Compliance Reminders: Food Allergen & Food Date Labeling

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.

On July 1, 2026, two compliance deadlines pertaining to food labeling go into effect in California, SB 68 (Menjivar) and AB 660 (Irwin).

Food Allergen Labeling (SB 68)

SB 68 requires a food facility that is subject to the federal disclosure provisions for nutrient content information to provide written notification of the major food allergens that the food facility knows or reasonably should know are contained as an ingredient in each menu item, either directly on its menu or in a digital format, as specified.

The bill also adds sesame to the list of major food allergens.

Compliance Resources

  • Click here to access the list of major food allergens and information about who should comply from California Department of Public Health.
  • Click here for an overview of federal requirements for nutrition food labelling.

Food Date Labeling (AB 660)

AB 660 requires food manufacturers to use uniform terminology when labeling products with “quality” or “safety” dates and bans the use of consumer-facing “sell-by” dates.

  • AB 660 (Food & Agric. Code § 82001) requires that food manufacturers, processors, or retailers responsible for labeling food items (whether voluntarily or because required by law) use one of the following standardized terms for “quality” or “safety” dates on products manufactured after July 1, 2026:
  • “BEST if Used by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by” to indicate the quality date of the food item (quality dates indicate peak freshness, but food is still acceptable for consumption);
  • “USE by” or “USE by or Freeze by” to indicate the safety date of the food item (safety dates indicate when a food item is no longer safe to consume);
  • “BB” to indicate the quality date if the food item is too small to include the full phrase or if the food item is a beverage; or
  • “UB” to indicate the safety date if the food item is too small to include the full phrase.

“Sell by” dates are prohibited on food items manufactured after July 1, 2026.  However, coded sell by dates not readily understandable by consumers may be used for inventory purposes, provided it does not include the phrase “sell by.”s that retain stock rotation information for retailers.

Exclusions and Clarifications:

  • Infant formula, eggs or pasteurized in-shell eggs, and beer or other malt beverages are excluded.
  • The law does not require all food to bear a date label; however, if a date label is used, it must comply with the standardized terminology.
  • Food may be sold, donated, or used after its quality date has passed.
  • Retailers may donate food products that do not comply with section 82001’s labeling requirements.
  • Digital labels (i.e., QR code) are permissible.
  • Grocery stores may use the phrase “packed on” on prepared food items if the product also includes a compliant quality/safety date label. “Prepared food item” means a food item for human consumption prepared or repackaged on a grocery store’s premises, using any cooking or food preparation technique.
  • Wine and distilled spirits may include production, bottling, or packaging dates in flexible formats.
  • Section 82001 does not apply where preempted by other law or to the extent it conflicts with federal shellfish labeling rules (the National Shellfish Sanitation Program).

Compliance Resources

  • Click here to access the California Department of Food and Agriculture resources page.
  • Click here for background from the National Ag Law Center.

For more information, contact Rachael O’Brien.

SB 54 Compliance Tools

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.

Resources Available to CGA members

In 2022, California enacted the most comprehensive extended producer responsibility (EPR) and plastics-reduction legislation in the United States—reshaping how packaging, recyclability, and producer accountability are defined across the supply chain. These sweeping laws carry significant implications for manufacturers, retailers, and others placing products into the California market. Click below to learn more about compliance strategies.

2026 CGA Legal Counsel Summit

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.

At the CGA Legal Counsel Summit on May 7, 2026, hosted by Downey Brand, industry attorneys and outside counsel gathered to break down a number of topics. From SB 54 and Prop 65 to self-checkout, presenting attorneys moved through a wide range of the hottest legal issues and threats facing grocery retailers, suppliers, and wholesalers as well as roundtable discussions.

The CGA Legal Committee Chair role transitioned from Bruce Brandlin, Northgate Gonzalez Markets, to Stephanie Wu, The Save Mart Companies. The Association thanks Bruce for the many years of service and guidance to the industry’s legal community.

The agenda covered the following:

  • SB 343 Legal Challenge
  • SB 54
  • Recycling
  • Labor Laws
  • PAGA
  • Cal Chamber v Bonta (SB 399)
  • Prop 65
  • CCPA
  • City of Santa Cruz v CalChamber

Presentation decks and background information for each subject is available to members for download on the CGA Webinars page.

The Word: Order vs. Chaos

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.

This week, we continue our preview of Grocers Day at the Capitol by focusing on the second of two bills sponsored by CGA in this legislative session.

Assembly Bill 1171, authored by Assemblymember Phillip Chen (R-Yorba Linda), seeks to provide a logical framework for local governments pursuing food packaging ordinances.

California is now home to over 120 local food packaging ordinances, or about one-quarter of the state’s 58 counties and 482 cities. Some municipalities have even gone as far as banning entire types of plastic — most notably, polystyrene (foam and hard). Others mandate only compostable and biodegradable packaging for single-use purposes, or a combo of both.

Generally, grocers have been able to comply with this increasing patchwork of local ordinances because most of these laws have provided a rational framework from which to operate. For example, the City of San Francisco passed a comprehensive ordinance banning polystyrene foam from food packaging, but continued to allow both recyclable and compostable packaging options. Unfortunately, not every local jurisdiction has been as mindful.

The City of Santa Monica recently passed an ordinance requiring the use of “marine-degradable food packaging.” The problem is such packaging does not exist.

AB 1171 would prevent other cities from envisioning a similar ordinance and would forbid the mandating of non-existent packaging standards. And, as an added layer of protection against illogical laws, cities would also be prevented from banning the use of a food packaging material if that type of material is accepted by their curbside recycling.

It will be important for legislators to hear from CGA members about how important this is to our industry, so if you haven’t registered for Grocers Day, please do so today.

The Word: The Map Is Not The Territory

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.

By Tim James

As elected officials and staff attempt to create new laws to achieve what are mostly laudable goals, they are often positioning themselves to regulate industries with which they have little real-world experience and with obvious pitfalls.

Based on some of the recent ordinances we have seen, you could rightly assume politicians believe the grocery business is a simple one. We put goods on shelves, people put said goods into their basket or cart and money is transacted in exchange for the goods. Grocers make the difficult process of retailing food look too easy. 

The most recent case of this faulty logic can be seen in the case of Manhattan Beach, where city officials and staff sought to force grocers to repackage every raw meat product within a two-week timeframe. Thankfully, a combination of straight talk and retail education from CGA and member companies operating in the area changed the Council’s thought process. As a result, the ordinance moved from allowing virtually no implementation time to almost a full year and the ability to seek waivers.

Nevertheless, cities across California are pushing grocers to remove polystyrene foam from their food packaging. And we know the challenges to implement this type of change — while maintaining food safety and quality — are immense. What’s worse, many fail to understand that packaging food products is different than packaging food for restaurant delivery.

Making grocery operations look easy is smart for consumers and their shopping experience, but we should also show how much time, energy and thought goes into ensuring food is safe and high quality. If we don’t, elected officials will continue to create mental representations of the grocery business that are far too simple.

CGA Quoted in Recycling Center Dilemma Article

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 – 2/19/2018)

Neighborhood feud over recycling center in Point Loma part of statewide dilemma
by Joshua Emerson Smith

A recycling center in Point Loma has raised the ire of local residents who say it has attracted some drug-addled homeless people to the neighborhood who litter and sometimes defecate in public.

At the same time, supporters of the business, Prince Recycling, have countered that those causing problems are only a small portion of the people who use the conveniently located center in the parking lot of Stump’s Family Marketplace on Voltaire Street

While many residents would like to see the center moved to an industrial area, those defending the business have said the neighborhood should rather address longstanding issues associated with homelessness head on.

The challenges facing Prince Recycling aren’t unique. Private recycling centers located near grocery stores all over the state have faced public opposition. The city of Frenso last year passed an ordinance that significantly restricted where private recyclers can operate in response to public concerns.

At the same time, such businesses have financial challenges. As commodity prices for plastic have dropped, recycled materials have become less competitive.

In the last three years, more than 800 recycling centers around the state have closed down — and to make things even more complicated, that’s put some grocery stores and other retailers in a tough spot financially under state law.

“This is not just Point Loma,” said Assemblyman Todd Gloria, D-San Diego, at a town hall-style event Saturday morning. “Hundreds of these facilities across the state are closing because there’s something wrong with the overall system. There are other neighborhoods within my own district that have this concern.”

Scores of residents showed up to Gloria’s public event Saturday to express their frustration, such as Donna Schmidt, a Point Loma resident of 10 years.

“I have two kids that go to high school in Point Loma, and they used to walk,” she said. “They don’t walk anymore because we have people dragging bags of recyclables through our million-dollar home areas. There’s got to be a better place for Mr. Prince to serve all these communities.”

Laurene Kallstron, who lives across the street from Prince Recycling in the Sea Colony condo complex, voiced concerns echoed by many people at the meeting: “I have seen a man come from the recycling center with his zipper undone and his penis hanging out going to pee. I saw another man go in those bushes, pull his pants down and defecate. That’s what’s happening.

“Our property values have gone down,” she added. “I would never have bought that unit had there been a recycle center there.”

The business’s owner, Jamie Prince, defended his operation at the meeting, telling the crowd that the homeless have frequented the Point Loma and Ocean Beach area long before his business opened in 2014.

“It’s not our job to police what happens down the street,” he said. “I feel it’s very unfair to blame me for what homeless might do. There are plenty of people that recycle that come in that are families. And they just want their money back.”

Thirty-year Ocean Beach resident Gregg Robinson said that he wanted the recycling center to stay in its current location.

“This recycling service is serving a need and it can be difficult,” he said. “If the homeless are defecating (in public), then let’s take care of that. That’s illegal. But why punish somebody who’s doing a service or even the homeless themselves, who are the most vulnerable among us?”

If the recycler moves, it would mean that grocery stores and some markets in the area would have to pay a fee, under state rules intended to incentivize the convenient locating of such businesses.

“We don’t want to go 10 miles to get our $5 worth of cans redeemed,” Mark Oldfield, spokesman for the state Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, known as CalRecycle. “We ought to be able to take it to a place that’s near where we paid the CRV (California Redemption Value) to begin with. That’s the notion behind the convenience zones — convenience.”

Under the Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act that was passed in 1987, bottling companies, such as Coca-Cola or Anheuser-Busch, must pay into a recycling fund upfront.

Those costs get passed onto the retailer and eventually the consumer, who can redeem the fee through recycling. That incentive is now 5 cents for containers less than 24 ounces and 10 cents for bigger containers.

That money helps subsidize recycling operations to make them competitive in the marketplace and encourage the reuse of raw materials.

At the same time, grocery stores with gross annual sales of $2 million or more must have a recycling center within a half-mile of their location or pay a fee of $100 a day.

Given the current situation, the California Grocers Association has been trying to get the legislature to loosen those rules.

“Most grocers survive on a 1 to 2 percent profit margin, so $36,500 a year is likely an employee,” said Aaron Moreno, senior director of government relations for the California Grocers Association. “Or they can take back all the garbage in store, which creates safety and health issues. It’s an untenable position and the law is inflexible right now.”

Even with the penalty, many grocers have opted to pay the fee, including Dirk Stump, owner of Stump’s Family Marketplace in Point Loma.

Stump brought in Prince Recycling roughly four years ago to avoid paying the daily $100 fee after a number of other recycler centers within a half-mile of his business closed down.

Today, he’d like to see Price relocate.

“He is not the guy using drugs and leaving needles and crapping in people’s yards, but his business is causing that to happen. He’s not hearing what the neighborhood is saying,” he said.

“The type of individuals that frequent that place, they scare the customers,” he said. “They scare the old ladies. They hassle the school kids. They sleep in the neighbors’ doorways and bushes. They steal product from the store.”

It’s still unclear what’s going to happen at the location. Stump and the owner of the lot are trying to evict the recycling center. At times, Prince has signaled that he would consider leaving, but at the recent town hall on Saturday, he seemed ready to fight the eviction.

What is clear is that a lot of people use these types of recycling facilities — and not just homeless.

About 88 percent of materials are recycled statewide by citizens through buy-back recycling locations, according to the most recent data from CalRecycle. The remaining amount is serviced by curbside haulers and a handful of other smaller programs.

On Thursday morning, Bob Smart had driven about 10 minutes from his home in Point Loma to turn in some cans and bottles at Prince Recycling. He said he makes a modest $10 a month, but he likes to do it when he goes shopping at Stump’s.
“I like it. It’s convenient,” said the 52-year-old, who has lived in the area for the past two decades. “It’s just better than going downtown to try to recycle your stuff.”

The business was busy that morning, including a seemingly endless stream of homeless individuals. Many people, who were living in their vehicles, brought in large hauls of cans and bottles.

Most said that of those recycling there was a small number who could cause a lot of trouble from time to time, but the overall mood was calm and orderly that morning.

Tom Butters, who’s been homeless on and off in Ocean Beach for years, said that he brings in about $50 a week from recycling.

“I’ve never seen a fight here,” said the 62-year-old. “I’ve never seen anybody argue about who’s cutting in line. Everybody’s cool. I don’t understand what’s going on.”

But a 45-year-old who would only identify himself as Miles offered a more nuanced take.

“I know it brings a lot of things that people don’t want to see, but they’re working,” he said, adding: “It can bring a lot of riffraff. I can see their side, too, you know.”

California Democrats temporarily lose Assembly supermajority

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.

by The Associated Press (12/12/2017)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Democrats will be without a supermajority in the Assembly for months and risk losing the two-thirds edge needed to pass tax and fee increases in the Senate.

When lawmakers return in January, they will have two vacant Assembly seats that won’t be filled until at least April after Los Angeles members resigned amid sexual misconduct allegations. In the Senate, a member in a competitive district is facing a recall over his support for a gas tax increase and another could face pressure to resign depending on the results of a misconduct allegation.

“It will certainly affect votes,” said Democratic Assemblyman Ken Cooley, chairman of the rules committee.

Supermajorities were needed this year to pass the gas tax increase and reauthorize the cap-and-trade program. Passing a budget only requires a simple majority.

Although the changes cut into the Democrats’ legislative power, tax and fee increases are less likely to come up for votes in election years because they can be unpopular with voters.

Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday set an April 3 primary date for a special election to replace former Assemblyman Raul Bocangera, who resigned last month amid sexual misconduct allegations. If no candidate gets at least 50 percent of the vote, a general election will take place June 5, the same day as the statewide primary.

A date hasn’t been set to replace Assemblyman Matt Dababneh, another San Fernando Valley Democrat, who plans to resign Jan. 1. He denies a lobbyist’s allegation that he assaulted her in a bar bathroom last year.

Sen. Tony Mendoza also could face pressure to resign depending on the results of an investigation into sexual misconduct claims. He denies improper behavior.

A date hasn’t been set for a recall election against Sen. Josh Newman of Fullerton. Newman’s district spans parts of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties and is highly competitive.

Democrats jammed a new set of recall rules through the Legislature this year — including one that requires the state to estimate how much a recall will cost.

The state Department of Finance said Monday that it would be cheaper for the state to hold the Newman recall on the same day as the statewide primary. That would cost the three counties an estimated $931,000. If the recall is held on a different day, it could cost more than $2.6 million, the department estimated.

Newman may have a better chance of survival the higher the voter turnout.

Barring no other resignations, Democrats have a strong chance of winning both Assembly seats back.

CGA Awards First “Legislator of the Year”

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.

California State Senators Steven Glazer (D-Orinda) and Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) were the inaugural recipients of the California Grocers Association “Legislator of the Year” award.

The lawmakers received the prestigious award at CGA’s 2017 Grocers Day at the Capitol on April 18, 2017, in Sacramento. The senators were recognized for their ongoing efforts in trying to help repair the state’s troubled Beverage Container Recycling Program.

Both senators are co-authors of legislation (SB 60) that would suspend penalties for store operators that are unserved by a parking lot recycling center due to a closure that occurred between January and March of 2016, or a government action.

State law, AB 2020, requires grocers to redeem beverage containers if there is not a recycling center in their convenience zone. More than 200 recycling centers have closed in the past two years due to a variety of reasons including the bottom dropping out of the plastics market due to lower petroleum prices worldwide.

“Our members are extremely appreciative of the efforts both these senators have made in helping us seek resolution to this important industry issue,” said CGA President Ron Fong. “Both Senators Glazer and McQuire are worthy recipients of this brand new award.”

 

Mr. Grocer Goes to Sacramento

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.

More than 70 grocery retailers and suppliers descended on the State Capitol in late April to participate in CGA’s 2017 Grocers Day at the Capitol – the Association’s signature one-day member advocacy day in Sacramento.

This annual gathering allows California’s grocery industry to meet with their elected officials and discuss key issues impacting one of the state’s major employers.

This year, attendees advocated on two CGA sponsored bills, AB 1326 (Prop. 47 reform) and SB 60 (beverage container recycling reform). In addition, members heard from several key state legislators, including Assemblymember Jim Frazier (D-Discovery Bay), who serves as chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, and discussed the recent passage of SB 1, the $52 billion transportation package bill that will, among other things, include a 12-cent tax on gasoline.

Attendees also heard from Senators Steven Glazer (D-Antioch) and Mike McGuire (D-San Rafael) who both received CGA’s first annual “Legislator of the Year” award in recognition of their extensive efforts in trying to help find a solution to California’s troubled beverage container recycling program.

“CGA is extremely appreciative of both Senators and their determination to resolve this very difficult challenge,” said CGA President Ron Fong. The BCRP began collapsing last year as hundreds of beverage recycling centers closed their doors, and retailers started receiving notices that they were out of compliance with the state’s beverage recycling law.

In addition to the day’s educational sessions and legislative visits, attendees also were invited to CGA’s President’s Reception. This annual event wraps up Grocers Day at the Capitol and gives CGA members the opportunity to meet with their legislative representatives in a more informal basis at the Association’s headquarters.

This year’s Grocers Day included a contingency of loss prevention, safety and risk management directors from a number of CGA-member retail companies that were invited to participate and share insights into the challenges grocers face as the result of the passage of Proposition 47.

“This group was extremely helpful in explaining why Prop. 47 reform is needed,” Fong said. We are not looking to end Prop. 47, merely amend it to make it more effective.”

thank you sponsors

CGA expresses its gratitude to the many companies sponsoring this year’s events. They include:

Event Sponsor: Safeway/Albertsons/Vons/Pavilions

Gold Level: Coca-Cola Refreshments, Unified Grocers, Inc.

Silver Level: C&S Wholesale Grocers, Food 4 Less/Rancho San Miguel Markets, Gelson’s Markets, Ralphs grocery Company/Food 4 Less/Retail Marketing Services, Inc.

Bronze Level: Bristol Farms, Grocery Outlet, North State Grocery, Inc.

Breakfast: Kellogg Company, Save Mart Supermarkets

Luncheon: Jelly Belly, Kimberly-Clarke

Ice Cream Social: Clover Sonoma

President’s Reception: Anheuser-Busch InBev, Roplast – Revolving Recycling & Bring Back Bags

CGA Supports Theft Reduction 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.

AB 1326 provides relief from recent spike in shoplifting

The California Grocers Association announced their co-sponsorship and full-fledged support for Assembly Bill 1326, by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove). The measure, co-authored by Assemblymembers Sabrina Cervantes (D-Corona) and Raul Bocanegra (D-Pacoima), will aggregate the dollar value of certain property crimes, such as shoplifting and check fraud, with a felony being charged if a suspect’s total dollar value from such crimes surpasses $950 in a 12-month period.

This much-needed legislation will provide grocers and other retailers with relief from alarming increases in theft since 2014 when changes in state law more than doubled the felony threshold for many property crimes from $450 to $950.

“California’s grocers have seen a steady increase of criminals shoplifting higher amounts of goods at higher rates,” said Ron Fong, President and CEO of the California Grocers Association, adding that shoplifters and organized crime rings now commit multiple thefts, day-after-day, but below the $950 felony threshold.

“This is bad for grocers who suffer high losses, bad for employees who are put in harm’s way due to the increased aggressive nature of these thefts, and bad for shoppers who ultimately pay the consequences at the register,” he said.

Many CGA retail members have seen double-digit, and in some cases triple-digit percentage increases in losses from shoplifting and organized retail crime rings over the past five years, with a notable spike beginning after 2014.

“We look forward to collaborating with Assemblymember Cooper to pass this sensible piece of legislation,” Fong said. “We urge the California Legislature to help grocers, their employees, and consumers turn back this alarming crime growth by passing AB 1326.”

If AB 1326 is passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, it then must be approved by voters at the next general election before its provisions can go into effect.

Additional co-sponsors of AB 1326 include the California Police Chiefs Association, and Crime Victims United California.

Additional Press Releases

Media Inquiries

For more information regarding AB 1326 contact: