Assembly Standing Committee on Agriculture

Good afternoon. We're going to go ahead and get started. I am not Devin Mathis, but we're going to start anyway. No, with permission, we are going to go ahead and get the meeting started here. Let's see. Like to call the Assembly Committee on Agriculture to order before we begin. To ensure that Members of the media and public have access to our proceedings today. This hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website, and Members of the public can provide testimony in person here in room 126. What's a quorum?

We have a quorum. Okay. So, Madam Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

I should have done this first. Okay, now we're in, so. All right. Mr. Bennett, would you like to present? Do we have before we. I'm sorry, this is not my Committee, so I'm a little out of whack here. Let's go ahead. We've got a statement here first. Okay.

Sure. Okay, great. So the chair is unable to make the hearing today. The Vice Chair isn't here at this point, so you're stuck with me for now. We have an agenda update. The following bill has been pulled by the author. Agenda item number two, AB 240 by Assemblymember Kalra so there are now nine bills on our agenda being considered by our Committee today. One bill is on the consent file. That is AB 98 by Ms. Aguiar-Curry.

Any Member has the ability to pull that bill from consent if they choose. We're always happy that when people make motions to approve things like the consent agenda. Hint, hint. zero, I see. A motion by Mr. Connolly. A second by Mr. Alanis for the consent calendar, which is AB 98, which is item number four. Madam Secretary, please call the role on the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you very much. For all those who will be providing comments today, we ask that you please state your name and the organization you represent. If you support one, if you support or oppose the bill being considered, any member of the public may also submit written comments to our committee through email.

Emails may be sent to the address found on the committee website, which is agri.committee.assembly.ca.gov. So I'd like to welcome fellow Members of the Committee and let's proceed with the hearing. The first item we'd like to consider now that Mr. Bennett's comfortable there is not Mr. Bennett's bill, but the Committee rules. Are there any questions or concerns from the Committee Members about the Committee rules?

If not, this would be a really good time for a motion in a second. A motion by Ms. Soria, a second by Mr. Villapudua. Madam Secretary, please call the roll for the committee rules.

On the adoption of the Committee rules. [Roll Call]

So that bill is passed with the vote of eight. We have eight members voting, so we will now begin with file item number one. Mr. Bennett, please proceed with your bill when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Members AB 552. It's pretty direct. It creates a heavy equipment farm worker, I mean, farm tool sharing program. And I think we all know that farm equipment, particularly the expensive farm equipment, can be a real challenge for farmers, particularly small farmers, disadvantaged farmers, low income farmers, et cetera. So this sets up that program to allow them to borrow this high value equipment on a short term basis. It's used around the, a number of countries in Europe do this very successfully.

We don't do it very much here in the United States. And so this would be the establishment of a program that would allow this to happen, obviously with the economics of agriculture. After land, farm equipment is huge and usually the second highest cost and certainly fixed cost for farmers. So with that, I have two great community members to help us testify, and Anna Larson from California Climate and Agricultural Network, and Jamie Fanous from Community Alliance with Family Farms.

Please go ahead when you're ready.

I'm Anna Larson with Calcan, the California Climate and Agriculture Network. And we're a coalition of eight sustainable and organic farmer serving organizations that advocate for policies to help farmers be more resilient to climate change. So while California leads the country in agricultural production, the number of family farms decreases with each agricultural census due to market pressures and climate change impacts.

So more than ever, farmers need support to have viable and resilient operations and to meet state goals and targets for agricultural sustainability is outlined in the scoping plan and the 30 x 30 goals. As Assemblymember Bennett mentioned, farm equipment is the highest capital expense for farmers after land. And 75% of California's 70,000 farms operate with net farm incomes under $25,000 or with net losses annually.

So therefore, investments in specialized equipment for healthy soils practices or wildfire mitigation strategies such as no till drills, Wood chippers, and compost spreaders and investments in infrastructure are often out of reach, particularly for small and midscale farmers and disadvantaged farmers. We've heard that access to equipment is a critical need from the farmers we work with and from our partners in extension at resource conservation districts and our nonprofit partners who serve thousands of farmers across the state.

And many have identified equipment sharing as a solution but lack the funds to create the programs we already know. This model works. In Fresno, the UC Cooperative Extension Small Farms team operates an equipment sharing program to help healthy soils program participants be able to use compost on their farms. The program is so successful that there's way more demand for the program than they are able to meet.

So Assemblymember Bennett's AB 552 would help programs such as Fresno be able to scale up and meet demand, and also help create and start new programs across the state and help the state realize the potential of agriculture to address climate change and support regional food economies. Thank you.

Thank you. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Members, and I apologize. I'm back to many of you. My name is Jamie Fanuse. I'm the policy Director at the Community alliance with Family Farmers, or CAF. CAF currently represents over 8000 small and mid scale family farmers in California and has worked for over 45 years to preserve family scale agriculture and promote environmental sustainability. In California, over 80% of farms operate on less than 180 acres.

Nearly 34 operate on less than $100,000 in annual sales, and we lose at least four small scale farms a day. These challenges facing small farmers are overwhelming, making the simple act of growing food to feed local communities a nearly impossible task. The realities of climate crisis, existing supply chains and food systems disproportionately affect people who make livelihoods. Growing food, which includes one in five California farmers who identify as black, indigenous, and people of color. There are also farmers at CAF.

These are the farmers that we aim to serve at CAF, and we engage with every single day. We listen and respond to the most immediate needs with advocacy and technical assistance. One of the top priorities we heard this year is the need for equitable access to infrastructure and opportunities to work collectively. With rapid consolidation and major market competition, our farmers know the only way they will survive in the future is to work together, sharing equipment processing and crop planning together.

For example, several farmers have their own informal sharing of one or two tools, like a seed drill. But they lack the funds in order to kind of access more capital intensive tools, either through farmer led cooperative programs or supported by technical assistance providers like the UCANR small farms programs, cooperatively managed equipment sharing and technical assistance can help these infrastructure barriers and increase farm viability in local food economies.

AB 552, by Assemblymember Bennett, would directly contribute to the creation of thriving regional food ecosystems where small and underserved farmers and land stewards can begin to build strength. Regional economies are essential if we want to ensure the survival of California's smallest and most vulnerable farmers. And I urge your aye vote in support of this bill. Thanks.

Thank you very much. There is no opposition on file for this bill, so at this point we'd like to give an opportunity for others to speak in support or if there is opposition to opposition to the bill. So please come forward. We're just asking for your name, your position on the bill and any organization that you might represent.

Melissa Sagun, on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jeanne Merrill with the Center for Food Safety and Support.

Thank you. Didn't mean to mute you guys. Was that better than after that? Okay. All right. This is not my normal position in this room, so, anyway, just saying. Okay. Appreciate that. From the witnesses, wow. So bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Any questions or comments from the Committee?

I'll always have a comment for this. I want to thank you, Assemblymember Bennett, for bringing this forward. I work really hard trying to get our small farmers to be able to thrive and to be successful, and this is one less thing that they would have to worry about if this gets through. So, thank you very much, and thank you to both of the people that testifying today. I know them well.

Mr. Villapudua.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank the author and staff. This is such a great Bill. I think a lot of folks think that farming is lucrative. A lot of people make a lot of money. But I live in an ag community, too. I know how hard it is. I know how hard it is, even for the new farmers that are coming up, the struggles, especially with how California is making all these different changes, it makes it even harder for folks. So, I want to ask author if I can be added as a co-author? I make that as a motion.

I, too. I'm sorry, did you have a motion or question? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I just want to say thank you, Mr. Bennett, for bringing this Bill forward. In my district, we have a lot of small farms, small organic farms, and I know CAF has a very active presence in my district as well, so really appreciate you doing this. And I, too, would, if the Bill passed out of the Committee, would love to be added as a co-author. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good, thank you. So we have a motion by Mr. Villapudua, a second by Ms. Aguiar-Curry. Where is this Bill going next? Okay, the Bill would be going to appropriations, so the motion is do pass to appropriations. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on.

AB 552. Do pass to appropriations: [Roll Call].

Okay, so Bill has seven votes. You're out of Committee. We'll leave the roll open for us.

Thank you very much, and I'd like to compliment our two witnesses here today.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to go to Ms. Aguiar-Curry.

AB 54. Hey, how's it going?

Thank you. zero, such a gentleman. Take note everyone.

Nobody beats Jack.

No one category, ma'am. No one beats Jack. Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. First, I'd like to thank the Committee staff for their continued work with our office. I would like to start by saying that I'm honored to be the Chair of the Select Committee on Wine and proud to join my fellow colleagues in protecting our booming agricultural industry, which includes the vintners and the wineries that extend across every region, small and large, urban and rural.

The California wine industry has been significantly impacted by catastrophic wildfires in recent years. The state has 4800 wineries and 5900 wine grape growers, most of which are long term family businesses with a commitment to preserving the land for future generations. Wine grape growers and bitners generate 73 billion in economic activity for the state while employing 422,000 Californians. Unfortunately, California wildflowers have caused significant property loss, loss of tourism and loss of production due to the smoke exposed grapes.

Even when wine grapes are not burned in a fire, the smoke taints the flavor of the grapes and can ruin the flavor profile of any wine produced with a smoke tainted grape. Wildfires from 2020 alone are estimated to have cost wineries and wine grape growers $3.7 billion, both from the immediate fire caused losses as well as losses in future sales. Little is known about the tools and methods that could be used in vineyards to prevent or limit the effects of smoke exposure in grapes.

Research to date has not revealed commercially viable solutions. We need more research to look at potential application that could protect grapes from smoke exposure. Finally, research is needed that will help identify market ready solutions for wine grape growers and wineries to reduce their losses by measuring mitigating and preventing impacts from wildfire smoke.

AB 54 will create an Advisory Committee to oversee the distribution of $5 million in funding to investigate accurate measurement of smoke compounds, methods to mitigate the damage that can occur from exposure to smoke, and methods to prevent smoke damage to wine grapes and wine. By committing resources to understanding and mitigating the impacts of wildfire smoke on wine grapes, the state will support an important part of California's economy and allow California wine growers to better understand and adapt to climate change.

This bill is more than just doing great research in this space. It will help to identify and create market ready solutions that can be applied before a crop is planted or harvested. With me today to testify in support, I have Tim Schmelzer from the Wine Institute and Jack Gualko from the Guaco group. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Good to see you all. It's my first time testifying this year, so, rusty. Tim Schmelzer, representing wine Institute. We are proud to have over a thousand California wineries as our members and I have not a lot to say. You stole so much of my punch here.

Sorry.

It's a good point. I don't know who helped you write that anyway, to Ms. Aguiar-Curry's point, we are in desperate need of research to get real science behind the numbers here. This issue has led to some unfortunate tensions at time between growers and vitiners because we haven't been able to bring science to bear for what the real measurements are of the impacts.

And I'm so grateful that we've been able to join forces here and bring science to bear so that we can be making intelligent, informed decisions going forward and make the best use of the wine grapes as they come off. Sometimes we've not used crops at all when it turns out maybe they're better used in a lower value wine class, so on and so forth.

And bringing science to bear will help us make more cost effective decisions and get along with our partners even better than we already do. Ask for your support today. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Jack Gualco, on behalf of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers. And it's good to be able to look back over the years where the Legislature, the Department of Food and AG, University of California, and the Cal State University system have been really good partners at making sure that this industry thrives by really forging ahead with research on new varietals and working together to combat pests like the glassing wing sharpshooter and the lantern fly.

The issue that Mr. Aguiar-Curry properly and fully described is something that we've got to really get a handle on quickly, because the last thing we want to do is to have the California product be viewed with less than full integrity, and that's what's potentially at risk here. So it's important that we forge ahead together with that continued partnership fund, ultimately, the research and really get a handle on what is needed to really protect the industry from further damage.

As Dr. Wood knows from his district, a lot of damage was done. There were over $600 million of crop value not delivered because of the smoke. And then about $3 billion in the value of total wine sales that was avoided. So it's a serious issue. And really encourage your. I vote on this important Bill. Thank you.

All right, we've got support. Do we have opposition in the room? Have a seat. We'll hear. We've got additional support first?

Michael Jarrett on behalf of the Community Alliance With Family Farmers in support of this bill. Thank you. Okay.

Brenda bass with California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Sid Nag with Rural County Representatives of California. RCRC in support.

Madison Dwelly Pigozza, on behalf of the Family Winemakers Of California in support.

All right, do we have any opposition? Seeing none. Are we set up for phones? We're not doing phones. All right, back to the members. Mr. Wood.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, very much. Appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. We experienced the Kincaid fire in 2020. I think it was a Kincaid fire. There's so many fires. I can track of them.

Pick a fire.

But I have a friend who has an estate winery. So they harvested grapes knowing that there was smoke there to see if there was anything they could do, if they could salvage anything. And quite frankly, the results were pretty abysmal. And they tried some treatments and things. Unfortunately, wine is such a delicate art to making wine that didn't quite taste like wine when they got done. So I really appreciate you bringing this forward. This is a critical, important research.

I wish we didn't have to do this research. I wish we weren't going to have the wildfires that we were having, but that's a whole other issue. So I appreciate you bringing forward, and I'd love to be added as a co author to your bill.

Yep. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Wood, any others? Seeing none. Do we have a motion? In a second. All right. Secretary, please call a roll. Oh, sorry. Would you like to close?

Oh, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And for our farmers and our vitiners, let's get this over the finish line.

All right. Thank you.

Okay, on AB 54, motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, bill has 8 votes. It's out. We'll leave it open for any absent members.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do you want me to stay here? This is my agapalooza day. Just to let you warning you.

I see that. Yeah. But next, we have you docketed for AB 98. No, that one's consent.

How about AB 402?

402? Yes.

Okay. All right. Again, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Today I introduce AB 402. Because California's bountiful crops are under attack by a noxious weed known as branched broom rape. Tomatoes are highly susceptible to broom rape infestation. However, this weed can negatively impact a wide range of crops, such as pasture legumes and host plants that include cabbage, hemp, lettuce and spinach, just to name a few. Once established, broom rape is extremely difficult to eradicate.

It can halt production, reduce crop yields by up to 70%, and destroy a farmer's entire harvest. It can also affect a range of weeds, enabling it to reproduce even when the crops are not present. It is critical that California's agricultural industry conduct research and develop methods to control and mitigate the harmful impacts caused by this invasive species. AB 402 will establish the Broom Rape Control Board, an industry funded, industry funded program housed at the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

The board will consist of 12 members representing counties across the state, and will provide expert recommendations and guidance on how to efficiently and effectively control branched broom rape. Members, thank you for your time. Our farmers need your support today. With me today to testify in support is Taylor Roshan, representing the California Tomato Growers Association. Thank you.

Great.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Taylor Roshan, on behalf of the California Tomato Growers Association, in support of this bill. Once again, Ms. Aguiar Curry did a great job describing what it is that the bill does. But certainly, I want to echo that broomrape is an incredibly damaging parasitic weed, particularly for the tomato industry that has already been afflicted by year over year drought constrained markets, and unfortunately, now flooding situations as well.

This bill will offer tomato producers and handlers self determination and through, as Ms. Aguiar Curry mentioned, industry assessments to help provide an opportunity to guide the department to better manage this disease and conduct research. With that, we respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

All right, thank you. There's no opposition on file, so do we have any support from the audience that would like to register? Support our opposition? Seeing none. Back to the Committee. All right. Seeing anything else? Would you like to.

You know, it was kind of ironic. I had a farmer up in Williams, California, does production, large production of tomatoes, and I mentioned that I was going to do this bill, and he said, oh my god, you don't understand how it's impacted our production last year. So I'm really excited about the bill. And it's kind of nice to hear from a farmer and a producer the importance of this bill. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well, thank you. I appreciate your work on this issue. We have a lot of tomatoes in my area as well, so I recommend an aye.

Also, secretary, will you please color all on AB 402. Agria curry motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

We have eight votes on that. Your bill is out. Thank you.

As I said, agapalooza. Right.

Let's see. So, would you like to go ahead and begin with your next bill?

AB 454. AB 454, this is the handsome gentleman that I got here with me. How are you? Good.

Okay, thank you, Chair and Members. First, I'd like to accept the Committee amendments, and again, thank the committee staff for their thorough review and thoughtful input. AB 454 makes an extremely important adjustment to our rice producers and handlers who have been hit hard by the catastrophic drought conditions which California has experienced year after year. Extreme drought and water shortages have severely constrained rice production in the Sacramento Valley, resulting in growers planting less than half of their typical acreage.

In 2022, over half of the state's typical 500,000 acres of rice were unplanted. According to the UC Davis estimate, the Sacramento Valley region will experience a $1.3 billion economic impact and result in over 14,000 job losses in the '22-'23 marketing season. These conditions dramatically impact the allocation of Commission board seats by district. For example, to be eligible to serve on the rice Commission, producers and handlers must actively produce or handle rice.

However, due to the massive drop in rice production, many producers and handlers would no longer be eligible to serve on the Rice Commission Board, even if they are actively participating in prevented planning program managed by the US Department of Agriculture. This bill will allow the Rice Commission to annually review and evaluate state drought conditions and, if warranted, issue a drought declaration.

Under a drought declaration, the rice Commission would be able to allow a handler or producer to serve on the board if they historically produced or handled rice or if they participated in the prevented planting program. At USDA, AB 454 is an important bill because it provides greater flexibility regarding rice Commission eligibility during a drought periods to maintain representation of all rice farmers and handlers, including those impacted by drought.

With me today to testify and support I have Tim Johnson, the President and CEO of the California Rice Commission.

Welcome, Tim. Good to see you. Go ahead.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I am Tim Johnson, President and CEO of the California Rice Commission. The Commission is an organization formed in state law 1998 and represents the state's 2500 rice farmers and marketers and organizations that annually produce, mill, and sell rice on about 500,000 acres annually, mostly in the Sacramento Valley. In a normal year, California is the second largest rice producing state in the US, behind Arkansas.

And we know, and we're known around the world for our short and medium grain Japonica rice that we grow. Rice is sticky rice. You'll know it as sushi rice, and you'll also find it in Korean rice bowls. California is also known for the wildlife habitat that our fields provide. Habitat that is invaluable to 225 species of wildlife known to use our fields during the growing season.

In the winter when we reflood for straw decomposition, 27 of those species are considered special status by state and federal wildlife agencies. We also provide 60% of the food for the seven to 10 million ducks and geese that annually winter here. This biodiversity in these ecosystems benefits are dependent on a productive and healthy rice industry. Last year, as the Assemblymember noted, our industry faced the most difficult drought in memory. Fully half of our farms lay fallow.

Even more relevant for today's discussion is the fact that those impacts were not evenly distributed across the valley. Rice farms on the eastern side of the Sacramento valley planted close to a normal crop. Rice farmers on the west side of the valley, counties including Calusa and Glenn, and portions of Sutter County planted almost no rice. Please keep in mind that these farmers almost always plant because of the very dependable water from the Sacramento river.

Except for last year when water deliveries were cut from an expected 75% to 18%, something that has never occurred in the past. As I noted in my opening, the Commission is a statutory organization and our statute are requirements that ensure that growers are fairly represented on our board. Our law requires that growers be elected by district. Those districts are comprised of counties or groups of counties, and the number of seats for each district is allocated by their percentage of the total statewide acreage planted each year.

The drought has upended our ability to fairly allocate the seats in a year of severe water shortage, and some districts grew almost no rice and others planted a nearly normal crop. In the absence of AB 454. I will be forced to conduct an election in June where half of the valley gets 80% of the votes and the rest of the valley only gets three seats.

What's more, I will be required to remove currently seated board members who were previously elected to a three year term. AB 454 is an industry developed solution that. Well, based on the declaration of the Rice Commission Board of Directors during severe drought, calculate the number of seats for each district based not only on the planted acres, but also include the acres that were included in the prevented planning losses under the US Department of Agriculture.

The solution will allow growers who were unable to plant based on drought last year to still be able to vote, stand for election, and serve in their current term. California rice industry fully supports AB 454 and deeply appreciates the Assemblymember Curry's understanding and support during this extraordinary time. We appreciate the committees considering this bill with an urgency clause. Thank you very much.

Thank you, President Johnson. Seeing no opposition on file at this time, we will open it up for public comment. For support or opposition. Seeing no one from the public, we'll go back to the committee. We've got a motion from Ms. Soria and a second from Mr. Alanis. Secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 454. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, your bill is out. Thank you for your ex-specular time.

Thank you very much, Committee. Appreciate it.

All right, thank you. We will now move on to file item number seven, Assembly Bill 404 by Assemblymember Connolly. Mr. Connolly, please proceed with your first of three bills we will be considering today. Whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Chair and Members, pleasure to be here. And as noted, we're going to be presenting on a three bill package, AB 404, 405 and 406, to continue California's leadership in organic farming and its importance for a healthy food supply and economic and climate sustainability in our state. So why don't we start with AB 404, which is fundamentally about transferring the oversight burden from farmers to government. Organic farmers in California are uniquely regulated.

They report to the United States Department of Agriculture, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and if they process food to the California Department of Public Health, each of these agencies has a separate reporting process, and they often collect redundant information from organic farmers. AB 404 asks CDFA to evaluate these reporting requirements and recommend to the legislature efficiencies so these agencies are better coordinated and we're only asking farmers to report data once.

This bill will help organic farmers succeed and support the state in achieving its climate. Target that 20% of California be organic by 2045. Today, I'm joined by Rebekah Weber, policy Director at California Certified organic farmers. I will hand it over to her for further discussion on AB 404 and respectfully ask for an aye vote Rebecca.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Connolly, and thank you, Committee, for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 404. I'm Rebekah Weber, policy Director at CCOF. We represent over 3000 organic farms, ranches, and businesses across California. Record keeping and reporting is one of the biggest barriers we hear from organic farmers. We often hear from farmers who would like to be organic, but the paperwork simply gets in the way. Every organic farmer needs to submit an organic system plan. This plan is comprehensive.

Farmers need to report on what they're growing, where they're growing it, how they're conserving natural resources, how they're managing pests, where they're getting their seeds from, as well as where they're storing their crops after harvest, along with a lot other more data points. All of this information is verified through an annual inspection by a third party certifier such as CCOF. Those certifiers then submit that data to a database that's maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture in California.

In addition to this, organic farmers are also registering and reporting data to the California Department of Food and Agriculture. And if they process food to the Department of Public Health, we are simply asking for these three agencies to consolidate their process so that farmers are only needing to report a single time. I respectfully will turn it back over, and we're in strong support of this bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you. Showing no opposition on file at this time. We'll move forward to public comments.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members Taylor Roshan, on behalf of the California Cotton Ginners Association and Western Ag processors, in support. Thank you.

Michael Jarrett, on behalf of the Community Alliance With Family Farmers in support of this bill. Thank you.

Melissa Sagun, on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network and Californians for Pesticide reform and support. Thank you.

Thank you, Margie Lee, on behalf of The California League of Food Producers, in strong support.

Thank you.

Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network, in support.

Thank you.

Andy Najaris with the Agricultural Institute of Marin, also in support.

Thank you, Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the California Seed Association, we support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, back to the Committee. We got a motion in a second secretary, please call the roll. Yeah. Mr. Collins, would you like to close?

No problem. I thank the speakers and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Thank you.

On AB 404, Connolly. Motion is do passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Your bills out. 80.

Thank you.

Proceed to 405.

Yes. AB 405 seeks to modernize the registration process for organic businesses. All organic food manufacturers must register by mailing forms and checks to the Department of Public Health. This process is time consuming, inaccessible, burdensome, and susceptible to lost documents. AB 405 asked the Department of Public Health to create an online registration and payment system by January 1st, 2025. An online system will save these businesses time and money, bolstering a $34.5 billion sector in California.

This common sense proposal builds on the department's budget request last year of $20.1 million to modernize their it infrastructure by establishing a timeline for completion of this work. I'll once again hand it over to Rebekah, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Rebekah Weber again with CCOF. We often hear from our organic processors when they register. Every single year, they are using snail mail, so they are mailing in forms and checks, and we often hear that these forms are lost in the mail, which delays their registration. And they cannot practice their business without this registration form. So we're simply asking the Department of Public Health to modernize its systems and create an online system that will save time and money. Thank you so much.

All right, thank you again, showing no opposition on file. We'll take it back for public comments.

Good afternoon. Taylor Roshan again, on behalf of the California Cotton Generators and Growers Association and Western Egg Processors, in support.

Michael Jarrett. On behalf of the Community Alliance With Family Farmers, in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Melissa Sagun. On behalf of the Pesticide Action Network and Californians for Pesticide Reform, in support. Beth Smoker with the California Food and.

Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network, in support.

Thank you.

Margie Lee on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in support.

Thank you. Dennis Albiani. On behalf of the California Seed Association, we support. Thank you.

Andy Naderis with the Agricultural Institute of Marin in support.

Thank you.

Jeannie Merrill, representing the Center for Food Safety and Support.

All right. Anything else from the committee? Well, Mr. Connolly, I really like what you're doing here, and I've been pushing to get a lot of our programs to go online for a long time. Frankly, I'd love to be joint author with you on this, to show some bipartisanship.

Let's do it.

All right, sounds good. Secretary got a motion in a second. And a joint author.

Please call the role on AB 405. Connolly. Motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Bill's got eight votes. It's out 8-0. Would you like to proceed to 406?

Yes. Thank you, Rebekah. We have a couple more witnesses. Joanna. All right, thank you again, Chair and Members. So AB 406 will build on the success and deepen the impact of the healthy soils program, one of CDFA's flagship climate smart agricultural programs. Currently, this program falls short of its full potential because it largely incentivizes farmers to implement a single practice.

Between 2000 and 2021, 70% of HSP projects funded a single practice between 2017 and 2020, 79% of HSP incentive dollars went to conventional farms, while organic operations received 17%. AB 406 directs CDFA to prioritize applicants who propose to implement multiple healthy soils practices, including organic farmers. It also extends a grant term for organic farmers to five years. These proposed changes are a better bang for our buck because farmers, including organic farmers, who stack multiple healthy soils practices, demonstrate better climate outcomes.

I would like to introduce Andy Naja-Riese, Chief Executive Officer at the Agricultural Institute of Marin, and Janet Brown, farmer and owner of all star Organics. Welcome. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Why don't we start with Andy?

Great. Thanks, Assemblymember Connelly, and thank you, chair Mathis and Committee Members. Today, I'm Andy Najaris with the Agricultural Institute of Marin, and I'm here to speak in support of AB 406. The Agricultural Institute of Marin is a Bay Area nonprofit that operates certified farmers markets, food access, education, training, and policy initiatives, and we represent a network of over 400 small to mid sized farmers, fishers, ranchers, and food makers from 44 California counties.

We're part of the Marin Carbon Project and also have teamed up with 11 agencies across Marin and Sonoma counties to implement a new us day Climate Smart Commodities Grant. And while we commend the Department of Food and Agriculture for pioneering their flagship Healthy Soils Program, as we believe healthy soils are a foundation for good nutrition and healthy communities, we believe the program would benefit by adding organic agriculture as an allowable practice under the Healthy Soils Program.

Marin and Sonoma counties are home to 375 certified organic farms and ranches, and we're seeing consumer demand for certified organic products increasing with an expectations by customers that organic products are verifiable and we're seeing these changes among all income levels, even among shoppers that use Cal Fresh EBT. We believe that AB 406 would allow us to meet the consumer demand for organic products while also addressing California's ambitious climate resilience goals.

This bill would enable CDFA to add an organic option to the Healthy Soils program to fund farmers to develop their organic systems as part of their implementation of their healthy soils practices. Organic farmers continue to face challenges with accessing the Healthy Soils Program due to the first come, first serve model of the program.

Despite the known benefits of organic agriculture for soil health and climate change mitigation practices, and as you heard Assemblymember Connolly state, only 17% of healthy soil program incentives payments went to organic operations. The heart of this bill is to simply create a five year grant term for organic producers and others using multiple practices beyond compost, which is the single most common practice for healthy soils program. A longer period of performance would reduce the administrative burden for both CDFA as well as for grantees.

The HSP Healthy soils program could prioritize organic farmers and ranchers and those within the three year transition period from conventional to organic and by adding an option for organic to the Healthy Soils Program. This would allow greater flexibility in implementing multiple practices for organic farmers, create access to soil testing resources to prove and improve the health of organic soil.

I also want to say we're appreciative of the new organic transition program at the Department of Food and Agriculture, and we can amplify the support by adding an organic farming option within the Healthy Soils Program. Thanks for your time and consideration and I want to turn things over to my colleague, Janet Brown.

Thank you.

Thank you Andy and thank you representative Connolly and Chair Mathis and Committee Members for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 406. My name is Janet Brown and along with my husband Marty, we operate a small scale, diversified Marin County Farm all star organics with fields in Lagunitas, Nicasio and Point Race.

We are in our 30th year of continuous certification to be organic and we grow 10 primary crops including heirloom tomatoes, squash, onions, garlic and pumpkins, and a line of 24 certified organic herbal salts and dried herbs. We sell our products through farmers markets, food hubs and direct to restaurants and groceries. Farming along the coastal West Marin with distinct seasons and highly mineralized, clay based soils.

We use a diverse cover cropping system and aged nutritional mulches to maintain soil fertility within a routine of organic soil management, the foundation of our production. As a result, our produce has vivid color, texture, fragrance, flavor and enhanced nutritional qualities.

As a founder and former chair of the Marin Food Policy Council and a founding member and past President of Marin Organic and now serving on the board of directors of the Agricultural Institute of Marin, I have always believed that the purpose of good agricultural policy is to make more healthy food accessible to all. That's why I'm inspired by the unwritten potential of what AB 406 can offer us by explicitly linking certified organic farming and healthy soils. Organic farming, by definition, protects the natural environment.

Organic food differs from conventional food in that it is grown without the use of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, germination accelerators, gmos, waxes or hormones. It is a method of production, a set of practices that actually improve soil fertility over time. Organic producers rely on natural biological systems for pest and weed control. Organic farming improves soil fertility, enhances water retaining capacity of soils, protects water quality, reduces soil erosion and produces healthy, highly nutritious food.

Our rigorous third party inspections and certifications instill consumer confidence in the integrity of the USDA organic seal. Organic is the gold standard for healthy soil. Yet despite these known benefits, the method of farming that may offer the most valuable feedback to researchers is not included within CDFA's HSP. This is deeply troubling and short sighted and disappointing. There's no rationale for excluding organic farms from this study.

Our third party certifications for organic should move us to the front of the line in accessing state funding and offer higher incentive payments to meet the rigorous demands and challenges of small scale organic farming. I believe AB 406 can and should provide a path to creation of an organic option in the healthy soils program. I urge you to vote yes on this bill and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Once again, showing no opposition on file. We'll move it to public comments.

Rebekah Weber with CCOF in support.

Thank you, chair and Members. My name is Noah Whitley. I'm speaking on behalf of the California Compost Coalition. We are in support.

Jeannie Merrill, Center for Food Safety and Support.

All right, we have any opposition, any tweeners, back to the Committee? We got a motion and a second. Mr. Connolly, I appreciate your work on this bill as well. I do draw a little hesitation when we start picking favorites amongst the agricultural communities. I will not be supporting today, but I do appreciate what you're trying to do. Thank you with that secretary.

Call the roll on AB 406, Connolly. Motion is do passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, measures out with six. Thank you for your package.

Thank you.

I'm going to go ahead and call a quick five minute recess real quick, and then we'll reconvene. Thank you all.

All right, we are back. Thank you everybody for your patience. We are now at our last bill on file. File item number 10. Assembly Bill 660 by Assembly Member Irwin. Thank you. May proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I am pleased today to present AB 660. For too long, Californians have been misled by unclear labels on food. Stores offer products with all sorts of different labels, like expires on Best by, enjoy by, sell by, just to name a few. These labels consistently mislead and confuse consumers. Sell by dates, for example, are meant to show grocers when to rotate stock. They are generally meaningless to the consumer. The results of this consumer confusion is a staggering amount of food waste.

One study attributed as much as 20% of food waste to these labels. This ultimately costs consumers money at the grocery store and adds to climate change as wasted food rots in landfills. AB 660 would end this confusion. I really have to commend the industry because they took this issue on on their own. In 2017, they did an extensive survey of all their members and they adopted this standard voluntarily.

It requires food product date labels to use standard terms best if used by to indicate the quality date of the food, or used by to indicate the safety of the food. And you might ask, why is it then, if the industry has already adopted a voluntary standard, that we need to put this into law? Well, we sent out our team and obviously this is a very small study.

We went to eight pantries and our team counted 16 types of expiration date labels in a survey of 151 items across 97 brands. Of these items, nearly 30% of the products use the phrase best buy, which is not included in the industry's own voluntary standard. Additionally, one fifth had no phrase whatsoever next to the date, and only 25% of the products used labels that aligned with the industry's voluntary standard.

I myself went into my cupboard this morning and picked out some can of food, and it just had a series of numbers. So even I was confused about the labels that we currently use. I would really like to express my appreciation to the industry for engaging in productive conversations recently. And I think we all agree that even though there might be some concern, there is a path forward with this bill. We look forward to continuing our conversations.

And with me to testify in support of this bill are Nicole Kurian, representing Californians Against Waste, and Andrea Collins, representing Natural Resource Defense Council.

All right, go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Nicole Kurian with Californians Against Waste. We are proud to co sponsor AB 660, which will streamline expiration date labels by requiring their use of consistent terminology next to an expiry date to indicate quality and safety of a food product. A recent study found a shocking 20% of all avoidable food waste results from consumer confusion about food date labels. A separate study found that standardizing these labels is the single most cost effective way to reduce food waste.

Data also shows that households make up a whopping 43% of food waste, by far the largest category of food waste when broken down by supply chain stage. As I'm sure you're aware, consumers are bombarded with all types of expiration date label formats, including sell by, expiry date, enjoy by, best when used by, best when purchased by, and many more. Each term can be used to mean different things when used by different brands, and some expiry dates have no phrase next to them at all.

In 2017, the industry's two largest trade associations released a joint statement announcing that they'd implement uniform date labeling using the recommended quality and safety dates. They promised large scale adoption by the following summer and committed to 100% implementation by 2020. The Legislature then codified the industry's proposed terminology in 2017 with AB 954 as a voluntary standard and directed CDFA to promote the use of these terms and discourage the use of consumer facing sell by dates.

AB 954 also established separate definitions for a quality date, safety date and a sell by date in statute. The bill passed with no opposition. However, if you've recently stood in front of your fridge or pantry and squinted at a label, you know that voluntary implementation is clearly insufficient. Further consumer education as to what phrases on which foods mean, what isn't possible until we streamline date labels. Wasted food is a societal, economic and environmental problem.

As a state, we throw away 6 million tons of food every year, releasing methane emissions that have a climate impact 86 times greater than CO2, not to mention the amount of money spent on food that never gets eaten and the costs of dealing with this excess waste passed on to rate payers. AB 660 simply requires all brands to use the same terms that they themselves have identified to reduce consumer confusion and that the state is adopted as a voluntary standard.

This small change will have huge ramifications, and for this reason, we urge your support on this bill.

Thank you, thank you chair and Committee Members. My name is Andrea Collins with the Natural Resources Defense Council and we support AB 660 because it addresses a systemic cause of food waste which hurts our environment, our economy and our social fabric. Too many of us look at a container of milk and see that the date has passed and decide to dump it rather than risk getting sick.

And even though that date is likely a sell by date, it's meant to relay a completely different meaning to a retailer, not to a consumer in the first place. We need consistent date labels so that people stop tossing good food prematurely.

Confusion over so called expiration dates is responsible for about 20% of the avoidable food waste in our country, and minimizing food waste is integral to the success of our greenhouse gas reduction goals under SB 1383 because food waste in landfills is a leading cause of methane emissions. In addition to the environmental impact, food waste has an economic and a social impact as well.

Americans spend $1300 on discarded food every year, and eliminating confusion over whether food is still good will help us keep that money in the pockets of Californians. Furthermore, we have enough food in our country, and yet 8 million Californians face food insecurity. Ensuring that all of us understand when food is still good to eat will help alleviate pressure to toss food that could have nourished us.

Defining a standard for consumer targeted labels provides clarity on when food is actually going to pose a safety risk, and it reduces the likelihood of discarding good food. For these reasons, we're proud to support and sponsor this key legislation. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Is there anyone with opposition or concerns that would like to address and take a seat at the witness stand?

Thank you very much. Dennis Albiani with the Consumer Brands Association. And I also will be testifying at the end for Association of California Egg Farmers and Pacific Egg and Poultry Association. As the member said, she did an excellent job and Californians Against Waste did a great job explaining the problem and some of the concerns.

So back in 2017, as discussed, the Consumer Brands Association, along with the Food Market Institute, got together and did extensive studies on what works, what doesn't work, where there might be confusion, what terms would be best that was represented in best if used by and use by, based on whether it's quality or safety standard. And so we've done extensive review of this area and then that was memorialized, as said in 954, a year later by Assemblymember Chu. So we are reviewing this.

We're very committed to working with the member and can work on getting these put into statute and even mandated if that's necessary. What we are concerned about, so some of our concerns are whenever there's a mandate, there's always liability. And in our state, we have 70-100 requirements. This is a one state requirement that different states could do different things. You could imagine for nationwide and worldwide companies trying to fit one standard of one state.

And if there was liability with that, that would be a concern. So we stated in our letter, liability is one of the issues, and we just want to make sure we can wrestle with that. And then on behalf of the egg farmers, eggs have a whole different regulatory review and statutory review, both with the USDA and CDFA. That's why half the bill is written, is talking about eggs, because there's so much codification of that standards.

We would advocate that eggs come out of this bill because there's so many different rules and requirements and each state has different lengths of their Julian date. Ours happens to be 30 days, and if we start extending those 30 days, you're going to end up with issues like which already happens out here because ours is fairly long. 30 is actually fairly long that other states will start repacking once they pull off their shells, and we'll end up with even older eggs.

And that brings freshness mostly, but it could be a food safety issue as well over time. So with that, we appreciate that. And we absolutely are working with the author and have been. And even before it was introduced, her staff reached out. So we appreciate that and we look forward to continuing to work on this in the. You.

Thank you.

Mic thief over here. Good afternoon. Taylor Roshan. On behalf of the California Grocers, certainly we don't have any position on record, but we have some concerns on the bill beyond food safety, affordability and food supply. Customer transparency is really important to the grocery industry. So we just want to make sure any consumer facing labels reflect all of the information that consumers should be privy to. Also, as traditionally sell by dates can be applied by food manufacturers as well, some that are in state, some that are out of state.

Our grocery retailers, particularly small independent markets, could be beholden to affixing a sell by date or changing labels to incorporate the standards which might incur liability that Mr. Albiani had mentioned. And I think more importantly, training grocery staff to interpret potentially thousands of different coded versions of what is the sell by indicator on a document could be particularly challenging. Like Mr. Albiani, we've had very successful conversations with Ms. Irwin's staff. They've been very helpful, and we hope to continue to look forward on that. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Any other supporter opposition in the audience? Mr. Albiani, you can report from there if you'd like.

My name is Noah Whitley, and I'm speaking on behalf of the California compost. Coalition and Rethink waste. We are in support of this bill. Thank you.

Hi, Margie Lee with the California League of Food Producers, same concerns as stated before.

Thank you. All right, let's take it back to Committee. Mr. Wood, Mr. Villapdua and Ms.Soria

First of all, thank you for bringing the bill forward. I was sitting here thinking, where have I heard this before? And recognized that 954 came to the Health Committee. There was a long, robust discussion about this then, and I remember the discussion about studies and so on. And I guess what you've got, a lot of the industry or food producers have a lot of data. It's still really confusing.

And I'll be honest, Mr. Albiano, eggs are confusing for me because that's the one thing that stays in my refrigerator longer than anything, probably. And I don't know if it's safe or can the other things. It's the smell test oftentimes. Because if I'm looking best buy, it's like, well, I don't know if it smells. Okay. I guess I can drink, consume that. No, seriously, I'm speaking as a consumer, so recognize that. We also heard it was in natural resources.

A couple years ago, Senator Allen had a bill about the chasing arrows for recycling and the confusion that people have. Is this recyclable or not? Finding out that a lot of these things, while it says they're recyclable, they're really not recyclable in a way that it actually gets done here in California. I guess my question is, yes, I recognize this would be a single state requirement, but why not do it for everybody? If we know it's the right thing to do?

Why not just, why wouldn't food producers then they don't have to produce one label and just do it for the best interests of consumers in the United States and California can lead the way on that.

Please respond.

There was a question asked if you eat your eggs quicker, you wouldn't have the egg issue. So eat more eggs. Okay.

It's usually at my apartment here in Sacramento.

Yeah, you go home. I got it. Eat them before your summer.

Before when? Best summer, best buy, sell by, I don't know. You tell me.

There's actually called Julian dates for eggs, but that's a whole other issue. So some of those. So to be honest with you, as of, I think it was last week, last Thursday, a congressional Member and I don't know the name of the person, but I think from New York actually reached out to our organization and would like to do a federal standard. I will let my DC brother and talk about that. But I think that was a favorable view of doing that.

And frankly, we don't want to come here though and say this is a bad idea just because it's a one state standard. I am only articulating that one state standards create other issues that are challenging. One I didn't bring up and it was there, but it's in the letter is look at somebody. There are foreign folks that are serving a small niche market like an Asian market or a carniceria. You could imagine they're exporting in a container and then that gets blown to 20 states.

And you also don't want to have Oregon do another, use different terms and Utah do different terms in Arizona. So we agree with you and would like to do this, a more broad standard. And I'll let my folks talk about a federal mandate, but that I think would be a preferential way to do it. As I mentioned, we're okay with doing this and getting it publicized and working on it and mandating it even. But we just have to work on, we have 17200 business.

Why can I not think of it now anyways, unfair business practices, liability. We want to be sure how that would work and those areas. And we don't want to create those issues. But we do believe you get the two terms. And actually in California we have three terms. But anyways, that was part of the deal. And then absolutely we can educate consumers on what that means and go from there.

I know there's some concern among some of the proponents about just a sale by date or dates on an exterior part of the package. I'm going to speak personally here. I think consumers, I have four kids. We look at the dates and look at those, especially when you look at things that we talk to the staff and Ms. Irwin, what about fish?

What about things that do expire pretty quickly, eggs being one that can stay for a while, but after about 40 days, they start to really lose. The yellow starts to blend in and the membranes start breaking down. There's issues there. So we just need to talk through those issues as well. But yes, I generally agree with you.

And just to follow up to the.

Mean, the discussion is very warranted.

I guess from a healthcare, thinking of health care, we had this little policy called surprise billing in California where if you went to, this is the ad Committee. I know, but for purposes of this example, a surprise bill means you go outside, you accidentally are outside of your network. Maybe you're in an emergency room or something. You're in a network hospital, but the doctor isn't one of your providers. You could have gotten hit with a surprise bill, ironically, in 2017. We fixed that.

That was a 46 year problem here in California. We fixed it in California. It took the Federal Government five years to fix that. And it just went into effect this year or last, it just went in effect. But a five year process, maybe it's.

A good thing the US Farm Bill is being worked on right now.

Well, and who knows how long that will take for that to happen. Things seem to move slowly in DC. Quite so. Anyway, if we can do it right here in California, then everybody else can follow up.

I would just like to say a few things. And first of all, we always have robust discussions with Mr. Albiani. We've done plenty of bills with him, and we've always come out to some consensus, and I expect that we will in this time, too. So first of all, on the international food, they are already required to meet us standards for labeling. And we don't think this requirement would be any different. Eggs, as Mr. Albiani mentioned, use the Julian calendar. They have a whole different labeling scheme.

This would not affect the Julian date for eggs. And if they have to be exempted, potentially they would. If we come to that conclusion with you, and also when you're talking about the US standard, this big study was a national standard that the brands agreed to comply to. They know there's an issue. We're just trying to work around the edges. This is why we want to, after 56 years, we want to mandate because there hasn't been full compliance yet.

And then when new products come into the market, sometimes it is difficult to perhaps message that they should be using what the industry standard, the voluntary standard is. And finally, for liability, there is no change in liability with this bill.

Mr. Villapudua.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was mentioned that there were six tons, is that right? Six tons wasted?

Yes.

How's that determined? Is it by sell by?

The 6 million ton number comes from the tons of food that goes into the landfill?

Because I think so some of the stores will before it's getting released, when it doesn't sell. Right, or the days about to expire, it will go to pantries. Right. So is that still part of the waste?

I will say this bill is not intended to affect pantries at all. Okay. And we even worked on some legislation previously to allow food donation without liability that should not be affected. Correct. And with the 6 million tons number, I believe we said that 43% of that waste comes from the consumer household level.

Yeah. I think in my district, a lot of the community centers do benefit. A lot of the food pantries do benefit. So when the food is not being sold, that food goes to those pantries and that food goes back out to folks that are in need. So I'm just saying that I hope that this doesn't change that .

Actually this should help that. So the difference between a quality day and a safety date is that it's separate from a sell by date. And we specifically would like to discourage the use of a consumer facing sell by date. And because sell by dates, they're used for stock rotation in grocery stores. They are technically earlier than when a consumer would eat them. Right.

Because if a consumer picks up something with a date and it says sell by, let's say the 30th, you wouldn't pick it up and want to eat it on the 30th as a consumer. Right? Yeah. So the sell by and use, or, excuse me, the used buy and best if used by dates are actually tend to be later because that indicates when the consumer can eat the food at its peak quality and freshness.

Because in my district, I have a lot of elderly folks that really kind of rely on that. They're putting at $300, $400 more in their kitchen and they go to these pantries. I'm glad that the question of liability was answered and I don't want to take away. So as of today, I will be supporting this. But I still want to make sure that the stakeholders are still, you guys are still working with the.

And again, as was mentioned, we have no intention at all to impact food pantries. But if there are suggested amendments to strengthen that, because we know in every community throughout California, there's a big dependence on these food pantries. So we don't want to do anything that harms that.

We've actually heard from food banks that the sell by is a problem because consumers don't want to see what they perceive as expired food after it's donated.

Good point. So I think Mr. Villapudua asked a really good question about your data collection for measuring how much is actually going to landfills. I'm just curious, how do you guys aggregate that data?

I can't answer that this time.

So the state does waste characterization studies to see what is going into landfills, and that's where that data comes from.

Thank you, and I appreciate Ms. Irwin. She actually answered one of the questions that I had, and I think the point was brought up in terms of some of the international food producers. As someone that loves to enjoy things that come from Mexico, for part of my culture, I just want to make sure that you address that point. But similarly, I think that it's good policy when we look at standardizing these dates, expiration dates.

But I am grateful to see that you guys are trying to work with the stakeholders also that need to continue to be at the table. So looking forward to seeing what it ends up being come the floor.

We were just talking about the food pantries. And then also the point from the opposition was brought up about training staff in the stores. How long would we think that would take to get them acclimated to learning how to restock or whatever the issue would be?

There's no reason if the stores needed a sell by date that they couldn't put it on differently or some way that their employees still recognize if it was necessary for the stores to have an idea about when they want to change out inventory. It's just that we want these two labels that are consumer facing.

Same thing.

Yeah. So I just wanted to offer that certainly retailers have in some circumstances, the implementation of putting on those consumer facing, those non consumer facing sell by dates. And every market, depending upon whether you're independently owned or you're part of a chain, might have a protocol on how to do that, which would require some retraining of employees. I think the more concerning piece is when a food manufacturer puts on that sell by date or puts on a coded version of that sell by date.

Do they use a numerical code? Do they use alphabetical code? Do they use a QR code that then requires staff to go and scan everyone? These are the kinds of questions that I think the retail industry from the grocer side is looking at. And that's where we have the concerns about the cultural markets, the independently owned markets, and then the smaller markets and being able to manage that employee training and the cost that's incurred from it.

And again, our intention is that none of that is affected. Those are for the benefit of the retailer.

All right, anyone else? All right, question I have for the retailers and Mr. Alanis kind of somewhat got into it, but is there a projected cost on what it would be to effectively retool and retag and to do this?

We don't know. And we imagine the costs would differ based on what is the retail market and the commodity. So we have perishable products that would be subject to maybe more regular turnover of that date versus non perishable products would also be subject to this. And it really depends on the size of the store and the number of products that they carry.

The question I have for the author is, I know Mr. Wood brought up a good point. Right. As consumers, we tend to go kind of do the smell test or do something else to really look at. Okay, is this good? Is it bad? What's going on? But that kind of goes back to how many of us remember doing home economics in school and actually learning about our food and about food safety and doing these types of things.

And sadly, as a state, we don't really have that as much any longer. So what component of this is going to start teaching new generations? Hey, this is what this actually means because we can change the labels all we want, but if the public and the consumers don't know, then they just don't know. And they're going to go back to what Mr. Wood just implied with the smell test. So what is your plan for addressing the education of the public?

I want to go back to the survey that our team did. There were 16 different types of expiration labels, and there's nothing we can teach our kids about 16 different types of expiration labels. This is just very simple for peak freshness, best if used by or use by for food safety.

And I think once we have again, I'll keep going back to, this is what the industry came up with after a, you know, responsibly came up with after a survey of all their members to simplify labeling. But sometimes if it's voluntary, we don't get enough folks to comply. So I think we can go now to the, I don't think there are home EC classes anymore, but I think.

That's a huge problem that we don't have that.

But certainly right now with the number of labels there are, it's completely nonsensical and it is really very difficult to determine. So two labels and standardized. I think everybody will pick up on it pretty quickly.

Yeah, I always find it interesting, too with some of these things because oftentimes with things like eggs and milk and other products, it all depends on what temperature you have your refrigerator set at as well. And that goes again into the education piece because if you keep a cold fridge, sometimes these things last a lot longer versus if you don't, if you.

Look at the milk right now, because I happened, I did go to the store and they already use at least the ones that I saw already use best if used by. But you're right, if it was left out at room temperature for a day.

Then you also have people that live in very rural areas that still freeze their milk to ensure that they have some in the freezer, just in case they run out or have a flood or get snowed in. So we have those issues as well. Let's see here. Are you planning on putting any timeline into this as you move forward, as make sure industry has time to kind of put this together? What's your plan with that?

We will be working collaboratively with them to make sure that that's how we do all our bills, to make sure that any laws that we passed are implementable in a reasonable time frame.

Okay. I have a lot of concerns right now, especially with inflation and everything else, how it's going with costs going up and different things. And again, the educational side of it, too, because people don't know what they don't know. With that, I believe we do have. Well, let's go back to you for a close.

I just would respectfully ask for your support. We will continue to work with all the stakeholders and would love to have your support. Mr. Mathis.

No pressure there. My staff recommendation is a no. But seeing that you are willing to work with the concerns of the opposition, I look forward to you doing that. I will support this bill moving forward today. And if it gets wonky, I will be requesting that it gets pulled back to this Committee with that. Secretary, please call the roll on AB 660.

Irwin motion is do passed to the Health Committee. [Roll Call]

Bill is out 7-0. Thank everybody for the robust conversation. I look forward to seeing what you're able to do with this, Mr. We.

Will keep you informed, Mr. Mathis.

Yes. And we'll go ahead. And members, before you leave, we're going to go ahead and have the secretary call through for absent members or members whose flights got delayed.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

All right, all the bills are out. Thank everybody for coming to the first Ag hearing. We are now adjourned.