Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry
- District 4
(1) Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offer for sale of adulterated foods, beverages, or cosmetics. Existing law prescribes when a food or beverage is adulterated, including if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to the health of a person or other animal that may consume it. Existing law prescribes when a cosmetic is adulterated, including when it bears or contains a poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or advertisement of the cosmetic, under customary or usual conditions. The Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, among other things, regulates the labeling of food, beverages, and cosmetics and makes it a crime to distribute in commerce any food, drug, device, or cosmetic if its packaging or labeling does not conform to these provisions. Existing law also makes it unlawful for a person to disseminate any false advertisement of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic. Violation of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law is a misdemeanor. Existing law requires a person who manufactures pet food in California to obtain a license from the State Department of Public Health. Existing law also prohibits the manufacture, sale, or delivery of a pet food ingredient or processed pet food that is adulterated and defines "adulterated" for this purpose. This bill would require a manufacturer of dietary supplements and food that includes industrial hemp to be able to demonstrate that all parts of the plant used come from a state or country that has an established and approved industrial hemp program, as defined, that inspects or regulates hemp under a food safety program or equivalent criteria to ensure safety for human or animal consumption and that the industrial hemp cultivator or grower is in good standing and compliance with the governing laws of the state or country of origin. This bill would state that a dietary supplement, food, beverage, cosmetic, or pet food is not adulterated by the inclusion of industrial hemp or cannabinoids, extracts, or derivatives from industrial hemp if those substances meet specified requirements, and would prohibit restrictions on the sale of dietary supplements, food, beverages, cosmetics, or pet food that include industrial hemp or cannabinoids, extracts, or derivatives from industrial hemp based solely on the inclusion of those substances. The bill would also prohibit a manufacturer, distributor, or seller of an industrial hemp product from including on the label, or publishing or disseminating in advertising or marketing, a health-related statement, as defined, that is untrue in any particular manner or that tends to create a misleading impression as to the effects on health of consuming products containing industrial hemp or cannabinoids, extracts, or derivatives from industrial hemp. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would create an authorization process for hemp manufacturers who produce specified products that include industrial hemp or who produce raw hemp extract, as defined, including requirements for testing and labeling on products. The bill would authorize the department to collect specified fees, which would be used, upon appropriation, to implement the program. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also impose a $250 fee on each manufacturer who produces industrial hemp products or raw hemp extract, to be used, upon appropriation, to fund an Industrial Hemp Research Program at the University of California. The bill would require the Department of Food and Agriculture and the State Department of Public Health, in consultation with the Bureau of Cannabis Control, if necessary, to develop a process to share license, registration, cultivar, and enforcement information to facilitate compliance and enforcement against unlicensed industrial hemp product and raw extract manufacturers and retailers. The bill would make communications shared between these agencies and local law enforcement for this purpose exempt from the California Public Records Act. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. Existing law provides that, except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible. The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-in-Evidence, which requires a 23 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified. This bill would make communications shared between agencies pursuant to the above provisions official information, which may be privileged and made inadmissible in an action or proceeding, thereby requiring a 23 vote. (2) Existing law, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , added by Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, revised some provisions of state law regarding industrial hemp including, among others, the definition of "industrial hemp" that is used for purposes of the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to the definition of "industrial hemp" for purposes of the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (4) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
No votes to display
From printer. May be heard in committee January 7.
Read first time. To print.
|Bill Text Versions||Format|
|12/07/20 - Introduced|
|No related documents.|
Data on Open States is updated nightly from the official website of the California State Legislature.
If you notice any inconsistencies with these official sources, feel free to file an issue.