Association Mourns Passing of Industry Icon

Posted on November 14, 2016 by Lynn Melillo

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

The California Grocers Association joined the state’s grocery industry in mourning the passing of Jack H. Brown, Executive Chairman of Stater Bros. Markets on Sunday, November 13, 2016.

“We are all deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Jack Brown,” said CGA President/CEO Ron Fong. “Jack was a true grocery icon in Southern California. He was respected by peers, employees and by the many organizations he so generously supported over the years. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his loved ones and the entire Stater Bros. family. He will truly be missed.”

The following announcement was released by Stater Brothers Markets:

SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA – (November 14, 2016) – It is with a heavy heart that Stater Bros. Markets announces the passing of “Our Jack”. Surrounded by his entire family, Jack H. Brown passed away on November 13, 2016 at 10:45 p.m.

A native of San Bernardino, California, Brown began his Supermarket career as a box boy at Berk’s Market Spot in San Bernardino at the age of thirteen (13), sparking a sixty-five (65) year career in the grocery industry. Brown was passionate about the supermarket industry. He loved his “Family” of Employees and the loyal Stater Bros. customers who he proudly served since taking the helm of Stater Bros. Markets.

Brown joined Stater Bros. in 1981. He served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Stater Bros. Markets for over thirty-five (35) years and as Chairman for Stater Bros. for over thirty (30) years. Brown became the Executive Chairman after appointing Pete Van Helden to the position of President and CEO earlier this year.

“Grief is not a strong enough word to describe what the Stater Bros. ‘Family’ feels,” stated Stater Bros. President and CEO Pete Van Helden. “Jack touched every one of us in a very personal way, and it is that legacy that we must carry forward. He loved the business, his company and each one of us,” Van Helden continued.

Brown was a proud Navy Veteran who served on active duty with the Pacific Fleet of the United States Navy during the Vietnam era. Brown’s support of the military and our nation’s veterans remains unparalleled.

In 2004, he received the “Friend of the Veteran Award” from the Riverside National Cemetery’s Veterans’ Advisory Committee for his continued support of volunteer services to Veterans and their families. Brown also received the “Patriot Award” in 2011, the highest award the Congressional Medal of Honor Society can bestow upon an individual.

In addition, Jack was one of ten Distinguished Americans to receive the 1992 “Horatio Alger Award” in Washington, D.C., in recognition of his outstanding contributions to America and the “American Dream.”

Brown has received countless awards for his contributions to the supermarket industry. In 2001, Brown received the California Grocers Association “Hall of Achievement Award” for a lifetime of dedication to the grocery industry, and in 2005, he received the prestigious “Sidney R. Rabb Award”, the Supermarket Industry’s highest award.

Brown has been recognized for his generosity in giving back to the “valued” communities he loved and so proudly served. In 2008, he established Stater Bros. Charities, the philanthropic arm of Stater Bros. Markets as a way to give back in a larger way. Brown was a founder of the Boys and Girls Club of San Bernardino, and the Founding Chairman of Children’s Fund of San Bernardino County.

Most recently, the California State University Board of Trustees named the “Jack H. Brown” College of Business and Public Administration at California State University San Bernardino in July, 2016.

Brown will be remembered with love, affection, and by his countless acts of kindness. He was an incredibly thoughtful man whose accomplishments and generosity will be remembered for many years to come.

Brown is survived by his cherished wife Debbie, three beloved daughters; J. Kathleen Smith (Michael Smith), Cara Hoffman (Scott Hoffman) and Melissa Koss (Pete Koss). He had seven grandchildren, Kaitlyn, Colleen, Caden, Dylan, Julianna, Jack Ryan and Emma.

His burial will be private for family only with a memorial to follow at a later date.

S.F., Oakland, Albany voters pass soda tax

Posted on November 9, 2016 by Lynn Melillo

Heading 2

Reprinted from the San Francisco Chronicle (11/8/2016)

Three Bay Area cities on Tuesday became among the first in the country to levy a tax on sodas and other sugary drinks in an effort to help stanch the nation’s diabetes and obesity epidemics.

In San Francisco, Proposition V was winning 62 to 38 percent, with all but two precincts reporting and some provisional ballots outstanding. Oakland’s Measure HH was ahead 62 to 38 percent with 60 percent of precincts reporting, and in Albany, Measure 01 was winning, 71 to 29 percent with 76 percent of precincts reporting.

In 2014, Berkeley became the first city in the country to levy a soda tax, and Philadelphia became the second in June. Regardless of the outcome of the Bay Area races, supporters expected other cities in the U.S. and elsewhere to follow suit.

John Maa, a doctor and secretary of the San Francisco Medical Society and a major supporter of soda taxes, said the mere presence of the measures on the ballot was a victory.

“Not only does it signify the movement is gathering energy, but it also raises awareness,” he said. “As we’ve seen in Berkeley, every time these efforts win, it leads to a reduction in soda consumption and, most importantly, it makes the general public aware of the health hazards of sugar-sweetened beverages.”

Joe Arellano, a spokesman for the campaigns to defeat the local measures, called soda taxes “bad public policy.” Such taxes are regressive, he said, and unlikely to lower consumption of sugary drinks.

“It’s not the correct way to drive change,” Arellano said.

The American Beverage Association, which represents scores of beverage companies, spent tens of millions of dollars in an effort to defeat the taxes. In San Francisco alone, its spending had reached $21.3 million by late last week. That was more than double the previous record spent on a single ballot measure in the city — the soda industry spent about $10 million to defeat another soda tax measure in 2014, and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. spent the same amount to defeat a public power measure in 2008.

This was the first time a soda tax appeared on the Oakland or Albany ballots. The 2014 San Francisco proposal was a two-cent-per-ounce tax, and its revenue was specified for children’s physical education and nutrition programs. Because its funds were earmarked for a specific purpose, it needed two-thirds voter support to pass. It received 55 percent.

The three cities this time backed measures that didn’t specify where the money would go, meaning they needed only a simple majority. The soda industry said the measures were cynical attempts to fill already bulging city coffers, but backers of the taxes vowed to use the proceeds for health-related purposes, even if that wasn’t written into the measures.

That was the same strategy used successfully by Berkeley two years ago. The city created a nine-member panel to advise the City Council on how to spend soda-tax proceeds, which have totaled $2 million to date.

Of that, 42.5 percent has gone to Berkeley public schools for cooking, gardening and nutrition programs. Another 42.5 percent has gone to community groups that work on health issues. The rest has gone to fund the administration of the program.

The soda industry slammed the measures on Tuesday’s ballot for being “a grocery tax” and buffeted the Bay Area with TV and radio ads and campaign mailers. The industry argued that grocers would raise the prices of numerous products to offset the tax rather than put a big price increase on soda.

A UC Berkeley study and a separate one by the Pacific Health Institute looked at how Berkeley grocers have handled that city’s soda tax and found no evidence that products other than beverages have gotten more expensive. Studies also found Berkeley residents are buying fewer sugary drinks than they did before passage of the soda tax.

The campaigns to defeat the tax said they were backed by 1,000 small businesses, grocers and restaurants whose proprietors feared anything that would make products more expensive in the already pricey Bay Area.

CGA Issues Statement on Passage of Prop. 67

Posted on November 9, 2016March 13, 2019 by Lynn Melillo

Heading 2

Following the passage of Proposition 67 and the defeat of Proposition 65, CGA President and CEO Ron Fong issued the following statement:

“The passage of Prop. 67 is a win for both business and the environment. California’s grocers have been proud to stand with Senators Kevin DeLeon, Ricardo Lara, and Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who authored the groundbreaking SB 270 which banned the use of single-use plastic bags in California. We are pleased that California voters saw through the smokescreen of out of state interests and upheld this important law.”

Editorial: Approve the plastic bag ban despite unconscionable ads

Posted on November 3, 2016 by Lynn Melillo

Heading 2

Editorial Board
San Jose Mercury News
November 3, 2016

The two plastic bags propositions on the California ballot were confusing enough for voters before misleading advertisements started flooding the airwaves. Ignore them.

Here is all you need to know:

Proposition 67 upholds the statewide ban on one-time plastic bag use that the Legislature passed. Vote “yes.” Plastic bags are awful for wildlife and the environment, and California state, county and local governments spend an estimated $400 million — roughly $10 per resident — every year trying to clean them up.

Proposition 65 would require proceeds of grocery store sales of paper bags to go to a wildlife fund. It sounds attractive, but there are sound reasons why even environmental groups are united in opposing Prop. 65. Vote “no.”

First, on the ban itself — California voters need to know that 98 percent of the millions of dollars spent on advertising against the plastic bag ban comes from out-of-state manufacturers. The biggest contribution of $2.7 million comes from Hilex Plastics of South Carolina. Two Texas manufacturers and a New Jersey bag maker have tossed in about $1 million apiece to promote their misleading campaign.

Small wonder. Every Californian, on average, uses about 400 plastic bags a year, reportedly creating a $1 million a month profit for plastic bag manufacturers. They’re desperate to kill the proposed ban before it spreads to other states.

The industry is arguing that a ban won’t reduce waste or litter. Now that’s garbage.

San Jose banned plastic bags in 2012 and reports 59 percent fewer plastic bags on city streets and a 60 percent reduction in its creeks. For a city with budget challenges, the cost savings for cleanups, including clearing clogged storm drains, is substantial.

Hate litter on freeways and rural roads? Don’t we all. Take a look sometime at what’s there. Those white bags are easy to pick out even on the rare occasion traffic is moving at the speed limit.

Meanwhile, volunteers picked up 1.3 million plastic bags on just one recent Coastal Cleanup Day. The damage those bags wreak is heartbreaking. Plastic accounts for 60-80 percent of all marine debris and harms and kills wildlife in devastating numbers.

Gov. Jerry Brown acknowledged that destruction when he signed a 2014 law banning plastic bags statewide. But the plastic bag manufacturers collected enough signatures to put Propositions 67 and 65 on the 2016 ballot, delaying implementation of the law.

Their motive for Prop. 65 is just craven. It is, as we’ve said before, one of the most disingenuous ballot measures in state history. And in California, that’s saying something.

The plastic bag industry targets the bag ban’s provision that grocers can charge 10 cents for each paper bag when shoppers don’t bring their reusable bags. The industry says that’s a “special interest giveaway,” and the money should go to a special wildlife fund. Here’s why that’s wrong.

Sen. Kevin de Leon led the effort to enact a statewide ban, and he included the provision so grocery stores would be able to recoup the expense of providing paper bags. Profits from those bags are negligible.

Wildlife supporters obviously agree. The Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, Save Our Shores, the Surfrider Foundation and a host of other environmental groups strongly oppose Prop. 65. Grocery stores have supported the bag ban partly because they wouldn’t lose money on the deal. To their credit, they still support the ban, which makes the plastics industry plot all the more disgusting.

Don’t let out-of-state plastic bag manufacturers stop California from ridding itself of billions of bags that clog our drains, fill our landfills and pollute our waterways.

Vote “yes” on Prop. 67 and “no” on Prop. 65.

Read Editorial here.

L.A. Times: Yes on Prop. 67

Posted on September 14, 2016 by Lynn Melillo

Heading 2

Prop 67: A vote to stop profiteering from polluting the Golden State

The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board
September 12, 2016

The “paper or plastic” era is, gratefully, on its way out. Over the last decade, more than 150 counties and cities in California have outlawed the flimsy, storm-drain-blocking, sea-turtle-choking, virtually immortal single-use plastic bags that grocery stores had been handing out at checkout lines like candy. Similar bans are sweeping the nation.

Two years ago, the Legislature passed the nation’s first statewide law forbidding most stores in the state from giving out “free” plastic carryout bags. (There’s nothing actually free about these bags. Retailers pay for them, and the cost becomes part of the overhead factored into the price of goods.) Under the law, if stores offered paper bags for carryout, they’d have to charge at least 10 cents except to certain low-income shoppers, who had to be provided the bags free of charge. It was huge victory in the struggle to turn back the tide of trash that is polluting open spaces and creating islands of plastic in our oceans. But it was distressing news to the makers of single-use plastic bags — so distressing, in fact, that four large out-of-state plastic-bag companies spent millions of dollars qualifying and campaigning for two measures on the November ballot that could undermine the ban, Propositions 67 and 65.

Arguments against [the] ban are weak, starting with the incredible claim … that single use-bags are actually good for the environment. They are not.
It’s clear why they would invest in Proposition 67. It is a referendum on the statewide ban. The mere act of putting the issue on the ballot effectively put the state law on hold; the ban won’t go into effect unless a majority of voters pass Proposition 67 in November. They should do so, enthusiastically. A ban on single-use bags won’t stop the scourge of plastic waste, but it’s practicable place to start.

And a necessary one. Americans use about 100 billion single-use plastic bags a year, as many as 15 billion in California alone. That’s down significantly from 30 billion a year before bans began popping up in cities across the state, but it’s still too many. Environmentalists put these single-use plastic bags among the biggest sources of litter.

The plastic bag industry’s arguments against a statewide plastic ban are weak, starting with the incredible claim — based on a few out-of-context findings in a British study — that single use-bags are actually good for the environment. They are not. The industry also says that disposable bags are more sanitary, and that the solution to the litter problem is recycling. It is not. Despite years of efforts, the recycling rate of plastic bags in California is about 3%.

Finally, the industry claims that the ban is a money-making scheme cooked up by the state’s grocers to line their pockets with the proceeds from the 10-cent paper bags. That appears to be the reasoning behind Proposition 65, which would require all fees collected for paper carryout bags to be directed to environmental programs.

On the surface this measure seems to complement the environmental goals of the bag ban. But coming from the same people so desperately trying to stop the ban, the measure seems more like a cynical ploy to confuse voters or, at the very least, punish the state’s grocery stores for supporting the ban.
The reality is that the fee for paper bags isn’t likely to be a windfall for stores that provide them. The California Grocers Assn. estimates that stores pay an average of 10 cents per paper bag. It seems reasonable for stores to recoup their cost when forced to collect a fee. The law also sets guidelines for how the money is used by grocers: to offset the cost of complying with the law and promoting the use of reusable grocery bags.

Furthermore, according to Los Angeles County (whose bag ban was the model for the state law), about half of the carryout bags are handed out for free, meaning grocers are collecting about 5 cents per bag.

But that’s beside the point, because the eventual goal is reducing the reliance on any kind of disposable bags. L.A. County’s experience indicates that it’s an achievable goal. Stores reported that after the ban went into effect in 2011, the number of paper bags used by consumers dropped precipitously, by about 40%. That shows a dramatic — and hopeful — change in consumer behavior.

To make it a reality, vote “yes” on Prop. 67 and “no” on Prop. 65. It’s time to tell plastic bag makers that they can no longer profit from polluting the Golden State.

S.F. Chronicle Recommends: Yes on Prop. 67, No on Prop. 65

Posted on August 29, 2016 by Lynn Melillo

Heading 2

San Francisco Chronicle
August 26, 2016

Nine years ago, San Francisco banned plastic shopping bags and set off a movement that’s led nearly half the state and its biggest cities to do the same. Skipping the bags at checkout was a hassle at first, but now folks don’t seem to miss the throwaway sacks on a grocery trip.

With so many shoppers adapting to the change, Sacramento passed a statewide ban roping in the rest of California two years ago. But that move is on hold due to the well-funded interest of a handful of bag makers.

They’re spending $5 million to push a confusing double play on the state ballot. Proposition 67 is a referendum on the law, with a “yes” keeping the ban and a “no” vote dumping it. But the industry is clouding the picture further with Proposition 65, which requires that proceeds from a 10-cent paper bag fee go to environmental causes.

Voters shouldn’t be fooled by what’s at stake. In a world doused with everlasting plastic, grocery store bags play a harmful role, winding up on beaches, parks and trees, choking fish and wildlife and even clogging recycling machines. Cutting down usage, especially when cloth or paper bags can be swapped in, makes sense.

Bag makers — in this case four major out-of-state manufacturers — are clearly spooked. If California sticks with banning food-store bags, then other states will join the cause, the industry worries. Also, as consumers grow mindful of the long-term effects of plastic on the environment, the material will be scrutinized and regulated in ways that manufacturers can’t control.

The second measure, Prop. 65, proposes to redirect any proceeds from sales of paper bags that customers buy as a substitute for plastic sacks. Bag makers argue that supermarkets are profiting unfairly from selling paper bags. But the statewide grocers association says the dime-per-bag charge covers their costs, with little left over. The measure plays on phony fears to discredit the overall plastic ban. Major environmental groups are shunning Prop. 65.

Both at the local level and in Sacramento, California has made the right decision on stopping a throwaway habit. Only a special-interest group of plastic bag makers would benefit from turning back the clock. Vote no on Prop. 65 and yes on Prop. 67.

CGA Exec Elected to CSU Foundation Board

Posted on August 1, 2016 by Lynn Melillo

Heading 2

California Grocers Association President and Chief Executive Officer Ronald Fong was recently elected to The California State University Foundation Board of Governors.

“We are honored to welcome Ronald Fong to our foundation team,” said CSU Board of Governors Chair Ronald Barhorst. “He has an exceptional history of leadership and will bring a valuable business perspective to the board. We look forward to his insight as we continue to grow our endowment to serve the CSU and the state of California.”

The CSU Board of Governors oversees the CSU Foundation: the university’s central foundation that aims to strengthen the financial capacity of the CSU and broaden access to a high quality education. The Board represents a cross-section of business, community, cultural and educational leaders with a shared commitment to uphold and advance the mission and goals of the university.

“This is a tremendous honor,” said Fong of his election. “I am a proud alumni of the CSU system and hold a unique perspective on understanding both the food business and the university’s mission. I look forward to contributing to the Board and helping to guide the Foundation. Because of the success of our own very successful Foundation, I can forsee symmetries and partnerships between the two organizations”.

In 2008, Fong was named President and CEO of the California Grocers Association and the CGA Educational Foundation. During his tenure, he has guided the successful merger of the California Independent Grocers Association into CGA; strengthened the Association’s government relations program; directed the purchase of a new office building in downtown Sacramento; and oversaw the development and completion of an Association reserve fund. In 2015, Fong received the Donald H. McManus Award from the Food Marketing Institute, the highest recognition for a state grocery association executive.

Industry Supports National GMO Label Standard

Posted on July 29, 2016 by Lynn Melillo

Heading 2

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

Posted on July 20, 2016 by Lynn Melillo

Heading 2

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

Posted on July 20, 2016 by Lynn Melillo

Heading 2

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.