Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Today we have 14 bills, three of which are in consent. We do not have a quorum at this time, so we will start as a subcommitee and we're going to start with the first Bill today. That will be item two, Assemblymember Schiavo's AB 1423 sorry, 1 second. 1 second. I'm commencing the hearing with a special order of business today. We'll be first hear three similar PFAs bills before us today. PFAs are a large group of synthetic chemicals that are extremely persistent and that have been linked to human health and environmental impacts. Their production and use are concerning. The three bills address PFAs in different products, but take a similar approach. As with most recent chemical bans, they are placed in what we term the Orphan code, that is California code sections with no agency oversight and no agency enforcement authority. It worries me that we put laws on the books that prohibit harmful chemicals but have no formal enforcement program to make sure manufacturers and retailers are complying with these prohibitions. Therefore, I work with all of the authors with chemical ban bills before our Committee and all of them added some type of enforcement provisions. I am pleased that the authors of all the PFAs bills have added their provisions that provide the Attorney General, district attorneys and other governmental attorneys with additional civil penalty authority to enforce the prohibitions in their bills. This is a very good first step, and I look forward to continuing work with these great authors on a more comprehensive enforcement program as their bills move forward through the process. And of course, I'll be supporting all PFAs bills today. And again, thank you so much for working with me, my staff on your bills. And first, you may proceed if someone brings Schiavo.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair and Members appreciate your thoughtful and organized approach to this important issue. So I'm so happy to present AB 1423 to you today. A Bill which would protect the health of our youngest athletes. I want to also thank the senior consultant Shannon Mckinney for her hard work and diligence on this Bill and guidance in the most recent amendments. For years, artificial turf has been seen as a replacement for natural fields. However, manufacturing patents and studies conducted on a number of turf samples used throughout the country show fields contain PFAs, a class of chemicals harmful to health, which is commonly known as the forever chemical. This PFAs is part of the field added as a manufacturing aid as children laugh and play in the fields, kick soccer balls and run around with cleats on in sunny days, the field slowly wears down. Government agencies in Sweden found that wear and tear creates microplastic dust. And in New Jersey, they found that the plague creates plumes of dust that contain the degraded products of fields. Children, because of their height, are more likely to inhale and ingest the PFAs containing dust. And further, when it rains, the microplastic enters stormwater systems and groundwater. A new field can last over a decade. That's at least 10 years of PFAs dust, 10 years of leaching into water systems, and 10 years of children breathing it in. California must act to prevent or protect the health and safety of children and our community from new fields containing these carcinogenic and dangerous chemicals. AB 1423 joins other states taking swift action to protect the public health by prohibiting new installations at the start of the year at academic and public facilities and prohibiting sale of turf containing PFAS the following year. I'm joined today by Bill Allayaud. The California Director of Government Affairs for the Environmental Working Group and Salar Parvini is also on the phone.

Thank you. I am Bill Allayaud Environmental Working Group's Director of government affairs here in California. For a few years, our environmental health agency, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, has looked at the issue of the use of crumb rubber or ground-up tires in artificial turf, and if there are toxic chemicals in that turf causing cancer and other illnesses. They've looked at metals, plasticizers, phthalates, BPA, et cetera. But PFAS was not on their radar screen. But it is on a lot of radar screens today as municipalities and states across the country are looking and moving to ban artificial turf. As the Assembly Members said, their PFAs chemicals are persistent and known as the forever chemicals. According to DTSC, our toxic substances agency, children below the age of 12 are more susceptible to adverse health effects from exposure to PFAs than are adults. For example, multiple studies have found PFAs exposure and adverse immune outcomes in children. In response, this Legislature, and with signatures by the Governor, has banned pfas in food packaging, juvenile products, cosmetics, and textiles. It is now appropriate to ban another product that is exposing us to PFAs. As they break down, the PFAs laden dust accumulates. We know it's harmful to health, even in extremely small quantities. We also know that homeowners who install these carpets as lawns don't know about the PFAS in their product, and that runoff from their properties may very well contaminate drinking water supplies. And we know this Legislature is very familiar with the dangers of PFAS in drinking water. Let me introduce Salar Parvini on the phone. He's been a longtime soccer player and now coach who has a daughter playing on these fields, unfortunately. And he'll address some of the myths about why people think artificial turf is needed and better than natural grass. Thank you.

Phone operator. Do we have our witness on the phone line right now?

Here. My name is Salar Parvini and I am a resident of Diego County. Would like to address some of the myths as to why California needs artificial turf. Myth number one, artificial turf is cheaper. The Sports Turf Management Association did a comprehensive cost analysis that showed that artificial turf is six to 20 times more expensive to install than natural grass. It is also 38% to 54% more expensive to maintain. And the total lifecycle cost for artificial turf is two to six times more expensive than grass. Myth number two. We need turf because it uses less water. Modern grasses use far less water, and modern grass field systems use 50% less water than before. Current safety protocols require watering of artificial turf to reduce risk of heat exposure. There is also the issue of the health effects of unwatered fields. Watering an artificial turf field with over 5000 gallons of water, sometimes twice daily, to cool it for a couple of hours of use is not water wise. The industry rarely tells decision makers about the water cost of cleansing or cooling the fields. They almost always claim that the fields are simply maintenance free. Recognizing that artificial turf compounds negative health effects to schools and children, legislation is advancing in the State Senate to mandate the replacement of artificial turf with natural fields as soon as it is feasible. And myth number three, we need turf so kids can play more outside and when it's raining. This playability myth does not account for the fact that the more you use an artificial turf field, the sooner you will need to replace it. The difference is that grass regenerates naturally and turf fields are typically replaced all at once. As someone who's been on and off a soccer field for 34 years, I can tell you that on rainy days, activities are regularly canceled regardless of the surface you're playing on. The idea that turf means more playtime is a myth in most real world situations, and the health and environmental impacts far outweigh any of the marketed benefits. I hope the Committee takes these facts into account as you make a decision about terminating the use of artificial turf with a known toxic chemical. Thank you.

All right, thank you so much. Do we have any Members of the public in the hearing room to testify in support of this Bill? Please come forward to the mic. Name and organization.

Hello, my name is Andrea Ventura. I'm with Clean Water Action, and we're in strong support.

Good afternoon, chair and Members Victoria Rodriguez with Nielsen Mercksmer on behalf of the City of Melbourne, in support.

All right, thank you. Now, do we have any Members of the public in the hearing testify in opposition to the Bill or this is a support still? All right, go for it.

Darryl Little with NRDC in support.

All right, thank you. Any opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Phone moderator do we have any witnesses on the phone line in support or opposition of AB 1423?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we do.

I'm sorry, there is no one on the phone line.

For those who wish to speak, please press one, then zero. At this time, we're first going to go to line 79, line is open.

Sakereh Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.

Line 85, your line is now open.

Jordan Wells, on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, in strong support. Thank you.

Line 75, your line is now open.

Kathy Schaefer on behalf of the Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley chapters of climate reality, in support. Thank you.

Line 81, your line is now open.

John Botorf with cleanearthforkids.org strongly support.

Line 83, your line is open.

Vanessa Forsythe with clean earth kids and also California nurses for environmental health and justice. Strongly support.

Line 80, your line is open.

Hi, Catherine Dodd with families advocating for chemical and toxic safety. Strong support.

Line 86, your line is open.

Diane Wolkey, safe, healthy playing fields Incorporated. Strong strongly support.

Line 74, your line is open.

Kyla Bennett, I am a PhD scientist and lawyer with peer public employees for environmental responsibility. I'm one of the scientists who discovered PFAS and artificial turf, and I am in strong support.

And a final call for anyone who wishes to speak, please press one, then zero. Going to go to line 76. Pardon me, line 76, please press one, then zero again. Line 76, your line is now open. Line 76, your line is open.

Leanne McAuliffe from a citizen of Los Gados. I'm calling in to strongly support AB 1423.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

All right, thank you so much. Now bring it back to Committee. Do we have any questions, comments from Committee Members? All right, seeing none, I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. And again, thank you for working with my Committee staff and myself on this Bill. I'm recommending an aye vote, and we'll be taking the vote when we have a quorum. So thank you so much. Also invite you to close if you'd like.

Thank you so much. And just to be clear, this is not banning artificial turf. This is banning artificial turf with PFAS in it. So we're just looking for alternatives so that it's safe for our kids. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, next, we'll move on to our second PFAS bill of the day with item three, AB 246 by Assemblymember Papan. When you're ready, please come forward to present your PFAS bill on menstrual products.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much, Chair Lee and Committee Members. AB 246 takes a critical step towards protecting women's health by limiting these substances, PFAS, from menstrual products. Due to their durability, PFAS have been added to thousands of everyday products for decades, including clothing, cookware, and, yes, menstrual products. However, these compounds have been linked to severe health problems, including breast and other cancers, hormone disruption, kidney and liver disease, and immune system disruption.

In light of these findings, California has moved to eliminate PFAS class chemicals from clothes, children's toys, cookware and food packaging. And as of maybe five minutes ago, it might be looking towards artificial turf. Even with all of this progress towards limiting our everyday PFAS exposure, our most intimate products remain unregulated. In a recent study, 48% of pads and liners tested were found to contain PFAS, as were 22% of tampons. This bill has two main components.

First, it would prohibit any person in California from manufacturing, distributing, selling any menstrual product that contains regulated PFAS. Second, it would require a manufacturer to provide a retailer with a certificate of compliance which states that the product does not contain any regulated PFAS. California's pursuit of gender equity requires us to take action and ensure that feminine hygiene products are safe, clean, and free from forever chemicals. With me to testify today in support of this bill is Jessica Gauger on behalf of California Association of Sanitation Agencies.

And we also have Jamie McConnell on the phone, on behalf of Women's Voices for the Earth. So we'll start with Jessica first, please.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Jessica Gauger with the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. Want to offer kind of a different environmental quality perspective on this PFAS issue today. So PFAS contamination is a really major concern for water and wastewater utilities. In addition to significant ongoing efforts by US EPA to combat PFAS in California, the Water Board has issued a PFAS monitoring and reporting order looking at PFAS concentrations in influent, effluent and biosolids starting in 2020.

The phase one preliminary data indicates a significant amount of PFAS entering our wastewater system is coming from residential and commercial sources, from products that we use in our homes and businesses, including menstrual products. And as we'll get to the next bill in cleaning products. So these are unregulated sources of PFAS, and they do require a top down approach to effectuate pollution prevention.

And doing it in this way with a statewide ban is really the most cost effective solution for managing PFAS contamination, given their ubiquity in commerce. So the products in this bill certainly have a direct pathway to our wastewater system when either the reusable garments are laundered in our homes or when disposable products are erroneously flushed down the toilet. Don't recommend that. Please don't flush menstrual products. Side note. But for these reasons, we do thank the author for introducing this bill and would urge your support.

Thank you. All right, before we go to your phone witness, we're just going to take roll call right now so we can establish quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

To establish quorum. [Roll call] We have a quorum.

Great, thank you. So our witness on the phone. You may begin if you are here.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is Jamie McConnell, Deputy Director at Women's Voices for the Earth, a nonprofit organization with expertise in menstrual product safety. I'm providing this testimony today in support of AB 246. We know from product testing that menstrual products do contain PFAS, meaning that users of these products are exposed to PFAS from their use. And this exposure is concerning. Specifically, in 2020, testing was released that found PFAS in Thinx menstrual underwear.

Newer testing of multiple brands of period underwear was released in 2021 and found 65% of the products tested were positive for PFAS. And in 2022, testing was released finding PFAS in both tampons and pads. While we haven't identified any companies currently admitting to intentionally adding PFAS to their menstrual products, we do know from patent research that many companies have considered PFAs as useful additives to these products.

Patent information from menstrual product manufacturers, including Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark, found several patents filed with PFAS used for various functions in menstrual products, including as a hydrophobic coating on the surface of the pad so that any menstrual fluid is directed to absorbent layers underneath and as a waterproof coating on the bottom outer layer to make the product leak proof.

It's possible that in some cases, PFAS is being detected in menstrual products, not because it is being intentionally added by the manufacturer, but is unintentionally in the product. In these cases, the manufacturer should still be held responsible for contamination that may occur in the supply chain. PFAS contamination is concerning, as even low levels could pose a health risk. Menstrual products are a necessity for many people every month. They are not optional.

PFAS exposure at any level should not be allowed, particularly in products whose use cannot be avoided. A law eliminating the use of PFAS and menstrual products is important because we know from patent information, companies are at the very least considering using this very toxic chemical in their products, even if no companies are intentionally using them now, we need a ban to prevent other companies introducing them into these products in the future. For these reasons, we support AB 246. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Do we have members of the public wishing to add their support to this bill. Please come forward to the microphone, name and organization.

Hi, Andrea Ventura again. And right now I'm making a comment for Clean Water Action, NRDC and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. We're actually on record as support if amended. Those amendments did appear in the bill in terms of a threshold. So we do support this bill, though we would strongly recommend that a threshold go into effect when the bill goes into effect in 2025, even if it's an interim one, but generally in support by those three organizations.

All right, thank you.

Hi there. This is Laura Deehan with Environment California in support and also wanted to indicate support on behalf of CALPIRG today.

Liv Butler, Californians against Waste, in support for the same reasons as Clean Water Action and NRDC. Thank you.

Susan Little with Environmental Working Group also in support. And just to reiterate Clean Water Action's comments. Thank you

Sean Bothwell on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance, in support of the bill.

Great. Thank you. Now, do we have any members of the public wishing to testify in opposition? Come to the microphone now if you're in opposition. Seeing none. Phone moderator, do we have any witnesses in support or opposition to AB 246?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak with regard to this bill, please press 1 and 0. Press 1 and 0 only one time. As you pressing 1 and 0 a second time will remove you from the comments queue. We're going to go first to line 83, your line is now open. Line 83, your line is open. We're going to move on to line 97.

This is John Bottorff from the cleanearth4kids.org, strongly support.

Line 95, your line is now open.

Jordan Wells on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, in support. Thank you.

Line 80, your line is now open.

Catherine Dodd, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, strongly support.

Line 78, your line is now open.

Hi, Phillip Vander Klay with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, in support.

Line 94, your line is now open.

Lendri Purcell with Jonas Philanthropies, strongly support.

And just a moment. We're going to go now to line 84, your line is now open.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Eric O'Donnell, on behalf of the Yorba Linda Water District, in support.

Line 100, your line is now open.

Suzanne Hume, cleanearth4kids.org, strongly support.

And Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

All right, thank you. Now bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? First let's go to Assemblymember Pacheco.

I had a question only because the witness online said sometimes PFAS is added unintentionally to menstrual products. Did I hear that correctly? That sometimes it's added unintentionally and not intentionally?

That is correct. That is correct. And so what the bill does is in 2027, manufacturers would be liable for unintentional use of PFAS and feminine projects products as well. So it allows some time for the phase in of the unintentional part of it.

Okay. Because this would cover intentional and unintentional? Or is it already against the law to add intentional?

Going into effect, it would sooner cover the intentional and then you have more time on the unintentional part of it just to like. What would it prohibit is 10 parts per million, 10 parts per million for the unintentional going into effect in 2027.

And there's ways to, I'm assuming there's ways to test and make sure that.

And that's the lowest that you can actually test, the 10 parts per million.

Okay.

So we'll hopefully get it all traces out. But this allows some phase in time for the unintentional part. Get a hold of your products, take a look at them manufacturers, and let's get it all out of there.

Okay, thank you.

All right. Did I see another question or comment on the side? No. Okay. All right. Assemblymember Papan, would you like to close?

Thank you. Yes, Chair. Women's health must be prioritized over the use of these unnecessary chemicals. It's past time to protect women and our environment. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Assemblymember Papan, I'd like to thank you for bringing this bill forward, and thank you for working with the ESTM staff on this. As you heard in some of the testimony that you know, obviously, millions and millions of Californians rely on feminine hygiene products, and they would not like to find out that there is forever chemicals being on or inside their bodies when they shouldn't be there. So I think it's a very smart approach to also delay between intentional, unintentional.

I don't want to steal from your thunder, but obviously to Assemblymember Pacheco's question is that up in the supply chain, when you're creating different products, sometimes it will exist further up the supply chain. So that could be the unintentional aspect of it, because it's just these chemicals are, they're everywhere and everything, and there are all sorts of different processes in it.

But to that point about not wanting California to be subject to forever chemicals, I'm glad you worked with us to at least have a starting point for enforcement of this, because we want to make sure that, yes, we pass these laws, but also that they're enforced and that a California consumer with all the confidence in the world can go pick up their products and say, well, there isn't going to be any of these products in there. We're going to enforce that.

So I am going to be recommending an aye vote, but can I get a motion and a second? Moved from Assemblymember McKinnor, seconded by Assemblymember Connolly. And I am recommending an aye vote. And this motion is due passed to Appropriations. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is item number three, AB 246 Papan. The motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call] We have five votes, that passes.

That's five votes that passes. Congratulations. And Assemblymember Papan, I know you have Assembly Bill 756, item 4. So you may present that bill when you are ready.

Thank you so much, Chair. And thank you for your explanation of up the food chain. I appreciate that. Or supply chain. Okay, so. AB 756 will require the Department of Transportation to develop and implement a strategy to eliminate a toxic additive found in vehicle tires known as 6PPD from stormwater discharge flowing into salmon bearing surface waters. 6PPD-Q has been measured in California streams at concentrations above those shown to kill at least half of Coho salmon in laboratory experiments.

Fortunately, biofiltration and bioretention systems, which are readily available, stormwater management practices, effectively treat the runoff of 6PPD in terms of both toxic chemical exposure and salmon spawner survival. AB 756 will direct the department to identify locations where highways cross salmon and steelhead bearing waters. Additionally, this measure will direct Caltrans to study the feasibility and cost effectiveness of installing and maintaining bioretention and biofiltration systems through a pilot program in San Mateo County.

To build a strong, safe, and sustainable future for California, we must take action and preserve the health and safety of our aquatic ecosystems. With me today to testify in support of this bill is Mr. Sean Bothwell, executive director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance, and Matt Clifford, on behalf of Trout Unlimited.

Thank you. Four minutes between the both of you. You may begin when ready.

Thank you, Chair Lee. Sean Bothwell, executive director for California Coastkeeper Alliance. So this issue of 6PPD is an emerging issue, but the science and the research behind the problem actually isn't new at all. In the 80s and 90s, scientists, particularly up in Washington, started to realize that salmon and steelhead starting to act funny. There was die offs during rain events. They didn't know why, but they were witnessing that.

In 2002, they'd started doing experiments, seeing if stream restoration would account for this and fix the problem, and there was no effect. The salmon were still having issues when it was raining. In 2008 was the first time they started linking this problem to stormwater, but they had no idea what the pollutant was in stormwater to cause this die off. Then they, in 2015, narrowed it down that they realized it was coming from streets and cars.

But again, they didn't know where from cars the problem was coming from. And then only in 2020 did they realize that this chemical, 6PPD that's found in tires, was the problem that was causing the Coho mortality die off in our streams. So what this bill does is it commits Caltrans to first study the most cost effective ways to control 6PPD from going to the environment.

I think the science is pretty well established that biofiltration, bioretention is the best way to address this chemical, but there's different ways to do it that can be more cost effective for Caltrans. And then it puts Caltrans on a path forward to address all their discharges of this highly toxic substance by 2037, which we think is a reasonable time frame for them to address the issue. The most exciting part about this bill is the requirement for biofiltration and bioretention at Caltrans won't just impact 6PPD.

It won't just address 6PPD. It's going to address a lot of chemicals and a lot of pollutants that are coming off our roads, and particularly Caltrans, and particularly microplastics, which I know this Committee, in past years, has had extensive discussions about the best way to treat microplastics. Biofiltration from our roads is the number one way to do it, because microplastics are coming majoritively from our roads and highways. So that's why we're excited about this bill. It doesn't just address 6PPD, but all the pollutants that are coming off Caltrans. And with that, I'll turn it over to Trout Unlimited.

Mr. Chair and Members, I'm Matt Clifford with Trout Unlimited. We're a national nonprofit devoted to coldwater fishery conservation. And I just want to say that when this was finally discovered two years ago of the acute toxicity of 6PPD to Coho salmon in particular, it really sent shockwaves to my organization. It's something we've been following nationally very closely. And what I want to say to you today really boils down to two basic things.

And one is there's a tremendous amount we don't know right now about 6PPD. And second, what we do know is highly alarming. Okay. We know that it's acutely toxic, especially to Coho salmon, but also to other native species, rainbow trout, Chinook, other fish as well, likely. Likely also has sublethal effects. So how bad are these effects? We don't know. It's almost certainly harmful to other organisms as well. Which ones and how much? Again, we really just don't know at this point.

What we do know about 6PPD is that it's extremely widespread and pervasive in the environment. It's contained in essentially every tire in the nation. There are tens of millions of tires in the road in California alone. And there are thousands of miles of paved roads in the state along streams, lakes, rivers, estuaries. That's where the large, busy roads tend to be, right? And we know that runoff every year is reaching immense amounts of runoff that's laced with 6PPD.

6PPD are reaching these waters from these roads. And so there's every reason to think this could be a tremendous, unseen problem that we just don't have a handle on. And from our standpoint, what we really need more than anything right now is we need information. We need to get our brains around--get knowledge--how big the scope of this problem is. And to us, that's one of the best aspects of this bill.

If nothing else, it really provides a link to get that knowledge and give ourselves a sense of the scope of this problem. And if it did nothing else, I think that would be a tremendously valuable thing. And I just want to close and say there's actually really a hopeful aspect to this whole story. It's obviously very toxic, but we have a lot of places in California and elsewhere where we have actually have pretty good habitat conditions.

We've invested millions of dollars in some places in restoration and bringing about good habitat conditions. We're still seeing decline in our fishery populations. We're still not seeing the response we want to see. Things like this could be the missing link that really helps us explain some of those problems and start to get a handle out of them. But again, the first step is knowledge. And for that reason, we really strongly support this bill. Urge you to vote yes. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Are there any members of the public in the hearing room who wish to add their name and support? Please name and organization. Come forward to the mic.

Mr. Chair and Members. Justin Malone, on behalf of Heal the Bay, in strong support.

Andrea Ventura with Clean Water Action, in strong support.

Laura Deehan with Environment California, in strong support.

Thank you. Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Please come forward. Seeing none. Phone moderator do we have any witnesses in opposition or supports on the phone lines?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to comment, please press one, then zero at this time. Please remember to only press the numbers once or you may be removed from queue. Once again, if you wish to comment, please press one, then zero at this time.

Mr. Chair, at this time, we have nobody queuing up for comments.

All right. Now bring it back to Committee. Do we have any questions or comments from Committee members? Mr.Connolly?

Yeah, I'll just ask a quick question. I appreciate the author bringing this forward. So in the conversation we just had around PFAS, we saw that the approach was to ban the chemical or phase it out over time. It appears this approach, at least now, is to contain it through various scientific means. Is six PPD, what is the status of that? It sounds like it's widespread, to put it mildly, but is it integral to the manufacture of tires or what are the options?

Where are we going with this in the long run?

Give it a shot, Sean.

So Department of Toxic Substance Control is looking into this now to see if there's a way to ban the product. I think the short answer is they don't know. They're looking into it. They don't know whether they can make tires without this substance. But I think the bigger problem is, let's say we can remove six PPD. What is the chemical that's going to replace it? The reason for six PPD, just so you know, is it prevents the tire from breaking down when it hits sunlight, basically.

And so there needs to be some type of chemical to keep that component together. And so there's a concern of what that replacement chemical will be even if we can take six PPD out of tires. The other issue with this Bill of ban versus kind of control is DTSC can only do so much. We can't ban tires from out of state.

We can't ban existing tires that are on sale now, cars that are sold outside of the state that come into the state, there's still going to be a lot of tires on this, on our highways that even if DTSC were to ban the product for the sale and manufacture of it in California, there's still going to be tires on the road that are going to have this, and there's existing tires out there right now that have the problem.

But to answer your question specifically, it's unknown whether we can ban it altogether yet.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? If not, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, chair. Well, first of all, I want to thank these witnesses both for their passion and their knowledge and their simplicity in description. Not all three are always found together. So I just want to acknowledge I'm so appreciative of you for being here and for bringing your intellect and passion. We must eliminate these toxic nanoparticles and keep them from polluting our rivers and poisoning our salmon. Removing six ppt is one step towards preserving the integrity, stability and beauty of California's water cycle.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Again, thank you for bringing the Bill forward and I appreciate the conversation we had about the spill, although briefly. I am recommending an aye vote on this Bill. And do I have a motion? A second. Moved and seconded. And the motion is do pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill will be on call. Thank you. And next we can move over to file item 6, AB 418 by Assemblymember Gabriel on food product safety. Whenever he is ready, if he is.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Glad to be here today to be presenting Assembly Bill 418. I want to start by thanking the Committee for their thoughtful help and assistance and we will certainly be accepting the amendments today. Just wanted to appreciate all of the folks who have reached out and spoken with us about this bill.

The goal of this bill is very simple: which is to protect kids and families and consumers in the State of California from some very toxic and dangerous chemicals. It specifically focuses on five chemicals found in our food supply that are banned in the European Union, in the 27 nations in the European Union, but also in many other jurisdictions around the world.

Many of these chemicals, including the UK, Canada, Brazil, India, China and many other places where they have looked at the well documented evidence, the strong science linking these chemicals to reproductive harm, to cancer, to behavior and developmental issues in kids, and decided that it was important to take action to protect consumers and to protect young people in those countries.

What else is significant about these chemicals is that many major brands and companies and chains in the United States of America have moved away because of the evidence of harm. Coke, Pepsi and Gatorade no longer use these chemicals. Papa John's, Panera, Dunkin' Donuts, Whole Foods, Kroger will not sell many products containing these chemicals.

So you have actually seen a lot of responsible actors in the private sector. Some of the biggest corporations in America that have moved away from using these chemicals because they understand that there are consequences, particularly for young people. Now, let me be clear about one thing. I know that there's been a lot of conversation around potentially banning food items and Skittles in particular. This bill will not ban any food items. It's not going to pull any products off the shelf.

A number of our colleagues who were traveling in Europe over the break brought me back Skittles from France and from Denmark and from other places to show me that, in fact, these brands are still alive and well in these other countries. What this bill aims to do is exactly what they have done in those other countries, which is to encourage these companies to make minor modifications to their recipes.

In most cases, it is taking out one ingredient or substituting one ingredient for something that has well documented evidence of harm, for something that is safe for folks. And just to give you a sense of all of this, when we looked at this, the reason that we arrived at these five particular chemicals is because of the strong science, but also because for each of these, that there were readily available alternatives, often which were cheaper.

And we had a long conversation about this in the Health Committee, and the Health Committee analysis went through for each of these chemicals, what the alternatives would be that would accomplish the same goals, and the fact that none of those were going to put any of these companies out of businesses or raise prices or burden consumers or do any of those things. A final point here to understand.

So when I looked at this, and this was first brought to me--I always assumed, as a parent, I can't pull a pack of Skittles off the shelf. And actually, I love Skittles. I love Wild Berry Skittles, but I can't pull a pack of Skittles off the shelf, read the words titanium dioxide and understand what that means. I don't know whether or not that's harmful to me and my kids. And so what I assume is that there is somebody out there watching my back.

And ideally, assuming that that would be the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration. And what I have learned since, over the last several months, since becoming engaged on this issue, is that we have a fundamental flaw in the FDA process, which I actually think is the real story here. And approximately 99% of the chemicals that are put into our food go through something called the GRAS loophole, the 'generally recognized as safe' loophole, so that they have no meaningful independent review by the FDA.

What we essentially have is chemical companies that are grading their own homework. And that to me, that's when it finally clicked. That's why the United States is so far behind all of these other countries, and that's why the United States is actually so far behind all of these responsible actors in the private sector who have voluntarily taken these chemicals out of their products. And just to demonstrate to you how absurd the results are: red dye 3, one of these chemicals, has been banned in the use of cosmetics since 1990. The FDA said in 1990 this is too dangerous for people to put on their skin. And yet more than three decades later, it is still allowed in our food.

And I think when people understand how absurd the results are, the fact that all of these other countries, all of these major brands, all of these grocery stores are moving in one direction, I think it makes sense when we unfortunately have had a lack of action in Washington, DC, that we in California have to step up and take action to protect our kids and to protect our families. So happy to answer any questions. Appreciate the conversation.

With me today are Brian Ronholm, the director of food policy for Consumer Reports, and Melanie Benesh, the Environmental Working Group's vice president for government affairs. Thank you, and would respectfully request your aye vote.

All right, go ahead. Four minutes between both of the witnesses. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, I'm Brian Ronholm. I'm director of food policy for Consumer Reports, an independent nonprofit that works with consumers to create a fair marketplace. So I appear today on behalf of several hundreds of thousands of Consumer Reports members in California who are very worried about toxic chemicals in food. In fact, they're often more worried about these chemicals in food than they are with threats that are more imminent, like E. Coli and salmonella and listeria.

So our members are urging immediate action to prohibit the use of these chemicals and are responding through mobilization activities that are directed at FDA and federal state policymakers. They see these chemicals banned in the EU, as Mr. Gabriel mentioned, and elsewhere in the world, and they question why FDA still allows it in food products, especially considering--as Mr. Gabriel pointed out as well--readily available alternatives that are more cost effective. And many of these products are marketed to children, including candy and junk food.

So it's beyond time to get these unnecessary, dangerous additives out of our food supply. And despite the serious and well documented risks posed to our health by these five chemicals, the FDA continues to fail to act to protect public health. So AB 418 would represent an important first step in removing these harmful chemicals from processed food at a time when the FDA's weak oversight has prevented it from taking action. It's critical for states like California to take the lead and move away from these toxic food chemicals. Thank you very much, and I'll turn it over to Melanie.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify in strong support of AB 418 today. My name is Melanie Benesh, and I am an attorney and the vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, a co-sponsor of this bill. The Food and Drug Administration process for reviewing the food chemicals that we eat every day is deeply broken. And that's why it's up to states like California to address the worst of the worst chemicals in the food supply, like the five chemicals covered by AB 418, all of which have been banned in Europe.

The FDA has failed to ensure that the food chemicals that we eat every day and that we feed to our families are safe. As the Assembly Member mentioned: today, nearly 99% of new food chemicals that come onto the market are assessed by food chemical companies and chemical companies for safety, not the FDA.

And in fact, even when chemicals do go through the FDA's approval process, there's no requirement that the FDA periodically reassess those chemicals for safety, even when new science identifies serious health harms. And as a result, many chemicals, including the chemicals that are covered by AB 418, have not been reassessed for safety in decades, even when serious risks have been identified. The five chemicals in AB 418 do pose significant health risks and they have no place in our food supply.

Potassium bromate, linked to cancer, has not been reassessed since the 70s. Propylparabin, which can cause harm to the endocrine system and the reproductive system, also has not been reassessed by the FDA since the 70s. The FDA has known that red dye number 3 is a carcinogen since 1990 and pledged at the time to address it in food. And yet 30 years later, it is still in thousands of foods that you can buy on the shelves today and has not been banned.

Titanium dioxide was banned by the EU last year over concerns of genotoxicity or DNA damage, but has not been reviewed by the FDA in more than a decade and is still found in many foods today, including foods marketed to children. BVO, which causes harm to the thyroid and nervous system, has never been allowed in the EU, but remains in store brand sodas and sports drinks stolen across the country today. These harmful chemical exposures are also completely unnecessary.

Cost effective alternatives for these chemicals are available and brands use these alternatives to sell their products--safer versions of these products--in Europe, where the products are nearly identical to their American counterparts in taste and look, showing that you can have the foods that you love without the chemicals that you hate. Unfortunately, the FDA has shown time and time again that it is not going to take the action needed to ensure that our food chemicals are safe. And that's why it's really up to California and the leadership of California to make sure that Californians and Americans are safe. And so I urge you to vote aye in support of this bill. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Do we have any members of the public wishing to add their support to this bill? Please come up to the microphone.

Mr. Chair and Members. This time Justin Malan for the Environmental Health Administrators in support.

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

Thank you. Now, I understand we have a primary witness in opposition that will be on the phone line. So phone moderator can you please place the opposition witness on the phone line? But are there any witnesses in opposition here who want to come up here as well? Okay. Seeing none. Let's see on the phone. Is the opposition on the phone?

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes. Four minutes, please.

My name is Mason Weeda. I'm a regulatory attorney with OFW Law, and I'm providing the following testimony in opposition of AB 418 on behalf of the National Confectioners Association, or NCA. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. NCA's membership includes the nation's manufacturers of chocolate and candy products, many of which are made here in the State of California. Chocolate and candy are safe to enjoy as they've been for centuries.

NCA members do not use any ingredients in their products that do not comply with current FDA standards. My comments focus on the rationale for this legislation involving concerns that, one, FDA is not actively regulating the safety of food additives and two, FDA should have banned these substances because the EU does not permit them. These concerns are misplaced. The safety of food additives is not off of FDA's radar.

FDA's review of food additives is continuous, which is demonstrated by the fact that brominated vegetable oil is currently under review by FDA. Titanium dioxide was reviewed by FDA in late 2021, and they've reaffirmed its safety. Titanium dioxide, red 3, propylparaben are all used in drugs which are continuously reviewed during the drug approval process. FDA is currently reviewing red 3. A number of groups requested that FDA ban red 3, and FDA is acting. They've opened the issue up for stakeholder input.

Ironically, many of the groups who petitioned FDA will tell you that AB 418 is needed because the agency is not reviewing food additives. They are. On the second point, because a food additive is banned in the EU does not mean that it should be banned in the US. The analysis is not quite that simple. There are two aspects to consider. The first is intended use. For red 3, the EU does not ban it. Its use is limited in cocktail and candied cherries.

The US does the same thing where they will limit an additive to a specific product. However, in the US, red 3 is approved for use generally in foods. The wider approval of use in the US is due to the fact that there's only one other alternative approved red color, where there are five others in the EU. In a way, the use of additives depends on the need and what else is available. Red 3 is approved by both FDA and the EU as a safe food additive.

Limitations on use do not reflect, somehow, that the EU review process is better. More importantly, any safety determination depends on the data reviewed and the reviewer's interpretation. A good example is in 2012, the EU reevaluated red 3. They concluded, and I quote, "Red 3-induced thyroid tumors in rodents may be considered of limited relevance to humans, and they had no concerns if red 3 was used within limits."

That rodent study is the same study that formed the basis for FDA's 1990 ban of red 3 in cosmetics. So you have the EU saying it's safe, when previously the FDA said it's not safe in cosmetics. And now that same rodent study is again referenced as a basis in the petition to ban red 3, which is before FDA. So FDA will soon reconsider this study. Another example is the interpretation of titanium dioxide, where the US government submitted comments to the EU opposing the ban.

And those comments included input from FDA and USDA. They objected because the evaluation, the EU evaluation, did not consider food-grade titanium dioxide, which has larger particle sizes than the particle sizes they examined. It didn't accurately reflect the effect of toxicity. After the ban, USDA also stated that there's no good alternatives to titanium dioxide in the US, and the studies for new color additives would take up to 10 years or more, and reformulation cost estimate ranges were from $600,000 to $1.8 million per product. Those costs would be-

-Thank you.

Sorry?

I said, if you could please wrap up your thoughts, please. You're running into our time limit.

Oh, I'm sorry. My point is that these are not easy evaluations. The science is complicated and sometimes it's misinterpreted. FDA consistently reviews the science. They convene experts to review the scientific evidence, evaluate the hazards, assess the risks and make safety determinations. NCA believes it's important to let the scientific review process play out, and therefore, we encourage the Committee to oppose the bill.

All right, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any members of the public who wish to testify and come to the mic in opposition? Members of the public? I think I see--yes, there are some people coming.

Chair and Members. Dean Talley, on behalf of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association and our member companies, respectfully opposed.

Mr. Chair and Members. Tim Shestek with the American Chemistry Council, also in opposition. Thank you.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the Consumer Brands Association and American Beverage Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Don Gilbert, for the California--excuse me--the Consumer Products Healthcare Association, in opposition.

Margie Lee, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers and the Council for Responsible Nutrition, in opposition.

Taylor Roschen, on behalf of the California Grocers Association, in respectful opposition.

All right, now we're going to go to the phone lines. Any folks who are opposed or support this bill, please. Phone moderator put them on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll first go to line 105. Your line is now open.

John Bottorff, CleanEarth4Kids.org, strongly support.

And pardon me again. We want to stress this is for the opposition. We'll go to line-

-It's for support or opposition. Support or opposition. Either.

Oh, pardon me. I apologize. 109, your line is now open.

This is to strongly support. So I'm on the right time, I guess, now, right? Okay, so, Suzanne Hume CleanEarth4kids.org, strongly support.

Thank you. Line 89, your line is now open.

Hello, Abby ... on behalf of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, also in strong support.

Line 94, your line is now open.

Line 94, your line is open. We're going to move on to line 111.

Sarah Pollo Moo with the California Retailers Association, opposed.

Line 95, your line is now open. Line 95, your line is open. And we're going to move on to line 80.

Catherine Dodd, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety. We strongly support.

Line 106, your line is now open.

Hello, this is Piper Primrose of Non-Toxic Schools in Marin County, and we strongly support this bill.

Line 79, your line is now open.

Sakereh Carter on behalf of Sierra Club California in support.

And a final call here. Please press 1 then 0 if you wish to comment on this bill. We're going to try line 94 again. Line 94, your line is now open.

Lendri Purcell with Jonas Philanthropies, mother of special needs child, strongly support.

And we have one final person here who's going to comment. Just a moment, please. We're going to go to line 113. Your line is now open.

Jordan Wells with the National Stewardship Action Council in strong support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

All right, thank you. And let's bring back to Committee. Questions, comments for the author or anyone? Vice Chair Hoover.

Thank you. So I appreciate what you're trying to do. I think I certainly came in today with some concerns, but I guess my question might even be more for the opposition. I'm kind of struggling with the answer of are there alternatives or not? Or, you know, if the author would like to answer that for some of these chemicals. I understand the FDA argument, but are there alternatives out there for these products? And what are the kind of challenges with switching to those alternatives? And if the opposition or someone from the opposition could respond as well, that'd be great, but... Through the Chair.

Thank you. May I? it's a great question. And actually, when advocates first came in to talk to me about the bill, I actually walked through for each of these chemicals with them, asked, wanted to understand what they did and what the possible alternatives were. And one of the reasons I felt comfortable with the bill and decided that I should run it is all five of these are nonessential ingredients. So if you look at most of them, titanium dioxide creates vibrant colors.

Red dye three, obviously is a color, and other things have to do with the texture or the appearance of baked goods. These are things that are mostly focused on the way that products look, and they're not essential ingredients for actually producing that product. There are other ways out there, both natural and unnatural, to get colors. Right. So you have other synthetic dyes out there, you also have natural ways to color food.

You can use pomegranate juice, for example, or beet juice or other things that might be able to provide a color that you're seeking. And this is, again, something that we really worked through in the Health Committee. We actually went out and provided the Committee with the prices of the alternatives that people can use.

And part of the point here is you don't have to guess about whether or not these companies will be able to produce these foods absent these ingredients because they're already doing it in the rest of the world. Right? You can pick up Skittles in France or Germany or Romania or Bulgaria or all of these countries. Taste them. They taste the same. Look at them. They look the same. And they're still able to make a profit.

They're still able to produce all of these things that, these products that we all love. And again, a lot of folks in the private sector. Dunkin Donuts stopped using titanium dioxide in its donuts in 2015. They still sell a lot of donuts. We still ate a lot of donuts. People love Dunkin Donuts.

So all of these companies are going to be able to produce all of these foods, and they're going to often be able to do so in a way that hopefully is actually going to be more comforting to consumers. Right. The final thing I will say, too, that you should maybe take into consideration here, if you look at who is still using these products and still using these ingredients.

For example, Coke and Pepsi have moved away from using brominated vegetable oil, which is something that's used in sodas as an emulsifier. The people still using it are maybe some of the off brand, off label, store manufactured brands. So already you've seen that folks have been able to do that, successfully produce these products. And unfortunately, a lot of the products that they're in now are disproportionately targeted at low income communities, at communities of color. And so it's actually our most vulnerable folks who are getting the least healthy food.

Thank you. I don't know if the opposition is still on, but the Vice Chair wanted to hear your comments on that.

Mason Vega on behalf of NCA. I mentioned previously that this was a quote from USDA. There are no good alternatives to titanium dioxide in the US. Those studies for color approval additives take a long time. It's a lot of data specific to intended use, and it's a whitening agent. There are no other whitening agents available. I mean, specific to your question.

And I view this as a secondary issue. The larger issue is that these determinations should be made by the FDA, and FDA is handling it. But there are no alternatives, really, for titanium dioxide or red three. There is one other approved red color in the US, but it's not something that's used or really produced nowadays.

So I guess, if I might, Mr. Chair, just to respond to that. The main use of titanium dioxide is often to get vibrant whites. So Dunkin' Donuts was using it in its powdered sugar on its donuts. We still get vibrant white powdered donuts from Dunkin' Donuts. Papa John's pizza was using titanium dioxide to get a white color in their pizza. They also stopped using it several years ago. You can still get Papa John's pizza that tastes pretty good and looks pretty good.

So all of these folks, with all due respect to the opposition witnesses, all of these major consumer brands out there, just totally undermine what he said because they have clearly all found substitutes to be able to produce the products that we all know and love without these dangerous chemicals.

Thank you. All right, we'll go to Assembly Member Pacheco.

I had a couple of questions. Besides the EU, are there any other countries that disallow these chemicals?

It's a great question. So the 27 nations in the EU ban all five of these. For the others, it's a little bit hit and miss. So I'll give you an example. For potassium bromate, that's banned, in addition to the 27 countries in the EU, Argentina, Brazil, Nigeria, South Korea, Peru, Sri Lanka, China and India. And so similar, if you went down the list of each of these five ingredients, you'd find it's not identical. But all of them are banned in countries other than the EU.

I'm impressed that you memorized. I was like, wow, that's impressive. How about in the US? Are there any states within the US that have banned it?

No, but since we've introduced this bill, a similar bill has actually been introduced in the state of New York seeking to ban the same five chemicals.

And I know the Beverage Association was here, but you said Pepsi and Coca Cola have already banned some of these chemicals.

Coke and Pepsi have voluntarily stopped using them in all of their products. So that includes Powerade, Gatorade, and actually, that was done several years ago. This is actually old news for a lot of these consumer companies. They walked away from these chemicals several years ago because of the science.

Maybe you don't know the answer to this, but I'm assuming you've had conversations with them. Do you know why they're still opposing this bill, are there any other products that you're aware that they're using these chemicals in?

It's a good question. We have invited them in to have conversations. Our door is always open. We've talked with them. Are there little tweaks that we could make to address other concerns that folks might have with this know? It was one of the first questions I asked, actually, when advocates from the Environmental Working Group came into my office to talk to me about the bill. And one of the people there actually used to be the head of government affairs, I think it was at the Consumer Brands Association.

I said, well, why, if all these companies are moving away, why haven't these other companies moved away? He said, a lot of it's just inertia. Like, it's just easier. They have contracts with their suppliers. They might have to change things a little bit. It'll be a temporary headache for somebody. And for me, I think it's okay and fair to ask them to have a temporary headache in exchange for protecting our kids over the long run.

And you said the Skittles taste the same?

I thought they were delicious. I didn't have the Wild Berry. I only got the regular ones, but I thought they were delicious.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee Members? Seeing none, I'll invite the author to close.

Yeah, just thank you all very much for the thoughtful consideration and for the conversation. Would respectfully request your aye vote.

All right. Thank you so much. I really appreciate the conversation today and for Assembly Member Jesse Gabriel, showing that he's such a great brand ambassador for so many different brands. I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. In this Committee, we hear a lot of bills dealing with chemicals in products. However, when it comes to food, I think we should take a very cautious approach as to what chemicals we allow to be ingested.

The chemicals that would be prohibited by this bill have been banned, of course, in the European Union and several other countries. A couple of these chemicals are known to the state of California to cause cancer. There are safer alternatives to many of these chemicals. I think bills like this are vital, protecting all Californians. And I thank your staff and your office for working with our Committee to make sure that we're the first steps of enforcing this.

Just as we talked about, there's holes in the FDA and the federal process. We want to make sure that our process is also as tight as possible and to make sure that when consumers get their French inspired Skittles one day, they will also be safe from harmful chemicals. I'll be recommending an aye vote. Do I have a motion and a second on this bill?

I'll make a motion.

Motion by Assembly Member Pacheco and second by Assembly Member McKinnor. This is a do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Item 6, AB 418, Gabriel. The motion is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] That's on the call.

We'll keep that on call. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, we're going to move back into File Item number 1. Assemblymember Weber's AB 727, dealing with PFAS and cleaning chemicals. Assemblymember Weber, good to see you. Hope you're feeling okay, and whenever you're ready, you may begin.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. I'm here to present AB 727, which prohibits the sale, distribution, and manufacturing of cleaning products containing PFAS. PFAS are synthetic chemicals that are found in a staggering array of consumer products, usually to create nonstick, water-resistant or stain-repellent coating. Nonstick pans, umbrellas, nail polish, grease-resistant packaging like popcorn bags and plastic water bottles are example of products commonly known to contain PFAS.

These chemical compounds are extremely stable for a very and very difficult to break down, earning the name "forever chemicals." Decades of heavy use of PFAS have resulted in contamination of water, soil, the blood of people and animals all over the world. The CDC conducted a study between 2000 and 2014 and found that 98% of Americans have some amount of PFAS in their blood.

PFAS can cause harm to our heart, liver, reproductive and renal systems, can increase our cholesterol levels, increase our blood pressure in our pregnant women. An overexposure to PFAS can put individuals at risk for developing kidney cancer, cause liver damage, and reduce the immune system's ability to fight infections. The Environmental Working Group found that approximately 50% of industrial grade floor polishes, which are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices, contain PFAS, and one in six household cleaning products do also.

PFAS floor polishes can expose janitorial workers and the public to airborne PFAS. This also enters wastewater when floors are mopped and clean. The California State Water Resource Control Board issued statewide monitoring and reporting orders for PFAs in drinking and wastewater in 2020, which found that a significant amount of PFAS were entering our wastewater through residential and commercial customers. Water and wastewater operators are proactively working to reduce sources of PFAS in their system.

Still, removing PFAS entirely at the endpoint is a daunting and cost-prohibitive task, and therefore source control is the most effective policy approach. For these reasons, AB 727 prohibits the sale, distribution and manufacturing of cleaning products containing PFAS chemicals.

The Bill also authorizes the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county council or a district attorney to bring in action against an entity that violates this provision and imposes a civil penalties not to exceed 5000 for the first violation and not to exceed $10,000 for subsequent violations. I know there are pending questions on how all of the PFAS related bills will be implemented and enforced in a consistent and, more importantly, a logical manner, and I'm committed to working with committees and stakeholders on this issue.

I am joined here today by the Bill sponsors, Samara Geller on behalf of the Environmental Working Group who will testify remotely, and Jessica Gauger on behalf of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. Thank you.

Do the room first?

Let's do the room first.

Okay, sounds good. Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Jessica Gauger with California Association of Sanitation Agencies here as a proud co-sponsor of the Bill. We are now on the third PFAS Bill for the day, so I won't relitigate with my comments. But as previously stated, PFAS contamination is a really big deal for water and wastewater agencies. We're actively promoting source control policies that keep these chemicals from entering our environment.

And banning the nonessential use of PFAS in consumer products continues to be a successful and cost effective policy approach. The products in this Bill almost all have a direct pathway into our wastewater systems as part of their intended uses and consistent with prior PFAS categorical ban bills passed by the Legislature, this Bill will send the signal to industry that it's time to move away from these harmful chemicals and keep them out of our watersheds.

And for these reasons, we thank the author for bringing this forward and urge your support of AB 727.

Thank you. Let's go to the witness on the phone. Phone Moderator please help get a witness.

Thank you for your time. My name is Samara Geller and I serve as Senior Director of Cleaning Science at Environmental Working Group, a co-sponsor of this Bill. PFAS, a manmade class of fluorinated organic chemicals, are found nearly wherever they're tested. All of us are exposed to PFAS daily, and some PFAS can build up in the body over time and stay there for decades. Also, EWG finds they contaminate more than 330 species of wildlife.

PFAS are known to cause an array of health problems, including at very low doses, and have been linked to immune system suppression, reproductive and developmental problems, a higher risk of certain cancers, and more. Some short-chain and replacement PFAS display the same concerning hallmarks as the toxic long-chain PFAS they are replacing.

They're used in a wide variety of cleaning and maintenance products, including glass and hard surface cleaners, fabric and carpet cleaners and treatments, waxes, polishes and strippers for floors, furniture, cars and boat vessels, dishwashing rinse aids, aerosol propellants, and paints. Of primary concern are the exposures of our most vulnerable and most at-risk populations, including expectant mothers, the elderly patients, and those with weakened immune systems. Exposures disproportionately harm workers and those routinely applying and removing these chemicals as part of their job duties.

The products are used in heavy frequency in nearly all commercial and institutional spaces, hospitals, government buildings, and others. Children spend long hours in schools and daycare centers where the chemicals are applied, stripped, and then reapplied in a continuous loop. As referenced by the Committee analysis. A recent study revealed concentrations of PFAS in dust and air during floor waxing and stripping that were one order of magnitude greater than typical residential indoor air and two orders of magnitude greater than outdoor air.

The EU and others indicate that manufacturers should be able to produce their cleaning products without PFAS and with suitable, often long-established alternative chemicals. These are both readily available on the market and described in the patent literature. An informal EWG analysis of 140 floor cleaning and maintenance products finds types of this products of this type on the market without PFAS are common, including from major brands like ECOS, Method, Murphy Oil Soap, Pine-Sol, Pledge, Seventh generation, SC Johnson Professional, Swiffer, Zep, and others.

Our same evaluation indicates that a near majority of professional floor products may contain PFAS, however, many do not. PFAS are incredibly toxic and need to be regulated as a class. Help us to stop these avoidable sources of PFAS. So we would respectfully ask the Committee to please support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Now, are there any members of the public who wish to come forward to testify in support of the Bill? Name and organization, please. Supports.

Darryl Little on behalf of NRDC in support.

Andria Ventura with Clean Water Action in support of banning the entire class in these products.

Jennifer Williams with the East Bay Municipal Utility District in support.

Laura Deehan with Environment California in support, and also would like to add on CALPIRG's support.

Great. Thank you. Now will the primary witnesses in opposition please come forward? You get all four minutes to yourself if necessarily.

Luckily, I don't think I'll need it, but thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Nicole Quiñonez, on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association. And while we have an opposed, unless amended position on AB 727, to be clear, we are not opposed to the goals of this Bill to transition PFAS away from cleaning products. Our amendments seek to achieve parity with other PFAS ban legislation and allow the cleaning products industry to comply.

Of particular concern is how the Bill would impact a very specific category of products that are within the definition of polish or floor maintenance products. Within that definition are floor finishes which have a degree of permanency and are designed to remain on the floor for years. These are critical products that serve to mitigate wear and tear and extend the life of flooring. However, removing floor finishes from the market will result in replacing floors far more frequently, thereby creating more waste in our landfills.

The use of the fluorosurfactants in these products extends the life of the floor finish to ensure fewer replacements of the coatings and reduces the amount of floor product itself. Moreover, formulas are optimized to use the minimal amount of fluorosurfactants and unfortunately, there are no alternative chemistries available at this time. So reformulation will take additional time. To help mitigate these concerns and allow a compliance pathway to reformulate away from the fluorosifactants in these very specific products, we are requesting to add a narrow definition for semipermanent coatings with the effective date for these very--again, limited--products to be extended to 2032. And additionally, our amendments would seek to do the following: for other product categories, change the effective date from 2025 to 2026, which would allow two years to phase out of PFAS which is consistent with the other PFAS ban bills; would align definitions with other PFAS statutes, specifically deleting the product component language which was not included in other banned PFAS for cosmetics.

Recent amendments did delete the very low thresholds for contaminants--the contaminant PFAs--which we certainly appreciate and as this that gets the Bill closer to the other PFAS bans. But I think also as the analysis notes, there's inconsistencies across the different PFAS banss with respect to the unintentionally added. And lastly, we are seeking to add a regulatory process to exempt ingredients which do have environmental benefits and are not persistent, bioaccumulative or toxic to the environment.

Things that are captured under the definition of PFAs but don't share the same traits as a PFAS. So again, we share the goal of moving away from PFAS substances. And where they are still used, industry is working to innovate and reformulate away from them. So we look forward to continued conversation with the author and sponsors. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Do we have any members of the public who wish to come forward to oppose the Bill? Name and organization, please.

Tim Shestek with the American Chemistry Council. Share the comments that were previously made and look forward to working with the proponents. Thank you.

Dean Talley, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We respect the goal, but we are opposing unless amended at this time.

All right, now Phone Moderator let's go back to the phones. Any support, opposition for AB 727?

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. We're going to first go to line 89. Pardon me, we're going to go to line 115.

Vanessa Forsythe with California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice and CleanEarth4Kids. Support in all of the PFAS measures. Please go forward and work with manufacturers but protect the public.

Line 112, your line is now open.

John Bottorff with CleanEarth4Kids.org in strong support.

Line 120, your line is now open.

Suzanne Hume, CleanEarth4Kids.org, strongly support.

Line 118, your line is now open.

Jordan Wells on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council in strong support. Thank you.

Line 78, your line is now open. Line 78.

Phillip Vander Klay with Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

Line 79, your line is now open.

Sakereh Carter on behalf of Sierra Club California in support.

Line 94, your line is now open. Line 94.

Lendri Purcell with Jonas Philanthropies and the Growing Solutions Fund in strong support.

Line 89, your line is now open.

Hello, Abigail Mile, on behalf of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support. Thank you.

Line 117, your line is now open.

Hardy Kern, American Bird Conservancy in strong support.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

All right, thank you so much. Let's bring back the Committee. Any questions or comments about this Bill? Senator Connolly?

Quick question and want to thank the author for the great work and those testifying. Certainly great to hear about the package of measures coming forward. I noticed one difference. We heard AB 246 happen earlier in the hearing. And regarding unintentional incorporation of the product or the chemical in a product as of 2027, the standard would be 10 parts per million. And in this Bill it would, by comparison, as of 2025, 50 parts per million and 2027, 25 parts per million.

So less stringent of a standard and just wondering why that is? And as we know, 246 related to menstrual products.

So I think one of the issues that I discussed in my opening briefly is that with a lot of these different PFAS that are being brought before you today, but also the ones that we have already passed, there is that difference variation. And so that's why I said I commit to continuing the conversation so that it is just one standard, so it's easier for manufacturers and legislators and alike. We recognize that.

Any other questions or comments? If not, I'll let Assemblymember Weber close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Bill's moved and seconded. I just want to thank you again for bringing forward this Bill. I'm working with my Committee staff on this and adding in the enforcement provisions just like all the other PFAS and chemical ban bills that we're hearing today. Just want to make sure that it actually realizes into reality. I am recommending an aye vote, and the motion is to do pass the Appropriations Committee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item 1, AB 727 Weber. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]. We have five votes.

Five votes. That's out. Congratulations. All right, next we shall go to item 8, Assemblymemberr Friedman's AB 1059, which deals with fiberglass and flame retardants in mattresses and other products.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to thank you and the Committee and your staff for their hard work on the bill. This is one in a parade of 'guess what's in your household products' bills. Assembly Bill 1059 prohibits the sale and distribution in California of juvenile products, mattresses and upholstered furniture that contains fiberglass. Both the Federal Government and the State of California have set standards that limit the flammability of mattresses and upholstered furniture.

For a long time, toxic, flame retardant chemicals were used to meet these standards. But in recognition of their really very negative health impacts, the law and regulations were changed at a federal and state level to prohibit the use of these chemicals. While most manufacturers altered their manufacturing methods to use naturally resistant materials, such as rayon, latex and wool to meet this standard, some turn to fiberglass as a thermal barrier.

Fiberglass is a manmade mineral fiber that's composed of cilia sand, limestone, recycled glass and soda ash that has a lifespan of more than 50 years. When individuals unzip or open mattress covers, unintentional exposure to fiberglass can occur. In addition, there's concern that even when the mattress or couch covers are not disturbed, the fiberglass particles escape to the surface, leading to unintended exposures. In one study, fiberglass was detected in the covers of mattresses manufactured by Zenith and Graco that were certified as having chemical-free foam.

Since fiberglass is present in many mattresses, it can be difficult to tell whether a specific mattress contains it in the foam or the cover. The mattress label may or may not contain the term fiberglass, which is very important, because if you go out and you want to buy one of these products that doesn't have fiberglass, sometimes you will anyway. Fiberglass can be irritating to the eyes, skin and lungs.

Rashes, itching, and blisters can occur when fiberglass comes in contact with human skin, even for short periods of time. Now, long term exposure to fiberglass is associated with lung disease, including pulmonary fibrosis. Short inhalation exposure to fiberglass may cause lung inflammation and bronchitis. Fiberglass fibers can also cause visual changes, bleeding and scarring if they become embedded in the eye. Basically, you don't want to be breathing this. You don't want it in your eyes. You certainly don't want to be sleeping on it.

We know that only 13.1% of mattresses contain fiberglass as a thermal barrier. So these products, we know, can be effectively made without fiberglass, thereby effectively eliminating accidents, leakage, and other mistakes from happening and needlessly exposing the public to an unnecessary substance. Given the small amount of mattresses on the market containing fiberglass and the availability of alternatives to meet federal and state flammability standards, AB 1059 would ban the use of fiberglass to protect public health.

I want to thank the International Sleep Products Association for working with us on this bill. I know they share our goal of getting rid of fiberglass in mattresses. I understand the concerns that they've raised with the bill regarding meeting federal flammability standards, and we will continue to work with them, as we always try to do with industry. Testifying in support of the bill on behalf of our sponsor, the Environmental Working Group, is Bill Allayaud and Dr. Joanne Brasch with the California Product Stewardship Council and I would, on behalf of all of us and all of our children, request an aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member, Chair and Members of the Committee, I am Bill Allayaud, California director of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group. First, I want to thank the author for bringing this issue to you; the staff, for all their hard work on a complicated issue; and especially to the International Sleep Products Association, who have been great to work with. And I think we'll have a good working relationship going forward in trying to solve the issue and get a pragmatic bill to the Governor.

As the Assembly Member said, fiberglass is a true concern about exposure to everyone, not just children in this case. We're often worried about children in this Committee. Through wear and tear, people opening up mattresses to wash them or look what's inside, they get spread quite easily and they're microscopic fibers, can get in the lungs and have bad health impacts. We understand the need for safety. No one wants to see a mattress go up in flames. It's not just in your house.

And smoking used to be the number one reason. But if a mattress lights on fire in an apartment building, then everyone gets jeopardized, not just the person who was careless. So the important thing to understand are there are alternatives to be used. You can use wool, rayon and silica-based fibers in these covers that go over the foam to make them meet the federal flammability requirements. We believe the manufacturers are nimble and innovative.

For example, you've all heard now of BedInABox, where you get a box and it open it up and boom, there's a mattress in your room. So they're able to do things they couldn't do 34 years ago. And we think they can do it on this. On enforcement, we've had a long discussion with the staff, and I think you'll see in Assembly Member Ting's measure coming to you today that this is an issue. We acknowledge it.

We've done a good job. I think, the Legislature and us and the Governor signing these bills to get a number of chemicals banned while we wait for the Department of Toxic Substance Control Safer Consumer Product Work Program to get going and finish and get a product out. Meanwhile, we've been grateful about the actions taken by this Committee and others to protect public health. So we'll work with you on the enforcement issue and on this bill and other bills. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Now, do we have any members of the public wishing to add their--oh, one more witness? Oh, okay. You may also come up to the desk if you'd like.

Thank you so much, Committee, Chair. My name is Dr. Joanne Brasch. I am currently the Chair of the CalRecycle Mattress Recycling Advisory Committee. But I'm here today on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council. We're a nonprofit that's primarily funded by local government waste authorities, haulers, and recyclers with the mission of green design. We want to get the toxics out of the market before they even enter them.

The US Labor Bureau has identified solid waste and recycling industry as one of the top deadliest industries and jobs in the country. This does include exposures during the deconstruction process. So we respectfully ask for an aye vote on this bill because it really addresses the problem before it even enters the market so that we can prevent undue and unjust exposures in the recycling processes. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, now let's go back to the room. If you wish to add your support, please come to the microphone. Name, organization and your position on the bill, in support, I guess.

Darryl Little, on behalf of NRDC in support. Thank you.

Andrea Ventura with Clean Water Action, late in getting a letter in, but we do support this bill.

Liv Butler, Californians Against Waste, in support.

Thank you. Now, do we have any members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to this bill? Please come forward.

Dean Talley, on behalf of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association. We originally had a neutral position on the bill, and I certainly appreciate the intent, as being someone that's had fiberglass poisoning from insulation. But the new amendments of April 10 do include flame retardant chemicals. We feel like that is a broad scope change, and unfortunately, we're going to have to change to oppose unless amended position. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none. Let's go to the phone lines for support or opposition. Phone moderator?

Those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero. We're going to go to line 121, your line is now open.

Hi, this is Piper Primrose of Non-Toxic Schools, Marin County, and we're in strong support of this bill, as amended.

Line 118, your line is now open.

Jordan Wells, on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, in strong support. Thank you.

Line 115, your line is now open.

Vanessa Forsythe, CleanEarth4Kids and California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, support, as amended.

Line 125, your line is now open.

Catherine Dodd, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety. We support.

And Mr. Chair, one moment. We have one more person who signaled that they wish to speak.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I am Ryan Trainer, President of the International Sleep Products Association, the Mattress Industries Trade Association. Regrettably, we are here concerned about one provision in amended. To be clear, the mattress industry supports the amendments that define fiberglass, provide a phase out date and enforcement. We also appreciate the productive conversations we've had with Assemblymember Friedman's office, the sponsor, and the committee on the fiberglass issue. ISPA's concern is with one amendment that recently emerged which expands the bill's scope far beyond fiberglass.

It now removes an existing exemption which could jeopardize our continued use of certain other fibers and mattresses. This amendment was made based on concerns that the mattress industry could replace fiberglass with harmful substitutes. Again, to be clear, the industry is not using and will not add any of those flame retardant chemicals to the substitute barrier materials.

But we are concerned that the broad wording used to define banned flame retardant chemicals could be interpreted to restrict mattress companies from using two fibers we have used safely for years to meet the federal flammability standards administered by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission. These fibers are critical to reducing deaths, injuries, and property damage caused by mattress fires. The safety of these fibers is well documented by scientific testing. These fibers themselves are not flame retardant chemicals, but are inherently fire resistant.

Still, we remain concerned they could be captured under the bill's very broad definitions. Upon learning of the bill would be expanded ISPA proposed to exempt these fibers from the prohibition. Our concerns could also be addressed if the enforcement agency can confirm that these fibers would not be captured under the scope of the prohibition. In approaching this problem, we urge the legislature and regulators to be guided by the science which demonstrates that these fibers should not be banned.

ISPA will continue working with stakeholders to provide for the more robust science based discussion that this legislation deserves. But absent adequate time, we remain concerned. Thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you. Now bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments from committee members?

Mr. Chair, pardon me. We do apologize. We were unaware that there were additional witnesses that needed to speak. We did have one more person who wished to signal their supporter opposition. And that's line 124. Please go ahead.

We'll do that last one. Thank you.

Thank you. Lendryl, Growing Solutions Fund and Jonas Philanthropies in strong support of protecting our children. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right, Vice Chair Hoover, thank you.

I just had a quick question about the. And I'm not super familiar with this issue area. So I'm just curious on the federal regulations for flammability standards and how this is going to impact the ability of the industry to kind of meet those standards while also complying with this bill. So I was just curious what your response might be on that one.

Well, first, I want to thank the International Sleep Product Association, who you heard speak. They've been really wonderful to work with, and we've had very productive conversations. We've amended the bill based on their feedback, and we'll continue to work with them to get the bill into a place where we're able to address their concerns, which, as you heard, are fairly narrow.

Sure.

They're about what they'll be able to use as a substitution, wanting to make sure that the way the amendment is worded allows them to use nontoxic replacements. So we're not at all trying to undercut federal flammability standards, and we know that. And the industry also recognizes that they can meet that within the context of this bill. It's really a question of wording this in the right way to allow them to use alternative fibers, but not to allow them to use, let's say, flame retardant chemicals.

And I'll say part of the concern is not necessarily our homegrown industry here. It's what people are buying online and having shipped in from overseas. And so even though we may trust our own industry to kind of self regulate, we have to make sure that in the bill that when we get rid of the fiberglass, we don't have, let's say, a foreign manufacturer soaking the product with the outside of the product with flame retardant chemicals that we don't want to be used.

Which is why the bill expands the ban on using the flame retardant chemicals in foam to the exterior of the mattress, because that would be a cheap solution that no one wants to see. So we're not trying to undercut those federal regs. We just want to make sure that we don't, while we try to meet them, allow for substances that we know are very harmful to human health.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments saying none, I will invite the author to close.

Our work with industry has been really great on this. We want to continue working with them, and we think the bill is getting into a really good place. And hopefully soon none of us are going to have to worry about health effects from what we're sleeping on every night. I would request an aye vote. Thank you.

Bill has been moved and seconded. I'd like to thank Assemblymember Friedman, her staff and sponsors working with us, and the ESCM staff on this bill. I'm pleased that the fiberglass prohibition in the bill will now be enforced by the Bureau of Household Goods and Services. We have met with the bureau and they test mattresses and upholstered furniture monthly for compliance with prohibitions on flame retardant chemicals. Through this bill, they will also check the same products for fiberglass and take enforcement actions when necessary.

There isn't always such a good fit for an enforcement program, but perhaps this is a model we can look to as we discuss enforcement for other chemical prohibitions. Recommending an aye vote, and the motion will be do pass Appropriations Committee, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item eight, AB 1059, Friedman. The motion is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] That has enough votes. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6? Yeah.

Six votes. That's out. Congratulations. So now we're going to move on to item number 7, Assembly Bill 899 by Assemblymember Muratsuchi, which deals with toxic heavy metals in infant formula and baby food. So Assemblymember Muratsuchi, when you are ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I am here to present AB 899. First of all, I want to thank your Committee's work on this, and I will be accepting all amendments. I want to share that this bill idea--actually--we had amendments, right? No. Yeah. Oh, okay. Okay. All right. I was told by staff that there are amendments, but no. Okay. All right. Well, I want to share this story. It's a nice little capitol story. I mean, this bill idea actually came from one of my staff who recently had a baby and doing all the research in terms of infant formula and baby food.

She realized the lack of regulation, the lack of protections for babies in terms of toxic metals in these food products, and she came across how the federal Congress has been looking into this issue. The Subcommitee on Economic and Consumer Policy, they looked into this issue. In February of 2021, they released a report that kind of, like, summarizes what we're trying to address here. The findings indicate that commercial baby foods are tainted with significant levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury.

Exposure to toxic heavy metals causes permanent decreases in IQ, diminished future economic productivity and increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior in children. Toxic metals endanger infant neurological development and long-term brain function. That's pretty heavy stuff, right? It just captures it in that short paragraph there. And so this bill is attempting to protect babies from toxic metals. It's a transparency measure.

It's a transparency as well as, hopefully, accountability in terms of getting these baby food and infant formula manufacturers to be transparent in terms of requiring them to test their final products and to post that information. I know that there may be some concerns about the need for further FDA action, but I believe that this is another example where California needs to lead in protecting our babies by shining a spotlight on this issue, providing consumer transparency. And so here we are. I would like to--thank you--like to ask Susan Little with the--I miss this Committee. You have so much fun--Susan Little with the Environmental Working Group.

Thank you. And first, I just wanted to begin. My name is Susan Little. I'm a Senior Advocate with the Environmental Working Group. And I'd first like to thank the assemblymember for authoring this bill, which, as he's explained, will inform parents about the heavy metals lurking in the food that feed their infants. To date, this information has been largely a mystery.

The presence of high levels of lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium in baby food has only been brought to light as a result of third party testing or acts of Congress. These disclosures have demonstrated that alarmingly high levels of toxic metals are present in these foods. That there are toxic metals in baby food should cause us all concern because the ingestion of even low levels of these metals, as the assemblymember mentioned, which build up over time, can cause infants and toddlers grave health effects.

And all of--I can go through a list of all of the different chemicals and their different toxic effects, but I think that they're already well known to this Committee. So none of these metals should be present in baby food or fed to children, even at low levels.

Baby food manufacturers, it's the Environmental Working Group's position that they should test their products for these toxins and be very transparent about the levels of the toxins in their products and disclose those levels to consumers because that is the only way they'll be able to protect their kids. Amazingly, such protections are not currently required. Well, AB 899 will close this gap, will serve consumers and give Californians the information they need to protect their infants from toxic metals that can impair their development and harm their life outcomes. So we'd appreciate your support for this bill. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Do we have any members of the public who wish to add their support to this bill? Please come forward to the microphone now. Any members of the public? All right. Seeing none. Any members of the public in the hearing room wish to testify in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Phone moderator do we have any witnesses on the phone in support or opposition to AB 899?

Those who wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. We're going to go to line 125.

... with Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety. We are in support. Keep our babies safe.

Line 115, your line is now open.

Vanessa Forsythe, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice and CleanEarth4Kids, support.

Line 124, your line is now open.

This is Lendri Purcell with Growing Solutions Fund and with Jonas Philanthropies, in strong support.

Line 128, your line is now open. And, Mr. Chair, there is no one in the public to speak in support or opposition.

This is John Bottorff with cleanearth4kids.org in strong support.

All right, great. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments? This Bill has a motion. Second. Assemblymember Mckinnor first, and then Assemblymember Connolly. Assemblymember Mckinnor then.

Yes, Assemblymember. Thank you for bringing this up. I commend you for looking after our babies. Just one question. I know there's a difference between baby food and formula, right? With the formula. Oh, I hate that I'm hearing about all this toxic stuff in it as well. Have we worked with anybody to see what we're going to use once we get rid of this particular formula? Because we know that with babies it's only like breast milk and formula, right?

Sure.

And so do you guys know what we're going to replace it with?

Yeah. No, I should emphasize that we're not trying to ban anything, but we're trying to arm mothers, fathers, families with the information so that they can make informed decisions on their own. And hopefully by shining that light on these manufacturers, to prompt the manufacturers to do everything they can to keep those metals out. But we're not talking about eliminating or limiting any options for families.

Just one more comment. But, you know, once we read it, like, if I'm having a grandchild, right, like once I read that I'm not going to want to give my grandchild that formula. So we have to look at what we're going to use.

Yeah. And so that's a real issue. We know that we had the shortage during the pandemic. But again, this is not seeking to limit. I hear what you're saying. But yeah, we're trying to help people by providing more information and hopefully make the product safer.

Assemblymember Zbur.

So thank you for bringing this Bill. I read the comments of the Infant Nutrition Council of America and did not find them persuasive. They basically said that they test for all of these contaminants, but they don't say how the public knows about the test. Second point they said is that there's a federal regulatory program that's at the beginning. This, to me isn't in a place where it's protective yet. This doesn't seem to be inconsistent with that seems to be complementary.

The third point that they raised was that making public the results of all of arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and making that public might make the public lose confidence in the food. Well, I think the whole point of this is the transparency so that people can make choices and protect themselves. And then the last point was that this would require a label, which is not something that to me seems like it's a burdensome obligation. So I think this is totally reasonable. I think it's complementary with what's happening at the FDA. And I just want to thank you for bringing the Bill. I will be supporting it.

Thank you very much. A reminder that when I'm in front of Mr. Zbur, I need to make sure to read all the opposition letters. Thank you.

Senator Pacheco.

Yes, thank you. So actually, I had the same concerns as my colleague, Assemblymember Mckinnor, because when it comes to food, baby food, a parent can always select different types of baby food. But I also have the same concerns as to baby formula. And of course, I want to make sure our babies are safe. That's extremely important. But I think we really need to see if there's any alternatives because the only options are formula or breastfeeding a child. And a lot of times the mothers are working and it's really difficult. I was a formula baby because my mom worked all the time. And so that's my concern.

Senator Hoover.

Actually, if I may, through the Chair respond.

I'm going to let Assemblymember Hoover speak first. Is that okay? And then maybe we can have him close. Thank you.

I'm kind of on the same topic. So this might all work here. I do have a couple of questions. I think, first of all, it's my understanding that some of these chemicals that you've kind of identified in this Bill are also chemicals that are also in breast milk or can be in breast milk. Right. And so I guess my question is, these chemicals are present in our world.

And the question I think is, has the FDA set, like a safe level, are there levels that we know about or that have been set by the FDA that this Bill is trying to match or meet or. I was curious about that.

Sure. So it's my understanding that the FDA is in the process of setting those levels. They've moved forward with contaminant levels, proposed levels for lead, but they are moving forward in their process and their time to set these levels. And so that's why this Bill is indicating that is requiring manufacturers to move forward and just at least test and disclose levels and then indicate whether or not they are meeting any FDA levels that are established on their label. So it's not inconsistent with what the FDA is moving forward with. As Assemblymembers Zbur mentioned, it's actually complementary.

Okay, so there's going to be the testing, but until there are levels, we won't really know what is safe or unsafe, is that correct? Until those are identified.

That is correct. The FDA has indicated that they're in the process of determining what are safe levels, but they've only done it for lead. So to address your concern, as well as Ms. Pacheco's concern, like, say, for example, if it was three milligrams of arsenic, that would be disclosed on the product. And then you see another product, say, we're talking about infant formula. Another brand of infant formula has 1 milligram of arsenic. We're looking forward to the FDA.

In fact, we're hoping that this Bill will spur the FDA to act to protect our babies by establishing those safety standards. But in the meantime, a parent can look at the one with three milligrams and the one with the one milligrams. And if it was me, I'd be picking the one with a 1 milligram. That's how we're not banning or limiting the options, but we're empowering parents with that information.

Okay, so with that said, I appreciate the intent of this Bill. I will say that I want to get to a yes on this Bill. I think my colleague from Los Angeles is correct that a portion of this Bill is very reasonable, and I think that's the portion that deals with baby food. I would support this Bill if an amendment was taken to remove formula from the Bill.

And the reason for that is, as was raised by my other colleague, is that I'm struggling with what a parent, and by the way, I am a parent of three. This is something that is very, in fact, we refused to give our kids store bought baby food. We made our own baby food. But I think the point of that is that there are options that exist for families when it comes to baby food.

There are other options that parents can use. When it comes to formula or breastfeeding or breast milk, there really aren't options. And so I think what I'm struggling with is until, without that option, what is a consumer to do or a parent, a new parent to do with the information given to them if there are no good alternatives? And so I think that's why I'm struggling with the formula part of this Bill. So, you know, as I'll continue to keep an eye on the Bill, but that's kind of where I'm at right now.

Thank you.

Any other questions, comments? Seeing none, I'll invite the author to close.

Thank you. I appreciate all of the comments and concerns. Again, nothing in this Bill is going to limit options. It's not going to limit options, but it's empowering consumers with more information to make choices. So currently, if there are three infant formula products on the market, nothing in this Bill is going to limit any of those three options.

What it's going to do is to provide a basis of a comparison for those three options. So if you're seeing something that I'm not seeing in terms of how this might limit options, then would love to work with you on that. But respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you so much, Assemblymember, for bringing this Bill forward, and thank you for your generous cooperation that you'd even be willing to take more amendments. So thank you for that.

But I just want to emphasize this great conversation we have that, of course, heavy metals like arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury can cause irreversible damage and have no place in the infant formula and baby food. And we know with lead, there is no real safe level at all. And sadly, we know from the results from the recent congressional investigations and lawsuits brought by the California AG, Attorney General, that heavy metals do occur in these products.

This Bill, AB 89, could strengthen protections for young children who are especially vulnerable to negative effects of heavy metals, especially because of the line that we talked about today where parents often have really no choice. But if you're going to be boxed into an essential choice, you want to make sure that it doesn't have these heavy metal presence. And certainly we wouldn't want, I know it's a hypothetical example. We wouldn't even want 1 milligram of arsenic. That's a lot of arsenic in a baby formula.

But we definitely would want to arm parents with as much information as possible, especially if they're cornered into the only choosing one. So I'm going to recommend an aye vote. It has already been motioned and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item seven, AB 899. Muratsuchi. The motion is do pass and rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Thank you. That is out. Congratulations Assemblymember. And since that we're all here, let's just move quickly to the consent calendar and adopt the consent calendar. Can I get a motion? A second on the consent calendar? Moved and seconded on the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, if you could, please call the roll for the consent calendar.

The consent calendar consists of the following. For AB 861, Santiago and AB 990, Grayson. The motion is do pass and rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. Consent calendar. And for AB 1597, Alvarez. The motion is do pass and rereferred to the Committee on Judiciary. Consent calendar. [Roll Call]. The consent calendar has been passed.

The consent calendar is out. All right, let's go to item number 10. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan. AB 1042, which deals with pesticides and seeds. You may begin when ready.

Thank you. And I promised our colleague, Mr. Garcia, that I would be efficient, so I wll do my best. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I'm proud to present AB 1042, which is an incredibly simple bill that ensures that the Department of Pesticides regulation actually regulates all the pesticides in our food system. To be very clear, this Bill is not a ban. It bans nothing. It merely ensures that DPR has the ability to regulate pesticides that are sprayed in addition to pesticides that are on seeds.

California is one of the strongest and best funded pesticide regulators in the nation. However, Californians are currently exposed to a wide range of unregulated pesticides in unmonitored amounts simply because they were untreated seeds instead of sprayed on crops. Seeds are not static. Seeds are planted in soil, they are watered, and they become plants. Every element of the process, soil, water and crops, can therefore be avenues for unregulated pesticide contamination, putting farm workers, the environment, and our food system at risk.

I'm sure there will be a lot of questions about how many seeds are treated. We don't know, because this is currently unregulated and pesticides that are banned in California are coming in on these seeds. And so we are merely trying to expand the authority of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, or as I would argue, clarify the authority of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, that they should be regulating all pesticides, including those on seeds. With me today is Laura Deehan from Environment California. Thank you.

So, thank you, Committee Members. I'm Laura Deehan with Environment California State Director. And we're really excited to be working with Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and also with the American Bird Conservancy to support AB 1042. This Bill is really necessary to protect birds and bees and everyone who relies on a healthy environment. We're in the middle right now of what many are calling an insect apocalypse, and we're seeing dramatic biodiversity loss happening, which really threatens the web of life in which we all rely on.

A recent study found that America's agricultural landscape is 48 times more toxic than it was 25 years ago. And oddly, when is a pesticide not being considered a pesticide? Well, apparently when it's coated onto seeds that are being planted in the ground. But for decades now, companies have been treating seeds with toxic pesticides. And because of this loophole in the law, the use of pesticides on seeds is not being overseen by our own Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Experts estimate that this untracked source of pesticides is really significant today and that it's affecting the environment, that it's affecting human health and biodiversity. What's happening when the pesticides are applied on seeds is they grow into every part of the plant. They slough off as dust in the environment, and they contaminate the soil and the water. Like the streams and the ponds. Bees bring those pesticides back to their hives, where it's been linked to colony collapse disorder.

And also migrating songbirds have been found to actually eat seeds or eat parts of the seeds. It then suppresses their appetite, it affects reproduction, and those same chemicals threaten human health as well. So this important Bill will close this loophole, confirm that seeds treated with pesticides should be tracked, monitored, and that action should be taken to protect health by the Department of Pesticide Regulations. So we respectfully ask for an.aye vote.

We have Lucas Rhodes on the phone, but he can just be available for questions as necessary.

I appreciate that.

Is that okay?

Yes that's okay. So if there are any witnesses, sorry. If there are any members of the public who wish to add their support to the Bill, please come forward to the microphone.

Bill Allayaud, Environmental Working Group. Thank you.

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

Darryl Little, on behalf of NRDC in support.Thank you,

Andria Ventura, for clean water action in support.

All right, do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to this Bill? Please come forward. All right, four minutes between the both of you. Good morning.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the California Seed Association, seed-treated seeds and pesticide-treated seeds are very important for both organic and conventional agriculture. Yes, organic production still uses pesticides as well, just ones approved by their organic certification organization. I think there's wide agreement among scientific entities that using treated seeds will reduce the amount of foliar applications later in the process, especially at this time of the infancy of the seed.

The treated seeds protect the seed itself, get it off to a good start, and reduce the amounts of chemicals that need to be used later on in the life cycle, but also reducing the amount of passes by tractors, applications by labor, and all those areas. So it's generally viewed as a very positive part of the organic and conventional systems. So treated seeds are regulated. That needs to be established.

Like all pesticides, the active ingredients are approved by us EPA, and then they are given a label that strictly controls how those materials are used and as treated seeds. So they are regulated by U.S. EPA, and that is not- under federal law. The seed, once it's treated, though, is considered a treated article. So the treated article must be approved. They're pesticide approved, and then they are brought into California or done in here as well, and they are regulated under that sections of law.

Other treated articles are things like treated Wood textiles, such as scrubs and firefighter garments, and marine paints. So this is a section of law that has a different regulatory aspect under us EPA. As currently drafted, section one of the Bill directs the Director to adopt regulations in California to regulate how we do these and whatever requirements they're going to put together. However, subsection c prohibits the sale, distribution, and use of seeds upon enactment of law.

So we are concerned that seeds that are available today and be planted today will not be available on January 1, 2024. And that's a significant issue, and I think my fellow witness will talk more about that. But that's a significant issue that we think needs to be addressed. This Bill requires an entire additional level of regulation and processes that are already, again, the material is registered under U.S EPA, and then now it's going to go through a whole nother process here in California.

And we are concerned that some of those manufacturers, these materials will not agree to come through, our process in California that is yet still defined and that will reduce the amount of materials and opportunities for various seeds and various different plants such as small. We have 400 plus different commodities, some of them like kale, Bach Choy, colored cauliflower. Will entities go through the process just for that very specific small amount of product? And we think likely.

Can I ask, just so we have some time for the other witness as well, if you could wrap.

Yep. Sounds good. Thanks. And with that, we just appreciate the time and would like you to hold the Bill today in Committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members Taylor Roschen. On behalf of various agricultural associations, I'll keep this brief. I think Mr. Albiani made a good point. We understand it's not the author's intention to have an interim ban, but we are concerned that without clarity, that's going to be the impact and especially some of the commodities that Mr. Albiani mentioned. But particularly small specialty commodities, including culturally competent food, are grown using treated seed.

And so when we close those opportunities to source that kind of seed, we're closing opportunities for small, family-owned, diversified farms in California. So I just want to reiterate how challenging it is for a farmer to find new seed varietals that work in California, treated or not treated. It's upending your business. It's changing your business fundamentally. And we are concerned that it's death by a thousand cuts with issues like this that really impact the small, diversified farms in California.

So we respectfully request a no vote and we'll continue to work with the author on clarifying the amendment.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition?

Yeah. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Matthew Allen with Western growers. Also opposed.

It's good he sent you, id be

Chris Reardon, California Farm Bureau. Opposed.

Good afternoon, Chair, members. Paul Poyster with nutrient ag solutions. With respect opposed.

Thank you. Now moving to the phones. Do we have anyone on the phone lines that are here in support or opposition?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. We're going to first go to line 130. Your line is now open. Line 130.

Hello, Abigail Mighell on behalf of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, in support

Line 131.

John Bottorff with cleanearth4kids.org in very strong support.

Line 133.

Suzanne Hume, cleanearth4kids.org, strongly support. Thank you.

Line 125.

Catherine Dodd is advocating for chemical and toxic safety. Strongly support.

Line 124. Line 124, your line is now open.

We're going to move on to line 117.

Hardy Kern, American Bird Conservancy. Proud co-sponsor of this bill and strongly support

Line 115, your line is now open.

Vanessa Forsythe, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, and also with Clean Earth for Kids, support.

And once again, ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to express support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero. We're now going to go to line 79. Pardon me, just a moment. Line 79, please press one, then zero again. And it appears that we have no one. Pardon me, just a moment. Line 79, your line is now open.

Thank you. Sakereh Carter on behalf of Sierra Club California in support

Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you so much. With that, we will bring it back to the Committee Members. Does anyone have any questions, comments? Yes, Mr. Zbur.

First of all, I'll move the bill.

Thank you.

So I think this is really important. I think there is a regulatory structure in place on pesticides, but I do think it's a different set of issues when it comes to treated seeds and really how those affect species in the environment, birds eating seeds that are treated. I do think there needs to be a regulatory program, and I think that's what this merely does. I am looking at the language and am sympathetic to the whole issue about the timing on seeds in this interim period.

And it looks like there needs to be some work on that to address the concerns because it just says the person shall not deliver, sell, or use the seeds treated. That's not registered, and there's not any timing with respect to that registration process. So I'm hoping you'll be willing to work with the Farm Bureau and the other folks on those issues. But I do think that it's really important.

And this, to me, just sets up what I like, which is regulatory programs that are actually looking at the impact on the use of chemicals in the environment, what it's sort of doing, and also looking at what happens, whether or not you can do it without treatment, or whether or not there's some justification for treatment, and that whatever would go to, that the impacts are not worse. So I like regulatory programs. And so we really want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I do think it's important, and I'll be supporting it strongly.

Thank you, Mr. Zbur.

Assembly Member McKinnor.

Yes. Good afternoon. It seems like it's not the author's intent to ban seed with pesticide, but to close those loopholes of bringing seeds into California that use pesticides that are not registered for use in California. Your opposition of the bill makes it sounds like you want to keep those exploiting those loopholes, but I don't think you do. So hopefully, you would work with the author to make some amendments. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. McKinnor.

Assembly Member Senator Pacheco.

I'm just curious to see if the author or any of the witnesses have anything to say as to what opposition had brought up and what their concerns are.

Yeah, and if I could, I said that we had Lucas Rhoads, who's our expert on the phone line from NRDC, and I think he can really address some of the comments made by Mr. Albiani. So, Lucas, get ready. But I will say that, it's funny.

We really thought that the way it was written, the way the article modified the sentence, that it was clear. It may not be clear. You know, I said it earlier today in a different hearing. I'm always the first to admit I may not get it right the first time. So. Yes, and also we had another colleague who isn't here right now, but who had asked about a grace period, which I'm also incredibly open to, which I think addresses some of the concerns. So we'll be discussing that with them as well. And the conversations are ongoing. But, Lucas, do you want to chime in?

Yeah. I'll just quickly note that Section C of the bill prohibits the use of seeds that are treated with pesticide products. Those pesticide products are not registered with DPR. Currently, there are 210 registered seed treatment products that are approved by DPR in California, including 69 unique active ingredients spanning insecticides, fungicides, all sorts of other pesticides. Sale and use of seeds that are treated with these registered products would not be affected at all by Section C. And so growers will have plenty of options available to them.

They just will not be able to purchase seeds out of state which are treated with pesticides that are not registered or approved by DPR. As the Assembly Member just said, this is just a loophole in existing law. These products have no business being used in California, and this closes that loophole.

Mr. Zbur.

Just had a follow up question. So I was reading C as well, and that's what was giving me the problems. And I thought that it was referring to when it said that it's not registered for use pursuant to this chapter, that it required a new set of registrations. But it sounds like, and maybe the gentleman from NRDC can confirm this, that there are already pesticides that are registered or are permitted for use. So all those would continue, right?

Yes.

But then in addition to that, so I think that would mean that if there's a pesticide that's registered in California and the seed is treated with that, those would continue unabated, and then there would be a regulatory process that could result in some of those ceasing at some point, but it would go through a regulatory program. Is that the intent of the bill?

And I'll say that's the intent, and I think that's where we think the article modifies the way... It's funny, I think they read it the way you originally read it, and we read it the way Ms. McKinnor originally read it. So that's why we're going to make sure we're all on the same page about how it's written. You were examples of what is apparently the confusion.

Well, with the Chair's allowance, I think the other concern is for those seeds that are treated in California with allowable use products in California, what does that regulatory structure look like? And because the bill gives broad authority to the Department to establish a regulatory structure. So while we understand the author's intent is to go after those seeds that are treated with products not approved for use in California, we do wonder what that regulatory structure would look like for existing seeds in California treated with approved products. And I think that's where our question still looms of what's the structure. But we appreciate your commitment, and we'll continue to work with you on that.

Any further questions, comments? If not, I'll invite the author to close.

I think that the analysis did a really good job of talking about how there is, and thank you to the Committee for their work on this. There is a really great and robust process here in California to regulate pesticides, and it's working. We're ensuring that we've got the pesticides out there that best protect our agricultural community. Often we protect pesticides because they need to go after an invasive species, if you will. They also protect our environment and our bees and our butterflies and our critters.

And that's what DPR is meant to do, and that is what they're doing in the pesticide regulation space. But they are currently not doing that for pesticides that are being put on seeds. And it's an incredibly huge loop poll and one we're just trying to close, and we believe that same process will apply to seeds. But again, I thought it was funny that the same lack of clarity was illustrated here. So we will continue to work on that and make sure we get it right.

All right. Thank you. I thank the author for bringing this bill forward. It's past time we better understand the use and impact of pesticides on seeds in the state and establish a program to make sure these pesticides are being used safely. And as always, will you please keep our staff and myself apprised of any developments on this bill? I'm recommending an aye vote. We have a motion, but no second yet. So I'm looking for a second. You moved it? Yes, I'm looking for a second. Assembly Member McKinnor seconds. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. I recommending an aye vote. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item 10, AB 1042, Bauer-Kahan. The motion is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] That bill is out. Yeah, we have enough votes. We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 to 1.

6 votes. That bill is out. Congratulations. Looking for Mr. Garcia. I'm not sure if you saw outside. If you would like to present his bill. Also, on our first bill. Sorry. On the first bill presented today, we did not have a quorum, which was AB 1423, item 2, by Schiavo. We did not get a motion and a second. Could we get a motion, a second for that bill? Moved and seconded. Thank you. File item number 2. This is PFAs on artificial turfs. Yes. Since it has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. I am recommending an aye vote, of course.

Item 2, AB 1423, Schiavo. The motion is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] That's on call.

All right, thank you. That bill is on call. Now we'll move to file item number 5 by Assembly Member Ting. You may present when you are ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. AB 347 would require the Department of Toxic Substances Control to ensure compliance with existing laws regulating the use of toxic chemicals in cleaning products, juvenile products, and food packaging. As you heard earlier today with the three bills presented around PFAS, and I myself have done a number of pieces of legislation on PFAS that become law. We've been able to make a historic amount of progress on this chemical. However, there's been little regulation or oversight to see how well the compliance is going.

Our bill, AB 347, would ensure that DTSC would be in charge of doing that compliance and really providing that accountability to ensure that all the bills that are becoming law would actually be implemented. I'm completely committed to working with environmental and business stakeholders throughout the process to ensure we get meaningful compliance with these laws. Respectfully ask for aye vote on AB 347.

Thank you. Assembly Member Ting, do you have any witnesses? No? Okay. Any members of public in the hearing room who wish to testify and support, please come forward.

Hello. Andria Ventura with Clean Water Action. We certainly support in concept. We think there's work to be done, and we look forward to doing it.

All right. And with the primary witnesses... Oh, one more.

I was going to come up under the infamous other category, but we support the discussion and effort to get this right. As I mentioned a bill I was up on earlier today is that this has been kind of deferred action for a couple of years, so we'll be at the table when asked to to help solve this. Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

I should have said Bill Allayaud, Environmental Working Group.

Thank you. Now will the primary witnesses opposition please come forward.

Good afternoon again. Nicole Quinonez on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association and the Fragrance Creators Association with an opposed unless amended position on AB 347. HCPA and FCA were both lead negotiators of the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017, and HCPA ultimately supported that groundbreaking legislation. The Cleaning Product Act is a labeling law focused on consumer ingredient communication, providing intentionally added ingredients and what are termed non-functional constituents to consumers. It does not require disclosure of non-intentionally added ingredients or contaminants.

By adding enforcement to the law, DTSC would essentially be required to test a product for the presence of anything. Then, if something is discovered that is not disclosed, DTSC would need to determine if it was intentionally added to know whether a violation has occurred. This is very different from the PFAS enforcement portion of the bill. That said, if the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act portion remains in the bill, we have requested amendments to ensure the enforcement is fair and implementable.

Our amendments would seek to do the following, clarify that selling one or more units of the same product constitutes a single violation. A fine applying to every product in commerce would make unnecessarily punitive, and we ask that AB 347 be amended to make clear violations are not multiplied by each product. For example, there is another statute related to labeling of non-flushable wipes that clarifies that selling one or more units of the same product in violation of the law constitutes a single violation for each day.

We request limiting the public posting of citations to only those with ongoing non-compliance after DTSC's initial notification of non compliance or once a violation has been settled. This is like the process at the California Air Resources Board. Well intentioned actors should have the chance to fix any issues identified by DTSC and pay the associated fines as appropriate without being posted on a website without context to the public.

We'd also request to make clear that DTSC is only required to receive complaints as it relates to the online and labeling disclosure requirements of the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act. Without guardrails, DTSC could be redirecting significant resources to collecting, compiling, and analyzing consumer input on a number of unrelated issues or products. And lastly, we'd request to ensure DTSC's regulatory authority does not allow them to alter the requirements laid out in the original statute.

The statute was meticulously negotiated, so it's important to us DTSC not be able to change what is laid out in the law. The latest amendments do appear to have reduced their regulatory authority, which is appreciated. But just quickly to serve an example, to minimize compliance challenges the statute is very clear as to when manufacturers must update websites and product labels after an ingredient is added to one of the authoritative lists, which are living documents that trigger additional disclosure.

DTSC's guidance must be aligned with the statutory requirements and may not establish new timelines. So for these reasons, HCPA and FCA are respectfully opposed unless amended, and we look forward to continued conversations with the author. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room wish to testify in opposition? Please come forward. All right, seeing none. Phone moderator, do we have any witnesses on the phone line? Support or opposition to AB 347.

Those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero. And as a reminder, press one, then zero only one time. As pressing one, then zero a second time will remove you from the queue. We'll first go to line 134. Your line is now open.

Thank you. This is John Bottorff, CleanEarth4Kids.org, strongly support.

Line 135.

Hello, this is Suzanne Hume, CleanEarth4Kids.org, strongly support

Line 125.

Hi. Catherine Dodd with Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, support.

Line 115.

Vanessa Forsythe, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice and Clean Earth 4 Kids, support. Thank you.

Line 78.

Phillip Vander Klay with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else who wishes to speak.

All right, thank you. Now bring it back to Committee. Do we have questions, comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. Bill is moved, and do I have a second? Second by Assembly Member Pacheco. All right, I invite the author to close.

Thank you very much. Appreciate the opposition's comments. Just to reiterate, AB 347 doesn't change any existing statute. We just want to ensure that DTSC oversees and ensures that these laws are being followed and enforced. We appreciate the feedback. We'll continue to work with opposition to see how we should address their concerns. With that respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 347.

All right. Thank you, Assembly Member Ting. I really appreciate your efforts on this bill. Trying to figure out the proper oversight of these chemical prohibition programs is complex but very much needed. We pass these laws with a hope and understanding that they will be complied with. However, we do not have concrete information that this is happening. And your bill creates a possible path for both enforcement and guidance for the various industries compelled to comply. I support your efforts and I am recommending an aye vote. We have the motion and second, and the motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item 5, AB 347, Ting. The motion is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] So that's on call. We have four votes.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next up, Assembly Bill 1716, Assembly Member Lee

Well, thank you, acting chair and members. AB 716 is a Committee Bill that makes various technical changes to the six statewide programs managed by the certified unified program agencies, or CUPAs. These programs deal with the handling and storage of hazardous materials. The goal is Bill is improving clarity of both the law for the regulators and the regulated community. We're working with various stakeholders and we'll be continuing those very technical discussions as the Bill moves forward.

With that, I'd like to introduce my primary support witness here in the room. I have Justin Malan with the California Environmental Health directors on behalf of the CUPAs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members, I'll be very quick. I know that the hour is late and it is one of your bills, so I'm hoping we get a good vote on it. I also wanted to commend not only the Committee, but Committee staff. Josh is awesome to work with. He really has been helping me herd the cats. This is largely a technical, it's intended to be non-controversial. We want to keep it that way, but it has to be done.

Most of the work that these locals are doing in 140,000 inspections, we're doing, most of the work is required under statute. So every now and again we have to change the law and that's what we're doing here. I want to just draw your attention. If you saw it in your email inboxes, this tells you what a CUPA is. I know for most people it's a four-letter word. It is a four-letter word.

It's the local regulators that do all this hard work at the local level. So again, thank you for Committee for working with us on this. We committed to work with the Department of Defense, the industry and the administration to make sure that this program stays effective, fair and enforceable. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room wishing to testify in support thank you. Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room here to testify in opposition, seeing none. Phone moderator do we have any witnesses on the phone line in either support or opposition to AB 1716. Hearing none. Oh this is easy.

Bonus points.

Let the phone moderator do that. Ask first if you get a problem.

Does the phone moderator hear me? No, my mic is on.

I'm sorry. Yes. If anyone wishes to speak in support or opposition of this Bill, please press one, then zero. There is no one.

Thank you. And are there any questions from any committee members? Any questions? Comments?

I'll move the Bill, second.

Is there a second? We have a motion and a second. Can we please take a roll call vote?

Can I close real quick?

Oh, I'm sorry.

It's okay. I should have mentioned this is our Committee Bill, so it's of course very technical in nature and thank all the folks for agreeing to make these changes our Committee Bill so hopefully they're not controversial. Respectfully ask for aye vote.

[Roll Call]

That has six votes. It passes out.

Six votes as passes out. Congratulations to ourselves.

Yes.

Now let's go to item number nine, AB 143 by Assemblymember Garcia. And thank you for patiently waiting for us. You may present when you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. This bill would allow the Office of State Marshal to identify methods that will capture more detailed data relating to fires, damages, and injuries caused by both dangerous fireworks and safe and sane fireworks. State fire marshals shall provide to the appropriate policy and budget committees of the respective houses of the Legislature a workload analysis of resources needed to further assist in the training of local fire and law enforcement personnel regarding the enforcement of statewide programs concerning illegal and dangerous fireworks.

Finally, this bill ensures that local nonprofits in our communities who are selling safe and sane fireworks are given funds to assist them in the public education and awareness campaigns regarding the safe and responsible use of safe and sane fireworks and the dangers and risks posed by the use of illegal fireworks. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You got a bipartisan motion. Please go ahead. Oh, never mind. Please go forward.

Mr. Chairman, Members Jason Gonsalvez, representing TNT fireworks as well as the City of Elk Grove in strong support. We'd like to thank the author, the committee, and in particular the committee consultant for the assistance on the amendments between the prior committee as well as this committee. So we very much appreciate your assistance and we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Dennis Revell also on behalf of TNT Fireworks, I'd be happy to respond to any technical questions, if there are any.

Great. Thank you. Any members of the public in the hearing room wish to add on their support for AB 1403 please come forward. Seeing none, are there any members of the public in the hearing room wish to testify in opposition to AB 1403? Seeing none. Phone moderator do we have any witnesses on the phone on support or opposition to AB 1403.

Mr. Chair, we have several people who've signaled that they wish to speak in support or opposition. Just a moment. And once again, for those who, press one, then zero if you wish to speak, we're going to go to line 136.

This is John Bottle for the clinicsforkids.org. Strongly support.

Line 119. Your line is now open.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members, Angie Manetti in support of the bill on behalf of Phantom Fireworks.

And we have at least one more person, just a moment. And we will now go to line 137. Your line is now open.

Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth 4 Kids strongly support.

Mr. Chair. There is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

All right, thank you so much. Bring it back to committee. Do you have any questions or comments? I am also looking for a second. Seconded by Mr. Zbur. All right. If not, I will ask the author to close.

Thank you again, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you so much for bringing the bill forward. I'm recommending an aye vote on this. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is item number nine, AB 1403 Garcia. The motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Six votes that passes out. Congratulations. All right, so that is all the bills. We've gone over all the bills today at least once. So, madam secretary, let's go through in file item order to have members add on, but I think we'll have to keep here for a little while. So let's go through file item order.

Item one, AB 727 Weber. The vote stands at 5-1. [Roll Call] Item two, AB 1423, Schiavo. The vote is 4-1, [Roll Call] So currently that vote has 6-2 so that passes. Item three, AB 246 Papin. The vote is 5-0. [Roll Call] So now the vote stands there at 7-0, so that's out.

Item four, AB 756, Papan. The vote is 4-0 with Hoover not voting. [Roll Call] So that brings the vote to 6-0. Item five, AB 347 Ting. The vote stands at 4-0. [Roll Call] That brings the vote to 6-1, so that bill is out. Item six, AB 418 Gabriel. The vote stands at 4-0, with Hoover not voting. [Roll Call]

That brings the vote to 6-1, with the Vice Chair not voting and that bill is out. Item seven, AB 899, Muratsuchi. The vote is 6-0 with the Vice Chair not voting. [Roll Call] That brings the vote to 8-0. Item eight, AB 1059 Friedman. The vote stands at 6-0 with the Vice Chair not voting. [Roll Call] So the vote is 7-1. Item nine, AB 1403 Garcia. The vote is 6-0.

[Roll Call] Same. Item 10, AB 1042 Bauer-Kahan. The vote stands at 6-1. [Roll Call] Item 10, AB 1042 Bauer-Kahan [Roll Call] So that brings the vote to 7-2, and on the item 11 AB 1716. The Committee Bill. The vote is 6-0. [Roll Call] That brings the vote to 7-0. On the consent calendar, we have seven. [Roll Call] So 9-0 on that.

So all of the votes have been passed.

Thank you, committee members, for being here. I will hold the roll open until Vice Chair Hoover and Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan return because Bauer-Kahan is having her committee right after this anyways. So until she gets to have the room.

All right, this is for add ons.

Add on for item five, AB 347 Ting. Hoover. Hoover no. Item nine, AB 143. Garcia? Hoover. Hoover aye. Item 11, AB 1716, our Committee Bill. Hoover. Hoover, aye.

We'll go through again for all the bills.

Item one, AB 727 Bauer-Kahan, Bauer-Kahan aye. Item number two, AB 1423, Schiavo, Bauer-Kahan, Bauer-Kahan aye. Item number three, AB 246. Bauer-Kahan? Bauer-Kahan, aye. Item four, AB 756 Papin, Bauer-Kahan. Bauer-Kahan aye. Going back to item five, AB 347 Ting, Bauer-Kahan. Bauer-Kahan, aye. Thank you. Item seven, AB 899, Muratsuchi, you voted. Okay. Item nine, AB 1403. Garcia, Bauer-Kahan, Bauer-Kahan aye.

And item 11, AB 1716, ESTM Committee. Bauer-Kahan, Bauer-Kahan aye. Yes. You're on the consent, so we're done.

All right, this concludes our ESTM hearing.