The Senate Health Committee yesterday moved a California Chamber of Commerce-opposed mandating a state-only labeling requirement for sugar-sweetened drinks.
CalChamber is opposed to SB 347 (Monning; D-Carmel) because it could increase frivolous liability claims and exposes beverage manufacturers and food retailers to fines and penalties.
SB 347 is identical to legislation from 2014, 2015 and 2018 that failed to pass the Assembly.
The text and scope of the warning proposed in SB 347 is similar in many respects to San Francisco’s warning label law, which was declared unconstitutional on January 31 in a unanimous decision of the 11 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In a concurrence opinion, Judge Ikuta wrote, “This warning does not provide ‘purely factual and uncontroversial information about the terms under which . . . services will be available.’ The factual accuracy of the warning is disputed in the record. Read More