Legislation Restricting Use of 'California' on Olive Oil Labels Gains Momentum

Assembly Bill 535, which would pro­hibit the use of the word ​‘California’ on any olive oil label not made from 100-per­cent California-grown olives, con­tin­ues to make its way through the state leg­is­la­ture.

The bill has already passed through two com­mit­tees with over­whelm­ing bipar­ti­san majori­ties and is now on the full floor. As the mea­sure steadily makes its way through the leg­isla­tive process, which is likely to include amend­ments and com­pro­mises, it has also picked up some promi­nent and vocal sup­port­ers.

The Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Family Winemakers of California, Olive Oil Commission of California (OOCC), Solano County Farm Bureau and Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation have all voiced their sup­port for the mea­sure.

Tom Mueller, the author of the New York Times best­seller, Extra Virginity, has also tac­itly sup­ported the bill, say­ing that truth in label­ing leg­is­la­tion will pro­tect pro­duc­ers and con­sumers.

“California farm­work­ers, oil pro­duc­ers and con­sumers would all be well-served by strong new leg­is­la­tion that pro­tects truly Californian-pro­duced prod­ucts, includ­ing olive oil, but also ensures that con­sumers are get­ting pre­cisely what they see on the label,” he said in an inter­view with the California Coalition for Truth in Olive Oil Labeling (CCTOOL).

CCTOOL was formed last October to lobby in favor of AB-535, which would also apply sim­i­lar restric­tions for olive oils pro­duced in cer­tain regions of the state unless 85 per­cent of the olive oil (by weight) had been pro­duced in the named region.

During a hear­ing of the legislature’s health com­mit­tee, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, the bill’s author, argued that the new leg­is­la­tion would strengthen exist­ing laws about using the word ​‘California’ on olive oil labels. However, this bill is going one step fur­ther by expand­ing the pro­hi­bi­tion on the word to cover brand and com­pany names as well.

California Olive Ranch (COR), which, among other offer­ings, pro­duces a blend of California and imported extra vir­gin olive oils, would be the largest brand to be affected. Others, how­ever, includ­ing Williams-Sonoma and Napa Valley Naturals, both of which source olives out­side of their name­sake regions, would also be impacted.

Michael Fox, the CEO of California Olive Ranch, agreed that mis­la­beled olive oil is one of the biggest prob­lems fac­ing pro­duc­ers in the state. However, he dis­agreed that COR’s brand name was caus­ing the prob­lem.

“Our trade­mark is truth­ful,” he told Olive Oil Times. ​“Our oper­a­tions are in California. Our ranches are in California. Our com­pany has been called COR for 20 years.”

Fox argued that many sup­port­ers of the bill, specif­i­cally CCTOOL mem­bers, are less inter­ested in pro­tect­ing the name California and more inter­ested in remov­ing the word from cer­tain prod­ucts embla­zoned with the company’s trade­mark.

CCTOOL mem­bers have always denied this claim and repeat­edly said they want to pro­tect how California is used on labels.

“What COR does inter­nally with their brand­ing and how it affects their sales isn’t our con­cern or our busi­ness,” Samantha Dorsey, a mem­ber of CCTOOL and pres­i­dent of McEvoy Ranch, told Olive Oil Times. ​“I under­stand that there will be impli­ca­tions to their busi­ness, but that’s not my con­cern as pres­i­dent of McEvoy Ranch.”

“[After 30 years,] we’re on the cusp of real­iz­ing this pre­mium for California extra vir­gin olive oil and it’s really painful to go to the gro­cery store and see olive oil that’s mas­querad­ing as California olive oil,” she added. ​“After all of the work that we’ve done, it’s very dis­ap­point­ing and it’s hard to con­vince con­sumers to pay $30 (€25) for a bot­tle of olive oil.”

However, in his inter­view with CCTOOL, Mueller did not hold back on his crit­i­cism of the COR.

“California Olive Ranch’s Destination Series [now called Global Blend] is a threat to California agri­cul­ture and olive oil pro­duc­tion specif­i­cally because it is under­cut­ting hon­est pro­duc­ers,” he said.

“They built an impor­tant brand and have led peo­ple to asso­ciate COR with olive oil grown, milled, stored and sold in California and that is sim­ply not the case with the Destination Series,” Mueller added. ​“Frankly, it should not have California on the bot­tle if it is not made in California.”

Fox dis­agrees with Mueller’s assess­ment, point­ing to mar­ket research from Marketure Growth Consultants that showed 90 per­cent of con­sumers could accu­rately dif­fer­en­ti­ate the company’s Global Blend from their 100-per­cent California extra vir­gin olive oil.

The same research firm found that only 80 per­cent of con­sumers could do the same with California and Australian extra vir­gin olive oils pro­duced by COR’s rival, Cobram Estate.

“We agree that truth-in-label­ing leg­is­la­tion pro­tects con­sumers, farm­ers, and pro­duc­ers. But the exist­ing California state law (HSC 112895) is already pro­tect­ing these stake­hold­ers effec­tively,” Fox said. ​“This cri­sis that CCTOOL is attempt­ing to por­tray is a false one. The sup­port­ers of this leg­is­la­tion have failed to pro­vide one piece of data that shows con­sumers, farm­ers and pro­duc­ers are at risk by cur­rent label­ing prac­tices by COR or oth­ers.”

In a writ­ten state­ment to the leg­is­la­ture, the OOCC said that there has been a rise of inac­cu­rately labeled and mis­la­beled extra vir­gin olive oil in the state, specif­i­cally regard­ing the prove­nance of the oils. The OOCC asserted that this has caused con­sumer con­fu­sion and led to a depres­sion in prices.

No one from the OOCC, which is a California state-sanc­tioned entity, responded to requests for com­ment on this arti­cle.

However, pro­po­nents of AB-535, includ­ing Mueller, argue that the bill is nec­es­sary and will bring the olive oil sec­tor in line with the wine sec­tor.

“I think California wine has shown the way for­ward for this kind of leg­is­la­tion and olive oil needs to fol­low in wine’s foot­steps and ensure that California labels mean that 100-per­cent of the olives were grown in California,” he said.

In 2000, the California state leg­is­la­ture passed a law pro­hibit­ing the use of pro­tected wine appel­la­tions on labels, in which less than 75 per­cent of the grapes were grown in the region.

Bronco Wine, the pro­ducer of the Napa Ridge brand, which sourced most of its grapes from north­ern California and not from Napa County, sued the state for infring­ing on its copy­right and the case even­tu­ally went to the state’s supreme court.

In 2005, the California Supreme Court upheld the law restrict­ing the use of the word ​‘Napa’ on bot­tles of wine pro­duced from grapes grown out­side of the region, despite the name being used in a trade­mark.

Supporters of AB-535 see this leg­is­la­tion as a prece­dent for what they are try­ing to do. However, Fox argues that the par­al­lel is flawed, point­ing out that the 21^st Amendment gives states the right to reg­u­late all mat­ters related to alco­hol while food is fed­er­ally reg­u­lated.

“California’s wine laws are less restric­tive than what AB-535 seeks to imple­ment,” Fox said. ​“They do not restrict the use of the term ​‘California’ in a brand name, they only restrict the use of rec­og­nized appel­la­tion names like ​‘Napa’ and ​‘Sonoma.’ They also include a carve-out for truth­ful names.”

AB-535 heads for the full floor of the leg­is­la­ture this week for a third read­ing and even­tu­ally a vote. Alan Hilburg, the founder of CCTOOL, told Olive Oil Times that he expects the bill to pass and move to the sen­ate.

For his part, Fox expects the bill to undergo sig­nif­i­cant changes in the sen­ate, shift­ing the focus away from pro­hib­i­tive lan­guage toward more clear label­ing stan­dards for all olive oils sold in California.

He added that he also has been dis­cussing the issue with Aguiar-Curry and was encour­aged by their con­ver­sa­tions. However, he admit­ted the two were still far from find­ing com­mon ground.

“We have pro­posed amend­ments that will keep cur­rent laws in place but add new guardrails around blended prod­ucts that are inspired by the strict label­ing laws put forth by other coun­tries,” he said. ​“Our pro­pos­als take this leg­is­la­tion fur­ther to assure blended prod­ucts com­mu­ni­cate to con­sumers that a prod­uct is a global blend.”

For her part, Aguiar-Curry con­tin­ues to say that she will fight to pro­tect the high-qual­ity of Californian agri­cul­tural prod­ucts and her intent with this bill is to do just that.

“California has the best agri­cul­tural prod­ucts and the high­est envi­ron­men­tal and labor stan­dards in the world,” she said. ​“Consumers look for California-grown foods because they asso­ciate California with qual­ity.”

“Allowing com­pa­nies to trick con­sumers into think­ing they’re buy­ing a California prod­uct because they slap ​‘California’ on their pack­age under­cuts every­thing we’re try­ing to accom­plish as a state,” she added. ​“This bill will ensure that con­sumers know exactly what they are buy­ing, and it will help to sup­port our local farm­ers who are pro­duc­ing world-class oils from olives grown here in our state.”

• Wine Spectator