Assemblymember Holden's Buy-California Food Bill Passes Hurdle

The Assembly Agriculture Committee today heard testimony on Assemblymember Chris Holden's legislation to ensure that California fruit, nuts, livestock and vegetables are given priority when it comes to state purchasing. Holden represents Monrovia.

Under Holden's AB 199 Choose California Act, state agencies would be required to give California agriculture producers priority when purchasing food products if the price is within 5% of the lowest out-of-state competitor. School districts would have to purchase California grown products as long as they aren't more expensive than out-of-state products.

"AB 199 uses the state's purchasing power to bolster California's Agri-business and that means more jobs and more revenue and that's good for California's bottom line," said Assemblymember Holden. "This bill is a win-win for everyone. The public institutions get a locally-grown product, we're helping create opportunities for our farmers and a new appreciation for local food helps stimulate the economy."

"California Citrus Mutual is excited to support this legislation as it puts before our young people and population the wonderful bounty we produce in California. To have this focus is a win for agriculture and a win for our state." Joel Nelsen, President, California Citrus Mutual

The Agriculture Committee voted unanimously (7 to 0) in favor of AB 199. Earlier in the session the measure was approved by the Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee. It now moves to Assembly Appropriations for fiscal consideration.

Source: Holden press release

Opinion: That the Agriculture Committee likes this awful bill is small surprise, but the bill is still bad. First the state makes life miserable for businesses, then when powerful, politically-connected businesses such as film and agriculture complain, then the state attempts to alleviate the damage it has caused by making things even more costly and more complex, in this case, by increasing the cost of state government by requiring state agencies pay more for food. Wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper for the state to just stop tormenting businesses in the first place?

- Brad Haugaard