California Assembly Bill AB419

California 2019-2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/7/19
• Refer: 2/15/19
• Report Pass: 3/28/19
• Refer: 3/28/19
• Refer: 4/10/19
• Report Pass: 5/16/19
• Engrossed: 5/22/19
• Refer: 5/23/19
• Refer: 5/29/19
• Report Pass: 6/10/19
• Refer: 6/10/19
• Report Pass: 7/2/19
• Refer: 7/2/19
• Report Pass: 8/12/19
• Enrolled: 8/26/19
• Chaptered: 9/6/19
• Passed: 9/6/19

Caption

Food and agriculture.

Impact

The amendments introduced by AB 419 are expected to maintain the operational oversight of rendering activities in California, particularly concerning environmental management and food safety. By providing a framework for additional fees, the bill ensures that the regulatory body is adequately funded to oversee compliance with food safety standards and to manage the disposal of inedible kitchen grease effectively. This aligns with the larger goal of safeguarding public health and maintaining high agricultural standards in the state.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 419 addresses various amendments to the Food and Agricultural Code focused on food safety and agricultural practices related to rendering and the regulation of inedible kitchen grease. This bill extends the authority of the Department of Food and Agriculture to impose fees on licensed renderers and collection centers, allowing them to charge additional fees to cover administrative costs until July 1, 2025, with provisions repealed by January 1, 2026. It aims to strengthen regulatory frameworks that govern the handling, processing, and transportation of inedible kitchen grease, ensuring compliance and funding necessary for enforcement activities.

Sentiment

The sentiment around AB 419 appears to be generally supportive among agricultural and environmental groups who recognize the need for clear regulations to manage inedible kitchen grease. Proponents argue that the extended fees are necessary for ensuring proper oversight and compliance in the agriculture industry, which is crucial for food safety. However, there are concerns from smaller operators and local transporters about the potential financial burden imposed by the additional fees, reflecting a balance that needs to be struck between regulatory authority and economic impact on smaller agricultural players.

Contention

Some contention arises from discussions about the fee structures and the duration of the various provisions included in the bill. While extended regulatory oversight is essential, stakeholders emphasize the need for careful consideration of the impact on small businesses that might struggle with the additional costs. Some critics propose that while the fees are justified for compliance and enforcement, efforts should be made to ensure that they do not disadvantage smaller operators who may have limited resources.