California olive oil warring parties reach compromise over controversial labeling bill AB 535

AB 535, in its original form , effectively prohibited “ any reference to California or any other representation on the principal display panel” of olive oil containers unless 100% of the olives used to produce the oil were grown in California. According to California Olive Ranch , this was a blatant attempt – backed by some of its competitors - to go after its successful ‘Global Blend’ extra virgin olive oil series, which combines extra virgin olive oils from California and other growing regions in Latin America and Europe, and accounts for a sizeable chunk of its sales. California Olive Ranch argued that the bill amounted to a “ solution in search of a problem ” given that the labels spell out that the bottles contain a ‘global blend of oils from Argentina, Chile, Portugal, California’ and as such would not be confused with the company’s 100% California-grown olive oil. Backers of AB 535, however, argued that it would “ protect Californian olive growers and manufacturers from being undercut in the market by [cheaper blended] oils that benefit from using the ‘California’ name to mislead consumers about what they’re buying.” California Olive Ranch CEO: ‘ It’s not ideal, but that’s the nature of compromise, right?’ Amendments to the bill – which passed in the House in May – have since modified its language such that brands featuring the word ‘California’ or other references to the Golden state on pack can still sell blended products, but would be required to state the minimum amount of California-sourced olive oil in such products in the “ same font, size, and color as the word ‘California.’” This means California Olive Ranch will likely have to redesign its logo to comply with the law, which would apply to products manufactured after Dec 31, 2021, said CEO Michael Fox, who noted that California governor Gavin Newsom would need to sign off on any bill (assuming it passes both houses) by mid-September (when he faces a recall election). “Obviously it's been a difficult debate,” he told FoodNavigator-USA, “but we're thankful to the Senate Agriculture and Health Committees, who were able to help draft amendments that make sense for both sides and as a result, we've moved to a neutral position on the bill.” He added: “It’s not ideal, but that’s the nature of compromise right, not everyone is going to get what they want, but I think at the end of the day, we're happy to do that to be compliant with the law.” Regional olive oil labeling Separately, he said, a section in the original bill prohibiting brands from highlighting a specific region of California such as Napa Valley on their labels unless at least 85% of the olive oil was produced from olives grown in that region has also been amended because it simply wasn’t practical. For example, culinary brand Napa Valley Naturals has one olive oil product that states the oil is from the Sacramento Valley, while its other olive oil product states that the oil is ‘from the Mediterranean.’ Under the original version of AB 535, said Fox, the Mediterranean product would have had to be discontinued unless Napa Valley Naturals ditched its company logo. Aside from the fact that ‘Napa Valley Naturals’ is clearly a brand name that could apply to multiple products, he added: “ I don't believe there's enough olive oil produced in Napa Valley to make it [the 85% labeling requirement in the original bill] even feasible.” If brands use terms such as ‘Napa Valley olive oil,’ on product labels however, the 85% requirement still applies, he said.

California olive oil warring parties reach compromise over controversial labeling bill AB 535

AB 535, a California bill that would have prohibited any reference to California on olive oil bottles that did not contain 100% California-sourced olive oil, has been amended such that supporters and opponents say they can both live with it.

Related Topics

‘A solution in search of a problem…’ California olive oil row heats up as producers clash over labeling bill