Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Thank you.

Good morning. We'd like to welcome you to the May 3rd, 2023, Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. Welcome. We have 178 bills to consider this morning as a part of our regular ordered hearing. Before we begin, let's like to encourage the public provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the Committee website at Apro.Assembly.CA.Gov.com Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. The hearing room is now open.

All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its stream on the Assembly website at Assembly.CA.Gov. Today's Events we encourage the public to monitor the Committee's website for updates. We will accept public comment on any Bill placed on the suspense file by the Committee today and for which the author waived presentation before the close of the regular ordered hearing. Testimony on any such bills will be limited to a statement of name, organization, if any, and position on the Bill.

The Committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total. As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation which were posted outside the door. I encourage members of the public who are in attendance to be aware of and observe those rules. Please be aware that violations of these rules or other violations of General courtesy or decorum may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes.

We now move to establishing a quorum, Madam Secretary. Call the roll.

Holden. Here. Dahle. Bryan. Calderon. Here. Wendy Carrillo. Dixon. Here Fong Hart Lorenzo Mathis Papin Pellerin Robert Reevis, Sanchez Weber Wilson.

Okay, we do have a quorum. I want to note that we have two bills that are going to be pulled from the agenda today. AB 175 Mckinnor which was to be heard and AB 127 Irwin which was on the suspense file. We'll now take up the consent calendar motion. It's been seconded. Madam Clerk, please read the consent Calendar.

AB 71 Rodriguez. AB 298 Mathis. AB 332 Lee. AB 334 Blanca Rubio. AB 379 Rodriguez. AB 427 Alvarez. AB 691 Ting. AB 712 Wendy Carrio AB 820 Rayes AB 873. Berman AB 910 Wilson AB 946.

Stephanie WyNn AB 1071 Hoover AB 1141 Megan Dahle AB 1214 Maienschein AB 1246 Stephanie WyNN AB 1261 Santiago AB 1433 Mike Fong AB 1452 Mathis AB 1459 Ramos AB 1539 Berman AB 1541 Mike Fong AB 1542 Mike Fong AB 1583 Committee on Agriculture AB 1665 Soria and AB 1716 Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials.

Thank you. We've got a motion. It's been seconded. Roll call on the consent calendar.

Holden? Aye. Holden, aye. Dahle? Dahle, aye. Bryan. Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye. Wendy Carillo? Dixon? Dixon, aye. Fong? Fong, aye. Hart. Aye. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. Mathis? Mathis, aye. Pappin? Pappin, aye. Pellerin? Pellerin, aye. Robert? Rivas? Sanchez? Weber? Weber, aye? Wilson.

11 to zero calendar is out. We'll hold it open for Members. We'll now move to bills that are going to be presented today and we see our first author, Luce Rivas, you're here to present on AB 1290. This is a dupas.

Good morning. Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Today I would like to present my Bill AB 1290 which seeks to phase PVC PFAS, PETGs, nondetectable pigments, oxo degradable additives and pigments that make PET bottles opaque or colors other than transparent blue or green. These are six of 11 plastic materials and additives that have been identified by both NGOs and industry leaders such as Coca Cola and Walmart as the most problematic and unnecessary. These materials are extremely toxic, create health risks or are extremely challenging to recycle.

Yet these plastic additives and materials are still produced and sold to consumers. I have added author amendments in policy Committee to keep the cost Low by having the Attorney General enforce these provisions. According to the Committee analysis, the cost for the Attorney General to enforce this Bill is minor and absorbable. Today I have two witnesses to testify in support of AB 1290. Kayla Robinson on behalf of breast cancer Prevention partners and Mark Aprea on behalf of Republic Services. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair and Members Kayla Robinson on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, an organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing our exposure to chemicals linked to the disease. We are deeply concerned about the toxicity of the plastic, materials and additives banned in AB 1290. Today I will focus on three of the most toxic materials and additives covered by the Bill, PVC PFAS and oxo degradable additives. No plastic creates more harm than the life cycle of PVC.

PVC production and disposal uses and releases highly toxic chemicals including vinyl chloride which are linked to breast cancer and other harms. The East Palestine, Ohio train derailment and spill demonstrates the danger of transporting these chemicals and it will take years to know the full extent of this environmental and health disaster. AB 1290 would also ban per and polyfluoral alkal substances or PFAS from all packaging. PFAs are linked to numerous severe health problems, including cancer, hormone disruption, kidney and liver damage, and developmental harm.

And California has already banned PFAS from numerous product categories and AB 1290 will just continue to reduce exposure to our state. And finally, oxodegradable additives are added to plastic and fragment them into microplastics. Banning them, like the EU did in 2021 will reduce microplastics released into our air, water and food.

AB 1290 will reduce California's exposure to toxic chemicals resulting from the manufacturing, disposal and breakdown of these plastics, and therefore reduce health costs for the state and the approximately 32,000 Californian women who will be diagnosed with breast cancer each year and the 4600 women who will die from it cannot afford to wait another decade to be better protected. And I respectfully urge your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Mark Aprea I'm here on behalf of Republic Services. First, we want to thank Assembly Member Rivas for introducing this important measure. In recent years, the state has moved to eliminate PFAS from multiple product categories, including clothing, textiles, paper based food packaging, firefighting foam and children's products because of the health concerns associated with these toxic forever chemicals.

Republic Services has long supported such efforts to keep PFAS out of the solid waste stream, and we do so again in our support of AB 1290. Now, some of the opposition to AB 1290 have suggested that this measure runs counter to and undermines Senate Bill 54 of last year and that there was some commitment to not enact future legislation impacting single use plastic packaging. Mr. Chair Members, AB 1290 does not run counter to or undermine SB 54.

Republic services supported the first iteration of SB 54 going back four years. We were intimately involved in the development of that legislation and at no time was there any commitment or promise to not enact future legislation impacting single use plastic packaging. AB 1290 phases out a subset of materials that are the most toxic or pose the greatest challenges to recycling. As such, we respectfully request your I vote on AB 1290. Thank you. Thank you. I will look to the public.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in support or in opposition?

Thank you. Izzy Swindler with Shah Yoda, Antoine Schmelzer and Lang on behalf of Mayor of London, Breed of San Francisco and sport. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Amara Ager on behalf of a handful of organizations including the Surf Rider Foundation, Plastic Free Future, Five, Gayers Grove Collaborative, Cleanse Lobbying Coalition, California Compost Coalition, Rethink Waste and the California State Parks foundation in support. Thank you, Nicole Curryan with Californians Against Waste as a proud co sponsor in support.

Thank you, Tara Thornton of Freedom Angels in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, Tim Schustig with the American Chemistry Council. We are here in opposition to AB 1290. There have been two bills passed over the last couple of sessions. SB 54 by Senator Allen and SB set 343 by. By Senator Allen. Both set up a very rigorous and comprehensive packaging, recycling and reduction program at Calrecycle.

We think any cost associated with AB 1290, however negligible, is unwarranted and unnecessary, given the fact that cow recycle is currently in the process of developing implementing regulations. Both bills, taken together, look at how to reduce, recycle and establish criteria for determining products that can be labeled recyclable under SB 343. Those criteria that are established in that Bill, look at various components of packaging, including those substances that are added to packaging, as well as labels, inks and other components.

So producers are going to have no other responsibility or no other requirement other than to meet the requirements of SB 343 if they're going to meet the compliance obligations under SB 54. So for these reasons, we are opposed to AB 1290. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against this Bill? And I let the last speaker have a little latitude because we didn't have a witness in opposition. Seeing none. We'll come back to the Committee. Is there any questions or comments on behalf of the Committee? Seeing none. Is there a motion? Thank you. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I have listened to the opposition both in Natural Resources Committee and now here today. I have to say it's disingenuous to suggest that these problematic plastics were intended to be covered under SB 54. I was, as the chair of Natural Resources and as a joint author of SB 54, fully aware. I'm fully aware of what that Bill was and was not intended to do.

The plastics covered under my Bill are independent of that discussion and intended to address a serious omission in our regulatory process that does not Cover these non recyclable and toxic materials. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We appreciate your hard work in this area. The Bill is out. Do pass, roll call.

Thank you.

Okay, we need authors. In the meantime, we'll turn to the suspense calendar and dispense with that. Let's make that happen. Dr. Weber, AB 727, the due pass.

Good morning, chair and Committee. I'm here today to present AB 727. Which prohibits the sale, distribution and manufacturing of cleaning products containing PFAS, which we just heard a lot about. DOJ anticipates minor and absorbable cost with this Bill. This Bill is sponsored by the Environmental Working Group, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And do you have a witness to present? Hi. Bill Allio for the Environmental Working Group. The sponsor. Co-sponsor, actually. This is sound fiscal policy to protect the health of Californians and to prevent PFAS from reaching water bodies because we don't want it to get into our drinking water. AB 727 will help do that. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone from the public that would like to comment in support or in opposition?

Tara Thornton of Freedom Angels in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Nicole Kenos, on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association, respectfully opposed unless amended. But appreciate the conversations with the author and sponsors so far and look forward to working together. Thank you.

Thank you. Come back to the Committee. See no one else prepared to speak from the public. We have a motion. It's been seconded. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask your aye vote this is do pass. And it's out on a broll call Mr. Lowenthal, representing 1013 and that enjoys a dupas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And Members, I'm pleased to present AB 1013, which will require type 48 licensees to offer for sale to customers drug testing devices, such as test trips that can detect the presence of controlled substances that are commonly used to spike or lace an individual's drink, which we know on the street as roofying. Due to the challenges of addressing and prosecuting this crime after has taken place, preventative measures are essential in order to curb instances of drugging.

Requiring that these devices are offered for sale at type 48 license establishments is common sense way to protect individuals from being drugged and falling victim to other crimes. This Bill has received bipartisan support. And. No, no votes. And has no registered opposition.

No witnesses today.

No witnesses, sir.

We'll turn to the public. Those in favor or in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Is there a motion seconded by Calderon? Okay, this is a do pass out on a roll call.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Pappen. Okay, so we will turn to the suspense calendar. Madam Clerk, read the suspense calendar.

AB. 61. Brian, AB. 86. Joan Sawyer. AB. 225. Grayson, AB. 235. Blanca Rubio. AB 238. Marasucci, AB 249. Holden, AB. 260. Santiago, AB. 265 burner, AB 270. Lee, AB. 294. Petrie Norris AB 299. Holden AB 34 Holden AB 311 Santiago AB 312 Rayes AB 315 Bernard Bauer Kehan AB 323 Holden AB 345. Wilson AB 351 Chen AB 376 Via Poodnar AB 380 Arambala AB 388.

Connolly AB 393 loose Reevis AB 395. Rayes AB 414 Rayes AB 419 Bauer Khan AB 420 AgU Curry AB 424 Brian AB 428 Waldrine AB 437 Jackson AB 444 Addis AB 459 Haney AB 468. Cook Silver AB 472 Wicks AB 484. Gabriel AB 53. Juan Carrio AB 54 Rayes AB 58 Petrie Norris AB 531 Irwin AB 550 Shiavo AB 553.

Ramos AB 560 Bennett AB 564 Via Poudoir AB 567 Ting AB 573.

Garcia AB 576 Weber AB 579 Ting AB 581 Wendy Carrio AB 583 Wicks AB 586 Calderon AB 593 Haney AB 598 Wicks AB 603 Savantis AB 608 Shiavo AB 69 Papin AB 613 Haney AB 618 Bauer Cahan AB 638 McCotty AB 672 Jackson AB 680 Blanca Rubio AB 684 tar AB 697 Davies AB 719 burner AB 725 Lowenthal AB 744 Juan career AB 746 Sanchez AB 761 Friedman AB 765.

Wood AB 767 Gibson AB 779 Wilson AB 789 Berman AB 811 Mike Fong AB 818 Petrie Norris AB 827. Garcia AB 833 loose Reevis AB 835 Lee AB 847 loose Reevis AB 853 Maienschein AB 861 Santiago AB 865. Garcia AB 867. Friedman AB 871 Haney AB 881 Ting AB 890 Joe Patterson AB 891 Irwin AB 94. Calderon AB 932 Ting AB 953.

Connolly AB 966 Davies AB 1015 Calderon AB 1042 Bauer Cahan AB 1051 Savantas AB 1056 Davis AB 1059 Friedman AB 1064 Low AB 1067 Jim Patterson AB 1212, 1112 Mckinnor AB 1159 Aguir Curry AB 1190 ayerwin AB 122 Lackey AB 1212 Hart AB 1232 Connolly AB 1237 Petri Norris AB 1244 Holden AB 1247 Alvarez AB 1251 Loose Reevis AB 1254 Flora AB 1267 Ting AB 1272 Wood AB 1295 Friedman AB 13 Six Wendy Correa AB 1321 Bonter AB 1334 Pellerin AB 1338 Petrie Norris AB 1351 Haney AB 1360 Mccarty AB 1361 Hoover AB 1380 Berman AB 14 Six Mccarty AB 14 Seven Addis AB 1418 McKinna AB 1434 Sanchez AB 1437 Erwin AB 1484 Zabur AB 1496 Papan AB 15 Eight Ramos AB 1520 Bonter AB 1524 Lowenthal AB 1540 Mike Fong AB 1543 Mike Fong AB 1547 McKinnon AB 1573 Friedman AB 1579 Garcia AB 1585 Ward AB 16 Three Alvarez AB 16 Five Gallagher AB 1638 Mike Fong AB 1642 Gibson AB 1664 Friedman AB 1672 Haney AB 1723 Waldren and AB 1763 Committee on Agriculture. Thank you.

The suspense calendar is deemed approved. We'll now resume our presentations day. And Ms. Quirk Silva, you're here on AB 138. Welcome your mic.

Okay. Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1308 would prohibit a public agency from imposing a new minimum parking requirement on a project to remodel, update, renovate, or add to a single family residence, provided the project does not cause the single family resident to exceed a floor area ratio restriction. Current regulations among a number of cities and counties require any single family residence owner to add two covered parking spaces for any remodel update or add on.

However, under current law, local governments cannot impose any parking requirement for accessory dwelling units. Parking structures on single family residents can cost upward of 25,000, take up vital land space on the property, and yet families may not own any additional cars. This rule creates an inequities for homeowners seeking to build additions that often do not generate any additional parking demand. AB 1308 does not prohibit property owners from building parking.

It would simply give them the flexibility to decide how much parking to build based on their need and affordability instead of requiring them to comply with a one size fits all mandate. AB 1308 has had bipartisan support.

Very good. Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment either in support or opposition? Seeing none, we'll come back to the Committee. Is there a motion? Thank you. The Bill is out on a do pass. Republicans voting Aye, with Ms. Dixon and Ms. Sanchez voting no.

Thank you Members.

Thank you, Mr. Haney AB 1286.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1286 is a patient safety Bill that establishes first in the nation protections from life threatening medication errors at understaffed and unsafe pharmacies. Specifically, the Bill Requires mandatory reporting of all medication errors to a third party entity approved by the California State Board of Pharmacy. It also addresses the inadequate staffing and unsafe working conditions in many community chain pharmacies that can lead to medication errors. Chain Pharmacies and the pharmacists who work for them are instrumental in delivering care to Californians.

However, recent news reports have highlighted alarming medication errors in this setting, including errors that have led to hospitalization or death. Additionally, there have been reports of unsanitary conditions in community chain pharmacies, including rodent infestations. Insufficient staffing, unsanitary conditions, or lack of autonomy to make clinical decisions is in the best interest of the patient can lead to an increase in medication errors.

And while significant time and research has been dedicated to evaluating medication errors occurring in inpatient settings like hospitals, similar research and information sharing does not exist in the community pharmacy setting. Because of this, medication errors are widely underreported and unknown and have detrimental effects on patients. Unfortunately, there is no requirement under current law for pharmacies to track medication errors or to consider the pharmacy working conditions. This will address those issues by requiring mandatory reporting, giving pharmacy staff autonomy over working conditions.

As the analysis notes, this Bill will have minor and observable costs, and as we've mentioned, I'm committed to working on language, specifically on pharmacy closures, and hope to take amendments that will address some of the opposition's concerns. Here to testify with me today is the President of the Board of Pharmacy, Xiongo, and Anne Sodergren, who is the Executive Director of the Board of Pharmacy, who's available for technical Questions.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chairperson Holden, Vice Chair, Dalia, Members of the Committee, on behalf of the California State Board of Pharmacy, I sincerely thank Assemblymember Haney for authoring this important public health measure and the Committee and its staff for its consideration of this measure today. My name is Sango, President of the California State Board of Pharmacy. By statute, the Board is a consumer protection agency charged with regulating the practice of pharmacy, explicitly stated in pharmacy law.

Whenever the protection of the public is inconsistent with our interests sought to be promoted, the protection of the public shall be paramount. Consistent with this legislative mandate, the Board is sponsoring AB 12861 of the most significant patient safety measures ever sponsored by the Board.

As has been reported in the media, discussed nationally, witnessed and experienced by patients, and demonstrated through the Board's workforce surveys, current workplace challenges, most notably in community chain pharmacies, are placing patients at risk as time is limited I'll focus my testimony on key findings from the board survey.

Of the survey responses from community chain pharmacists, 78% said they do not believe they have sufficient time to provide adequate screening prior to the Administration of immunizations 83% say they do not believe they have sufficient time to provide appropriate patient consultation and 91% they did not believe staffing in their primary work site is appropriate to ensure adequate patient care. These responses paint a picture right for consumer harm. The urgency of this issue cannot be overstated.

For purposes of the meeting here today, though, I'll highlight that the Board believes any fiscal impacts associated with this measure to be minor and absorbable. Good public Policy and the Board's consumer protection mandate demand that the Board take action to prevent future medication error. I thank you for your time, your consideration of AB 1286, and your assistance helping the Board protect California consumers.

Thank you. You're here for technical okay, we'll turn to the public. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor or in opposition? Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Alberto Torico, on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council in support.

Good morning. Jennifer Snyder, on behalf of the California Community Pharmacy Coalition, we're unfortunately an opposed and less amended position. Just want to say that we believe that there will be significant costs to the Board and also significant costs to the healthcare system 1286 will authorize pharmacists in charge to arbitrarily close pharmacies, and that will force patients, especially in rural and underserved areas, into the hospital emergency room.

Pharmacy closures are highly likely with AB 1286 if the Bill is passed, because it allows a pharmacist in charge to close a pharmacy if they believe either there's insufficient staffing or there is some type of undefined immediate risk or harm or safety to employ your patients. We think this type of authority is unprecedented in the healthcare setting, and it places patient access to medications at risk, especially if they show up in a pharmacy.

That pharmacy has been closed without any notice to the patient or to the prescribers when that occurs. Lastly, I just want to say real quickly that we do think the new requirement related to medication errors reporting will be a cost to the board, and we don't think that that is actually minor or absorbable costs. So unfortunately, we have to continue to oppose the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this Bill? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any comments, questions? Ms. Calderon.

I'd like to thank the author. We had a good discussion yesterday, and I appreciate you saying that you're going to continue working with the opposition to address their concerns about the potential closure of pharmacies. So I appreciate that.

Thank you. Is there a motion? It's been moved. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Yes, we're continuing to work with the opposition on that issue specifically and narrowed the closure piece of this in business and professions, and we'll continue to work on that. And with that, respectfully ask for your advote.

Very good. The Bill is out on a do pass. Roll call with Mr. Mathis and Ms. Sanchez. Not voting.

Thank you.

Thanks. All right, Assembly Member Papan, you're here to present AB 246.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair and Members, AB 246 takes a critical step towards protecting women's health and reducing the amount of PFAS in the environment by eliminating these harmful substances from menstrual products, our most intimate products. In a recent study, 48% of Pads and liners tested were found to contain PFAS and 22% of tampons were found to contain PFAS. This Bill has three main components. First, it would prohibit any person in California from manufacturing, distributing or selling a menstrual product that contains regulated PFAS.

Number two, 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. Lastly, it will prohibit unintentionally added PFAS above 10 parts per million beginning in 2027. California's pursuit for gender equity requires us to take action and ensure that feminine hygiene projects projects are safe, clean and free from forever chemicals. This Bill has bipartisan support. As noted in the analysis, the Bill will have minor and absorbable costs.

And with me to testify today on behalf of the Bill is Jessica Gogger, on behalf of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. There we go. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Jessica Gogger with Casa. As the Assembly Member mentioned, we are a strong supporter of this Bill. We think it's a cost effective source control strategy and would urge your ivote.

Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment either in support or opposition?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members Don Kepke Mchugh. Kepkey Pedrone. On behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, we have reached out to the author's office to set up time to chat about concerns based on some recent amendments around the 10 parts per million threshold. Notably, our manufacturers do not intentionally add PFAS chemicals to these products. There are challenges, however, in terms of the supply chain with unintentionally added trace contaminants of PFAS. And so at that 10 parts per million.

There are some challenges at that threshold. Nevertheless, we do look very much forward to working with the author and sponsors on addressing these concerns and appreciate your consideration of those. Thanks.

Thank you. Seeing no others, we would turn to the Committee. Any comments or questions to the author? There's a motion. Second. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Chair. I would note that the involuntary inclusion of PFAS does not take effect until 2027. In an effort to accommodate industry, women's health must be prioritized over the use of these unnecessary chemicals. It's past time to protect women in our environment, and I respectfully request an I vote.

Thank you. This is out on do pass. Republicans not voting with Ms. Dixon and Ms. Sanchez voting Aye. Congratulations. We're going to turn back to the consent calendar and allow Members to add on.

Bryan? Aye. Bryan. Wendy Carrillo. Wendy Carrillo. Aye. Robert Rivas? Sanchez? Sanchez? Aye. Wilson. Wilson. Aye.

Okay, we're looking for two authors, Gabriel and Bauer. Cahan to Gabriel, welcome. You're here to present on AB 418 and AB 1546. Are you taking a 418? 1st.

Whatever order you'd prefer.

All right, 418.

Let's do 418. Ooh.

You break it, you own it.

Hope that doesn't affect my votes. So thank you, Mr. Chair Members. AB 418 is a common sense food safety measure that would ban five chemicals that have strong links to cancer, to reproductive harm, into behavioral and developmental issues in children. All five of these chemicals are banned in the European Union. Many of them are banned in other nations, including Canada, the UK, Brazil, India, China, Sri Lanka and others.

Many private sector companies have already moved away from using these chemicals because of concerns about harm to health, particularly to children. So, Coke, Pepsi, Gatorade, Papa John's Pizza, Panera, Dunkin Donuts, many others, Whole Foods and Kroger won't sell many of these foods. And what we're hoping to accomplish with this legislation is not to pull any products off the shelf. We don't expect that any products will come off the shelf.

We simply want to do what they have done in the European Union and other places, which is encourage these companies to make minor modifications to their recipes. All of these ingredients are nonessential ingredients. There are readily available cheaper substitutes. The analysis from the Health Committee noted that in many cases, the substitutes for these ingredients are actually cheaper so that the companies actually be able to save money by switching from the toxic ingredients to the nontoxic ingredients.

The backdrop here for everybody to understand is that we unfortunately have a broken FDA process. This was not something that I was aware of prior to advocates approaching me. 99% of the chemicals that are placed in our food supply have gone through what is called the grass loophole, the generally recognized as safe, which was originally developed for common household items like sugar and vinegar. And as a result, there is no meaningful independent FDA review of many of the chemicals that have gone into our food supply.

Up to 99% of those. And to give you a sense of just how absurd the FDA process has become, red dye number three, which is one of the chemicals that we are looking to ban in food, was banned in cosmetics in 1990 because it is carcinogenic. Because of concerned about cancer. In 1990, the FDA said it is too dangerous to put cosmetics, including red dye three, on your face.

But it is still allowed in our food supply and is in many of the products that is targeted to our children. So I guess I'll say that we expect actually that the costs of this, as you have noted, are minor and observable cost to the state, if any. But we also expect it to be minor and observable costs to everyone.

We're simply going to encourage these companies to make minor modifications to their recipes, to shift to the recipes that they already use in Europe, a number of our colleagues were Traveling over the recess and brought me back bags of Skittles from Denmark and from France and from other places to show me that they still make all of these foods that all of us love and enjoy. In many cases, it involves changing one ingredient in their recipe.

So we expect this to be something that will have minor and absorbable costs to the state, minor observable costs to these companies, but could actually make a really, really big difference in improving the health and safety of our kids. There are about 3000 additives in food supply. We have chosen five that are the worst of the worst, where there's irrefutable, strong science linking them to harms to our kids. And so on behalf of those kids, would respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you. I will turn to the public for anyone who would like to speak in support or in opposition. Seeing none, we'll come back to the Committee. Questions by the Committee. Is there a motion? We appreciate really the great work. I mean, this is sensible consumer protection type of legislation and good luck to you as you move forward. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask and aye vote. Thank you very much.

This is AlEC with a do pass. Broll call with Ms. Dixon not voting. And now you have 1546.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And Members. This is a Bill that would align the statute of limitations so that the Attorney General can have five years to bring a civil action to enforce the California Consumer Privacy act, which is the same statute of limitations that the Privacy Protection Agency has to bring an administrative action under the same law. This Bill is sponsored by the AG.

Really the result of the fact that there was, I think, a drafting error in the Proposition that created the Prop 24 that didn't specify that the Attorney General had five years to bring in action. And so, under California law, when no statute of limitation is specified, it defaults to one year. One year is simply not nearly enough a time for the Attorney General to collect evidence to prepare a case to enforce our privacy laws.

And we're very proud to have some of the strongest privacy laws in the world here in the State of California. But if the Attorney General can't enforce them, then they're going to mean little. So this was simply aligning the Attorney General with the statute limitation of the privacy agency? I think it is a common sense, sensible change and would respectfully request your.

I vote it's been moved by Ms. Wilson.

Second.

I missed wrong. Is there anyone in the public that would like to comment? In favor or in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. No questions. Mr. Gabriel, would you like to close?

Respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay, this is out with the do pass. Broll call. Congratulations, Ms. Bauer-Kahan. AB 1643.

The microphone. Good morning. I'm proud to present AB 1643, a Bill that expands rehabilitation options for youth. It merely raises the restitution amount from $1000 to $5000 to make more youth eligible for these programs that we know help reduce recidivism and help youth ensure that they have the future they deserve. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Mr. Lanthal. Second by Ms. Calderon. We'll turn to the public. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this Bill, either in favor or opposition? Seeing none, this Bill is out. Zidoo Pass.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On a roll call cue we will open the roll on the consent calendar.

Robert Rivas? Robert Rivas. Aye.

Okay. The consent calendar is 16 to zero. We will now turn to public comment on items that were not taken up today, or on any item, but certainly those that were held on suspense or passed out on consent. Good morning, Mr.

Chair Members.

My name is Fred notewear and I represent the Golden West Chapter of the ALS Association, Lou Gehrig's disease, and we're the sponsor of Assembly Bill 424 by Mr. Brian that was sent to suspense earlier today. I just simply want to say that all the Bill really does is add ALS to the existing Neurodegenerative disease registry at the California Department of Public Health. The registry already exists, and we're simply adding one more disease to it.

We don't think this is a huge undertaking and will mean a tremendous amount. It'll produce a tremendous amount of data for the researchers and the Clinicians treating this horrible disease. So we hope the Bill can move off suspense later. And thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. So with nothing else before us in terms of action and no comments from the Committee, the meeting is adjourned. Thank.