While there is much to bemoan about the California initiative process as a whole, rarely does an issue come forward to a popular vote that would cause such devastating impacts to our industry.  Yet, on the November 2012 ballot, voters will be asked to vote on Proposition 37 – a “simple” labeling initiative of genetically modified foods that is anything but simple.

Proposition 37 would require manufacturers and retailers to label thousands of products as genetically modified if they contain genetically engineered ingredients, but it’s the exemptions that are mind boggling.  For example, cow milk would not require a label (even if the cow is fed with GE corn), but soy milk would.  Fruit juice would require a label, but the same fruit juice mixed with alcohol does not require a label.  And the list is endless.

The initiative also prohibits the use of the word “natural” in all packaging if it has been milled, pressed, or modified in any way.  So, apples could be natural, but if they are pressed to make apple juice, a “natural” label would be prohibited.

And while some may agree with the Proposition 37 premise – that consumers have a right to know to what’s in their food – this initiative puts the sole responsibility of compliance on the retailer.  It is the grocery store that must ensure each product is labeled correctly, and maintain records on every ingredient of every food product sold – a paperwork nightmare.

Proposition 37 also allows for a private right of action, allowing trial lawyers to file suit with no proof of damages, despite the retailers’ best effort at compliance.   One can imagine the immediate uptake in threats of a lawsuit and settlements for all retailers.

Complex labeling requirements only for California, record-keeping, and lawsuits will only result in one thing: higher food prices for retailers and for consumers.  And will be catastrophic for our industry. Proposition 37 is bad public policy – Vote No.

For the past 18 months California retailers have faced an indefinite moratorium on becoming authorized WIC vendors.  As directed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the moratorium will remain in effect until the California WIC Program develops and fully implements an effective cost containment and vendor management system. 

 While there have been a few programmatic changes over the past year, rumor has it the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) submitted a Vendor Management Plan to USDA for preliminary approval.  Traditionally, State Plans will include 11 functional areas for changes and approval: Vendor and Farmer Management, Nutrition Services, Organization and Management, Food Funds Management, Caseload Management, Certification/Eligibility and Coordination of Services, Food Delivery/Food Instrument (FI)/Cash-Value Voucher (CVV) Accountability and Control, and Civil Rights. 

 Although CGA has not yet seen a copy, it is our understanding the plan will not include vendor-limiting criteria and will more than likely recommend changes to the peer group categories.  Additionally, there have been a number of internal staffing changes within the California WIC Program that may delay the release of the plan.  Stay tuned……

The Los Angeles Times is reporting the Los Angles County Board of Supervisors may have broken the law with Governor Brown in the room. The law they broke? The Brown Act!

The Ralph M. Brown Act (no relation to Jerry) passed in 1953 to prevent local governments from making decisions in secret. The Act requires local elected officials to consider and decide an issue in a public meeting which the public is made aware of at least 72 hours in advance.

A major component of the Brown Act is that local elected officials cannot discuss an issue with a majority of their colleagues outside of a public meeting. For example, the LA County Board of Supervisors is made up of five Supervisors. To avoid making a decision in secret a Supervisor can only speak to one other Supervisor privately about an issue or their disposition before the public meeting.

When two Supervisors choose to discuss an issue in private they are not allowed to discuss the disposition of another Supervisor. It is considered an attempt to make a majority decision in secret. This prevents using a daisy chain of conversations between Supervisors to pass along messages and subvert the law.

It is important to note this constraint does not apply to the public (yes, your CGA local lobbyists are considered the “public”). This allows CGA local lobbyists the public to speak in private to all elected officials about the disposition of all the other elected officials. The private conversations between CGA local lobbyists the public and elected officials are a vital resource to create a majority consensus.

So what did the LA County Board of Supervisors actually do? All five Supervisors gathered in a closed-door meeting with Gov. Brown to discuss prison realignment. By my count they did not post a public notice of the meeting, they did not consider the issue in front of the public, they did not allow for public testimony on the matter and they each discussed an issue with a majority of their peers in private. Governor Brown in attendance doesn’t change the rules.

So what is the District Attorney recommending as punishment? Nothing.

The end of 2011 saw a flurry of bag ordinance hearings up and down the state, nearly 3 or 4 a week. In the last two months of 2011 over 30 jurisdictions had hearings and moved forward to regulate bags. Earlier in the year CGA had seen maybe 3 to 4 hearings a month. 2011 went out with a bang (or is it bag)!

With 2012 underway CGA is back in the trenches discussing ordinances with dozens of local jurisdictions. The prediction for this year is local governments will continue to pursue bag ordinances with the same vigor and momentum. It is entirely possible California will see 30 to 50 new jurisdictions regulating bags by the end of 2012.

Along with the New Year came the start of the San Jose bag ordinance, considered to be largest city to implement a ban. Early accounts seem to indicate consumers are responding well. The San Jose Mercury news has the details.

Stay tuned to The Grocery List and Checkout for regular updates on bag ordinances and other policy news. Happy Bag Year!

Today is an election day in numerous communities across California. These odd year elections are generally reserved for low-level decisions about school bonds or assessment districts. However in San Francisco it is the culmination of a down and dirty election for Mayor. The San Francisco Chronicle has quick rundown of the knock-down drag-out contest for Room 200.

So who will win? First we need to look at Ranked Choice Voting. In San Francisco on you get to vote for your top three choices (Huh?). That’s right your top three. When tabulating votes every candidate retains their first choice votes. If no candidate receives 50%-plus-one they kick out the last place candidate and distribute the second choice on their ballots to the other candidates. Sound confusing? It is for San Franciscans as well. This process was used in the last election for the Mayor of Oakland – the second place Mayor won.

The election for Mayor technically includes over 30 candidates, but only seven are considered viable. Of those in the running four are standouts in my mind:

Mayor Ed Lee – Current Mayor voted in by the Board of Supervisors to replace the departing Gavin Newsom. Lee originally promised to not run but after showing his skill as no-flash get-things-done Mayor (rare in SF) the political elite convinced him to run. He is currently the smart money favorite.

State Senator Leland Yee – A former Supervisor and State Legislator Yee has long had his on the Mayor’s office. Considered a front runner until Lee jumped in Leland has been a constant presence in the top three candidates.

Supervisor Chiu – Current Board President who consented to allow Lee move forward as the appointed Mayor based on his promise to not run. Chiu is considered a young up and comer in the SF political world. While some fault him for lack of experience, it is also what makes him attractive to others.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera – Herrera has been a mainstay on appointed commissions before becoming the City Attorney, a role when wielded wisely can put one on the political map. Herrera has been a solid candidate and having successfully defending universal healthcare and same sex marriage in the courts he is well known.

So again, who will win? My money is on current Mayor Ed Lee and front runner from day one to win in Ranked Choice Voting round 7 or 8. I am going with Chiu on a long shot for second place, as the saying goes “this kid has moxie.”

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.

In early June we posted about local redistricting and its pitfalls and opportunities. While many cities and counties have completed the process, Los Angeles County is still in the thick of it.

The current push by Supervisor Gloria Molina is to move the lines to create a second Latino-majority district.

Molina originally suggested drastic changes to Supervisor Don Knabe’s district to increase its Latino population. This could present a problem for Knabe as he seeks his second and final term on the Board.

Molina’s second plan drastically alters Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky’s district since he is termed out and no longer able to seek election to the Board. Yarosalvsky’s response – “a baldfaced gerrymander that is completely unnecessary.”

Leaving the issue of increased Latino representation aside, this maneuvering raises an interesting question. When drawing districts recognizing communities of interest is a requirement. But, is designing a district to elect a specific type of candidate appropriate?

Read the Los Angeles Times articles below to learn more.

Bid for more Latinos on L.A. County board sets up fight

Second plan for Latino-majority supervisor’s district offered

Yaroslavsky opposes 2nd Latino district