Overview of the Health Problem
Food consumers require nutritional information of every item appearing on the menu board. Such information is essential in creating awareness of what the consumers take from certain food thus able to make better choices in restaurants. Senate Bill (SB) 120 addresses the problem affecting approximately thirty eight million people residing in California State (Henderson, et al 2010). As the most populous state with modern living standards, it is the duty of the lawmakers in this state to ensure they protect the health interests of residents. To ensure that restaurants adhere to the provisions of public health policy in California, introduction of SB 120 is critical step towards enhancing health standards of the people (Magnusson, & Colagiuri, 2008).
Lack of specific legislation of disclosing nutritional value of every food item restaurants provide is a dangerous trend. It is putting the lives of thirty eight million residents at risk. Residents are vulnerable to risk of consuming foods that might affect their health (Henderson, et al 2010). People need to know what they eat in restaurants thus able to make conscious decision on what to consume and what to avoid. By making people aware of nutritional value of foodstuff in restaurants, they are able to control eating habits hence promoting healthy lifestyle (Cusick, 2011). If someone is allergic to certain nutrient, he is able to avoid it while in restaurant. The main objective of Senate Bill 120 is to provide consumers with relevant health & nutritional information of the foodstuff in menu boards.
There are certain food items that contain ingredients such as high cholesterol and fats among others. Not everyone in the population has adequate knowledge on foods that have no cholesterol. The proposed law seeks to protect such people from harm (Magnusson, & Colagiuri, 2008). Besides, some people may be under treatment that requires avoidance of certain nutrients. Without nutritional information of all foods appearing in menu board, it becomes very easy to mislead such people. With this concern in mind, Senator Alex Padilla decided to introduce SB 120 into the house. The bill affects restaurants with fourteen and above outlets within California State.
Severity of the Health Problem
Lack of reliable information concerning nutritional value of the food people take in restaurants is the main cause of ailments in California and other states. Many people get health complications due to food they eat in restaurants (Henderson, et al 2010). High percentage of cases of food poisoning is because of lack of nutritional information on food. Many people do not even know what they eat in restaurants since some items in menu have complicated ingredient. Such trend accounts for substantial percentage of preventable ailments and mortality (Magnusson, & Colagiuri, 2008). It is therefore in the interest of public health experts and policy makers to ensure that people have adequate protection against such possibility.
Most lifestyle diseases deteriorate due to food people eat. It is possible to prevent increasing trend of mortality due to these diseases through proper eating habit. When people get aware of nutritional content of foods, they are able to make informed choice on the type of food to take (Cusick, 2011). Note that some health conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and ulcers require one to check on the diet. People especially those who work away from home usually take meals from restaurants. With such conditions, someone becomes vulnerable to risk of taking foods that might hamper their health conditions (Babey, et al 2009).
Most people also get health challenges from meals they consume especially in restaurants. As mentioned earlier, most meals served in restaurants contain excessive cholesterol, which causes health problems for most people in California and America at large (Cusick, 2011). Currently, obesity is one of the health challenges that public health experts try to curb in the entire continent. Big percentage of population is obese due to irresponsible eating behavior. Substantial portion of this percentage get obesity because they have no access to proper information concerning nutritional content of the meals they eat. Having this information before making the decision on what to eat is an essential step towards curbing the diseases (Magnusson, & Colagiuri, 2008). The major concern is the fact that two-third of Adult Population of entire America has obesity.
There is a unanimous resolution by public health experts and researchers that responsible eating is the effective remedy for preventing this problem. Several stakeholders advocate for public awareness campaigns in most parts of California. Lack of concern from restaurant owners and managements is one of the public health challenges (Henderson, et al 2010). Failure to implement the legislation would increase cases of health related ailments as well as deaths. Exposing large population to such risk is likely to hamper productivity of the entire state thus affecting its economic stability. People and the government may concentrate on treating preventable diseases (Babey, et al 2009). Active people become unproductive when their health condition deteriorates. In such scenario, proactive measures such as timely legislation are necessary to protect the public interest and sustain economic stability.
Overview of the Bill and Stakeholders
The Senate Bill 120 begins by pointing at the shocking rate of obesity among American Adults. It states that Obesity has the potential of causing other lifestyle health diseases such as diabetes, heart attack, and Cancer among others. It provides that restaurants should provide nutritional information to consumers at the point of sale (Magnusson, & Colagiuri, 2008). The information aims at helping the consumer to make a choice of food he or she eats in the restaurant.
The bill affects certain class of restaurants in California. It states that any restaurant with more than fourteen outlets operating within California State should adhere to this would be provision of the law. The logic behind the provision is that the restaurant and its outlets cover wide area thus serving significant percentage of population (Cusick, 2011). It is likely to affect many people if the legislation is not implemented thus hampering state’s productivity.
In respect of this particular bill, the legislature intends to ensure that consumers within California State have an access to nutritional information of the food they purchase in restaurants. Consumers are able to understand nutritional value of the food they take in such facilities. The responsibility of providing this information rests in the hands of restaurant’s management (Drewnowski, 2009). Failure to provide the information exposes the consumer to health risk and amount to violation of the law.
The nutritional information should include level of calories in the foodstuff provided, amount of saturated fats in terms of grams, and concentration of carbohydrate, sodium, and Trans fats. These elements cause obesity to consumers and they have the right to information in order to avoid them. The restaurant management may opt to include any other information they wish to convey to consumers. Such disclosure enhances control of calories and cholesterol intake thus managing the health of consumers in the state (Babey, et al 2009). Each menu shall have the recommended limit of each nutrient thus making the consumer aware of the possible risk before eating.
The SB 120 Bill affects several stakeholders such as California Restaurants Association, the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association, the State’s Chamber of Commerce, and California Independent Grocers’ Association. Each stakeholder has certain interest on the bill. While the legislature aims at promoting public health in the state, others see the bill as a threat to their investments. Since implementing the legislation has cost implication on some stakeholders, they are opposed to it. Others view the bill as a threat to the market of their products such as groceries. California department of public health is also a significant stakeholder in this particular bill. Other interested organizations include American Heart Association and Media Fraternity for publicity purposes.
Expected Outcome of the Senate Bill 120
California Center for Public Health Advocacy and Brown Millers Communications are the leading promoters for Senate Bill 120 on Food Facilities: Nutritional Information. The two organizations believe that the bill has two benefits: Ensuring that consumers have the reliable basis for their food choices in restaurants and push the restaurants managements to review their recipe to make them healthier (Drewnowski, 2009). The two fold main benefits are critical objectives of the bill thus deserve support from all quarters.
According to promoters of this bill, the public would have an opportunity to control its diet especially when eating in restaurants (Magnusson, & Colagiuri, 2008). Implementation of the bill is likely to reduce the prevalence rate of Cancer, Stroke, and Diabetes in California. The same influence would also extend in other states thus making America healthier. Promoters cited prevalence rate of these diseases to convince the public to believe that the bill was beneficial (Henderson, et al 2010). Public was made to believe that long standing health challenges would be tackled by the legislation.
The sponsors, California Center for Public Health Advocacy and Brown Millers Communication believed that the passage of the bill into legislation would increase people’s knowledge on nutritional value of food they eat in restaurants. In their research, higher percentage of population does not have sufficient information on nutritional value of most foods served in major food facilities in California (Cusick, 2011). The successful passage of the bill to law would therefore create an opportunity to educate the population hence increasing literacy level on nutrition. Consequently, CCPHA argued that the bill was a better platform for California people to become healthier.
Problems of the Bill
Besides promoters, several individuals and institutions are opposed to the bill. Organizations such as California Restaurants Association, Independent Grocers Association, State’s Chamber of Commerce, and Grocery Manufacturers Association objected the bill strongly each with its own reasons (Henderson, et al 2010). Note that passage of the bill would be detrimental to the operations and business of interested parties within these associations. California Restaurants’ Association represents investors in this industry while others represent key stakeholders such as growers and suppliers of raw materials for restaurants.
The main point of objection for California Restaurants’ Association is possibility of liabilities increasing if the bill becomes law. Provision of nutrition information on each item on the menu board call for addition cost thus reducing trade revenue (Tandon, et al 2011). The management would incur cost of analyzing the nutritional information, printing, and labeling on the board. To come up with such information, restaurant management would hire expert services, which may be costly. No trader wants to accept such liability thus the association became adamant in opposing the bill.
Independent Grocers Association and Grocery Manufacturers Association represent the interest of restaurant suppliers. Most of these goods they supply contain sodium and other elements highlighted in the bill (Henderson, et al 2010). Passage of the bill would have adverse impact on their business by reducing their sales and level of production consequently. Independent grocers association is the lobby group for farmers and suppliers of farm produce to restaurants. The bill required them to upgrade their produce by restricting them from using certain inputs. Such restriction calls for additional cost or quitting the market. All these associations are active stakeholders in chamber of commerce. It had to support them in opposing the bill from becoming the law. When the interest of these organizations is affected, it causes an impact on the State’s Chamber of Commerce. It had the ground for opposing the bill in California.
Unintended Consequences of the Senate Bill (SB) 120
The bill had several unintended consequences on restaurant traders, the public and entire economy. Although the main aim was to protect the State from harmful and unhealthy foodstuff sold at restaurants, its passage had negative impact (Tandon, et al 2011). Proponents of the bill never considered the economic aspect of such legislation. When the restaurants incur losses due to high operational cost and low sales level, investors shy away from the sector. It means that most people would withdraw from the sector leaving few players. The remaining few would start charging consumers high fees to cater for the cost (Henderson, et al 2010). Most of the food items become unaffordable to big percentage of the population, which is punitive to the public.
Closure of restaurants due to unfavorable legislation has serious implication on the economy. The government loses revenue from taxes. Most workers also lose jobs thus increasing the rate of unemployment in California (Tandon, et al 2011). Lack of employment affects purchasing power of individuals previously employed. Commercial grocers would have nowhere to sell their products. They may be forced to either reduce production level or quit the venture. Such trend may affect other sectors since most people cannot sustain businesses in the state. The whole economy is therefore hampered which is unfortunate event for the government.
Recommendation for the Bill
Senate Bill 120 touches on various sectors if passed into law. Before passage, there is a need to hold wide consultation with experts from all sectors of economy. Stakeholders such as lobby groups and industry associations should also contribute to the bill especially implementation part. The sponsors should first look at what causes these diseases and try to educate the public on what to take and what to avoid without involving legislation (Henderson, et al 2010). The public demand should guide restaurants on what to prepare. When a public avoids certain foodstuff, restaurants adjust to what the consumers demand.
The government may also decide to provide tax waiver to restaurants in the first few months of bill implementation. It would allow the investors to cater for the cost of providing nutritional information without any hustle. Once the legislation starts working and restaurants comply, the government resumes on taxation. Besides tax waiver, the implementation of such bill should be in phases. It should provide adequate time for the merchants to prepare and gather enough funds to cater for the initial cost. Allowance of short period may make opposition to be more adamant.
References
Babey, S. H., Jones, M., Yu, H., & Goldstein, H. (2009). Bubbling over: soda consumption and its link to obesity in California. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.
Cusick, C. (2011). Menu-Labeling Laws: A Move from Local to National Regulation. Santa Clara L. Rev., 51, 989.
Drewnowski, A. (2009). Obesity, diets, and social inequalities. Nutrition reviews, 67(s1), S36-S39.
Henderson, J., Ward, P. R., Coveney, J., & Meyer, S. B. (2010). What are the important issues around food safety and nutrition? Findings from a media analysis and qualitative study of consumer trust. chronic illness, 1, 2.
Magnusson, R., & Colagiuri, R. (2008). The law and chronic disease prevention: possibilities and politics. Medical Journal of Australia, 188(2), 104-105.
Tandon, P. S., Zhou, C., Chan, N. L., Lozano, P., Couch, S. C., Glanz, K., & Saelens, B. E. (2011). The impact of menu labeling on fast-food purchases for children and parents. American journal of preventive medicine, 41(4), 434-438.
