support the statewide effort because they realize that it’s not that big of a deal,” said Genevieve Abedon, waste prevention campaign coordinator with Californians Against Waste, which is part of a coalition that has raised about $1.6 million to defeat the overturn referendum.

San Diego officials said based on statistics from the county of Los Angeles, which adopted its ban in 2010, customers will eventually bring their own reusable bags for about 65 percent of purchases at grocery stores and other retailers — eliminating about 95 percent of all single-use plastic bags distributed in the city.

San Diego stores subject to the new ordinance could be forced to pay up to $2,500 for each day they’re not in compliance. In addition, they would have to track for three years the number of paper bags they provide to customers each month and provide that data to the city upon request.

The city’s ban doesn’t extend to smaller disposable bags used for meat, produce and other loose perishable items. Restaurants and department stores also aren’t covered by the measure.

In anticipation of the ordinance, San Diego has distributed about 40,000 reusable shopping bags, focusing on low-income neighborhoods, food banks, schools and libraries, according to city officials.

San Diego’s ban requires that paper bags be provided for free to customers who are receiving government food assistance, including through the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children.

In this region, Solana Beach, Encinitas and Del Mar had passed similar bans. Oceanside is poised to vote on such a measure as early as next month.

About 40 percent of Californians now live in areas with some type of restriction on plastic bags, including Long Beach, San Jose, Sacramento and Oakland, as well as San Francisco, the city that led the push against single-use bags in 2007.

Last year, Huntington Beach became the only city in the state so far to repeal a plastic-bag ban — after its elected leaders and many residents expressed concerns over government overreach.

House Passes GMO Labeling Bill

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.

The U.S. of Representatives on July 14, 2016, passed the Senate GMO compromise bill by a bipartisan vote of 306-117. This legislation will crate a national standard for labelling foods with ingredients derived though biotechnology.
The bill will now be sent to the President to be signed into law, and the White House has stated publically that the President will sign the measure.

National Grocers Association Response:

“This bill offers the needed certainty for stakeholders throughout the food supply chain, and more importantly for consumers. We appreciate the House for its swift action to pass this bill and are especially grateful for the leadership provided by Chairman Conaway and Roberts, Ranking Members Peterson and Stabenow, and Congressmen Pompeo and Butterfield who all worked to advance a common sense, bipartisan solution,” said NGA President and CEO Peter J. Larkin. “I’d also like to thank our members for their engagement in the political process, which resulted in thousands of calls and letters sent to Capitol Hill.”

Food Marketing Institute Response:

“Today, the House of Representatives agreed that a national labeling standard is critical to U.S. grocery shoppers’ desire to seek out consistent, accurate information regarding product ingredients. FMI’s consumer trends data indicate food retail customers are confident in the safety of the food they buy in their local supermarkets, but are also increasingly interested in the origins and ingredients of their food. This legislation avoids the consumer confusion and crippling limitations to interstate commerce that already are erupting under the current Vermont law and would be multiplied further by a developing patchwork of differing and therefore confusing state GMO labeling laws.  One single national labeling standard circumvents all disadvantages that a multitude of conflicting state GMO labeling laws would inevitably create.

“This legislation eliminates the need for warehouses to segregate food product based on varying state requirements and allows small business owners to continue sourcing the variety of products their customers want to buy.

“The grocery industry welcomes this historic legislation that will both set a precedent for clarity in commerce and open up new avenues for providing food shoppers access to the information they want about the foods they enjoy and in the manner that is most convenient for them to access it. Every vote today was a vote in support of consumer confidence in the food supply.”

“FMI commends the House approval of this important GMO labeling legislation and we urge President Obama to sign this needed bill into law as expediently as possible. FMI and its member companies join with our partners in the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food to praise this important House action in support of this legislation.”

CGAEF Hosts Golf Classic

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.

The CGA Educational Foundation moved its Southern California Golf Classic to the coast this year while raising money for its college scholarship and tuition reimbursement programs.

The Newport Beach Country Club, home of the Toshiba Classic, a PGA Champions Tour stop, hosted this year’s tournament on July 12, and players were greeted with near perfect Newport Beach weather and a championship course in excellent condition.

“The new location was a huge success for us,” said CGAEF Executive Director Shiloh London, who added the tournament sold out weeks in advance. “We are grateful for the tremendous ongoing support of the grocery industry which allows the Foundation an opportunity to provide college scholarships to deserving students.”

This year’s winning team carded an incredible 19-under par 52. The team included Harvey Brown, Nico Garcia, Jayson Timlin and Joe Doody, of Samuelsen, Gonzalez, Valenzuela & Brown, LLP.

The Foundation wishes to thank the many sponsoring companies that made this year’s Southern California event a tremendous success. Scroll down to view the event in pictures.

Sponsors

MASTERS SPONSOR

Albertsons Vons Pavilions
Anheuser-Busch InBev
Bai Brands
Bimbo Bakeries USA
Coca-Cola Refreshments
Chobani. Inc
Jelly Belly Candy Company
Kellogg Company
Kraft Heinz Company
Moss Adams
Mondelez International
Post-Consumer Brands
Sugar Bowl Bakery
Unified Grocers, Inc.

PACKAGE SPONSORS

Bristol Farms
C&S Wholesale Grocers
Del Real Foods
Farmer John Foods
Flowers Baking
Gelson’s Markets
JR Abbott Construction
Kimberly Clark Corp
Mayhew & Associates
MillerCoors
Snyder’s-Lance
Super A Foods
Specialty Foods
the Performance Group
The Hershey Company
Whole Foods Market

HOLES SPONSORS

Downey Brand
Mission Foods
PepsiCo

LUNCH SPONSOR

The Illuminators

THE WINNERS

1st Place (52)
Harvey Brown
Nico Garcia
Jayson Timlin
Joe Doody

2nd Place (59)
Larry Lantero
Matt Reel
Richard Khoury
Skid Meinen

3rd Place (62)
Jim Schulz
Bob Reeves
Kevin Jackson

Long Drive Women
Susan Aguilar

Long Drive Men
Michael Woolery

Closest to the Pin Women
Dorie Amen

Closets to the Pin Men
Pat Posey

 

[FAG id=4194]