Cake Central › Cake Forums › Cake Talk › Cake Decorating › California cottage food act introduced in state assembly
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

California cottage food act introduced in state assembly - Page 5

post #61 of 145
Thread Starter 
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1616&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email

You can click the Subscribe button at the bottom to automatically be notified of new updates. As of now the bill is still in the appropriations committee.
post #62 of 145
Thanks jason!

Life is a slice of cake.

Reply

Life is a slice of cake.

Reply
post #63 of 145
Thread Starter 
AB 1616 has been scheduled to be brought up during the Assembly Appropriations hearing this Friday, May 25th. There are a ton of other bills on the agenda so it's possible the committee may adjourn before getting to it.

http://apro.assembly.ca.gov/hearings
post #64 of 145
I think it passed!!!! Jason did I read that right? And what does that mean now? How soon could this take effect?
Cake makes everything better!!!!
Reply
Cake makes everything better!!!!
Reply
post #65 of 145
It passed Appropriations. Join this group for timely updates:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/282510503800/
post #66 of 145
Thread Starter 
Now that the bill is out of appropriations, the assembly must vote on it by Friday, otherwise it won't be passed this year. If the assembly does pass it this week, the process starts again in the CA senate, where it must pass health, appropriations, and another floor vote. If the senate passes it by Aug 31, Gov. Brown can sign it by Sep 30th, and it would take effect Jan 1, 2013.

http://assembly.ca.gov/legislativedeadlines
post #67 of 145
So we still have a ways to go, but atleast there have been a few steps in the right direction. I guess we all just continue to wait.
Cake makes everything better!!!!
Reply
Cake makes everything better!!!!
Reply
post #68 of 145
Thanks everyone for the updates.
post #69 of 145
Thread Starter 
There was a floor vote in the Assembly for AB 1616 yesterday, it passed 56 - 19 and was sent to the Senate. It is currently in the Senate Rules committee, today's Rules hearing was cancelled but they will be meeting again on Wed, June 6th.

The deadline is now Aug 31 to get to a Senate floor vote.
post #70 of 145
Saw it on the news yesterday! I was working on a FREE cake I was making for my cousins graduation and it was exciting to see it on the news where people who don't bake or have any ideas of the legalities could see it. It was given a very positive spin too.
post #71 of 145
Thread Starter 
post #72 of 145
I know this is going to sound crazy, but in a nutshell I'm confused about this new law. Sounds to me like us who are homemakers and do cakes/cupcakes for bake sales for schools and charities no longer can use buttercream frostings or fresh fruit fillings unless we get lic and put labels on all our products??? thanks in advance for clearing this up! icon_smile.gif
post #73 of 145
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formynana

I know this is going to sound crazy, but in a nutshell I'm confused about this new law. Sounds to me like us who are homemakers and do cakes/cupcakes for bake sales for schools and charities no longer can use buttercream frostings or fresh fruit fillings unless we get lic and put labels on all our products??? thanks in advance for clearing this up! icon_smile.gif


You will need to have labels on all your products regardless, and your municipality may or may not require a business license. But if you use shelf-stable buttercream frosting (meaning it does not have to be refrigerated) you wouldn't need to be inspected by the health dept if this law passes. Fresh fruit is probably out unless it is shelf-stable.

Also, to clarify, under current CA law you cannot legally sell any food made from your home kitchen without passing a health dept inspection, so AB 1616 would make the rules less restrictive.
post #74 of 145
Thread Starter 
The CA Senate Health committee will be hearing this bill next Wednesday, 6/27, at 1:30pm in room 4203 of the State Capitol building.

http://shea.senate.ca.gov/
post #75 of 145
Thread Starter 
The CA Senate has posted an interesting analysis of the bill, which will be heard today in Health.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1616_cfa_20120626_094900_sen_comm.html

Based on the concerns below, the Senate has suggested amending the list of NPH foods and potentially removing the ability to sell wholesale from the bill.

Quote:
Quote:

AFDO guidance. AFDO, an international, non-profit, food
industry-focused organization aimed at streamlining and
simplifying federal, state, and local regulations, issued
regulatory guidance in April 2012 to discuss best practices
for the oversight of cottage foods. According to AFDO, the
regulatory guidance document is a consensus effort to set
standards for CFOs that preserve public health while still
allowing for economic opportunity. Highlights of this guidance
include the following:
a. Definitions. AFDO provides definitions for "cottage
food products" and "potentially hazardous food," which are
fairly consistent with the definitions in this bill. A key
distinction is AFDO's definition of "cottage food
operation," which is defined in part as a person who
produces cottage food products only for sale directly to
the consumer. AFDO suggests prohibiting sales by internet,
mail or phone order, consignment or wholesale. This bill
goes beyond this definition by including indirect sales of
cottage food products to third-party retailers.
b. Permitting and inspections. AFDO suggests that all
cottage food operators be permitted annually by the
regulatory authority on forms developed by that authority.
AFDO suggests the regulatory authority be required to
examine the premises of the CFO to determine it to be in
compliance with requirements. AFDO guidance permits the
regulatory authority to inspect at any time, and whenever
there is reason to believe the cottage food operation is
in violation of these requirements or is operating in an
unsanitary manner. This bill does not describe inspection
requirements. Class A CFOs are merely required to
self-certify that they meet applicable requirements. Class
B CFOs are required to be permitted, but the bill is
silent on how inspections would occur for this class.
c. Non-potentially hazardous food items. AFDO provides a
list of food items they consider to be non-potentially
hazardous, and therefore acceptable for CFOs, as well as a
list of food items AFDO considers unacceptable for CFOs.
This bill issues a list of items that is largely similar
to the AFDO list, but with a few notable exceptions: 1)
This bill allows chocolate covered non-perishable foods,
whereas AFDO prohibits tempered or molded chocolate or
chocolate-type products; 2) This bill allows mustards,
which AFDO prohibits; 3) This bill adds baked goods such
as breads, whereas AFDO allows most breads except for
focaccia-style breads with vegetables and/or cheeses; 4)
This bill lists additional items that AFDO does not
address, like honey and sweet sorghum syrup, dried mole
paste, fruit butters and nut butters.



Quote:
Quote:

8.Opposition. The California Association of Environmental
Health Administrators (CAEHA) is opposed unless two provisions
are amended. CAEHA asserts that this bill is a major departure
from the CRFC in two ways: it would allow food prepared in
private homes to be sold to the public, and it would
pre-approve a set of "low-risk" foods to be prepared and sold
in this manner. CAEHA states that the limitations they have
been considering for these indirect or wholesale sales have
not allayed the concerns of local regulators. The inspection
of private homes by local or state regulators is fraught with
enforcement challenges and the geographic or sales volume
limitations considered for these indirect sales are likely to
be impractical to establish and impose. CAEHA says that while
it may be possible to develop criteria to limit these indirect
sales, these have not yet been identified. Local regulators
understand that legitimizing the emerging cottage food
industry in California may have some economic and limited
nutritional benefits. CAEHA asserts that they would remove
their opposition if this bill was amended to allow only direct
sales to consumers.

CAEHA also expresses concern over the list of pre-approved
low-risk not potentially hazardous foods in AB 1616. CAEHA
instead suggests using the list proposed by the National
Association of Food and Drug Officials, which has been
reviewed and approved by food safety experts across the
nation. CAEHA also suggests amending the bill to give CDPH
authority to add or delete foods on the list as needed in
order to keep the list current and valid.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cake Decorating
Cake Central › Cake Forums › Cake Talk › Cake Decorating › California cottage food act introduced in state assembly