AnimalRights.Net

BILL NUMBER: SB 1520	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT


	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  AUGUST 17, 2004
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  JUNE 21, 2004
	AMENDED IN SENATE  MAY 6, 2004


INTRODUCED BY   Senator Burton


                        FEBRUARY 19, 2004


   An act to add Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) to
Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to force fed
birds.



	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

   SB 1520, as amended, Burton.  Force fed birds.
   Existing law authorizes an officer to issue a citation to a person
or entity keeping horses or other equine animals for hire if the
person or entity fails to meet standards of humane treatment
regarding the keeping of horses or other equine animals.
   This bill would establish similar provisions regarding force
feeding a bird, as defined.  The bill would prohibit a person from
force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver
beyond normal size, and would prohibit a person from hiring another
person to do so.  The bill would also prohibit a product from being
sold in the state if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the
purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size.  The bill
would authorize an officer to issue a citation for a violation of
those provisions in an amount up to $1,000 per violation per day.
   The bill would provide that these prohibitions shall become
operative on July 1, 2012.  
   This bill would provide that no civil or criminal cause of action
shall arisen or pending actions pursued, against any individual who,
prior to July 1, 2012, engages in acts prohibited by the bill.
  
   Until July 1, 2012, this bill would prohibit an existing or future
civil or criminal cause of action for engaging in an act prohibited
by the bill, from proceeding against a person or entity engaged in,
or controlled by persons or entities who were engaged in,
agricultural practices that involved force feeding birds at the time
of the enactment of this bill. 
   Vote:  majority.  Appropriation:  no.  Fiscal committee:  no.
State-mandated local program:  no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) is added
to Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:


      CHAPTER 13.4.  FORCE FED BIRDS


   25980.  For purposes of this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
   (a) A bird includes, but is not limited to, a duck or goose.
   (b) Force feeding a bird means a process that causes the bird to
consume more food than a typical bird of the same species would
consume voluntarily  while foraging  .  Force
feeding methods include, but are not limited to, delivering feed
through a tube or other device inserted into the bird's esophagus.
   25981.  A person may not force feed a bird for the purpose of
enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size, or hire another person
to do so.
   25982.  A product may not be sold in California if it is the
result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird'
s liver beyond normal size.
   25983.  (a) A peace officer, officer of a humane society as
qualified under Section 14502 or 14503 of the Corporations Code, or
officer of an animal control or animal regulation department of a
public agency, as qualified under Section 830.9 of the Penal Code,
may issue a citation to a person or entity that violates this
chapter.
   (b) A citation issued under this section shall require the person
cited to pay a civil penalty in an amount up to one thousand dollars
($1,000) for each violation, and up to one thousand dollars ($1,000)
for each day the violation continues.  The civil penalty shall be
payable to the local agency initiating the proceedings to enforce
this chapter to offset the costs to the agency related to court
proceedings.
   (c) A person or entity that violates this chapter may be
prosecuted by the district attorney of the county in which the
violation occurred, or by the city attorney of the city in which the
violation occurred.
   25984.  (a) Sections 25980, 25981, 25982, and 25983 of this
chapter shall become operative on July 1, 2012.
   (b)  (1)  No civil or criminal cause of action shall
arise  ,  on or after January 1, 2005,  or
may   nor shall  a pending action commenced prior
to January 1, 2005, be pursued  , including a cause of action
under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of
Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code, against any
individual who   under any provision of law against a
person or entity for engaging  , prior to July 1, 2012, 


engages  in any act prohibited by this chapter.  
   (2) The limited immunity from liability provided by this
subdivision shall not extend to acts prohibited by this chapter that
are committed on or after July 1, 2012.
   (3) The protections afforded by this subdivision shall only apply
to persons or entities who were engaged in, or controlled by persons
or entities who were engaged in, agricultural practices that involved
force feeding birds at the time of the enactment of this chapter.

   (c) It is the express intention of the Legislature, by delaying
the operative date of provisions of this chapter pursuant to
subdivision (a) until July 1, 2012, to allow a seven and one-half
year period for  individuals   persons or
entities  engaged in agricultural practices that include raising
and selling force fed birds to modify their business practices.



   (d) Because the Legislature intends to assist individuals engaged
in agricultural practices that include raising and selling force fed
birds to modify their business practices, the Legislature declares
its support for the following:
   (1) Assistance in identifying alternate business opportunities for
California businesses that currently rely on the sale of force fed
birds.
   (2) Assistance in finding alternate employment, or providing job
training, for employees of California businesses that currently rely
on the sale of force fed birds.  

A bill that would eventually ban the production of foie gras in California recently cleared both houses of the California legislature, but one of its supporters — Friends of Animals — is urging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto the bill.

Animal rights activists originally pushed for the bill, but it was amended by the legislature in ways that did not make them happy.

First, the ban on force feeding of birds in California wouldn’t go into effect until July 1, 2012 at the earliest. Ostensibly this is to give foie gras producers times to change their business practices, but this is also a nice way to simply punt the issue to a future legislature which could simply void the current bill.

Second, in the mean time the bill provides protections to foie gras producers from civil or criminal action. The bill provides that,

No civil or criminal cause of action shall arise on or after January 1, 2005, nor shall a pending action commenced prior to January 1, 2005, be pursued under any provision of law against a person or entity for engaging, prior to July 1, 2012, in any act prohibited by this chapter.

So instead of an immediate ban on foie gras, what the activists got for their trouble was a ban almost 8 years in the future with explicit criminal and civil immunity for foie gras producers in the meantime.

In a letter urging animal rights activists to call Gov. Schwarzenegger’s office and urge him to veto the bill, Friends of Animals Daniel Hammer wrote,

In his testimony on SB 1520, Assemblyperson Joe Nation stated: “I want to emphasize this. Sonoma Foie Gras, the only producer of foie gras in California, supports SB 1520.”

Sonoma Foie Gras retained a lobbyist to work on getting SB 1520 passed. In his testimony, Sonoma Foie Gras owner Guillermo Gonzalez stated: “I want to express my appreciation for allowing us to continue in operation! We are very appreciative.”

Gov. Schwarzenegger’s office needs to hear from you. Tell him SB 1520 only benefits the state’s foie gras producer, while ensuring the continued torture of at least 440,000 ducks. Please press Gov. Schwarzenegger to veto SB 1520, “the foie gras bill.”

The full text of the amended bill can be read here.

Source:

Update on SB 1520: Urgent Action Alert. Press Release, Friends of Animals, August 31, 2004.

United Kingdom Health officials announced this month that they will warn people who received blood transfusions from people who later died of vCJD that they may be at risk of the disease as well.

The decisions follows on a report earlier this month in the Lancet that documented the second case of transmission of vCJD via blood transfusion. In that case, however, the vCJD infection was found in the spleen and the deceased did not have any symptoms of vCJD.

The Scottish Press Association reported,

A Department of Health spokesman said: “The HPA has carried out a risk assessment exercise, as indicated by the Secretary of State in his December 2003 statement.

“The Department of Health has asked the HPA to lead on preparations for notifying patients who have received plasma products, and we have been working with the Agency, clinician’s representatives and the patient groups on this.”

Source:

Blood recipients to get vCJD warning. Scottish Press Association, August 29, 2004.

Animal rights activist Gina Lyn was jailed this month after invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to testify before a grand jury investigating acts of animal rights terrorism in Washington state. Lynn can be held until the grand jury’s term runs out, which could be as early as September or as late as March 2005 if the prosecutor should request a six month extension of the grand jury’s term.

Lynn has a habit of being jailed for failing to cooperate with grand juries, including a 22-day stint in 1999 and another in 2000 for refusing to cooperate with grand jury’s investigating environmental and animal rights terrorism.

The grand jury in this case wants Lynn to answer questions about a May 2000 arson at an Olympia, Washington timber company and the theft of a couple hundred chickens at a nearby egg farm the same day.

Lynn has been granted limited immunity from prosecution, which would prevent prosecutors from using her statements against her in court.

Source:

Animal rights activist is jailed for contempt. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 27, 2004.

Yesterday, I noted that Friends of Animals sent out a press release opposing California SB 1520 which would outlaw force feeding of birds for the production of foie gras in 2012. Shortly after the Friends of Animals press release, United Poultry Concerns issued a press release urging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign the bill and slamming groups opposed to the bill.

The UPC press release said it was joined in support of the bill by the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, VivaUSA, Farm Sanctuary, In Defense of Animals, GourmetCruelty.com, and the Animal Protection and Rescue League.

According to UPC,

The bill if enacted will abolish a farmed animal abuse. The fact that
there will be a phase-in period is not a reason to oppose this bill. We have
applauded the banning of battery-hen cages in the European Union and in
Austria, and the banning of sow gestation crates in Florida, but all of this
important legislation for farmed animals includes phase-in periods. No one
who supports farmed animal protective legislation wants to wait for the law
to take effect, but that is now how the legislative process works. Yes, the
foie gras industry is going to use the time to try to overturn the law and
do other nefarious things, but this means that our public education work is
cut out for us. Given the facts of foie gras production and the videotaping
of the procedure that we have (Delicacy of Despair), it seems unlikely that
the public is going to be persuaded to abandon the ducks and oppose a ban on
foie gras production and sale in California.

. . .

Those groups who actively oppose SB 1520 could lobby at state and federal
levels to try to enact legislation that would ban foie gras production/sale
immediately, but they are not doing so. Instead, they are obstructing the
passage of this bill while offering no real alternative, just bashing the
bill and the groups that have worked so hard to get the bill introduced and
to retain as much of the original intent of the bill as possible.

United Poultry Concerns urges activists to support SB 1520 and to refuse to
reject this opportunity in pursuit of a purist fantasy. The objections being
raised against SB 1520 are unrealistic given the realities of the
legislative process and the enormous obstacles that farmed animals have
traditionally faced legislatively. Sabotaging this bill is going to hurt the
ducks, not help them.

The foie gras ban is one of about 1,000 bills that Schwarzenegger must either sign or veto by then end of September. Schwarzenegger has previously called the bill “silly” and pointed to it as an example of why California needs a part-time legislature.

Source:

Why UPC Supports SB 1520 and Urges Everyone Else to Support the Bill. Press Release, United Poultry Concerns, August 31, 2004.

As if to re-emphasize why David Blunkett was right to bar him from traveling to Great Britain, Jerry Vlasak again defended the use of violence in the animal rights cause on British radio show.

In an interview with Radio 4’s World at One, Vlasak said,

I am simply saying that it [violence] is a morally acceptable tactic and it may be useful in the struggle for animal liberation.

Source:

Banned activist defends violence. Sandra Laville, The Guardian, August 28, 2004.

Over the weekend, the Times of London ran an interesting profile of an animal rights activist who has actively campaigned against Huntingdon Life Sciences and other animal research firms in the UK, but who now is using treatments tested on animals to treat her breast cancer.

According to the Times, Janet Tomlinson, 61, has been an active campaigner in a number of animal rights protests in the UK, from the successful campaign against Hilgrove, to the current campaigns against the Newchurch guinea pig farm and Huntingdon Life Sciences. But when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, Tomlinson had no problem running to doctors to receive the sort of treatments that would never have been developed had she had her way.

Tomlinson uses a number of justifications for her behavior. The classic, of course, is the Mary Beth Sweetland defense — Tomlinson’s taking the drugs for the animals,

I can do more good for animals staying alive than dying.

Well, of course — she and her fellow animal rights activists are special. Why shouldn’t they partake of the fruits of the animal research industry? Hell, who could blame Tomlinson if she wanted to enjoy a nice steak or wear leather, either. After all, she’s doing it for the animals.

Her second line of reasoning is that it’s really all the drug companies fault. In fact — pay close attention here — the drug companies are guilty of criminal behavior for providing her with a treatment that might extend her life,

If this testing on animals is as beneficial as the doctors say, then it would stop cancer. But it hasn’t — and that has to be criminal. It helps some, and chemo might help me and kill the infected cells, but it might not. I should not have to live with that fear when scientists have had so much money and tested enough animals and yet they can’t tell me the treatment will work.

Thanks to medical advances in detection and treatment, the 20-year breast cancer survival rate is as high as 65 percent in some countries. In the United States, deaths from breast cancer fell from almost 34 per 100,000 in the late 1980s to less than 27 per 100,000 in 1999. Ah, those wiley criminal scientists.

And, of course, Tomlinson hedges her bets. In case she does live another 20 years or more, it won’t be due to the animal-tested drugs she’s taking,

If I’m saved, it will be in spite of the drugs being tested on animals. All my friends are telling me I’m the guinea pig because whether you recover or not, it is a fluke of nature, a lottery.

Just because the drugs are tested on animals it does not mean that we are going to survive. I am only taking the course of action I am because there is no alternative. I really don’t see how putting an electrode in a monkey’s head or stripping fur on a guinea pig and sticking toxic liquid on it has helped me or is going to help me. It’s disgusting that I don’t have a choice.

But, of course, she has an obvious choice — don’t accept the treatment. If animal research is complete hooey and Tomlinson can’t see how experimenting on animals might help her or other breast cancer patients, then don’t reward drug companies by buying their wares. Just say not to animal-tested drugs.

Instead Tomlinson would prefer the hypocrisy of accepting the only treatments proven to increase the odds of survival in women afflicted with breast cancer, while simultaneously raging against the individuals, companies and governments for encouraging the sort of research that led to these treatments in the first place.

Source:

The animal lab critic, cancer and hypocrisy. Valerie Elliott, The Times (London), August 28, 2004.

On Friday, August 27, the Howard Stern show repeated a show from April 10, 2002 in which United Poultry Concerns’ Karen Davis defended her comments that the 9/11 terrorist attacks may have reduced net suffering by sparing many chickens. For those who missed her comments the first time, in a letter on Dec. 26, 2001 to Vegan Voice, Davis said,

Doubtless the majority, if not every single one, of the people who suffered and/or died as a result of the September 11 attack ate, and if they are now a life continue to eat, chickens. It is possible to argue, using (Peter Singer’s) utilitarian calculations, that the deaths of thousands of people whose trivial consumer satisfactions included the imposition of fundamental misery and death on hundreds of thousands of chickens reduced the amount of pain and suffering in the world.

Davis has also claimed that Jewish victims of the Holocaust who ate meat were the moral equivalents of their Nazi persecutors (emphasis added),

It’s been said that if most people had direct contact with the animals they consume, vegetarianism would soar, but history has yet to support this hope. It isn’t just the Nazis who could see birds in the yard, slaughter them and eat them without a qualm, and in fact with euphoria. In this respect, the persecuted Jewish communities were no different than their persecutors.

The odd thing is that Davis herself was promoting the re-broadcasting of the Stern show on the UPC web site. Hey, good for her — more people should know that animal rights leaders like Davis think that it could be argued that the 9/11 terrorist attack was a good thing or that Jewish families who ate chicken were just like the Nazis.

Davis is now writing a book length treatment of these bizarre beliefs, The Holocaust and the Henmaid’s Tale: A Case for Comparing Atrocities, to be published in 2005.

Source:

UPC President Karen Davis Talks about Chickens on The Howard Stern Show. Press Release, Untied Poultry Concerns, August 27, 2004.

BILL NUMBER: SB 1585	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT


	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  AUGUST 23, 2004
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  JULY 12, 2004
	AMENDED IN SENATE  MAY 24, 2004
	AMENDED IN SENATE  APRIL 20, 2004
	AMENDED IN SENATE  MARCH 25, 2004


INTRODUCED BY   Senators Speier and Machado


                        FEBRUARY 19, 2004


   An act to add Article 6.5 (commencing with Section 110806) to
Chapter 5 of Part 5 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code,
relating to food safety.



	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

   SB 1585, as amended, Speier.  Food safety.
   The existing Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law establishes
requirements for the identification and branding of food, and
provides for the administration of those requirements by the Food and
Drug Branch of the State Department of Health Services, and, upon
request of local agencies, for the administration of certain
requirements by local health officers.  Violation of this law is a
crime.
   This bill would require a  beef   meat 
or poultry supplier, distributor,  broker,  or processor
that sells a meat- or poultry-related product in California that is
subject to a voluntary recall requested or issued by the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to immediately notify the
State Department of Health Services and to provide the department
with a list of retailers that have received or will receive any
product subject to recall that the supplier, distributor, 
broker,  or processor has handled or anticipates handling.
   The bill would authorize the department to notify appropriate
local health officers and environmental health directors that a
supplier, distributor,  broker,  processor, or retailer in
the local jurisdiction has handled or received, or anticipates
handling or receiving, a meat- or poultry-related product that is
subject to a voluntary recall requested or issued by the USDA.
   If the department makes that notification, the bill would require
the department, local health officers, and environmental health
directors to notify the public regarding recalled meat- and
poultry-related products, except that, in the case of a restaurant,
the bill would prohibit the department, local health officers, and
environmental health directors from providing public notification if
the local health officers or environmental health directors determine
that the recalled product has been removed from the restaurant site.
  The bill would prohibit both notifications from being made in the
case of USDA Class III recalls.  By creating additional duties for
local government, this bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.
   By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated
local program.
   The bill would require the department to submit to the Legislature
for review, by January 1, 2005, copies of all memoranda of
understanding pertaining to meat- and poultry-related products.
  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, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund
to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide
and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed
$1,000,000.
   This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no
reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
   With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that,
if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains
costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall
be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
   Vote:  majority.  Appropriation:  no.  Fiscal committee:  yes.
State-mandated local program:  yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  It is the intent of the Legislature that this act shall
apply only to voluntary recalls requested or issued by the United
States Department of Agriculture.
  SEC. 2.  Article 6.5 (commencing with Section 110806) is added to
Chapter 5 of Part 5 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, to
read:


      Article 6.5.  Recalled Food


   110806.  (a) A  beef   meat  or poultry
supplier, distributor,  broker,  or processor that sells a
meat- or poultry-related product in California that is subject to a
voluntary recall requested or issued by the United States Department
of Agriculture shall immediately notify the State Department of
Health Services and shall provide the department with a list of
retailers that have received or will receive any product subject to
recall that the supplier, distributor,  broker,  or
processor has handled or anticipates handling.  The list shall
include all pertinent identifying codes, including establishment
numbers, package codes, product codes, pack dates, and lot numbers,
if any, received or to be received, and any other relevant
information.
   (b) The department may, after receiving the information required
by subdivision (a), notify appropriate local health officers and
environmental health directors, as soon as practicable, that a
supplier, distributor,  broker,  processor, or retailer in
the local jurisdiction has handled or received, or anticipates
handling or receiving, a meat- or poultry-related product that is
subject to a voluntary recall requested or issued by the United
States Department of Agriculture.  The department shall, if it makes
the notification authorized by this subdivision, provide appropriate
local health officers and environmental health directors with each
supplier's, distributor's,  broker's  processor's, or
retailer's name, address, contact information, affected product
identifying codes, including establishment numbers, package codes,
product codes, pack dates, and lot numbers, if any, and all other
supply chain information available.  The department shall not provide
the notification authorized in this subdivision for a United States
Department of Agriculture Class III recall.
   (c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), if the department
makes the notification authorized by subdivision (b), the department,
local health officers, and environmental health directors shall
notify the public in a manner local health officers, in consultation
with the department and environmental health directors, deem
appropriate regarding recalled meat- and poultry-related products
based on their determination that the retailer is present within the
local jurisdiction and has received or made the product available to
the public.  The department, local health officers, and environmental
health directors shall not provide this notification for a United
States Department of Agriculture Class III recall.
   (2) In the case of a restaurant, if the local health officers or
environmental health directors determine that the recalled meat- or
poultry-related product has been removed from the restaurant site,
the department, local health officers, and environmental health
directors shall not provide the notification required by paragraph
(1).
   (d) The department shall submit to the Legislature for review, by
January 1, 2005, copies of all memoranda of understanding pertaining
to meat-and poultry-related products.
  SEC. 3.  No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for
certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district because in that regard this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.
   However, notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if
the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains
other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies
and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
(commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the
Government Code.  If the statewide cost of the claim for
reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000),
reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.

A California judge this month granted Emeryville-based Chiron a temporary restraining order against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. The restraining order prohibits SHAC or anyone associated with the group from harassing the company’s employees.

The restraining order was granted in light of an August 15 SHAC-organized protest at the home of Chiron attorney William Green. At about 10:15 a.m., protestors wearing masks and black clothing arrived at Green’s home. Despite a neighbor’s efforts to prevent them from entering Green’s property, the activists smashed about a dozen windows at the home. There was some indication the activists intended to use a garden hose to flood the home.

By the time police arrived, the activists were gone. Police told local TV stations, however, that neighbors had written down license plate numbers and descriptions of the activists and they were pursuing those leads.

Sources:

Biotech Executive’s Home Gets Vandalized. KGO-TV, August 16, 2004.

Top Chiron lawyer’s home is vandalized. Henry Lee, San Francisco Chronicle, August 16, 2004.

Chiron moves to limit animal rights group. Nathaniel Hoffman, Contra Costa Times, August 21, 2004.

Chiron gets restraining order against animal rights group. Associated Press, August 22, 2004.