Assembly Standing Committee on Agriculture

And for all those who will be providing comments this afternoon, we ask that you please state your name and the organization you represent. And if you support or oppose the bills under our consideration, 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 website, which is agri.committee@assembly.ca.gov. So, again, like to welcome everybody California Assembly Agriculture Committee Hearing. I'm going to pass the gavel over to Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria because I will be presenting the first item on the agenda.

Good afternoon, everyone. So we will begin with file item number one, Assembly Bill 865 by Assemblymember Garcia. The Assemblymember was not able to be here to present, so our Chair, Assemblymember Rivas, will be presenting on his behalf. Assemblymember Rivas, when you're ready, please proceed with the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And so again, would like to thank the members of this Committee and on behalf of Assembly Member Eduardo Garcia, I'll be presenting Assembly Bill 865. As we all know, here in California, farmers and ranchers, they stand as leaders in global food production. They produce several diverse commodities, and California regularly ranks as the top state for agricultural cash receipts.

For many of us in this room who represent and have lived in agricultural regions of California, we've experienced the benefits of farming and of agriculture. And this includes the economic impacts of the industry, especially crucial economic impacts in our rural agricultural regions. And as we know, the success of California agriculture very much depends on the success, on the safety, and the health of its workforce. And agricultural workers in California enjoy some of the most robust protections in the world.

And in recent years, labor shortages, changes to unemployment laws, the rising cost of land use in various regulatory and environmental mandates, they have combined to make California a more expensive place to conduct agricultural activities than many other states. In complying with these laws, these mandates and standards, they increase costs, but they provide real benefits, some benefits to consumers, to our environment, and to the workers who produce these first rate commodities.

But nevertheless, these rules create additional costs, costs that can put California farmers and ranchers at a financial and competitive disadvantage. Meanwhile, we import significant amounts of agricultural products from other states and countries, states and countries that do not have the same strong consumer, worker and environmental protections. And as a result, these products can be sold more cheaply.

This legislation by Assembly Member Garcia seeks to help level the playing field by establishing a pilot program to ensure that certain agricultural products sold in California, including dates, lemons and table grapes, that they're produced in compliance with California State Standards. Specifically, this legislation creates a self attestation form for a grower to verify that a listed agricultural product was in fact produced in compliance with California law when selling that product to a distributor.

If the product is not in compliance, the distributor would be prohibited from selling it. With me here to offer some testimony this afternoon are David Quintana on behalf of Growing Coachella Valley. Also with Growing the Coachella Valley is Glenn Farrel, who can answer any technical questions. And finally, we have Hernan Hernandez with the California Farmworker Foundation. And with that, thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Chairwoman, this is David Quintana, and as Assemblyman Rivas mentioned, I am with Growing Coachella Valley, the proud sponsor of AB 865, which helps level the playing field for California growers. The Coachella Valley has a long and proud agricultural history. Unfortunately, today and for the past decade, our proud industry has been shrinking day by day.

We're losing dozens of farming families and farm workers every year due to the rising cost and scarcity of water, the conversion of arable land to development, tougher and tighter regulatory schemes. And most importantly, the biggest hit is from an ever growing wave of cheaper food imports coming into our state. For these reasons, we have worked closely with Assemblyman Garcia to bring this bill forward.

So hopefully, future generations in the Coachella Valley and throughout California can continue to grow food, provide jobs, and contribute to our state's economy. California agriculture is responsible for more than half of all domestic fruit and vegetable production and has maintained its position as a national and world leader when it comes to protection of consumers and agricultural field workers by ensuring the use of safe chemicals and ensuring the right to a living wage.

Unfortunately, other states and countries are not required to meet California's high standards and protections and can export agricultural products into our state at lower costs and with none of the consumer and farm worker protections that California growers provide. Compliance with these important laws and regulations comes with a cost to California growers and to farm workers. AB 865 helps by creating a self attestation process for ensuring that agricultural products sold in California were produced in compliance with California's health, environmental protection, food safety, and labor laws.

Further, this bill only applies during the California growing season for seven agricultural products, bell peppers, blueberries, dates, honeydew melons, lemons, olives, and table grapes. Further, if these specified products are not available during that growing season, this is inapplicable. So it's only if available during that growing season for seven defined products. We ask you to support AB 865, the farmers and farm worker protection and climate mitigation pilot program. Thank you.

Thank you, David. Thank you, Chair Member Rivas. The California Farmworker foundation supports legislation that expands protection for farm workers throughout the United States. Although work is still needed to ensure the safety of California farmworkers, AB 865 sets a standard for the importation of certain crops into California. These standards are based on California's globally recognized pesticide and safety standards and ensures the protections afforded to farmworkers here is also applied to farmworkers outside of the state.

AB 865 also ensures the protection of farmworker livelihoods. The Coachella Valley farmworker population has gone from 65,000 farmworkers to now 25,000 farmworkers as crops move outside of our state lines. We need to protect the livelihood and future of Coachella Valley farm workers, as well as farm workers across the state, by supporting this legislation.

California is the national leader in setting standards for automotive emissions, and AB 865 is another example of our state leading the way and protecting the health and welfare of farm workers. For these reasons, the California Farmworker Foundation is proud to support AB 865, and we thank Assemblymember Garcia for his leadership on this important issue. We ask for support for AB 865. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. So there is no opposition on the file. At this time, we will open it up for a public comment. And so do we have members of the audience that would like to register their support or opposition for the bill. Your time is now. If you could state your name and your organization, and whether you support or oppose. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jason Gonsalves, on behalf of Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. I think we have the support of the Chair. I'll stop there. Thank you.

Katie Little with the California Farm Bureau, in support.

Hi, good afternoon. Leticia Garcia with the California Grocers Association. And we are in opposition, and I believe our opposition is reflected on the analysis. All right, well, thank you, Chair, Members. Leticia Garcia with the California Grocers Association in opposition to AB 865. AB 865 prohibits the sell of specific imported products if they do not meet California's minimum wage requirements on health laws. Grocery stores across California source California grown produce when it is in season.

In addition to sourcing California produce, there is a need to source from outside of California to meet consumer needs. Under AB 865, the minimum wage requirements alone would make it impossible to sell the listed products in this bill. California has the third highest minimum wage in the US and other countries have different ways of calculating their minimum wage. Not to mention foreign currencies are constantly fluctuating. AB 865 will eliminate access to fresh produce and that is something we fundamentally cannot support.

CJ is working to create incentives for Snap consumers to purchase fresh fruit and vegetables and this bill would go against our efforts to encourage healthy eating habits. For these reasons, California Grocers Association is opposed to AB 865. Thank you.

Hi Ryan Allain with the California Retailers Association. We're also listed in opposition. Just a few comments. As I said with the California Retailers Association, my name is Ryan Allain. We're opposed AB 865. We are open to working with the author on legislation to see if we can move the language to more incentive based approach rather than punitive. Our concern with this bill is consumer demand and the ability to keep fresh produce stocked in our stores.

Do not believe there's an adequate supply of produce in California to meet all demands all times of the year. And buying produce requires flexibility and these purchases come from multiple sources at any given time and this bill complicates retailers' ability to make those purchases, significantly limiting choice could raise prices and result in unstocked shelves which given the supply chain issues over the last few years, is this the last thing that our members want and we want to avoid.

This bill will also prohibit our ability to import many items internationally. Additionally, this bill states the provisions would apply to those products only in California growing season. But unfortunately the California growing seasons, not all California growing seasons are the same even for the same product. And figuring out what is in season, what is out of season depends on agriculture, region in California and the product grown.

Additionally, the term growing season is undefined and as written, could include when a product is planted, not harvested and we cannot stock our shelves unless it is harvested. Lastly, there is no consideration for natural disasters, low yield of crops or infestations. It could significantly hamper that supply. For all these reasons, California Retail Association remains in opposition to 865.

Thank you, thank you. And just for the record, my apologies. There was opposition on the record and it is reflected if you go online. I just pulled it. So thank you for that clarification. So now we'll bring it, if there's no one else, we'll bring it back to the members of the Committee. If you guys have any questions or comments. Questions or comments?

Did anyone on the panel want to address about what was stated, especially concerns about making sure we can get fresh products, especially during an emergency? I think, like in my district, South LA, we definitely want to make sure that the quality of products, especially our stringent requirements, I think are good. They're good for California. They're good for Californians, and we're the breadbasket of America. We're probably good for America. So I don't have a problem with that. So I do want to make sure we can supply as much as we can.

I think that's a great question when it comes to those supply chain issues. And so, Glenn, if you'd like to answer that.

Yeah. Glenn Farrel, on behalf of Growing Coachella Valley. Assembly Member, I guess just to the point raised by the opposition. I mean, they raised some legitimate issues in terms of an off ramp in the event of a natural disaster or some other sort of situation. It's something, we're talking about how we could address that sort of an off ramp. But I guess just in the larger macro construction of the bill, it's a pilot program. We've selected these seven commodities for specific reasons.

The reasons are California has the bulk of domestic production of these commodities. The growing season is very distinct and defined. And then we've intentionally looped in the California Department of Food and Agriculture in terms of the regulation process so they can better define what is the growing season or the harvesting season or the marketing season to which the pilot program would apply, and kind of look at whether there's some appropriate off ramps as well. So that's kind of the regulatory process as well, through CDFA.

Thank you.

Any other Member with questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member Rivas, would you like to close on your Bill?

Sure, yeah. On behalf of Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia, I know he's put in a lot of work, multi-year effort on this issue, and so I certainly trust that he'll continue that work as this bill moves through the process. But certainly once we establish quorum on his behalf, appreciate an aye vote. Thank you.

Perfect. So the motion on this bill is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Is there a motion to move the bill? So we have a motion, and a second by Connolly. Madam Secretary, if you can please call the roll. I do believe we have a quorum now, correct?

On AB 865, the motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Okay, looks like that bill's out, but we'll hold the roll open. And so now we will go back. As I mentioned, at the top of this meeting, we have six items that are on consent. It's Assembly Bills 1733 by Gipson, 774 by Mathis, 1289 by Mathis. And then we have three Ag Committee bills, Assembly Bills 1583, 1752 and 1763. Is there a motion for the consent items? Oh, we should establish quorum first. Okay, so, Madam Secretary, if we could establish a quorum.

[Roll call]

Okay, we have a quorum, and we'll go back to the consent items. That was a motion by Mr. Alanis and a second by Soria. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on the consent items.

On the consent calendar. [Roll call]

Okay, we'll hold that roll open as well, but that is out. Consent calendar. Next, we'll move to file item number two, which is Assembly Bill 1197 by Assembly Member Gregg Hart. Gregg, welcome to Assembly Agriculture, and you can start when you are ready.

Well, thank you, Chair Rivas. Appreciate all the Members' attention and look forward to presenting AB 1197, a measure to identify and map local food producers that are doing the important work of supporting and feeding local communities. California's small and family farmers face numerous challenges that make it difficult to maintain food production. Climate change, decreasing crop resilience, and recent droughts threaten farm to fork efforts, farmers markets, and other important community market opportunities. AB 1197 will serve as an essential first step in helping support local family farms.

The measure defines local food producers and expands existing grant programs to help map these important agricultural lands. By mapping local food producers, the measure will support efforts to connect small family farms to the necessary resources and ensure California continues to protect diverse cultural communities and bolsters local economies. The California Cattlemen's Association recently raised concerns about the h curds requirements to meet the definition of local food producers. Those conversations are ongoing and I look forward to continue working together on addressing their concerns.

Take those very seriously and want to find a solution. Testifying in support today are Judith Redmond, representing Full Belly Farm and David Runsten, representing the Community Alliance with Family Farmers.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Community Alliance with Family Farmers or CAFF, has represented small farms and local food for over 45 years. We are the sponsor of AB 1197 and we're grateful to Assembly Member Hart for carrying the Bill. Why did we create this Bill? California agriculture still includes tens of thousands of small scale farms, including most of the immigrant run farms and people of color.

A sizable number grow produce that is consumed locally by their diverse cultural communities and this is important for the economic well being and food security of those communities. A significant share of this produce is marketed directly to consumers. For example, the certified farmers markets allow small farmers to market their products at retail prices without the added expenses of commercial preparation, which increases their net income and makes it possible for them to stay in business.

Currently there are approximately 650 certified farmers markets and 2,700 certified producers in California. But this is down from over 800 markets and some 4,000 certified producers 10 years ago The pandemic really hammered farmers markets and these farms are increasingly under stress from multiple sources. The COVID pandemic, climate change, which has increased weather variability leading to drought, wildflower and flood impacts. When we see the flood impacts, particularly this year. Consolidation of farms has proceeded rapidly in California in recent years.

And the Sustainable Groundwater Management act has only amplified this consolidation trend as the prospect of reducing irrigated agriculture becomes a reality. And so the price of land with more secure sources of water is being bid up. In California, we have paved over some 40 to 50,000 acres of agriculture land each year for several decades. But now we have the added pressure of outside investment in farmland.

The acreage of nuts increased by more than a million acres in the 20 years from 1997 to 2017 and now occupies more than a quarter of irrigated farmland. And much of this increase was fueled by speculative financial investment. Now, 50% of California cropland is owned by 5% of the total landowners and almost 40% of land is owned by non farmers and rented or leased. This is making it increasingly difficult for people to start farms or continue producing local food.

This reality prompted us to sponsor AB 1197. We have focused on farms at 500 acres or less that engage in direct marketing and sell at least 75% in California and this seems appropriate for specialty crops. Some people, like the Cattleman's Organization, have suggested we create other criteria more appropriate for ranchers and dairies that sell their products directly to California consumers. And as Assembly Member Hart said, we are open to amending this bill or having another bill.

We know ranchers that sell all their meat directly to the California public. Someone like Joe Morris has been a member of our organization for a long period of time and we would like to include them. There are several efforts underway at CDFA and DWR to map small farms and the mapping requirement in this bill could be coordinated and the cost shared with those efforts. We urge your aye vote on AB 1197 to help us preserve local food in California. Judith Redmond from Full Belly Farm.

Thank you, Chair and Members. My name is Judith Redmond. I have been a farmer in Yolo County for more than three decades. My farm, Full Belly Farm is about 450 acres. It's a diversified farm that mainly sells through direct market channels. We operate a community supported or CSA program that we have about 1000 members, boxes of produce that go out every week. We also sell at three farmers markets every week, the Palo Alto, the San Rafael, and the Berkeley Farmers market. Berkeley is mine.

We sell directly to local stores like the Davis Food Co-op and the Sacramento Food Co-op, and we do sell wholesale. A small amount of our product goes through the local Sacramento wholesaler, NorCal produce, but year round at least 95% of our produce is sold within California. So we do fit really well into this definition that's provided in the legislation of a local food producer. I just have a couple of anecdotes I wanted to share with you.

During the pandemic, our farm and all of our employees and other local farmers and ranchers like us doubled down to continue working 24/7 through the shutdown. We continued going to farmers markets from day one. I don't know if you can sort of figure out what that was like, but from day one of the shutdown, we continued to go.

I went to the farmers market the next day after shutdown, making our products available to food banks as well to emergency feeding programs and to many of our customers who had become unemployed and lost their work as a result of the emergency and who we had known. We had these long relationships with them for many, many years. So we continued to provide food to them, of course, at no cost, honoring those long relationships and the unprecedented situation that all of us faced.

So that's just one anecdote, recent example of the benefits of local producers, and I think there's many, many other stories like that of local producers who go to local markets and have these long term relationships. I also work for California FarmLink, which is a CDFI, or Community Development Financial Institution serving underserved farmers. It focuses on farmers and it provides educational services as well.

And it's been really inspiring in my work with those farmers that are their clients because they're young farmers, many of them immigrants or new farmers, and they really want to build successful businesses. And they dream about that. And I think with the support for local food producers that this Bill 1197 might provide, those dreams are more likely to be realized and will have local farms able to serve our communities long into the future.

Many Californians, I think, treasure the unique opportunities that California offers to build year round relationships with local farmers by purchasing food directly from them. Those opportunities are important parts of the fabric of California's local communities and culture. And they're amplified by food stores and restaurants that buy directly from local farms. Like in Sacramento, you might be familiar with Mulvaney's, Waterboy and Grange that depend on farms like Full Belly to procure fresh and unique ingredients.

For decades, our farm Full Belly has hosted an annual festival with over 5,000 people attending, mostly urban folks who want to give their families an experience of being on a farm. And I think that this anecdote, again, it's just to say to you that in many ways, farms like ours are the public face, I think, of California agriculture, and we serve to maintain a positive image of farming that benefits all farmers. Those are the local food producers that this bill is about.

And as you probably know, California has been actively developing a local direct marketing food system since Certified Farmers Market legislation was passed in 1977 under Governor Brown. And there's been subsequent legislation that's gone through this Committee on things like CSAs, Community Supported Agriculture, farm and field stands, and urban gardens.

So I'm here to ask you to continue to support those local farms that I think need this kind of legislation, this kind of policy support to assist them in having the planning and the land preservation and the support for these kinds of farms.

So I know it's not going to solve all the problems of family farming, but because it defines local food producers and provides a path to map local food producers and then provide that information to entities that seek planning grants for the preservation of agricultural land and local agriculture, I would urge a yes vote on this legislation. Thank you.

And thank you both for that testimony. At this time, we will open it up for public comment. Members of the audience that would like to register their support or opposition for the bill, again, please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose the bill.

Good Afternoon, everyone, Chair. It's great to be here. Patricia Miller, Black Urban Farmers Association of Stockton, San Joaquin County. I am in strong support of 1197. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Molly Myerson. I have a three acre farm in Marin County, Little Wing Farm. I'm in support.

[Spanish] Just here to translate. Her name is Emilia Santos. She lives in Hollister, but farms in Salinas. Her farm name is Alpha and Omega Organic Farm. And she is in agreement of this bill.

[Spanish] Her name is Antonia Vega. She resides in Watsonville. Her farm name is Dulce Organics, and she's in agreement of this bill.

Hi. My name is Marcos Carrenas. My farm is Green Diamond Organic Farm in Salinas, California. And me too.

Good afternoon, Chair Rivas and Members. Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association. We are currently opposed unless amended on this bill because we fear that it excludes livestock producers. That said, it was a late breaking oppose unless amended from us. We have had some very productive conversations, some good conversations with the author's office. And we look forward to continuing those conversations. Thank you.

And thank you. And so with that, we'll bring it back to this Committee. Do Members of the Committee have any questions, comments? Yes. Mr. Alanis?

Yes. And it seems like it's already been addressed. I have many ranchers and cattle owners in my district who have expressed the concerns that just came up, with it being unfair practices. They have to move their herds from one land to the other; just maintaining a herd in general. But it sounds like already, just from your witnesses already, that you guys are willing to work with them. And I think just the testifying right there also.

So that was my big concern that I had for today with looking over the bill. And so I will be in support of it. And I look forward to seeing the amendments and your guys' working on this. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. And we definitely are committed to finding a solution for this issue.

Any other questions or comments, Members? Nope. Okay. We have a motion by Assembly Member Villapudua and second by Assembly Member Soria. Mr. Hart, would you like to close?

I just respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Fantastic. Again, thank you for the legislation. And, Madam Secretary, if you can please call the roll.

On AB 1197, motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

The item is out.

Okay. We'll keep the roll open for missing Members. Thank you, Assembly Member Hart. Next we'll move to File Item Number Three, which is Assembly Bill 1603 by Assembly Member David Alvarez. Assembly Member Alvarez, welcome to Assembly Agriculture Committee. We are ready when you are.

Thank you. Fascinating Committee. Got to hear a first few items. Always learning here. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come before you today to present on my bill.

If I can find my notes. It is AB 1603: Nutrition Incentive Matching Grant Program. I'll tell you how I came to this bill. I represent mainly an urban community in San Diego and Chula Vista, but also a food desert. It happens to be in a lot of communities, and as a result of many communities being a food desert, a co-op is looking to start in the community of Imperial Beach, one of our beach communities in California.

And the co-op, as it's trying to struggle and get started, is trying to find opportunities to help start up. And it would be the first co-op that starts in a majority-minority community. You don't have co-ops in minority communities like this one.

And so AB 1603 is a bill that would specify that a consumer cooperative, a co-op, that sells California grown fruits, nuts, and vegetables and is authorized to accept nutrition assistance benefits, would qualify to receive grants awarded through the Nutrition Incentive Matching Grant Program. Over the last 40 years, there has been a resurgence of consumer co-ops that sell food in California. Many of them are in areas that lack the access to conventional grocery stores that sell fresh produce.

I grew up in the community of Barrio Logan. It's certainly a food desert. In fact, we didn't get our first supermarket until 12 years ago. So when I was a child, I actually would travel using our transit system down south of the border into Tijuana to get our groceries. That's where we would go. And that was a story of many people in my community who have to travel outside and that's why co-ops are so important.

We've identified 14 food co-ops currently operating in California and eight food co-ops that are startups, many of which again are located in disadvantaged communities, these startups. SunCoast Market Co-op is the one in my district that would be one of the first to be located again in a Hispanic majority community. Food co-ops are based on a social justice and equity focused model that partner with local producers to offer healthy and locally sourced food options for their customers.

Additionally, food co-ops provide information and education on food options so consumers can make more informed and better choices. As is described in your analysis, recent study found that for every 1,000 dollars spent at a food co-op, 1,606 dollars are generated in economic activity in the local region, which is more than is generated at a conventional grocery store.

Food access is definitely a social determinant of health, and by expanding access to grants for food co-ops so that we can have more of them, California can further bolster these enterprises that provide healthy and locally sourced food. AB 1603 has support from several food co-ops in our state, and the list continues to grow. So for those reasons, I hope that you consider this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member. We know that there is no witnesses to offer testimony, so at this time we'll open up for public comment. Anyone in the audience like to register support, opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to this Committee for comments. Motion and a second. Motion by Soria and a second by Alanis. Assembly Member, this is a great bill. Would you like to close?

Yeah. I'd just like to say this only would allow, like I said, startups to compete for grants that are available out there, and so it's an opportunity to make sure that we have more food access in our state, and I appreciate your aye vote.

Great. Well, thank you for being here once again. And with that, Madam Secretary, if you could call the roll.

On AB 1603, motion is 'do pass to Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call].

Bill is out. We'll keep it all open. Thank you, Assembly Member Alvarez. And we are on to our last item of the agenda, which will be presented by our very own Committee Member, Damon Connolly, Assembly Bill 1232. Assembly Member we are always ready for you, man. So it's all yours.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Great to be presenting AB 1232, the Resilient Farms and Ranches Grant Program within CDFA, which will help socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers improve animal welfare and meet the growing demand for animal welfare certified products. With the overwhelming passage of Proposition 12 in 2018, California voters established minimum requirements for farmers to provide adequate space for hens, pigs, and calves and eliminated extreme confinement of farm animals. Consumers are increasingly interested in animal products from farms using more humane animal husbandry practices.

Nearly 60% of US consumers are more concerned about farm animal welfare now than they were just a few years ago. A 2018 study also found that 70% of US consumers reported paying attention to labels that indicate how animals were being raised. Fourteen California school districts, including Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego and San Francisco, representing over $145,000,000 in purchasing power, have adopted good food purchasing programs and are actively seeking to source from welfare-certified farms in California.

As Prop 12 comes into effect, disadvantaged farmers, who are also the most vulnerable to climate impacts, need assistance to keep up with changing farming practices and tap into this growing demand for higher welfare and welfare-certified animal products. The Resilient Farms and Ranches Grant Program will annually award projects that enhance or expand animal welfare practices with priority given to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and producers in disadvantaged communities.

These grant awards can be used to help cover costs associated with improving farm animal welfare, complying with welfare based regulatory requirements, meeting climate impact and adaptation needs, or achieving or maintaining participation in a certification program. These awards can also be used to help with the farm's expansion of outdoor access or transition to pasture-based management.

This bill tasks CDFA and the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Farmer Advisory Committee within CDFA with conducting outreach and education for farmers and ranchers to ensure the benefits of this program can reach the most amount of people. There is also funding tied to this bill, specifically AB 1567 of this session, the climate bond, includes $50 million for CDFA to administer a higher welfare grant program as outlined in this bill.

AB 1232 will help close a gap in the supply of local welfare certified producers and ensure our most vulnerable farmers and ranchers are receiving the support they need to be competitive in these new markets. With me to testify today are Charlie Thieriot, the owner of Llano Seco Meats, and Kara Shannon, Director of Farm Animal Welfare Policy with the ASPCA. Welcome to you both. Who's going first?

I think I'll start.

Great.

Good afternoon, Chair Rivas, Vice Chair Mathis, and Members of the Committee. My name is Kara Shannon and I'm very grateful to be here today on behalf of the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or ASPCA, to share our strong support, but also the support of our broad coalition of farmers, agriculture, environmental, public health, business, and labor groups for AB 1232.

Surveys consistently show that consumers are concerned about how animals raised for food are treated and are actively seeking out higher welfare and welfare certified options. California's passage of Proposition 12 and the widespread adoption of values-based food procurement policies puts the state at the forefront of this broader market shift towards more humane animal products. And it's critical that we support California farmers as they work to meet this growing demand.

There simply are not enough local farmers and ranchers who currently meet independent animal welfare certification standards, especially given the sourcing commitments of so many of California's public institutions. Nor is there enough funding available to help farmers make the improvements to try and close that gap. Existing funding programs for farmers implementing higher welfare practices, like the one run by the nonprofit Food Animal Concern Trust, or FACT, Annual Fund to Farmer grants, are incredibly oversubscribed.

Just this month, FACT announced that they received over 735 applications for their 2023 grant cycle, they were able to fund 87 of those. So clearly there are many farmers who are eager to meet the demand for higher welfare and welfare-certified animal products, and AB 1232 would help ensure that California producers and processors have a leg up in accessing this growing market.

By investing in farmers who are improving animal welfare and creating systems better suited to the changing climate and the more extreme weather events, California can ensure that all its farmers and ranchers can be leaders in meeting this demand for higher welfare products in the state and beyond. Thank you, and again, I urge your support of AB 1232. I'm going to hand it over to Charlie.

Hello and thank you for having us and considering our position. My name is Charlie Thieriot. I run Llano Seco Meats. We raise GAP-certified pigs outside of Chico, California. Our system is low stress for the animals and staff and non-polluting to the land. Our type of system represents less than 1% of hog production in the United States. California represents roughly 2% of US production, but 13% of its consumption of pork.

The struggles to implement Prop 12 represent the difference of opinion between out-of-state producers and in-state consumers concerning how pigs should be treated and raised. At Llano Seco, we have been raising pigs for over 100 years. We adopted conventional production methods and sold into the commodity market. We had to stop and restart production many times. Chasing the commodity market always failed us. In the last 15 years, we focused on animal welfare and pork quality and sold to customers here in the west.

We relearned how to raise pigs the right way, often through trial and error. California has a comparatively excellent climate for raising pigs outside. We still need to invest in keeping them comfortable. Our difficulties often arise due to a lack of local service providers. Ironically, there's not enough local competition to create an ecosystem for us to be part of. For example, there are only two slaughterhouses that we could realistically use in California and only one in our area.

We have had to travel long distances, even out of the state, to get our pork smoked or further processed. Local food systems are more exposed to scrutiny, which favors the good actors. We built our business by bringing chefs and butchers to the ranch. But we are still under constant competitive pressure from larger producers outside of the state who are humane washing their products and production method. The people of California eat meat, but we support systems that create the least stress possible for the animals, the people, and the land.

Thank you for that testimony. I know we do have opposition on file, Assembly Bill 1232. I can invite up Nick Sackett, Director of Legislative Affairs for Social Compassion and Legislation. Nick?

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. My name is Nicholas Sacket, Director of Legislative Affairs for Social Compassion and Legislation, an organization dedicated to protecting animals. First of all, I do want to thank the author for introducing this legislation. We know that we are on the same side and that the purpose of the bill and what we want. What you want is to raise standards for animals.

What we are concerned about is creating a program with good intentions, but in practice might not improve conditions for animals as much as California consumers may believe when making purchasing decisions, while creating an avenue for producers to charge more for the product. This is humane washing. A recent survey found that animal welfare claims on meat, dairy, egg and packaging increased the desirability of the product for over half of consumers. The animal ag industry has caught on to consumer demand for higher welfare products.

The USDA reported that in 2019, the agency received over 10,000 applications to make animal welfare packaging claims, and these claims are working. Seventy-five percent of US adults believe they usually buy humanely-raised products. But here's the problem: 99% of animals are raised on factory farms, where speed, efficiency, and profit margin is what matters, not the welfare of animals.

All of this is to say, if the state is going to create a program to raise welfare on farms, that could certainly be a standard that industry will point to and other states will replicate, then we must be certain that these improvements are significant and meaningful for the animals relative to the pain and suffering they feel, not just relative to current industry standards.

In light of California's fiscal projections subsidizing animal agriculture, when we should be moving away from animal agriculture, not just for the animals, but also for the climate, which is a separate issue, leaves us in the position of oppose unless amended to significantly strengthen the provisions of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you for the testimony, Mr. Sackett. And with that, I'd like to open it up for some public comment. So those who want to register support opposition for the bill.

Sosan Madanat, W. Strategies, on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund, in support. Thanks.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Christina Di Caro, with the California Veterinary Medical Association, in a tweener position, moving to neutral. And we just want to thank the Assembly Member and his staff, Michael, for working with us on amendments that we understand will be taken in the next Committee that pertain to the use of antibiotics in livestock. And this was an issue that was heavily worked out with your Committee, your chief consultant back in 2015.

We want to make sure that the language moving forward replicates what we worked out in the 2015 law. So we really appreciate that. And we thank Mr. Frankovich for bringing it up in the analysis.

Great. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Jenny Berg, California State Director for the Humane Society of the United States, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. See no other members of the audience wishing to offer comments. Bring it back to the Committee. Questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

So, a motion for Assembly Bill 1232. Move the bill by Assembly Member Villapudua, seconded by Aguiar-Curry. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 1232, motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, that bill's out. Thank you. All right.

So with that, we will go back and we'll pick up all the missing votes, starting with the consent calendar. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call].

With that, that bill's out. Those bills are out.

On AB 865: Garcia, motion was 'do pass to Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call].

Bill's out.

On AB 1197: Hart, motion is 'do pass to Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call].

Bill is out.

On AB 1603: Alvarez, motion is 'do pass to Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call]. Bill's out. And on AB 1232: Connolly, motion is 'do pass to Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call]. And on the--did I do the consent calendar? Yeah, sorry. Yeah, we're good. Okay. Sorry.

Okay. All Members are good. We'll keep it open for Vice Chair Mathis for a short time here. Thank you all.

With that, Madam Secretary, if you could start with our consent calendar and move through the items to add on missing Members.

On the consent agenda, [Roll Call]. On AB 865: Garcia, [Roll Call]. On AB 1197: Hart, [Roll Call]. On AB 1603: Alvarez, [Roll Call]. AB 1232: Connolly, [Roll Call]. Thank you.

Okay, we stand adjourned. Thank you.