Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

All right, good afternoon everyone. We're going to get started as Subcommitee welcome everyone to the Assembly Environmental, Safety and Toxic Materials Committee. I'm calling this meeting to order as a Subcommitee. Sergeants, please call the absent Members. Primate witnesses testimony will be limited to four minutes total for each side. All additional witnesses will be limited to stating their name, organization if they represent one, and their position on the Bill.

I also want to note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. We will hear 16 measures today. We typically run the agenda through file order. We may kind of go out of order occasionally just to move things along depending on the presence of Members and witnesses that are in the room. So just keep that in mind if you see us bounce around a little bit. We're going to try to get all folks heard and in and out efficiently.

So we will ask the first bill presenter to please come forward, and that is Assemblymember Friedman and her witnesses. Please. Good afternoon and welcome.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. I want to thank the Committee and the Committee staff for working with our office on this important legislation. I accept the proposed Committee amendments as summarized on page nine of the analysis. As proposed to be amended, AB 1963 would prohibit the use of paraquat, a powerful weed killer, until the Department of Pesticide Regulation completes a reevaluation of paraquat and establishes appropriate controls to mitigate any potential significant adverse effects of paraquat exposure.

Paraquat, which was first manufactured in 1962, is a highly toxic herbicide or weed killer used on nutcracker like almonds, pistachios, walnuts, grapes, as well as cotton, soybeans, corn and others. paraquat is sprayed to burn down or clear crop fields before planting and throughout the growing season to manage weeds between crop rows. Much of the chemical ends up in soil for years, but it can also linger in dust or drift through the air to nearby communities.

This poses an increased risk to people living and working near fields who are exposed to paraquat. The people most at risk of Paraquat exposure are primarily agricultural workers who mix, load or apply paraquat and enter areas after the chemical has been applied, as well as people living in agricultural communities who could be exposed from pesticide drift in the air or in dust.

A considerable amount of evidence, and this has been studied for years from studies in people, especially farmworkers, have linked paraquat exposure to the development of Parkinson's disease. Paraquat is banned in more than 60 countries, including those with large agricultural economies like the United Kingdom, where the country where a lot of paraquat is manufactured. China has banned its use, Brazil and the members of the European Union. California should follow their lead. Alternative to paraquat use exists today.

Why should we continue to use an herbicide that's been around since 1962 when we know we can do better? First and foremost is integrated pest management, or IPM. California's Department of Pesticide Regulation is emphasizing that we need to be using less pesticides and herbicides in their new planning effort, the sustainable pest management. They state IPM is a strategy that focuses on long term pest prevention through biological controls, habitat manipulation and other approaches.

California needs to be the leader in eliminating highly toxic pesticides and herbicides like paraquat. Furthermore, the pesticide industry, always proud of their ability to innovate, should step forward and agree to stop producing this product and to produce instead less toxic weed killers.

With me today is Alexis Temkin, a senior toxicologist at Environmental Working Group, the sponsor of AB 1963, and I can't be more proud to have sitting next to me Dolores Huerta, icon of labor and protecting vulnerable communities and the founder of the Dolores Huerta foundation. And with that, I request an aye vote. Thank you.

Whichever of you would like to go first.

I'm happy to go.

Sure.

Mister Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Alexis Temkin. I have a PhD in biomedical sciences, and I'm a senior toxicologist with the Environmental Working Group. There is robust science connecting paraquat to Parkinson's disease and other serious health harms, health harms that the Environmental Protection Agency has ignored. The herbicide has both acute and chronic toxicity, meaning it can harm people both when they're exposed to a single dose or repeatedly over time to lower doses.

Ingestion of [araquat, even just a teaspoon, can cause extreme respiratory and gastrointestinal distress, organ failure, and often leads to death. The link between chronic exposure to Paraquat and Parkinson's disease in people was first identified over 35 years ago. Since then, many other studies have connected the two research, published in 2011, found farmworkers who sprayed paraquat were two and a half times more likely to develop Parkinson's, and the longer they used the herbicide, the stronger the association.

Earlier this year, a UCLA study found that people living or working near the most intense paraquat applications in the Central Valley were also more likely to develop Parkinson's disease. And a 2019 meta-analysis, the gold standard for summarizing the science on a particular topic, found that across 13 different studies, occupational and environmental exposure to paraquat increased the risk of developing Parkinson's by 64%, a clear indication of concern. Finally, animal studies provide concrete evidence for how paraquat can damage human brains.

Animals exposed to paraquat show changes in behavior and overall motor function. A reduction in the number of dopamine producing neurons, a reduction in the number harmful malfunctions in the important brain protein alpha synuclein, and all of these are hallmarks of how Parkinson's develops in humans. The EPA and paraquat manufacturers claim that paraquat can be safely used with proper restrictions. However, the agency openly acknowledges that risks to farmworkers persist despite these safety measures and violations of mishandling have been reported.

EWG respectfully urges the committee to pass AB 1963 in order to protect California's farmworkers and adjacent communities from the harms of paraquat. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair, and thank you all for having us here today. I am very proud to join Assemblymember Laura Friedman and the Environmental Working group to support this Bill. I have spent my life. My name is Dolores Huerta and I'm the founder of the Dolores Huerta Foundation for grassroots community organizing and co-founder of the United Farmworkers.

I have spent my whole life advocating for better working conditions for our essential workers, the farm workers that feed us every day, and paraquat is one of the greatest continuing threats to the health of farmers today. Paraquat is innocuously named herbicide that happens to be one of the most toxic herbicides on the market. Working in the field where paraquat is present can cause farmworkers their health, their livelihood, and their lives. Paraquat has been linked to Parkinson's disease, heart disease, kidney failure, childhood leukemia and cancer.

I'm from Kern County, which happens to be the county that is most heavily impacted by paraquat. 5 million pounds of paraquat was sprayed in California between 2017 and 2022. Of that, nearly 1 million pounds of paraquat was sprayed in Kern County alone, in largely Latino, disproportionately poor agricultural communities like Shafter, Wasco and Delano. Studies show that people working in the fields where paraquat is sprayed or living nearby are twice as likely to develop Parkinson's disease.

Over 80% of residents in Shafter, which is 82% Latino, Wasco, 87% Latino Delano, California, 76% Latino, Corcoran 74% Latino, live near the annual spraying of almost 180,000 pounds of paraquat. We do not need paraquat. Most California growers don't use paraquat at all when clearing their fields.

Nor should the acceptable cost of our food, the Parkinson's disease and cancer, for the farm workers, the essential workers of California that feed us here and feed the nation, the people that grow and harvest the food that sustains us or the rural communities surrounded by these agricultural fields. I cannot really believe that this herbicide is still on the market because we work so hard in the farmworkers union to ban so many, many herbicides and pesticides like DDT, parathion, malathion, dinotefuran, and on and on and on.

And to know that the paraquat is still with us. Hey, it's time for it to go, okay? And so we want you, please, the Committee here and Assemblymembers, to help us get rid of this terrible, a terrible herbicide that there's so many of our farm workers, they shouldn't have to get Parkinson's or cancer or leukemia or any of these deadly diseases. You know, this is something that we can actually stop. And you have the power to do that. So thank you very much.

Thank you to both witnesses. I'm going to ask other members that are here who want to register their support for the bill. Your name, organization and position, please.

My name is Charlene Tenbrink, and from 1993 to 2000, I personally spray paraquat on prune trees on our 500-acre farm in Dixon, California. In August of 2020, I was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. My life has no longer been the same. I had no idea what we were using to help us with our farm would cause such distress to me. I sincerely and respectfully hope that the committee will act and help prevent further harm to farm workers throughout the state.

Thank you, ma'am. Will you just repeat your name just for the record, please?

Charlene Tenbrink.

Thank you. And those who follow, just please state your name, organization and your position.

Good afternoon. I'm Nancy Peverini on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California in strong support. Thank you.

Abby Alvarez, with the Pesticide Action Network, in support.

Jane Sellen, Californians for Pesticide Reform coalition advocating for pesticide safety, Tulare Coalition advocating for pesticide safety, Ventura, in support. Strong support.

Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of the Center for Food Safety in support.

Mark Weller, Safe Ag Safe Schools, Monterey Bay. Strong support.

Chair Members. Nate Silva, on behalf of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's research in support. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Jonathan Evans, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lea Jones on behalf of A Voice for Choice Advocacy in strong support. Thank you.

Vanessa Forsythe in support, Clean Earth for Kids, Families Advocating for Chemical Toxic Safety, Grandparents for Action, North County Equity and Justice, Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice and also North County Climate Change Alliance. Thank you.

Jim Gonzalez, California Rural Legal Assistance in support thank you.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, in support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else, I'll ask the two primary witnesses that will be testifying opposition. Please come forward. You'll have a total of four minutes to provide your testimony, and about midway through, I'll ask that those who will be doing a me too can line up just to kind of get things going.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members, Taylor Roschen on behalf of Western Plant Health and a coalition to express our regretful, opposed unless amended position on 1963. I want to be clear ensuring agricultural workforce and our communities are protected as paramount. Paraquat has been used widely for decades and has been the subject of more than 1200 safety studies submitted and reviewed by regulatory authorities around the world demonstrating its safety and safe use.

USEPA has put in place major new restrictions on the use of paraquat in 2019 and 2020 to address concerns about accidental ingestion of paraquat illegally transferred from its container in California and elsewhere. Anyone using paraquat needs to be a certified applicator, with no allowance for uncertified applicators to use the product under the supervision of a certified applicator, they must take paraquat safety-specific training every three years, and containers must be used in a closed loop system to prevent illegal transfers.

In addition, paraquat is a restricted use material in California which requires a permit from the county agricultural commissioner along with the licensing obligations I noted and advance notice prior to use. This is in addition to the labor requirements, including restricted reentry periods, PPE requirements for applicators, and other additional standards.

These limitations, in addition to the limits on the label that I noted of how much to apply, where and how application occurs, the protective equipment requirements make paraquat among one of the most restricted products in the world and in California. Bill proponents cite individual studies alleging Parkinson disease resulting from paraquat use. I just want to be clear. USEPA has undertaken a review of laboratory and epidemiological studies and reached a very different conclusion.

According to the 2024 USEPA review it cited, Parkinson's disease is not an expected result of the pesticidal use of paraquat. After a thorough review of relevant studies, the agency concluded that the weight of evidence was insufficient to link paraquat exposure from pesticidal use in the United States to products in humans and in animals. This conclusion is supported by, among many things, the National Institute of Health-sponsored study of 66,000 pesticide applicators and their spouses, which went on for 25 years.

Additionally, last week, a federal judge found that the plaintiff's expert attempt to link paraquat to Parkinson's used a methodology that was unclear, inconsistently applied, not replicable and at times transparently reverse engineered. The court opinion also noted that paraquat Parkinson's causal theory has not been adopted or independently validated in any peer-reviewed scientific analysis. To be clear, the countries that the author noted have banned paraquat because of concerns of deliberate ingestion for self-harm purposes.

So unfortunately, even with the committee's proposed amendments, 1963 is still, from our perspective, an unscientific ban that puts the legislature in the driver's seat in making decisions about product safety. The need for reevaluation and new restrictions that may result up to including cancellation depends on DPR's expert assessment of product use and safety. As an alternative to the ban, we would encourage the Legislature to require DPR to conduct additional reviews within a specified time period.

That process began with a comment and a petition that was provided and then urge DPR to take next steps if they are scientifically warranted. Without such amendments, we respectfully offer opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair Garcia, Members of the Committee. My name is Chris McGlothlin, here on behalf of the California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association as well as the Western Agricultural Processors Association. Paraquat is a necessary chemistry for our growers of various commodities throughout the state. In cotton, paraquat is used as a desiccant and matured cotton plants, defoliating the crop to ensure that harvesting and processing is more efficient throughout the season.

The product provides broad spectrum coverage for knocking down weeds in both pre plant cotton beds as well as tree nut orchards. In both scenarios, paraquat is one of the most effective tools at providing those controls and desired outcomes.

In comparison to paraquat, similar chemistries can incur a longer pre harvest interval allowance back into the field after application before the crop can be harvested, or can impact a grower through plant back restrictions, which is essentially a delay in the ability to plant commodity once an application has been made. Additionally, studies have shown that drift associated with paraquat can be less detrimental than alternative chemistries. And lastly, with the use of alternative chemistries, plants actually develop a resistance to applications for those other chemistries that are utilized.

Looking at alternatives outside of chemical control. The list of non chemical control alternatives provides a rather ironic perspective on farming practices and the regulatory objectives made by the state. One alternative to paraquat is the use of steam, which would require a large combustion engine, as well as the use of a lot of water to be able to control the weeds in the field. This practice also results in the destruction of soil microbes, which is also another point promoted by the state through other regulatory programs.

A second alternative is the practice of using livestock to graze orchards in the fields, but the solution has significant impacts to food safety and the efficacy and practices utilized by farmers. The last alternative suggested in the practice is disking a field to remove other organic material from planting beds. But this suggestion goes against the state efforts to encourage low to no till practices within the state's production agriculture. We strongly ask that you oppose AB 1963. Thank you.

I'll ask those who want to register their opposition to the Bill, to please come forward. Name, organization and your position.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association, opposed.

Good afternoon, Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce, opposed unless amended.

Good afternoon. Erin Norwood on behalf of the Almond Alliance, also opposed. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Danny Merkley with the Gualco group on behalf of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, opposed.

Chair and Members. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association respectfully opposed.

Chris Reardon with the California Farm Bureau respectfully opposed.

Margie Lie on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in respectful opposition.

Dawn Koepke on behalf of the Chemical Industry Council of California in opposition.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else, I'm going to bring the matter back to the dais. Any questions of the author? Any questions of the witnesses, both in favor or in opposition?

I do want to thank the author. You've been a great leader when it comes to providing better options whenever we're looking at taking care of issues. But I want to congratulate you, most especially for the witness you brought. I don't think there's anybody who is following more for our farm workers than the Dolores Huerta. I don't think there's anybody who has ever looked at and lived the experiences of our farm workers as you have.

And I don't think farmworkers have anybody who has a stronger voice than your voice. And I thank you for taking the time to be here when we talk about alternatives. I think that, and it's listed in the analysis about alternatives and our opposition talked about those. When we know that a particular herbicide has factors that can cause great harm and if ingested can cause death, then I think it is our duty to find alternatives. And sometimes we say that there too expensive.

I mean, we all have bills where we're told it's too expensive to try the other way. When we don't know better, then we can't do better. But once we know better, we've got to do better. I think that as was noted in the analysis, paraquat is something that certainly we don't want a human to ingest. And there are measures that are taken to make sure that there isn't direct contact.

We know that it isn't, can't be used in households because it is such a powerful herbicide and you have to be registered. There are so many things that need to be done. But in the end our farm workers are still exposed. There's no way to apply the paraquat knowing of its danger without accepting that there is still the danger to our farm workers. And we, you know, our farmworkers are the ones that provide their frontline workers, as was mentioned.

And there's so much more we need to do to protect because we know better. I appreciate once again that the authors brought this forward. The alternatives, I do want to ask, you spoke about them briefly and would you tell us what these alternatives are that are known to help with the. To be used as an alternative to paraquat?

So thank you for the, I'm sorry, through the chair. Thank you for the question. There are, there are alternative chemical products to be used in lieu of paraquat. But I think one of the items that my colleague noted was that plants breed resistance.

And especially this last five years we've been seeing more and more legislative removals of the type of alternative products that we need where conversely, we're not seeing an expedited process to onboard the alternative products, synthetic products, biologicals, organics that we should be using or we could be using instead of paraquat. And then I think my colleague noted the, the trade offs, the opportunity costs of using non chemical alternatives to weed management and everything does have that opportunity cost.

Certainly we put farmworker health paramount in a part of that. That's why we have trust in DPR and USEPA system. And so from our perspective, challenging those agencies to do additional studies and report back maintains the credibility of the scientific process that we all buy into and has done so in a way that protects employees. So we don't disagree I think with your question about the benefit of finding alternatives at this point, we don't believe we have a system that facilitates that most expeditiously.

Thank you.

Follow up to that. What does the process look like in terms of getting some of these alternative products on the market? Give us a couple of examples from start to finish to get these on the market.

So I want to start by saying, and I think on behalf of the registrants, pestide registrants in California, both for agriculture and non agriculture, we hear the call to action. We spend millions upon millions, hundreds of millions of dollars every year in research and development to identify either reformulations or new active ingredients that we can use to replace legacy products. It is in the industry's best interest to diversify and improve the safety experience. That's why you see a whole new coast of products coming online.

When they do have a formulation that's proven effective after efficacy tests and local trials, they submit all of that data to USEPA. USEPA does health assessments, environmental impact assessments. They review the label conditions. You submit that based on which products you can apply it to, so the host material. Ultimately, the Department makes a decision at the federal level to approve that product for use. Those products, once approved by USEPA in the agricultural setting, are available for all other 49 states.

They're not available in California. So what we have then is pesticides come to California to be registered for use. These are organic biological synthetics. So it's the entire litany spectrum of pesticides in California, the average or the, atone point DPR released that it takes up to five years for an agricultural pesticide to be registered for use.

So California farmers are already five years behind where every other state is at in having access to these products, which is a major concern, which is why you hear such a reactionary response when this Committee hears one off bans, because we see bans happen year over year without the expediency in replacement. And then once those products are approved for use in California, they dictate all the conditions of label uses.

And then there's a continuous review process to review safety, which can lead to more mitigations or cancellations. And then at any point in time, data can be submitted to the department, both at USCPA and CDPR, to set additional label restrictions, put the pesticidal product into reevaluation. So we believe there's a very robust process. And unfortunately, we don't feel as though there's a responsiveness to the user community to provide the venue that I think you had suggested is the more appropriate route.

Has there ever been a attempt to try to move that process a little more expedient without compromising the research and scientific aspect of it? And if so, what has that looked like?

Right, so. Well, there are a couple things. There's lots of things that could be done to improve the process, and I think we'll be having that conversation later today as well. One thing I will note that is a minor improvement. Just to show you where we are in terms of archaicness, at the Department of Pested Regulation, they operate registrations on a paper based system. So you literally have stacks of paper you submit to the department to review for approval.

Over the last four years, the registrant community has paid for an electronic version of that submission process, it's called Cal Pest. That has not been stood up yet after years and years of funding. So that's just nibbling around the edges of how to improve that process. But we look forward to more conversations on how to make that happen.

Yeah, and we will have that discussion later this afternoon. The reason I asked a question is, I think for us, think about if moving in this direction as it relates to banning certain herbicides and other chemicals, that we should also kind of think in parallel how we're able to be able to substitute them as quickly as we're asking to take these off the market. And so, looking forward to that discussion and many more on this subject. Any other questions? Looking to my left, to the right? Yes.

Just a follow-up at page five of the analysis on alternatives to paraquat. It does say that there are over 1.25 million farmers in low and middle income countries that successfully produce a range of crops using alternative approaches other than paraquat. Why aren't we able to do it here?

Well, I guess what I would say is that those countries also don't have as robust of a review system as USEPA and California has at the Department of Pesticide Regulation. So they may be using something alternative to paraquat, but it may have higher chronic or acute toxicity. There could be other adverse environmental, human health, wildlife impacts that aren't being accounted for. I also want to note, California farms on a significant scale, significantly larger than some of the countries that are noted there.

We have 400 different commodities. We've got vast production regions and ever changing land use patterns, which invites significant pests. So we do have a different scale than we're talking about, even from a state to a country level. And then, as I said, the importance of integrated pest management is to use the different technologies that are available in a, an ever changing formula.

So you don't breed those resistance as well, and you're using the least amount of product as possible under the guise of a certified applicator and a pest control advisor. So I don't know that that's necessarily in the analysis, the whole story of an apples to apples comparison.

I do want to say that in what the work that I have done for, especially for the industry in my area, I do know the work that you do. You do so much trying to figure out alternatives in a case like this, though, I'm absolutely concerned about the health of those who are being exposed to it right at this moment and trying to find ways to protect them. So I thank you. But thank you.

Thank you. I'll just kind of elaborate on this and then we'll bring it back, maybe closing comments. I appreciate when we can make reference to a place where there's the example that there's an alternative. I think what we're taking away from this conversation is that there may be an alternative product, but the process of actually getting it certified is not going to be apples-to-apples. Right?

And so I think that's what kind of I can take away from this discussion and that we need to focus on what does that process look like in order to be able to put these alternatives on the market, to be able to move as quickly as we're wanting to take this off and put those alternatives on for our farmers and industry to be able to utilize them. So look forward to the continued discussion. I don't see any other questions or comments.

I'll give it back to the author if you want to close. The bill does have a do pass, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations.

Thank you. I very much appreciate the questions and the discussion. I appreciate the viewpoints of the opposition position as well. Certainly we understand the situation that they're in. We want to make sure that our farms can succeed as well. But when you have a 2019 meta study showing of 13 studies showing a statistically significant association where people exposed to paraquat are 1.64 times more likely to develop Parkinson's disease, that's a huge, huge increase in people's risk.

When we have a chemical that we know is so toxic that as outlined, you have to go through a number of steps to be able to use it. And we have at this point, constant violations that we could cite where people were not using the product correctly and where there's so much potential for injury and for death when you have a chemical that's not allowed by the EPA to be used on golf courses.

Not because they don't think that people who take care of golf courses are incapable of learning how to properly use paraquat, but because they don't want the paraquat exposure for golfers. And yet they're saying it's okay to expose farmworkers to the same chemical. There's a problem. So we have amended the bill to make it not a complete ban, but a moratorium while we do look at the product.

And I understand the opponents would much rather say, let's just keep things as they are until we have more of that data. But I don't believe that it's worth risking people's lives and safety to do that for the next number of years. So, you know, absolutely sympathize and understand they're just trying to make food for us. We understand that.

At the same time, I think we also have an obligation, when we see such a high risk to something that's so deadly as Parkinson's to default into the position of being more protective. So I want to thank my witnesses, particularly both of you. But may I say, I've been here. This is my last year in the Legislature. I think that this is my proudest moment as an author to be sitting next to Dolores Huerta.

So thank you so much for honoring us with your presence and for all of your work. And with that, I would request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We have a motion. I'll second. And this does again have a do pass to the Committee on appropriations. We don't have a quorum, so we'll wait for an action to be taken. Ms. Friedman, I think you have a second bill if you want to present. Otherwise, we have an eager author right behind you to go.

Thank you.

All right.

You can. We have other folks who want to present.

No, though I'm very proud to present AB 2916. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I want to thank you and your staff again for all of your hard work and time over the past couple weeks on this issue. California has experienced firsthand the negative impacts associated with foam-filled docs when they become damaged or waterlogged. Many of us have seen, unfortunately, these plastic pieces floating around in our waterways and they break down.

They end up being eaten by marine life because they're confused as food and they can cause all kinds of health impacts, including deaths for these organisms. The result is not only harm to wildlife, but also pollution of our waterways and nearly impossible cleanup efforts for little teeny bits of styrofoam floating around in water. As seen earlier this year on the shores of Lake Tahoe following a major storm event that resulted in hundreds of thousands of microplastics leaching from damaged floating docks.

The estimated annual cost of plastic cleanup and control in California was more than $428 million as of 2015. AB 2916 prohibits, on or after January 1st, 2026 the sale, distribution, or installation of an overwater structure, block, or float that contains expanded polystyrene, often referred to as styrofoam, or other plastic foam, unless it is fully enclosed and contained in a shell made of aluminum, concrete, steel, or plastic. With a minimum thickness of 0.15 inches, this is not requiring a lot.

AB 2916 also gives authority to the State Water Board to adopt rules to implement, administer, and enforce the provisions of the Bill and to maintain and revise a list of materials approved for use. Several states have already taken similar actions, including Oregon, Tennessee, and, most recent, Washington. We've heard from the opposition concerns around clarifying that existing equipment will be grandfathered and that the compliance requirements are not necessarily triggered by routine maintenance.

We're also in the process of following up with the State Water Board to discuss how enforcement will happen and to provide definitions to the terms in print for adding clarity. We're committed to resolving these concerns should the bill get out of committee today. California needs protective measures like this bill to keep wildlife and waterways safe from the harmful impacts of microplastic pollution. This one has an easy solution. Let's do it already. Testifying in support this afternoon is Miho Ligare, a plastic pollution manager with the Surf.

Thanks. Good afternoon, Chair Garcia and members. My name is Miho Ligare, and I'm the plastic pollution policy manager with the Surfrider Foundation. Assembly Bill 2916 aims to proactively reduce plastic foam pollution in California's waters and environment by prohibiting overwater structures, blocks, and floats made from expanded polystyrene and other plastic foam unless the foam is encapsulated. The bill focuses on new structures and future repair and maintenance of existing structure.

So this bill minimizes cost to the state by phasing out existing devices while reducing cleanup costs associated with plastic foam pollution. In general, plastic poses a threat to our environment, communities, and human health and economy. From their origin to end of life. It's a petroleum-based product and releases carbon emissions and other toxic chemicals when created. This plastic pollution issue is so huge that right now there's a global plastics treaty being negotiated in Ottawa, Canada, and so it just raises the scale of this problem.

And in particular, expanded polystyrene, often referred to as styrofoam, is the most common type of plastic foam used in docks and other floating structures. This foam easily breaks down from collisions and weathering over time when exposed to the elements. The result in tiny plastic pieces, including microplastics, that pollute our beaches, the ocean, and other waterways. These foam pieces are not only small but really light, as they're composed of about 95% air and are easily swept away by wind and other elements.

Furthermore, polystyrene can threaten public health. The styrene monomer, the building blocks of polystyrene, is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. Long-term exposure to styrene and human results has effects on the central nervous system, such as headache, fatigue, weakness, depression, central nervous system dysfunction, hearing loss, and peripheral neuropathy. Since 2013, international coastal cleanup volunteers in California have removed over 700,000 tiny expanded polystyrene pieces. So these are less than 2.5 cm in size and over 700,000 other foam foodware and packaging items.

Foam fragments are continuously one of the top 10 items found at Surfriders beach cleanups year after year. We also see increased foam pollution during and after storm events. Earlier this year, an estimated over 100,000 tiny foam beads littered Lake Tahoe that looked like snow after a foam came into contact with the boat. So volunteers spent hundreds of hours collectively cleaning up their love beaches using pasta strainers and seeds. Just getting really creative using their own shop vacs.

But you can imagine how hard it is to clean it up once it's out in the environment. Think about it mixing with snow. And once the snow melts, it gets in the sand, so virtually very small pieces. So it's a common-sense solution to start cleaning it up at the source. Proactive measures like AB 2916 that prevent microplastic from entering the environment is the most cost-effective approach to addressing microplastic pollution. AB 2916 is essential for California to continue to be a leader in addressing plastic pollution. Thank you for your time.

All right, I don't see a second witness, so I'll ask those who want to line up and register their support for the bill. Name, organization, and position, please. Please come forward.

Thank you. Vanessa Forsythe, speaking in support for Families Advocating for Chemical Toxic Safety, Grandparents for Action, North County Climate Change Alliance, North County Equity and Justice, Interfaith Coalition for Clean Earth, and CleanEarth4Kids. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Leah Jones, on behalf of A Voice for Choice Advocacy, in full support. Thank you.

Hello. Alison Waliszewski with the 5 Gyres Institute, and also providing a me-too in support for Ocean Conservancy. Thank you.

Okay, so no one else. We'll ask witness and opposition. You have a total of four minutes. You don't have to use all four minutes, but you can. Okay, well, if you've got two witnesses, two minutes each.

Hello, Chairman Garcia and members of the committee.

Please put the microphone closer to you.

My name is Arron Pellerin. I'm the president of the Recreation Marine Recreation Association and owner of the Village West Marina and Resort in Stockton, the largest covered recreational marina in California. And I'm here today to express my organization's opposition to this bill unless amended. Our team has worked closely with Assemblymember Friedman's office since the bill's introduction to try and work out some issues that we believe must be addressed.

In our letter to your respective offices, we discussed the issue of the word maintain, triggering the requirement to replace a float. Our facilities require constant maintenance, and triggering the replacement provision of this bill for routine activities seems counterproductive, and we've asked to simply strike the word maintain from the bill. Our second suggested change is to include a grandfathering clause in the bill. During our meeting with the author's office, there was some discussion about the State of Washington's measure that was enacted this year.

As described in the analysis, that bill contained a grandfather clause. Although AB 2916 may be drafted to infer the same application of this clause, it would give our members comfort if the bill spelled that out directly. In our letter to you, we did not address the enforcement component similar to the comments in the analysis. It seems like more conversation needs to happen to better understand how that would work exactly. And we are happy to avail ourselves to that process. If appropriate.

I would like to close by saying that our members are the gateway to the state waterways. As an industry, we value and protect our waterways. We agree with the intent of this bill to keep our waters clean. With our suggested changes and continuing collaboration with the author, we believe we can be partners in working towards the bill's intent and purpose. I'd also like to thank the Assembly member and her staff for listening to our concerns and making an attempt to address them. That's much appreciated. Thank you. So thank you. And with that, I'm done.

Next.

My name is Ryan Pessah. I'm with Western Wood Preservers Institute. We're opposed to the bill. We're not against the idea of encapsulating the. These styrofoam were just against the materials that are listed. The first iteration of the bill had just wood and we're requesting that treated preserved wood be included in the bill. These types of products and these materials are already used in our marinas, in our docks, in our ports and we're just asking for an inclusion of preserved wood in the bill.

Thank you. I'll ask for those who want to register opposition to the bill. Name, organization, and position.

Chair and members, Jerry Desmond with Recreational Boaters of California. Were not opposed pending the resolution of the issue on the maintenance and the grandfathering and the statements by Assemblymember Friedman here today. We look forward to engaging to work those issues out and we certainly appreciate the objective of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nick Garcia on behalf of California Association of Harbor Masters and Port Captains and we share the same ideas as the MRA does. Thank you.

Fantastic. Thank you. Bring it back to dais. Any questions? Comments? Comments? Concerns? A motion? Is there a second? I will second the bill. We will, before we take an action, establish quorum, and then we'll bring it back to the author for a close.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. There aren't any questions of the opposition or the witness in support.

I am going to pass around some incriminating photographs of styrofoam doing bad things and coming out of things that they shouldn't come out of to show the need for the bill. We will continue to work with the stakeholders who have concerns to try to address them. And with that, I would request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The bill does have a do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. I thank you for bringing this bill forward. We know this is an important topic and I trust that you will work with the folks who are here testifying in opposition on these issues. So thank you.

Thank you so much.

We'll call the question, Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we will keep the roll open for other members to add on. I'm gonna. Yeah, we're going to take an action on the first two bills that we did here was item one. I'll second.

Taking vote on item one, AB 1963, Friedman. The motion is do pass as amended and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we will keep the roll open for other members to add on. As I mentioned earlier, we're going to bounce around a little bit on the agenda. Assemblymember Haney. Okay. Addis. All right, come forward. Okay. And we had given Miss Reyes the green light to go up after Mister Haney, assuming that you were going first, so that you will follow, and then we'll go from there.

Well, thank you, chair, staff and advocates. Today I'm here to present AB 2201, the Air Freshener Safety Act. Just for some background. Air fresheners are designed to mask unpleasant odors and disperse more pleasant scent into the air. California consumers frequently encounter air fresheners in indoor environments, including residences, schools, workplaces, hospitals, stores and hotels. And although air fresheners are advertised as improving indoor air quality, they can sometimes pose risks to consumers.

Air fresheners currently sold in California can contain toxic ingredients that can expose users to harmful chemicals. These chemicals are linked to asthma attacks, migraines, hormone disruption, developmental or reproductive harm, and cancer. Even air fresheners that are marked green or organic can contain potentially hazardous chemicals. And these chemicals pose a great arrest to children, who are more vulnerable to their effects than adults.

So in 2017, there was prior legislation, SB 258, the cleaning product right to no act, which required manufacturers of cleaning products, including air fresheners, to disclose certain chemical ingredients on product labels and on the manufacturer's website. But there's still a problem. So despite the progress made under that bill, the ingredients and air fresheners are not always disclosed to consumers. Many chemicals of concerns are components of fragrances, each of which may contain dozens of ingredients.

DTSC's safer consumer products program identified air fresheners as part of a product category in their past work plans. However, it is not known when they will begin the process of analyzing, possibly regulating air fresheners, and DTSC has said they lack the resources necessary to investigate a significant percentage of the chemicals included in consumer products. Therefore, we have legislation that is meant to take action to prevent consumers from being exposed to harmful chemicals and air fresheners.

And that's where my bill, AB 2201, comes in, to prohibit the sale of air fresheners that contain certain chemical ingredients that are listed on DTSC's candidate chemical list beginning in 2026. Chemicals on that list have been identified by DTSC as having at least one hazard trait, which may include potential harmful effects such as cancer, neurotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, and even more. And it's a narrowed list of chemicals that may be even easier for industry to exclude from their products.

It's important to note that this bill does not seek to ban air fresheners. We brought an air freshener that will not be banned under this bill because it contains other chemicals that are not as problematic. So manufacturers will simply need to start moving in the right direction towards reformulating their products, as some manufacturers are already doing.

And with me today, I have two witnesses, Alexis Temkin, PhD, senior toxicologist at Environmental Working Group, and Janet Nudelman, senior director of program and policy at the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners.

Thank you chair Garcia and members. Nice to see you again so soon. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Alexis Temkin. I have a PhD in biomedical sciences and senior toxicologist at the Environmental Working Group. The 18 chemical groups that encompass 33 unique substances identified in AB 2201 pose unnecessary, serious health risks, especially for children. Each of these chemicals are found on DTSC's candidate chemical list, meaning they have hazard traits that may contribute to adverse health effects in humans.

And these traits and chemicals have been listed and validated by expert scientists and are recognized by the state's own agencies. In fact, the list of 33 chemicals in AB 2201 contains 14 carcinogens, nine reproductive and developmental toxicants, 12 neurotoxicants, 14 chemicals that can harm the respiratory system and others that can impact the endocrine, cardiovascular and immune systems. For instance, Liliol, which is classified by the European Union as a reproductive toxicant based on animal studies that show liliol damages fertility by harming the male reproductive system.

Another example, methyl eugenol, found on the Prop 65 list, was reevaluated last summer by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, and was reclassified with a stronger cancer hazard. That decision was largely based on new evidence that methyl eugenol can damage DNA in humans. It's widely accepted that there's no safe threshold for chemicals that can cause damage to DNA, and 18 of these chemicals have more than one of these health concerns, with no consideration for combined effect of these chemicals in industry safety assessments.

Despite studies that show chemicals in mixtures can cause harm at lower doses than when they're tested individually, these are hazardous chemicals that don't need to be in air care products. There are already many brands and companies that are not using these ingredients in their formulations, and many safer alternatives exist. Lastly, eight of these chemicals were recently banned from cosmetics products because of their health concerns by AB 496, which this committee passed last year.

We urged the committee to pass AB 2201 to protect the health of Californians by getting the worst chemicals out of these products while still allowing a viable market for air care. Thank you.

Good afternoon chair Garcia, members of the committee, my name is Laura Gillan. I work with Janet Nudelman. I'm here representing breast cancer prevention partners to testify on AB 2201, which will protect Californians from harmful chemicals and especially vulnerable populations like pregnant women, children and people who clean and maintain our houses and workplaces, and who may be more susceptible or face a greater burden of exposure to the harmful chemicals that are used in air care products, especially secret, unlabeled, often toxic, fragrant ingredients.

Breast cancer prevention partners has a longstanding concern that short and long term exposure to toxic fragrance chemicals is linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. Our mission is to eliminate exposure to these chemicals, especially when these exposure exposures are hidden and unnecessary, as is the case with fragrance ingredients.

Two thirds of the chemicals that would be banned by AB 2201 are found on the International Fragrance Association's transparency list, meaning that these chemicals currently are or can be used by companies and fragrance mixtures used in products, including air care products. Nine of these chemicals, including styrene, methyl eugenol and miracine, are on the Prop success 65 list of known to cause cancer. Two other groups, parabens and phthalates, are routinely detected in people, including pregnant people, and can harm the endocrine system.

Exposure to parabens in particular have been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Two of the chemicals in this bill are preservatives that can cause products to emit formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen and is routinely detected in indoor air. People can be exposed to some of these chemicals by inhaling them once they are admitted into the air, but they can also build up on indoor surfaces and in dust. This is a common route of exposure that is routinely not accounted for in industry risk assessments.

AB 2201 aims to protect California's most sensitive populations by removing chemicals with known health harms from air care products. All of these chemicals have viable alternatives, and many products already meet these standards. I urge you to vote aye on this important health protective measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'll ask those who want to register their support for the Bill, please come forward. Name, organization and position, please.

Vanessa Forsythe, good afternoon, in support. Clean Earth for Kids, Families Advocating for Chemical Toxic Safety, Grandparents for Action, North County Climate Change Alliance, Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice, and North County Equity and Justice. Thank you.

Doctor Brett Andrews, Chapter, San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility supports.

MJ Kushner, Community Water Center in support

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support was also asked to pass along the support from Clean Water Action.

Thanks, Janet Nudelman, on behalf of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in support.

Anna Chico Cornell on behalf of Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments in full support.

Thank you very much. Do we have any witnesses that will be testifying in opposition to the bill? Four minutes.

Good afternoon. Chair and members, Nicole Quinonez representing the Fragrance Creators Association, a trade association with members across the fragrance supply chain, from raw material suppliers to fragrance formulators and finished product manufacturers. I'm also representing the Household and Commercial Products Association are members who formulate, manufacture and sell air care products. As the Assembly Member noted, air care products do exist for a reason, to help fight unpleasant odors in our environments.

And there's actually been studies done to show that mal odors have negative impacts on our well being. They increase feelings of depression, decrease property values, and impair performance. But air care products have been shown to fight the effects of those malodors, and our industry cares very deeply about the safety of their ingredients and the consumers who use these products which go through rigorous safety testing and comply with all federal and state regulations.

And we certainly do appreciate the amendments to AB 2201, which reduce the number of ingredients to those that appear on the candidate chemicals list. However, we do still remain opposed, and as an industry, our preference is always to come to the table to try to solve these complex policies.

That's what we did on the Cleaning Products Right to Know Act, which the Assemblymember referenced we did work with the Environmental Working Group and other stakeholders to make sure that bill would provide consumers with more ingredient information so they can make informed choices regarding the products they're purchasing. Any ingredient on the candidate chemicals list and now under the scope of this Bill, are required to be disclosed and cannot be claimed as trade secret.

So any of those ingredients in a fragrance will appear as an ingredient in an air care product if they are used. But using a hazard based list to provide ingredient information to consumers for transparency is appropriate. But using that list to ban ingredients completely ignores the importance of evaluating how those products are used and the potential risk in those applications.

Which is why we believe the legislature should instead look to the safer consumer products program at the Department of Toxic Substances Control because they use a science-based process to identify specific products that contain potentially harmful chemicals and to evaluate those safer alternatives. Blanket bands are counter to the reason that program was established, and this bill sidesteps that process that the legislature and the regulated community have invested significant resources into developing.

And while the candidate chemical list is made up of over 3000 chemicals listed from 22 authoritative lists from international scientific bodies, the authoritative body finding that ingredient is potentially hazardous does not again equate to risk. And while there's been criticism regarding the number of products and chemicals the program has looked at so far, I would counter by saying a deliberative and scientific process is always going to take more time than a direct ban because it does evaluate that nuance on the scientific data.

Dan Selechnik with Fragrance Creators Association will discuss the nuance between risk, virus hazard and the process by which the industry reduces risks of ingredients.

Thanks, Nicole. Dan Selechnik, PhD in the biological sciences and director of regulatory science with Fragrance Creators Association. First, I'll elaborate on the difference between hazard and risk. Just about anything can be associated with a hazard. For example, if consumed in excessive quantities, even water can dilute the sodium content in your blood so much that it would become life-threatening. Now imagine banning water because of this potential hazard.

This is why it's so important to consider risk, or the likelihood that a potential hazard will occur at a certain level of exposure. In the case of water drinking, the recommended daily intake of about nine to 13 cups will not pose any risk to your life and moreover, is incredibly beneficial, if not critical. Similarly, at high enough doses, fragrance ingredients are bound to be associated with various hazards.

However, the fragrance industry is aware of this and takes great care to maintain low exposure levels to its ingredients, such that the hazards are extremely unlikely to occur. The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, or RIFAM, is an independent scientific organization staffed by toxicologists. They perform safety assessments on all ingredients used in the fragrance industry, in which they consider areas like respiratory and reproductive toxicity.

In cases where risk management is needed, RIFAM calculates maximum acceptable concentrations per product category for an ingredient, which are used to generate standards that serve as use limits for the industry. When applicable, RIFAM's risk management process is similar to Prop 65 safe harbor level development. For example, for a potential carcinogen, both would consider the same data sets, employ the same types of analyses such as benchmark dose calculation, and use a conservative safety factor of 10,000 to minimize risk.

All of RIFAM safety conclusions must be reviewed and approved by the expert panel for fragrance safety, another independent body with experts such as physicians, academic professors, and environmental scientists with no affiliations to industry reference. Safety assessments also undergo peer review and publication in elsevier scientific journals. Nicole has already discussed the benefits of fragrance air fresheners.

Regulation of these ingredients to keep exposures at safe levels is critical, but a blanket ban will not achieve this and only serves to undercut the positive impacts of fragrance on people, perfume and the planet. For these reasons, we are opposed to AB 2201, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. We will ask the folks in the audience that want to register their opposition to the bill. Please come forward. State your name.

Thank you. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and Chemical Industry Council of California. In opposition.

Good afternoon. Tim Shestek with the American Chemistry Council, also in opposition. Thank you.

Kelly Larew with the American Cleaning Institute in opposition.

Anyone else? Okay, we'll bring the issue back to the dais. Any questions of the author? Any other witnesses in favor? Against. Yes.

Thank you so much. I just wanted to ask a couple questions, I think, in relation to what the opposition said. I know one of the testimonies was on the hazard traits that are in some of these chemicals. I know there's a number of things that in the right dosage can be hazardous that we consume every day.

And so I guess I'm just curious what the goal is for this Bill to kind of circumvent the scientific approach that we already have in place and kind of go through this process versus allow the safe consumer products program to play out.

Well, I would say not everybody knows how if they are truly exposed to that dosage, for one. So you could have janitors or cleaners that are actually getting a much higher dosage than what is intended or people in public spaces that are getting a higher dosage than what's intended. And then the other piece is it's taking an incredibly long time for chemicals that we know can cause serious health effects.

Okay. So I know this bill focuses on one specific product category. I assume that these chemicals are in other products as well, outside of the fragrance space. But I was just curious, like, why are we focused in on this product category specifically?

Partially because they can be so prevalent. Like, they are in the air. They are in products for air fresheners that are sort of like permeate all around us. So the exposure to them, I think you have a greater risk of having sort of an overexposure to them, if that makes sense.

Okay. And just for the opposition, I was curious if you had any more information on that in particular on, you know, other products that these chemicals might be a part of and maybe what, where the process currently stands through the chair on the, you know, these chemicals specifically.

Thank you. Yeah. Fragrance ingredients in general tend to be used as fragrances, for the most part, solely because they are on the pricier side to manufacture.

And they do have scents, so they tend to be limited to uses as fragrance in terms of other product categories. They tend to find themselves in cleaning products and consumer products and. Sorry, did you have another part to your question?

I think, just like, where are some of these chemicals that we're discussing today in the process, the scientific process that you discussed already, and what is the timeline on that?

Yeah. So regardless of product category, [Unintelligible] would investigate all fragrance ingredients.

And then they're, like I said, they have a risk management process. So anything that sort of tips off any red flags, they'll do a quantitative assessment on it and calculate maximum acceptable concentrations. And that's actually sensitive to the product category type. So they're not just going to calculate one limit across all product categories. It'll be specific to different categories. And that can also be based on where the prominent exposures are to the ingredient, depending on what categories they're in, and then what endpoints.

Like we were talking about respiratory or reproductive toxicity, where are you actually seeing the adverse effects.

Okay. Thank you. And I just want to say I appreciate the amendments, and I won't be able to support the bill today, but I do thank you for working on those amendments.

If I could clarify the timeline, mssembly member.

No problem.

DTSC has said it would take seven years for them, at least seven years for them to get through all of these, and that this would require dozens and dozens of regulations because it would be a separate regulation per.

I appreciate that.

I understand where you're at, but we're looking at an incredibly extended timeline for chemicals that are harming people today.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? Okay. I appreciate you accepting the amendments to narrow the scope of the bill, similar to some comments I made earlier in terms of DTSC and the role that they have. I think we also should take a look at how long they take to determine whether or not these chemicals should be on the market or not.

And so kind of a parallel process of when we're talking about the ban of these chemicals, we should also be putting some pressure over there to determine what the alternatives might be. And it shouldn't take seven years to determine that. Right. So some thoughts and perspectives there in terms of what we might be able to do along the way, also to take a close look at how we may be able to expedite that process as well.

I don't know what the answer is, but we certainly should be looking at that if we're going to continue to move in this particular direction. So, again, thank you for accepting the amendments. Would you like to close?

Sure. And if I may, chair, I absolutely agree with you on the issue with DTSC. I will just refocus the committee on this example that I brought to say that it's already in process for many of these fragrance chemicals. There are already products out there that are using alternatives. So the alternatives do exist right now, today, and are being sold on the shelf.

So we feel like we're in a good position and want to appreciate the committee for working with us to create these amendments, to create a stronger bill. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. It does have a do pass recognition to appropriations. I'll move the bill. Second Ms. Reyes. Roll call, please.

Item three, AB 2201 Addis. The motion is do pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We will keep that open for other members to add on. We've received two requests from Members who have witnesses who have to get going. I know Mr. Haney has been waiting patiently. Those Members who might go in front of him are gonna have to take him to Maya. Well, and buy him a chicken pozole after tonight. The green chicken pozole. Green one. Mr. Lee, you have a witness that has to get out soon. Please come forward. Ms. Reyes also has a witness.

And then Mr. Haney will go after Ms. Reyes and two pozoles from both members who are going before him. And Mr. Lee will just be presenting on one bill and then he'll be back too. Yes. Thank you. As will Miss Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. cChair and colleagues. On ESTM, I do say that it's good to be back in ESTM and presenting a bill before you.

I appreciate the committee's hard work on this bill and your flexibility, since we do have a 10 year old witness who ought to be getting back to school at some point. But today I'm going to be presenting a very simple bill that's about protecting kids. Now, you may be wondering, why did I go on a $200 shopping spree at Sephora? And that is because there are these products that are anti aging products that a child today can freely walk onto the store and buy by themselves.

Now remember, I said these are $200. There's nothing left in the back. There's only 54 things in there. So these are products that are very eye catching, very tempting, but they're anti aging products. Now, let me reiterate that there are children as young as 12 and under that are buying anti aging products. Now take another twist on that, too. Is not, is it just only unnecessary for children, but can also be potentially harmful?

Social media platforms are filled with beauty influencers promoting skincare products, resulting in a phenomenon we've called "sephora kids," where children are buying and using adult anti aging products that are unsuitable for their young skin. Children have more sensitive skin than adults. And common ingredients in anti aging skin products are retinols, glycolic acid and ascorbic acid, which are all highly irritating ingredients that can lead to redness, itching, swelling, dryness, peeling, and increased scent sensitivity.

The products we encompass in the bill contain harsh, potent, active chemicals when it comes to alpha hydroxy acids. The FDA reported adverse effects that include burning dermatitis, swelling, pigmentary changes, and blisters. The British Association of Dermatologists has warned that the children using skin products with anti aging ingredients or other potent can lead to irreversible skin problems. In addition, the Personal Care Products Council released a statement just last week stating that dermatologists agree that anti aging products are generally unnecessary for younger skin.

Data from Nielsen IQ shows that tweens, tweens, not even teens drive 49% of mass skincare's growth. The skincare industry itself is worth an estimated $180.3 billion globally, according to Statista. And all this to say is that the beauty industry is a multi $1.0 billion industry that knowingly that knows that these anti aging skincare products should not be used by children.

And I'll point to this example of the faq and these handouts that I gave you, is that the industry knows that children are using their products and continue to make money off children, including selling products to kids that they know they shouldn't be using. There are some companies who have acknowledged the issue by making statements that kids should be kids and that kids and teens have no need for anti aging products. But I'll point to you some of the posters behind me.

So we have here, we have one cosmetic company here that says "teens don't need the 10 step beauty regime." And in it, we've highlighted that they should say to avoid ingredients like retinoids and alpha hydroxy acids at the start of your journey, which can already be harsh. And of course, this is what you see if you go on TikTok, especially for young girls and a social media platform that's fed in their algorithm as well.

I will point out this FAQ from Drunk Elephant, which is these two very cute products here. Here. I'm not sponsored Q products here for anti aging products, including one that literally says baby facial, which you see also here, this is on their FAQ that says they do not advise 12 and younger to use their products. Yet when we bought these products, there is no warning of that in the box, inside, on the package, nothing. And yet the industry says continually.

And in all the other handouts you see is that it should be on the adults or the parents responsibility. But even me, someone who also uses skin products, doesn't always know what every single ingredient does. But the scientists already know they can be harmful. So with me today to testify is Scarlett. She's a 10 year old fifth grader who is here to tell her story about using these products and Susan Little with the Environmental Working Group. So I'll turn it over to Scarlett now.

Hello, my name is Scarlett [Unintelligible]. I am 10 years old, fifth grader, and I attend courtyard private school. I'm here today to talk about my beauty products I've used in the past and how they affected me. Me and my friends mostly like to spend a lot of our free time watching videos like TikTok and YouTube. And mostly in the videos they talk about their skincare routine. And during the videos they talk about how the products made their skin glow feel hydrated and other good things.

After hearing this, I wanted to buy the products that my skin could feel that way too. I started buying products on my own through places like Amazon, Target, and Nordstrom Rack. I would buy things online and use gift cards for my birthday or Christmas. I would also go to stores with my friends and my sister and use money that I saved to buy things. I would sometimes get free samples of things at stores.

I mostly looked for sheet masks, creams, and mists, and other products with words like glow, hydrating, brightening, and anti wrinkling because I didn't want to get wrinkles and, no offense, look old. After using these products, I started having skin reactions like burning and bumps on my cheeks that itched like a rash, especially when I went out of the sun. I thought it wasn't working and that I needed to use more of the products.

One night, I put on a mask and it burned so bad that I started crying and went to go tell my mom. For about two weeks it was really painful and I had a hard time sleeping so I would have to ask for Tylenol to help with my face pain. Some of my friends at school have also had the same things happen to them.

One of my friends used Drunk Elephant, which I could never afford because it's way too much money and and she liked to use it because it was the most popular of ones we were seeing on the videos and she really likes to try to be popular. Her face looks so bad. She had a really bad rash on her face.

I stopped using these products a while ago and used Nivea and sunscreen now, but I still have bumps on my cheeks and they get itchy and red when I sweat and when I am out in the sun, I feel embarrassed that I have bumps on my face and people at my school ask me why my cheeks are so red. It makes me really self conscious I'm worried my skin is always going to look like this and feel like this.

I really wish that I would have known these products would have affected me because if I did, I would never have used them. I didn't know I could buy something that sounded so good but would actually hurt my skin. I wanted glowing skin and instead I have red, itchy skin. Thank you for letting me come here and tell you about my experience with buying and using beauty products.

Thank you, Scarlett. Next witness.

Good afternoon. My name is Susan Little and I'm representing the Environmental Working Group today. The primary function of the active ingredients in anti-aging products is to increase skin turnover and create a younger appearance. But children already have smoother, younger skin and their skin naturally renews itself at a fast pace, so anti-aging ingredients are not helpful to their skin. Reports indicate, however, such as Scarlett's story, that children and tweens are seeking out and using anti-aging products.

At best, these products won't provide any skin benefits to them as these products are designed for older adults. At worst, the products may do harm to their skin. Common ingredients in anti-aging skin products are retinols and alpha hydroxy acids, which are all highly irritating and when used regularly, can in some instances cause skin to turn red, itch, swell, dry out, peel, and over time, with continual use, develop topical dermatitis and eczema.

Retinol is also an irritant, a known photocarcinogen, and Proposition 65 listed developmental toxicant. Studies have also linked vitamin A derivatives to the development of skin lesions and tumors on sun exposed skin. For older adults, the benefits of anti-aging skin care may offset the risks. But for children and tweens who already experience rapid cell turnover, there are no benefits, only unwarranted risks from using these products. Please support AB 2491 today. Thank you.

All right, so will supporters register your name, organization and position, please.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, in support, and was also asked to pass along the support of the Consumer Attorneys of California.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Good afternoon, Vanessa Forsythe, Clean Earth for Kids, in support, as well as Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxicity Safety, Grandparents for Action, North County Climate Change Alliance, Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice, North County Equity and Justice. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anna Chico Cornel on behalf of California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, in full support.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else? All right, we'll ask witnesses that will be testifying in opposition, please come forward. You have four minutes, and we've been pretty lenient in the four minutes, but if we can stay within the four minutes, I appreciate that. We've got a long list of bills today and I just appreciate the consideration.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Mandy Isaacs-Lee here on behalf of the Personal Care Products Council, in opposition to this bill. First and foremost, we want to acknowledge the intent of the author because the industry actually agrees that children do not need anti-aging products.

In fact, as a result of heightened attention around this social media trend, our companies have already begun educating the public to this fact and are encouraging kids to just be kids, something that is very difficult to do in this new era of social media, as pointed out in the analysis. Our concern, however, is with how this bill is to be implemented.

Foundationally, we are concerned that we are legislating permanent changes in state law based on social media trends, which can be and often are temporary in nature. I can list off a litany of social media trends that involve children in recent years doing a lot of ill-informed things, including the cinnamon challenge, the dishwasher pod challenge, the choking challenge. You may have heard of these trends, but these trends come and go. What we are enacting with 2491 will have lasting impacts once this trend passes.

Additionally, there's no scientific basis to justify this ban. The ingredients banned under this bill are safe, and the products themselves are safe when used as directed. The Committee should ask itself whether it is an appropriate role for the Legislature to ban products that are safe for use merely because they are being misused by some as part of a temporary social media trend.

As written, 2491 could ban a wide range of OTC cosmetic products, including sunscreens, moisturizers, cleansers, which are absolutely appropriate for tweens simply because they contain one of these targeted ingredients. When you think about other things that are banned from our youth, you think of tobacco, firearms, alcohol, cannabis. We are putting safe cosmetics in the same risk category as these products. The most likely adverse effects from using these anti-aging products are mild skin irritations, dryness, redness, things of that nature.

And again, these products must be used as directed, but a ban is not the right approach. I want to reiterate that we agree that children should not be concerned with preventing wrinkles or using anti-aging products, which are generally unnecessary for younger skin.

However, the ban proposed in 2491 is not the right approach, and since this is a newer, emerging trend, we would ask the author and the Committee to allow the industry to respond before enacting a ban that will have a lot of unintended consequences and arguably won't achieve the desired intent of the author. For these reasons, we ask for no vote.

Mr. Chair and Members, Margaret Gladstein, Capitol Advocacy, here on behalf of the California Retailers Association. We, too, appreciate the author bringing light to this issue, but we must strongly oppose the bill. First and foremost, there's simply no way for us to verify a child's age if they're under 13. There's no state-issued identification. We cannot reasonably comply with the bill with this ban in it. The bill also prohibits the sale of products that are advertised as anti-aging to children under 13.

We have stores that sell everything from ski wear to skincare. There's no way for us to know how every product is advertised. I would also note that marketing campaigns today can change on a dime. If something isn't working, the ad changes quickly. Many of you know this from your campaigns, you change ads quickly. Marketing campaigns can change very quickly as well. There's no possible way for a retailer to know which ad campaigns or which products are being advertised as anti-aging.

And finally, I would note that, as amended, the bill actually now puts two requirements on retailers. One is that we may not sell these products to children under 13 and we have to take reasonable steps. I believe the author's intent was actually to improve the bill from a retail perspective, but it has made it more difficult and set up two different standards, as the analysis rightfully points out, that retailers must, or two different requirements we have to meet.

And for those reasons, we strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. Those wishing to register your opposition, please come forward.

Good afternoon. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in opposition.

Good afternoon. Trent Smith, on behalf of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Adam Regele with the California Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Dan Chia, for the Civil Justice Association of California, in opposition.

Anyone else? Okay, we'll bring the issue back to the dais. Any questions? Please.

Thank you, Chair, and appreciate the author working on this. And thank you, Scarlett, for telling your story. Several questions, and I think the opposition has flagged a few.

It sounds like work is ongoing, but just so I'm clear, under the amendments, would you actually be in compliance with the bill, i.e. avoid liability by providing a notice?

Yes.

So literally notice provided no liability?

Yes. As in the amended language with the Committee, you see that among the option, the menu of options that a company can be in compliance with, one of them is a physical notice near the product or the cashier, or even an online notice, because obviously sold in brick and mortar stores and online, a notice would suffice compliance.

And something along the lines of inappropriate to be used for people under 13, something like that. I do agree with the point.

I think part of this also will just be getting education out there, so if this goes forward I still think that's an appropriate track as well. The second question, and it's kind of reduced a little bit by your first answer, but still there is how would this be enforced?

Like, and I think that was raised primarily around no ID. But again, if we're just talking about a label or not even a label, like a notice on a wall or something nearby, how do you anticipate this getting enforced?

Yeah. And as brought up with the concerns for the opposition, I understand that they have concerns about the implementation, enforcement aspect of it. So we've been reaching out proactive about how that can be the case.

So with those recent amendments you saw with the menu of options, including the notice, we wanted to provide options. These are things that they can do, reasonable steps to do. So. And that was also the reasonable step language was based off of a bill from a couple years back when children were unfortunately being able to purchase firearms on Amazon using prepaid gift cards. And the reasonable step language is adopted from that bill. So we're using compliance like that.

I'll also point out that today, if you go into Sephora, I mean, if you're 11 years old, you're not allowed to get waxing right now. That's a company policy. You're not allowed right now. There are a lot of industries out there right now that have enforcement on age ranges under 18 right now when it comes to video games, R-rated movies or waxing services.

And even with our online protection notices for young people is that oftentimes they have to self-certify they're 13. Self-certification is also one of those options that we allow as well.

Any other questions? Please.

Thank you. I guess-- well, I do have a comment, but first, I was kind of hoping to hear more about the scientific evidence behind the proposed ban and the actual chemical properties that you feel are damaging here.

Yeah, I'll defer to Susan Little.

Sure, thank you. Well, we know that AHA, that alpha hydroxy acids, as I said, are, they're designed to-- Usually they are very small, they're at very small levels, and they're an acid that is designed to actually break the skin barrier and create exfoliation on the skin. For young people, that, of course, is not necessary because their skin is already rejuvenating itself just rapidly.

What it will do is it'll break the skin barrier and it exposes their skin, then to irritants, to bacteria, to other things that can cause redness at the minimum. And over time, it can actually turn into more serious, complex situations like eczema and topical dermatitis. Some of the chemicals we're talking about, for instance, the vitamin A derivatives, are actually linked to the development of skin lesions and tumors, especially because it creates more sun sensitivity for the skin.

And, of course, that then results in essentially sun damage to the skin, which can lead to these tumors and potentially, it can lead to carcinogenic effects. Those are some of the examples as to why they need to be used with care. They can be beneficial, especially for adults in some instances, but certainly children-- they're not developing any kind of benefit here. They're not receiving any benefit from using these products, but can definitely be exposed to harm, certainly to more sun sensitivity and sun damage to their skin at a very young age, which is problematic.

Thank you. I think I was just curious if the opposition had any thoughts on that, but also, what are the testing requirements that have to take place already with these products?

Yeah, through the Chair, I wanted to address the first question, which is around the science behind that would justify this ban. And thank you for the question. Vitamin A and vitamin C and its derivatives are naturally occurring ingredients. You can find them in your food, and they are safe products. And the levels that we use them in cosmetics are certainly under safe levels.

I will point to the analysis, which does a good job of summarizing many past laws that this Legislature has passed that have banned phthalates, that have banned BPA, that have banned PFAS in children's products because there were known, studied harms associated with those toxic chemicals. The same cannot be said about vitamin A and vitamin C.

Thank you. To the author, I think, interestingly, I think you have identified a really important problem with this bill. I'm not sure that I'm convinced it's the products that we're discussing, per se. I do think the social media aspect of this bill is very, very concerning to me. And I think in Privacy Committee that's going on right now we've been talking about this a lot in really limiting access, especially for young kids, to services like TikTok and Instagram, and things where these trends are really starting.

And I think, for me, that's probably where I'm more comfortable focusing our attention on. While I absolutely appreciate, Scarlett, everything that you had to say, and I'm very sorry for the impacts that this has caused.

You know, I do think that that's probably, to me, the more appropriate focus for the Legislature right now is to kind of focus in on that. So probably won't be able to support the bill today. Thank you.

Question?

I do want to thank you for bringing this, but I want to begin with Scarlett. Scarlett, you're beautiful. Thank you. You're absolutely beautiful, and you need to remember that. You're absolutely beautiful. And I appreciate that you've come here to talk about your experience. Without a doubt, you need to do some TikTok things--

I'm not saying I'm not in favor of TikTok or opposed to it, but I'm just saying you need to do some of this also, too, so that other young girls will know the effect of using these products. In the literature you gave us, where Dove is actually doing a campaign to remind young girls or remind the rest of us to provide, to remind our young girls that they don't need to do any of this. I think that's important. I hope others do the same thing.

But I think that we do have a responsibility to our young girls, to the young people. And if that means providing the labeling, the warning, that's something that we should do, especially because we know they are using these products. If we had no idea that young 13 year olds or 12 year olds were using the product, well, then we wouldn't have to do anything.

But if we know that this is what is happening as a result of social media, that they are using the products, then I think we do have a responsibility to do more. And as my colleague mentioned, yes, having more controls in social media. We're here today knowing these products are being used by 11, 12 year olds, and we do have to do something. And I think that having labeling, having warnings, whether it's on the product or where it is being sold, I think is important.

I'm not saying that this is a labeling bill. That isn't what you're presenting to us, but I think that something does need to be done. This is the first committee that the bill is being heard in, and I think it deserves to, to move forward with the discussions, with opposition as to how this can be accomplished, because I think we all agree that our 10, 11, 12 year olds should not be using these products, and we have to find a way to stop it.

So thank you for that.

Thank you very much.

Yes, and I'm sorry I missed your presentation, young lady. I'm pretty sure it was fabulous. I thank the author for bringing this up as well. I do. And I will give you an aye vote in this Committee to move it on. But I do worry about how we're going to enforce. I know this is not a labeling bill, but I probably would rather see a warning than saying that someone has to check ID because that's putting implications on the stores.

What are they going to do? How are they going to enforce this when you're doing it online? How do they enforce it online? So I don't know how we enforce something for someone that's 13 and under. I know that we have the videos because I once had kids 13 and under, but I don't know if they enforced it in the video stores or even in the movie theater. I don't know if they enforced it. How do they do PG-13?

I don't know how they really actually enforce it. And so I'll be giving you an aye vote, but I know that you will continue to work with the opposition.

Thank you. Would you like to respond?

Yeah. Just to say to that point, Assemblymember McKinnor, thank you for that. I mean, I remain committed to working with all groups in this. And if we want to put warning labels and how dangerous these things could be on the products themselves, I'm happy to go down that route as well.

Okay, no other questions or comments. You do have a due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee, and so thank you for bringing this forward.

We would love to see you continue working with the opposition to find the balance that I think this bill still seeks, right, in terms of the implementation and the enforcement of it. So would you like to close or?

Yes. Thank you so much. Scarlett reminded me that she had brought some pictures of some of the products that she brought. If you want to show these products that you had used that caused some of this irritation of what they look like.

So these are some of the products and how they were designed, manufactured. And yes, the industry says that they do not market these to kids. They don't advertise the kids. But I know for a fact that these things are designed in a certain way, not on accident, on purpose. And the industry, while they are mounting campaigns who say being a kid is good enough, don't worry about these things. Those actions are unfortunately performative because they still readily accept the money from kids.

You heard from Scarlett herself that she couldn't afford Drunk Elephant. These things are premium stuff right now. And no, there are no free samples, anyone? These are mine. So these things are premium products themselves. And this is a multibillion dollar market. The Vice Chair brought up a good point about what's safe and what's the safe level? The EU bans over-the-counter retinol products of over 0.3%. This one that I'm holding in front of you is 1% already.

I don't know particularly how bad compound it is, but it is way over the European allowed. And the important aspect too to talk about is over-the-counter. So you hear the opposition use the phrase a lot, use as directed. Directed by whom? I didn't go to the doctor to get this. I didn't actually want the store. There's nothing on the website, there's nothing on the packaging. Who is directing me to do what? And I don't know how much is safe, right?

Because if you get it prescribed by a doctor, the same products that we're talking about is okay. If you need acne medication, skin medication, that's okay, that doesn't touch this. So that's a very key phrase that you hear a lot in the industry. And that's why with all the performative talk, you hear why our bill is necessary to enforce that.

Because even though it is a trend spurred by social media, spurred by kids today, they can readily walk in today to the store and pony up the money. And as you heard from Scarlett, it's readily accessible for them. I respectfully ask your aye vote and appreciate your comments today.

Thank you. I don't know if there's a motion already or a second. I'll move the bill, second. Thank you very much. We'll ask for roll call.

Item nine, AB 2491 Lee. The motion is do pass as amended and re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] We have four votes.

Okay. We will keep the roll open for other members to add on and we're going to ask Mr. Haney to come forward. We will not keep him waiting anymore. He will present a bill that has no opposition, has a do pass recommendation. He has accepted amendments and there's really no reason to keep him waiting anymore. All right, there is a motion, there's a second. He has a witness. That will be short and great and concise and so.

All right, I will be very quick. AB 2365 will protect California's consumers by establishing health and safety regulations for kratom products sold in the state. Kratom is a tree in the coffee family, native to Southeast Asia. In Low doses, it can provide produce a beneficial stimulant effect. In higher doses, it can have negative symptoms. Many states have decided to regulate kratom. California needs to do that as well. Recent amendments make sure that only individuals 21 and over can purchase safe kratom products.

It has a lot of support and no opposition. And here to testify today is David Quintana on behalf of the Global Kratom Coalition. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman. We want to say thank you to Assemblymember Haney for bringing this bill. It's very rare in this industry where you see someone jump ahead of a problem before there's a crisis. And that's what we see this bill doing. You know, honestly, I don't feel the need to give a speech if we're good to go.

So thank you folks wanting to register their position and support, please come forward.

Thank you Mr. Chair and members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association and California Narcotic Officers Association and all the POs and DSAs listed in the analysis, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? As mentioned earlier, there's no opposition, but I'll just ask if there's anyone at the last minute. Okay, see no one bring back to dice. Any questions, comments, concerns? There's a motion. Second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you very much. Do pass recommendation appropriation, roll call.

Item seven, AB 2365, Haney. The motion is due pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

2345 okay, we will leave the roll open for the members who had on. Assemblymember Reyes will be presenting file number 12. This bill, I believe, also has no opposition, has a do pass to Committee on Appropriations. Her witnesses have also committed to be very brief. That's what they told me. I'll move the bill. Is there a second? Second. The floor is yours.

Thank you Mr. Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to present to you AB 2827, which protects our agricultural economy. AB 2827 will require the state to detect and eradicate invasive species that could harm California agriculture. California is currently experiencing one of its highest levels of exotic fruit fly infestations in its recorded history. According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, these invasive species can result in billions of dollars in losses every year if they become permanently established in California.

In 2023, there were over 900 fruit fly detections in 15 counties. In comparison, an average year will see about 75 fruit fly detections in seven counties. Hundreds of crops are threatened by invasive fruit flies, including nuts, citrus, vegetables and berries. It is critical that we bring attention to the impacts invasive species have on our shared environment and ensure we are implementing long term strategies to protect our local economy. We must protect our food sources and those of millions of our Americans.

AB 2827 seeks to prioritize mitigation efforts against the serious threat of invasive pest species. Here to testify on behalf of the bill are Evan Sanford, executive director of the Redlands Chamber of Commerce, and John Beall, member of the San Bernardino County Fire Bureau. Farm Bureau.

Good afternoon. I'm Evan Sanford, executive director of the Redlands Chamber of Commerce. And it's an honor and a privilege to represent 500 business members, which is made up of thousands of owners, employees and customers in the region. For over a century, as a community in Southern California, our local history has been closely tied to the citrus industry. And three pieces of artwork in this hearing room testify to that fact in San Bernardino County.

We believe that the passage of AB 2827 will ensure that we can protect our past and at the same time, embrace the future. And the Redlands Chamber is proud to be a co sponsor of this bill. It would help our local growers and farmers in a number of ways. First, it would recognize the threat these invasive species, like the oriental fruit fly, can have when quarantines go into effect, rendering entire farms completely lost.

For nearly a year, their income has been at zero, while expenses have remained constant. And for generational farms like old grove farms, that puts even more pressure on them. And that's after successfully navigating the COVID pandemic. The impact of this current quarantine has been stunning, and officials from the CDFA have stressed that the fruit fly, as the member said, could cause billions of dollars in losses every year.

AB 2827 would ensure that California's investment in research, outreach and education to raise awareness about invasive species risks and promote responsible practices. It would hold state agencies accountable during disasters, requiring them to collaborate with stakeholders to detect, control, monitor and eradicate invasive species while safeguarding agriculture and natural resources. This bill would direct the CDFA and other state agencies to allocate funds for its implementation and enforcement.

And another one of our local growers, Sanders Farms, on the impact of the current quarantine says, quote, "the fruit fly and resulting destruction of our fruit has had a devastating financial impact. We're frustrated that the CDFA has communicated little and done nothing at this point. As we enter a new season, we fear a repeat and our family depends on the income and this year it's at zero. We're small commercial growers and must carry the expense ourselves." End quote.

Finally, it's important to note that what's being proposed is realistic and reasonable and will result in positive outcomes for generations to come. The Redlands Chamber is proud to be co sponsoring this legislation and of our supportive partnership with Assemblymember Eloise Gomez Reyes. Our mission is to help anyone with a business, and that means not just on our downtown state street, but our local growers and farmers as well. And you can support them too with your support of AB 2827. Thank you.

Good afternoon, assembly members. I'm John Beall. I'm a 7th generation Californian and a fifth generation of a citrus growing and packing family in what I call the Napa Valley of the naval orange, California. I'm on the board of the San Bernardino County Farm Bureau and I'm also on the California Farm Bureau's state commodity committee for fruit trees. I myself am a small grower. One of these days I hope to be a full commercial farmer. I'm not quite there yet, but I'm working on it.

I grow citrus, wine grapes, capers and loofah. In the meantime, I work for a renewable energy company and I have a business making products from local produce. I support AB 2827 for three main reasons. Number one, because what has been occurring near my home with the oriental fruit fly, the largest outbreak of fruit fly in California history and in several other areas in California, threatens the future of our agriculture, impacting over 230 different crops, including citrus and wine grapes.

From the smallest home garden to the largest farm. Today, it's us. And if it's not checked, it could spread. Nearly every county in California has some form of unique and important agricultural industry cherished by those communities. It could just as easily be any of us tomorrow, particularly in tree agriculture, such as what we're engaged in. In my home area, interruptions like these can weaken workforces, destabilize industries, and disincentivize the continued capital investment necessary to sustain farms and processing infrastructure for a healthy local economy.

The stability of our local agricultural economies across the state depend upon swift, decisive action to keep risks from becoming existential threats. Number two, outbreaks like this have happened before. They will continue happening, and it may be that they will be increasingly frequent and virulent with rising average temperatures and with California's ever expanding role in logistics in the global supply chain.

I myself have received packages from abroad that have had grubs of invasive pests, the Japanese beetle on the bottom of palletized boxes with a bit of orange peel stuck next to them. And I have to wonder if this has occurred more than once. Number three, particularly in our area, pestilences like these are not covered by private crop insurance. That's a really important point, and that has been the main roadblock to addressing the outbreak. At the commercial level. CDFA has done a great job with residential properties.

But unless we're addressing the problem holistically, it's shifting chairs from one side of the deck of a sinking ship to the other. Delays in addressing outbreaks early are costly, and the chances of a breeding population establishing itself go forever upward, as do the chances of it spreading elsewhere. Since past successes in eradicating invasive pests in California, like the medfly outbreaks in the eighties and nineties, have depended upon swift, coordinated efforts undertaken at the state level.

It makes sense to equip the state to be swift and present and future interventions, perhaps even catch and address outbreaks before quarantines and far more costly measures become necessary. Thank you and I'm available for questions.

I'll ask other members of the audience that want to register their support on the bill. Please come forward. Name organization position.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Reed Addis on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, in support.

Good afternoon. Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Good afternoon. Noelle Cremers with Wine Institute, in support.

Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Erin Norwood with the Allman Alliance. Very appreciative of our efforts as we battle the Carpophilus beetle, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Taylor Roschen. I'm not going to name the 200 commodities, but on behalf of California Citrus Mutual, a proud co sponsor of the bill along with the California Apple Commission Avocado, Blueberry and Walnut Commission Fresh Fruit Association, Growers shippers, Western Ag processors and California Association of Pest Control Advisors, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Michael Miller, California Association of Wine Grape Growers. We're co sponsoring the bill. We thank the author for her leadership. We ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I know there's no registered opposition, but I'll ask is there anyone wishing to come forward and speak in opposition? See? No one. No one lining up to register opposition. We'll bring it back to dais. Questions? Assemblymember Papan? No questions.

No questions. I'd just like to thank the author for bringing this. It is tremendously important to be vigilant about invasive species. I'm sorry to hear it's not covered by crop insurance. And I would respectfully ask to be added as a co author. I really applaud this effort to be proactive and mitigate what we can ahead of time. So thank you.

Any other questions or comments? All right, would you like to close? You do have a do pass to appropriations and there is a motion in a second.

I absolutely will join you as a co author. I was very proud that in our ag committee we had unanimous bipartisan support. And I think everyone was a co author of the bill after that. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Please.

Item 12, AB 2827. Reyes. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] We have five votes.

All right. Thank you very much. We have another author in the room and so I'll ask who's next here? Wilson. Wilson. Wilson.

Like my lovely testimony people are outside.

Followed by Miss Papan.

Thank you. You give me 2 seconds. They were walking in. See, they're about to lose their turn. We're about to go to [Unintelligible]. I think if they don't walk in, I'm ready. All right. I might have to give them my seat. The door's still open. Are they coming in? Okay. I'm like. I walked right by him. I thought they were coming in. No, it's okay. Thank you. Hold on 1 second.

Okay, we will have to wait for Miss Pellerin. I don't have my notes on my email. There we go. We have to wait.

All right. Assemblymember Pellerin, please come forward.

You guys can stay. You can testify. Hello. Thank you, Mister chair and members for the opportunity to present AB 2513. In order to prevent excessive exposure to nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, benzidine, and other carcinogenic byproducts that cause harmful health effects, AB 20513 will require consumer warning labels for all new gas stoves sold in California. The labels will inform consumers of the hazards associated with gas stoves, stoves and oven appliances.

This will allow for an increased vigilance in installing and proper use of gas stoves in order to prevent undue exposure. Similarly, by making this informative information available to consumers at the point of sale, it will help the purchaser make more informed decisions. AB 20513 would require that the label will instruct on proper ventilation installation to allow for exhaust of of all harmful gases. Understanding of the importance of venting the fumes that initially leads to this hazard.

Just running a stove for mere minutes with poor ventilation can lead to indoor concentrations of nitrogen dioxide that exceed the EPA's air quality standards for outdoors. The American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the American Lung Association have all spoken out about gas stove pollution. Despite the growing body of evidence about the health risks of gas stoves, most of this isn't common knowledge.

When you go to the store to purchase a gas stove, there's little to suggest the extent of the health issues involved with appliances. With me to testify is Doctor Rob Jackson, Professor at Stanford University, to testify as an expert witness about his research on gas stoves, and Doctor Brett Andrews, with Physicians for Social Responsibility, to testify in support of the bill.

Should I go first? Dear chair, committee members and staff, thank you for the chance to testify in support of AB 2513. I'm Rob Jackson, a Stanford scientist and chair of the Global Carbon Project, an international group that tracks greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. The view is expressed on my own. My group has spent decades measuring greenhouse gas emissions from homes and buildings.

We also measure how much nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and this year, for the first time ever, benzene forming the flames of gas and propane stoves. When people cook, the EPA classifies nitrogen dioxide as a trigger for asthma, coughing and wheezing. It classifies benzene as a known human carcinogen. Gas and propane stoves emit substantial amounts of all three pollutants named in the bill that's why the bill is appropriate. But electric stoves emit none.

Your choice of fuel, not the food you cook, dictates how much of the pollutants you'll breathe. The concentrations we measure from gas and propane sometimes lead to dangerous levels for hours, not just in kitchens but in bedrooms down the hall where our children sleep. And we see dangerous concentrations, both with and without bent hoods on ventilation helps, of course, but research shows that fewer than a third of people use their hoods.

Our work and that of Brett Singer and others also shows that actual hoods in people's homes, knot hoods in test kitchens and laboratories reduce levels of pollution only modestly, about one-third on average. They don't eliminate risk, and many aren't helpful at all because they don't send pollution outdoors. My son had asthma.

I'll never know whether his asthma was caused by our gas stove, but based on my research, I would never have a gas stove in my home today, every ounce of extra pollution makes health problems more likely. Consumers need the information in AB 2513 and you should pass the bill.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon. I'm Brett Andrews. I'm a practicing neurologist and was associate chief of neurology at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland through last year. I'm representing my own opinion. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of 2513. There are many decades of research on the associated health harms from indoor air emissions from gas stoves.

From this research, we know that gas stoves emit a wide range of pollutants, including the nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and benzene in this bill, which are associated with increased disease and mortality. We also know that current childhood asthma is increased 42% by the Association of Gas Stove Use in their home.

Research also tells us that exposure to increased levels of nitrogen dioxide specifically are associated with other diseases like lung development, chronic lung disease, poor birth outcomes, decreased brain function and dementia, heart disease, stroke, and premature death. That infants and children are more vulnerable to these effects of air pollution due to faster breathing rates, lung surface area versus their body weights, and their increased physical activity. Also, that carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide emission levels are highest for apartment dwellers over homeowners due to less space.

Also that populations of low-income and people of color are disproportionately affected as they live more often in apartments and because they often do not have access to range hoods that exhaust outdoors. And as well, people of color and low income live more often in locations with unsafe outside air pollution levels. Indoor and outdoor air pollution are additive as environmental determinants of health as there are no required guest over missions or ventilation safety standards in California.

This labeling bill would provide at least some health protection for consumers. The San Francisco Bay Area physicians for Social Responsibility and many health-concerned organizations strongly support AB 2513 for a healthier California. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'll ask those who want to register their support position, please come forward. Name, organization and position.

Vanessa Forsythe in support, Clean Earth for Kids, Climate Health Now, Families Advocating for Chemical Toxic Safety, Grandparents for Action, North County Climate Action Change Alliance, Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice, North County Equity and Justice. Thank you.

Jenn Engstrom with CalPIRG, proud sponsor of the bill, also asked to voice support for the Coalition for Clean Air.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of Alameda Stop Waste in support.

Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California in support.

Laura Gillan with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support.

-- Environmental Working group in support and a banana slug.

Thank you very much.

Anna Chico, Cornell, on behalf of California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice in full support.

Thank you. Those wishing to testify in opposition, please come forward. Four minutes is your window. You don't have to use all four minutes. Yeah, wherever you like.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jacob Cassady. I'm the director of government relations with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. AHAM represents over 160 companies that manufacture major portable floor care appliances, as well as the industry suppliers. AHAM is strongly opposed to AB 2513. I'll refer you to our full written statement, in addition to other materials that we've submitted, and not take up too much of my time reiterating what's in that.

I did want to address a few key things that are included in those. One is a misnomer that gas stoves do not carry a current warning label. There is one. It is included in Prop 65 warnings. All gas powered appliances are on that list. In fact, there is a fact sheet on Prop 65 that includes products and ways to mitigate any of the harmful effects of the use of an appliance that would use gas as a fuel.

So any of the potential risks associated with the use of gas stoves are included there. We do find it peculiar that this legislation targets only gas cooking appliances, which, as the committee analysis notes, all cooking releases particulate matter PM 2.5 through the burning of oils, gases, fats. But here we are talking about just gas stoves. So if we want to talk about gas stoves. We think that that's an important conversation. Talk about gas stoves.

If we want to talk about indoor air quality, then let's have that conversation. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories recently did a study that the CEC used when it reviewed its building codes, and they said that increased ventilation was a way to mitigate these risks, so mitigating the risk from airborne contaminants, cooking or otherwise. Additionally, the proponents of this bill really do attempt to make what seems like a false connection between the use of gas cooking and rates of childhood asthma.

And when analyzing data, just remind the committee that it's important to remember that correlation is not causation. We've heard a lot, and it was written about in the committee analysis of the LIN study, which was used by Rocky Mountain Institute, or RMI, in which some of the study's authors said in January of last year that the study does not assume or estimate a causal relationship between childhood asthma and gas stoves. As I mentioned, a warning label for gas stoves exists.

About 70% of California homes with gas stoves would have had this warning. An additional new warning label will only serve to confuse or cause consumers to further ignore warning labels. Label fatigue is a real concern and what we want our folks to have a focus on the proper use of their appliance, proper use of ventilation techniques, either through a room air cleaner, through running a range hood, or through getting the air to exchange in the house in any safe method that's possible.

If it's an issue with the Prop 65 warning, let's have that conversation. If it's an issue with indoor air quality, let's have that conversation. Let's figure out a way to better mitigate indoor air quality of homes, either through the improving of the air outside of the home, which that is what the home would breathe. So with that, I'll stop again, refer you to our written comments, and take any questions.

Thank you very much. I'll ask those who want to register their opposition on the bill, please come forward. Name, organization and position.

Hi, Meg Snyder, Axiom Advisors, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, opposed.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Western Propane Gas Association, in opposition. Thank you.

No one else in the line. I'll bring the matter back to the dais. Questions of author and or opposition or support witnesses, please.

Thank you. I just wanted to ask, you know, I think something like 70% of homes in California currently have gas stoves. I would, I don't have a study in front of me right now, but if I were to pull my wife I could definitely figure out what her preference is, but obviously consumer preferences are for gas stoves.

And so kind of curious on, I guess, the general intent of the bill, but also to the opposition's concern if this is already included on the Prop 65 label, is the intent of the bill to change those preferences? I guess. What is the ultimate goal?

Well, information is power, and the label that we're proposing is more extensive to really drive home the fact that these gas stoves emit gases that are toxic, that can impact your child or yourself in causing asthma or breathing difficulties, and the importance of using ventilation, whether it be a hood or keeping air flowing in your kitchen. I myself was unaware that I needed to be using the vent hood when I'm using the oven. And so that's something I've learned in the course of carrying this bill. But I'd also like to defer to my expert witness for any additional information on that.

Yeah, thanks. There are a number of good points that have come up. I would say we are. This bill does address air quality, and it addresses it appropriately because the three compounds listed in the bill, nitrogen dioxide, benzene, and carbon monoxide, do not form when food is cooked. They form purely in the flames. So it's a fuel issue. And we've tested this in my lab. We do all of our testing boiling water, for that very reason.

So we isolate the effects of the fuel from any effects of food. We test meals like salmon and bacon. They produce no benzene, for example. So it really is about the fuel. In this case, if you change fuels, you eliminate the risk. That doesn't mean you eliminate all risks of these compounds in your home, but food is primarily an issue for particulate matter, not for the chemicals that we're talking about. And just one last comment, if I may. The Lin paper that was mentioned.

I don't know exactly what the author said, but the conclusion to that paper of summarizing decades of research states, and I'm quoting, this meta analysis, provides quantitative evidence that in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma and indoor nitrogen dioxide increases the risk of current wheeze. So that's the concern. Concluding statement from the paper.

As well. Prop 65 is addressing carcinogens, which is the benzene issue. This labeling currently does not address nitrogen dioxide or carbon monoxide, which have strong health effects or associations.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I do think that relationship you mentioned in the Lind study is obviously a causal relationship. But I think some of these issues are also being addressed in building codes ensuring that we're, I think my question is, too, there's not a lot of consumers that are actually going to the store and picking out their stove. They're purchasing a home that already has a stove.

And so I guess I'm not fully convinced that this bill is going to really give consumers any more options or the information is going to be particularly helpful, so won't be able to support the bill today.

Sorry, questions.

On page one of the analysis, it gives the language for the warning. Is that correct?

Correct.

All right. How does that compare with the Prop. 65 warning label?

Is that for. I'm sorry, is that for me?

Yes.

Okay. Well, there's multiple warnings. There's the shorthand Prop 65 warning. There's a longer Prop 65 warning. This is an extensive warning, one that is legally questionable considering the claims that are made in it and some issues of forced speech and compelled speech that would be made of forced on manufacturers. So there certainly is that. As to how it compares. You know, I'll leave that to the experts on Prop 65. The point is, is that it is warrant.

It is out there that CARB acknowledges this, but this bill focuses on gas cooking, not other gas appliances, while CARB does discuss that and so does the fact sheet, the Prop 65 fact sheet. And so just one issue that we keep hearing is with these other chemicals that come from the burning of, of gas.

But again, with this meta-analysis that we keep hearing about, the authors actually wrote that quote, finding an association between gas cooking and asthma in the absence of an association between measured no two nox and asthma suggests that gas cooking may act as a surrogate for these causal variables other than air pollution produced by gas combustion. So there remain a lot of questions out there. It's not as simple and clear-cut as this. There is thankfully already a warning program, a consumer-facing warning at play. And at this point, it seems pretty sufficient, especially since 70% of California households have chosen in spite of that.

That's important. My colleagues has talked about that. There's also a QR code that will be put on the label to refer the consumer to the Air Resources Board regarding indoor indoor air pollution and cooking. Is that correct?

All right. Is there, perhaps you can give an answer as to the, the Prop 65 warning and this warning. How do they compare?

That's correct.

I'm not the right person to answer that question.

Prop 65 addresses carcinogens. This label adds nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and those have significant health associations, including the very high rates of asthma, which are, are confirmed by many papers.

I think that if, assuming the bill is going to move forward, I think speaking with the opposition about the language, if we are going to have a label and that is going to be the will of the legislature, then I think working on exactly what's going to be included in the language. There's already a warning for Prop 65, but there's already a warning there. You want to provide a more detailed warning.

I think if some of the language is objectionable, to look to the language that would be acceptable, accurate, so that the consumer in the end, that's who we're trying to notify. We want the consumer to know these are the hazards associated with the gas stove and this is where the information comes from and you make an informed decision. Do you want to get the gas stove or do you want to pick another way to heat your food?

So if the bill moving, as the bill moves forward, I think it'll be important to find the language that you all can agree on to protect the consumer. With that I would move the bill.

Okay, any other questions from other members? Okay, see no one raising their hand. We have a motion. Is there a second? Okay, we have a motion and a second that this have a do pass recommendation. It goes straight to the Assembly floor. Given that there are some concerns still, I would hope that there will be some continued dialogue with the opposition on this issue. Would you like to close?

Yeah, absolutely. Happy to work with the opposition on getting the right language. We want to make sure that consumers are informed and understand the risks and how to mitigate those risks by having better ventilation. So I respectfully ask for your. aye vote.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll call the question on the motion in a second.

Item 10. AB 2513. Pelerin. The motion is do pass to the Assembly floor. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave the roll open for other members to add on. We have going back to the file order. We have Miss Bauerkan who has a bill to present and will be followed by Misses Wilson.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'm proud to present AB 2214 which is a joint effort with me, with our amazing colleague Miss McKinnor. We are faced with an urgent and pervasive threat to both our environment and our health. Microplastics, the tiny particles that stubbornly resist degradation, have been observed in Monterey Bay, San Francisco, Lake Tahoe, Southern California, and additional waterways. Microplastics are detected in breast milk and we know they're getting to our human bodies.

A global study by WWF International found that, on average, people could be ingesting approximately 5 grams of plastic every week, equivalent to the weight of a credit card. Recognizing the severity of the situation, the Ocean Protection Council, mandated by a statute, developed a statewide microplastic strategy. The comprehensive plan, published in 2022, outlines 22 recommendations aimed at reducing and managing microplastic pollution across California.

AB 2214 builds on this initiative by mandating the OPC to lead an interagency coordination group to identify and recommend necessary statutory changes to implement the recommendations outlined in the statewide microplastic strategy to the legislature by 2025. This is critically important.

I introduced a bill last year on microplastics in cosmetic products, and what we found was there is too many agencies charged with this such that nobody is doing anything about it and we need to consolidate that and make sure we're working to remove microplastics with me in support - oh, look, the people from the Cheeto bill were sitting next to me. With me in support is Isabella Gonzalez with the Nature Conservancy and Alison Waliszewski with 5 Gyres, which I'm probably pronouncing wrong. Who wants to go first? Go ahead.

Thank you so much, Chair Garcia, and esteemed members of this committee. My name is Alison Waliszewski, and I'm the director of policy and programs at the Five Gyres Institute, a science-based NGO in Santa Monica that has been at the forefront of plastic pollution research for over 15 years. I'm here to ask and urge my strong support for AB 20214.

Introduced by Assembly Members Bauer-Kahan and McKinnor, this bill is a crucial step in combating the pressing issue of microplastic pollution, which threatens our environment, wildlife, and public health. Microplastics stemming from various sources such as durable goods, packaging, synthetic textiles, pre-production plastic pellets called nurdles, and intentional additives like microbeads are wreaking havoc on our ecosystems. Each year, these tiny fragments, amounting to 230,000 metric tons globally, find their way into our water systems, posing significant challenges due to their ubiquity and persistence.

AB 20214 proposes a comprehensive approach to tackle this cross-sectoral challenge. It mandates that the Ocean Protection Council spearhead an interagency coordination group tasked with identifying and recommending statutory changes to implement the statewide microplastic strategy. This strategy, comprising of 22 recommendations, offers a roadmap to reduce and manage the microplastics crisis effectively. One notable aspect of this bill is a directive for OPC to evaluate expanding the statewide microbead ban to include all microplastics intentionally added to consumer products.

Roughly 25% of cosmetic products contain added microplastics of some type. A single of use of a product can release up to tens of thousands of microbeads down the drain. This microbead pollution is difficult to manage as microbeads in consumer products are 40% harder to remove during wastewater treatment processes than other types of microplastics, increasing the release into aquatic environments.

Furthermore, this bill emphasizes promoting the sale and use of Energy Star condenser dryers and washing machines equipped with microfiber filters, highlighting a proactive approach to tackling microfiber pollution at its source. Research has shown that washing machine filters can capture 80% of microfibers that would otherwise enter the wastewater stream. Increasing the use of these filters would greatly reduce microfiber pulp emissions from the environment. Chair Garcia and esteemed members of this committee, I ask you to please vote aye on AB 2214.

Thank you for your leadership on plastic pollution.

Thank you. All right, we'll keep it short and sweet here. Isabella Gonzalez Potter, Associate Director with the Nature Conservancy, similarly pleased to be supporting AB 2214. Just share some quick facts you might find interesting. In 2020, the Nature Conservancy partnered with UC Santa Barbara to quantify the amount of microfibers that are in California's environment. The study found that in 2019, an estimated 4000 metric tons, or 13.3 quadrillion fibers, yes, quadrillion with a q, were released into California's natural environment.

That number represents 130,000 times as many fibers as there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy. That's for one year, or equivalent to 80 million rubber duckies worth of plastic polluting the state every year. Nothing like a rubber ducky for a scale here. So, as you know, microplastic pollution poses a multifaceted challenge that does require coordinated action across various sectors, jurisdictions, and agencies. We think that AB 2214 ensures that California's leadership at a global level will effectively manage and mitigate these adverse impacts.

We urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Those wanting to register their support on the bill, please come forward.

Thank you, Chair and members, Reed Addis, on behalf of Story of Stuff and strong support. Thank you.

Vanessa Forsythe, speaking in support of Families Advocating for Chemical Toxic Safety, Grandparents for Action, Clean Earth for Kids, Clean Water Action, North County Equity and Justice, Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice, and North County Climate Change Alliance. Thank you.

Hello, Mihaly Gera on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation and Heal the Bay, in strong support.

Priscilla Quiroz here. On behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council in support.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you very much. Do we have witnesses that will be testifying in opposition to the bill? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Are there any questions of the author or the witnesses, please?

Well, I just thank you for bringing this backup, and I'm glad to be working with you. I know that you will get this done. As you guys know, microplastics is a big problem. As we look around and we see how our families, our kids, and I love the grandparents for.

I don't remember what -

You gotta join.

I'm a grandparent now so I'm joining grandparents against microplastics. We, you know, our kids are digesting this stuff, our parents are digesting this stuff, and we wonder why we have so many, such high cases of cancer. But we just really have to combat this. And I thank you, thank you for doing this this year. And I just ask everybody for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you for your partnership, Miss Mckinnor.

Thank you. Anyone else, any questions or comments? Okay, Sina, would you like to close?

Please join me and the grandparents for action with an aye vote.

Does have a do-pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Thank you very much.

Thank you Mister chair.

Roll call please.

Item four, AB 2214. Bauer-Kahan. The motion is do-pass and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]. We have four votes.

Thank you very much. And I know you'll be presenting file number six, which is AB 2316.

Thank you. Let's bring the Cheetos witnesses back.

Yes.

Thank you, Mister Chair and colleagues; I'm pleased to present AB 20316 today on behalf of our colleague, Mister Gabriel. At the outset, Assembly Gabriel asks that I thank the Chair and committee staff for helping to convene very constructive and productive meetings with opposition stakeholders. Assemblymember Gabriel looks forward to receiving additional information from the opposition and is committed to further conversations and good-faith negotiations on the issues identified in the analysis.

We all know he's an author who will continue to work hard through this process. AB 2316 is a straightforward measure that would prohibit public schools in California from serving foods containing several harmful chemicals that have been linked to serious harms to children, including cancer, hyperactivity, and other neurobehavioral problems. Given these long-standing concerns, in 2019, the legislator directed the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, that's a mouthful, to conduct an independent and thorough scientific examination into the impact of synthetic food dyes on children in 2021. After an exhaustive review, OEHA issued a report with clear findings. Most importantly, the State of California concluded that the consumption of synthetic food dyes can result in hyperactivity and other neurobehavioral problems in some children.

The report also found that current FDA approval of synthetic food dyes is based on 35 to 70-year-old studies that were not designed to detect the types of behavioral health effects that have been observed in children and that newer studies indicate that the current FDA guidelines may not adequately protect children. The study also noted the dramatic increase in the percentage of American children diagnosed with ADHD in recent years.

The conclusions reached by the State of California about the harm caused by these chemicals is consistent with that of many other nations around the world, many of which have banned, restricted, or required these coloring agents to include strict warning labeling requirements. For example, titanium dioxide, a color agent used in sunscreens, cosmetics, paints, and plastics, has been banned for use in all foods in the EU.

Likewise, the EU restricts the use of synthetic dyes and requires any foods that include them to carry precise label, warning parents that the product can cause harm to children. Unfortunately, because of a lack of action at the federal level, the US is a global outlier and remains far behind the rest of the world on issues of food safety.

AB 2316 would take a modest step forward in correcting the imbalance by ensuring that our public schools do not serve foods with chemicals that can harm children and interfere with their ability to learn. To be clear, this bill will not result in a ban on any foods in California, nor will it result in any products coming off the shelf.

On the contrary, it will simply encourage companies to make very minor modifications to foods sold to our schools to remove the harmful chemicals and replace them with safer, alternative ingredients already used in Europe and so many other places around the world. This simple change can make a huge difference, particularly for our students who struggle with ADHD and other learning differences.

As anyone who has watched a child struggle knows, it makes no sense to provide them with therapies and interventions in the classroom and then expose them to chemicals at lunch that further exacerbate their challenges. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that more than 95% of the products served in our schools are already free from these chemicals and that a number of school districts around the state, including Mister Gabriel's own Los Angeles Unified, have already stopped serving foods that include these harmful additives.

This common-sense measure is supported by a broad coalition of consumer protection, environmental health, education, and cancer prevention organizations that includes California Environmental Voters, SEIU, and the LA County Office of Education. With me today to testify in support of the bill are Scott Faber, Senior Vice President for Government Affairs for the Environmental Working Group, and Thomas Galligan, PhD with the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Great.

Thank you. EWG strongly supports AB 2316. These dyes were last approved by the FDA 40 to 50 years ago, long before studies could detect their effects on behavior. And now the overwhelming evidence from California's state scientist shows that these dyes are making it harder for some of our kids to learn. Even the FDA has acknowledged that these dyes can harm our kids.

Yet, despite this evidence of harm, the FDA has not flagged these chemicals for reconsideration and has not asked Congress for money to conduct these reviews. This is sadly nothing new for the FDA, which routinely fails to reconsider the safety of chemicals despite new evidence of harm and has since 2000 allowed 99% of the new food chemicals to be approved by the chemical companies, not by the FDA. Before I joined EWG, I was the head of government affairs for the Consumer Brands Association.

So, I know that companies can produce these foods without these synthetic dyes. After other countries pass laws to require warnings, companies quickly replace these dyes with natural colors. Consider these two boxes of fruit loops. This one made in the United States with chemicals, this one made in Canada with natural colors. The good news is we do not need to reformulate foods like these to offer our kids food without dyes at school. The vast majority of foods offered in our schools do not have these synthetic colors.

As you heard, of the more than 10,000 foods offered through the lunch line, only about 400 or so have one or more of these synthetic colors. Of the 1600 foods offered through the a la carte line, only about 60 or so have one or more of these colors. Our school food professionals have plenty of options to work with without these dyes in every category. Let's stop waiting for the FDA.

Let's do what's best for our kids and end the use of these toxic chemicals in food offered at school.

Good afternoon, Chair Garcia and other members of the Assembly ESTM Committee. Hi, I'm Thomas Galligan, principal scientist for food additives and supplements at the Center for Science of the Public Interest. I have a PhD in biomedical sciences with a focus on toxicology and environmental health. The Center for Science and Public Interest strongly supports AB 20316. Synthetic food dyes can cause or exacerbate neurobehavioral problems in some kids. Some children. That's a verbatim quote from the state's own experts at the California EPA.

Cal EPA reached this conclusion after performing a peer-reviewed systematic review of the evidence, which included 27 human clinical trials as well as many animal and in vitro studies. In its report, published in 2021, Cal EPA raised concerns that six of the colors listed in this bill could reduce social and academic success. Color additives that can directly impede academic success simply have no place in school foods. The 7th substance in this bill, titanium dioxide, also has no place in school foods.

The European Food Safety Authority concluded that titanium dioxide can no longer be considered safe when used as a food additive due to evidence that it could potentially accumulate in the body and damage DNA, among other effects. Based on that conclusion, titanium dioxide was banned from food in the EU in 2022. Titanium dioxide and the six dyes to be prohibited in school foods by this bill are color additives that offer no nutritional benefits and have no benefit on food safety.

They function simply to make foods visually appealing as a marketing tool for the food industry. With over 3 million Californian kids participating in school lunches daily and 1.7 million participating in school breakfasts, it's essential that California eliminate these unsafe and unnecessary color additives from school foods. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'll ask those wishing to register their support for the bill, please come forward. State your name, organization, and position.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Sam Nasher, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education and support.

Vanessa Forsythe, speaking for these organizations in support: Families Advocating for Chemical Toxics Safety, Grandparents for Action, North County Equity and Justice, North County Climate Change Alliance, Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice, and Clean Earth for Kids, and also North County - oh yeah, I did say that one. Sorry, too long a list.

Anna Chico Cornel, on behalf of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments and the California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, in full support.

Hello. Lea Jones on behalf of A Voice For Choice Advocacy and full support. Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the Office of Katt Taylor in support

Janet Nudelman, as a mom of a daughter with ADHD and support, and on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in strong support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay, seeing no one. I'll ask the witnesses that will be testifying in opposition. Please come forward.

I heard they weren't going to oppose anymore because I was presenting. No?

That's 100% fair. But I couldn't use the opportunity to sit here with my friend Mister Faber.

Please proceed.

Mister Chair Committee Members. Thank you very much. John Hewitt, on behalf of the Consumer Brands Association. Yes, Mister Faber and I work together at grocery manufacturers back in the day. So, on behalf of Consumer Brands Association Members, there are several unresolved issues and concerns that we continue to have with the bill. We appreciate the author's commitment to continue to work on this, but I thought I'd at least enumerate some of those at this moment.

Mister Chair, first of all, the scope, for instance, food on the tray, is it all in? Is it limited to what's prepared? Does it cover USDA commodity items? What about the non-core meals? Such as, what if a coach wants to prepare a pregame meal out of their own pocket and serve it on school for the team?

What about rewards for academic accomplishments that a teacher may? As we all know, teachers purchase things out of their own pocket many times, or the school may provide academic rewards or incentives. So that's some of the questions on scope with respect to timing. Currently, the bill goes into effect at the conclusion of the upcoming 24-25 school year. That's pretty quick. It's on us.

What do we do with the number of the foods that are in the stock on the shelf, and so on and so forth? And then lastly, the unresolved issue and concerns with the bill, you know, have to do with the science. At the end of the day, there's no causal relationship that's been established. With all due respect to my friends up here, we have a difference of opinion. What was handed out by the sergeant, thank you, you'll see, is a chart.

And the chart generally looks like the one that appears in the committee analysis. When you look at the right side of it, that's really the other side of the story. And not to plagiarize Paul Harvey, but the other side of the story, the rest of the story, if you will; FDA has looked at and reviewed, and you'll see in the middle column there, both in 2011, 2019. Also, the World Health Organization joint expert on Committee on Food Additives has reviewed it.

We've put those dates and the conclusions in there. If I could quote briefly, Mister Chair, a couple of the conclusions from the 2011 FDA study where they reviewed the published literature. FDA concluded no causal relationship between exposure to color additives and hyperactivity in children and the general population. In 2011, the FDA convened the Food Advisory Committee, made the determination that the relevant scientific data did not support a causal link between consumption of certified colors in the food and hyperactivity and other problematic behaviors in children.

Out of respect for the committee, I won't continue to read what's on there, but you'll see similar conclusion for 2019. And then I included just a sentence there on the far right hand column with the year that the World Health Organization actually looked at these. So, I'll go ahead and stop there. My colleague from the chamber would like to add a few things. Mister Chair, thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee, Adam Regele, with the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition. I want to begin by thanking the Chair for your leadership and the Committee for all of its work so far. We still have significant concerns with the bill. I want to take a step back. I mean, last year, this author introduced AB 418. It had five color additive bands. Cal Chamber opposed the titanium dioxide because the science was overwhelmingly around the world.

And I'll go into that concluded is safe. The outlier is actually the EU, which ironically the EU banned it for food and then has now struggling. It is in 91,000 medicines, and they are allowing that. But for some reason, it's dangerous in food. If you look at the United Kingdom's food Standards agency, Health Canada, and we brought fruit loops from Canada, the Health Canadians in 2022 looked at titanium dioxide.

They said while the conclusions of the EU expert were considered in the report, Health Canada did its own comprehensive review of the available science. This included evaluating new scientific data that addressed the uncertainties identified by the EU expert panel. They said there is, quote, no evidence of cancer or other adverse respects in mice or rats, no changes in DNA, no adverse effects on reproduction, development, immune, gastrointestinal, or nervous systems.

In summary, Canadian Food Directorate's position is that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that the food additive TiO 2 is a concern for human health. This is the same conclusion that Food standards Australia and New Zealand came to us. FDA in 2024 came to and again, the European Medicine Agency is approving TiO 2 in 91,000 medicines. Again. Last year this titanium dioxide was in AB 418. The author himself struck it. We find no credible science to support the genotoxicity that the EU is claiming.

And there are a lot of inconsistencies in that policy. California and the FDA have full authority, full staff scientists to evaluate the food safety. And as my colleague has noted, they have done so recently. This idea that it's 40, 50 years old; we strongly disagree with the science is not there to ban it. And we add food color additives, as noted by the proponents, because food and its appearance do matter to folks.

So, if we're going to ban these chemicals, we really need to have the science to support it, and we don't think it's there. And as our consistency showed last year on positioning, if the science isn't there, we didn't oppose color additive bans. We are targeted on our science does not, I think, justify circumventing state and federal agencies to ban it in this process. And we believe that there's going to be a tremendous amount of food waste and other impacts that are not considered.

And we're only looking at one jurisdiction's EU policy. I don't think that's the right. We shouldn't outsource it. And again, science around the world actually speaks to it in the contrary, that it's safe, and for those reasons, we respectfully oppose, and we look forward to continuing with the author to work through some of these issues and thank you.

Thank you. I will ask those wanting to register opposition to please come.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the American Beverage Association, we oppose. Thank you.

I want this one.

Tim Shestek with the American Chemistry Council also in opposition. Thank you.

Katie Davey with the Dairy Institute, in opposition.

Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in opposition.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to register their position? Okay, we'll bring it back to Dias. Questions?

Yes, thank you so much. I realize you're not the author of this bill, but -

I am going to do a great job.

- do have a couple questions. And, you know, I think I'm not fully against where this bill's trying to go. And I've had these conversations with the author, but, you know, I am. I do want to make sure that whatever action that we take, it is supported by the science. And, you know, a lot of the narrative has been about a lot of these chemicals. It's my understanding that titanium dioxide is the only chemical that is actually banned in Europe.

So I was wondering if you could offer some clarification on that and why we're including all of these other things as well.

Well, if it's okay, Mister Chair.

Let's be clear about what the Cal EPA, your state scientists, said in their exhaustive 374-page report. They said three things that are really important. One is they looked at 27 different studies, clinical studies, of how children respond when they are fed these dyes, double blind studies where they fed groups of children food with these dyes and food without the dyes. So they fed them the American fruit loops and the Canadian fruit loops.

And these studies provided conclusive evidence that some of our kids, not just our kids with ADHD, but many of our kids with ADHD, are especially sensitive to these diets. They saw a behavioral response. But the other thing that the Cal EPA scientists did was they looked at all of the animal studies that have ever been done on this issue, on this question.

And what they found was that these chemical dyes were changing the chemical signaling that goes on in our kids brains, the neurotransmitters that go on in our kids brains and that they were resulting in microscopic changes in their brains, so literally changing their brains. So, with all due respect to my friend and colleague, since I wrote the playbook when I was at CBA, I have to admire his recitation of it. With all due respect, this is so awkward.

We are friends and will be friends, and we'll have some fruit loops afterwards. So, the science couldn't be more compelling. Thomas and I read these studies all the time. We've never seen a study that has 27 different clinical studies, many of them double-blind studies of human evidence, that show what happens to our kids when they respond in this way. And so, if I were asking you to ban these ingredients economy-wide, that would be a different question.

What Assemblymember Gabriel is asking you to do is to simply ban these chemicals in food, and the reason that food sold in schools and the reason that's important, and some of you have had to do this yourself, is that parents are struggling all day to avoid some of these chemicals for some of our kids when their kids are at home. But they lose that control when their kids are at school. And that's why it's so important to remove these particular chemicals from this environment.

It not only makes it harder for them to learn, it makes it harder for our teachers to teach. So, again, there are, the vast, vast majority of foods offered at school do not have these chemicals. So our school food professionals will have many, many choices in every category.

Just a quick follow-up to that. If that is the case, and that is the evidence, why is it that groups like the FDA and the WHO and all of these health organizations have not found that that evidence is sufficient.

Well, so in addition to being the former head of government affairs for the Consumer Brands Association, I'm also an adjunct law professor at Georgetown Law School, where I teach chemical safety law. And among the things I teach are how the food additive amendments to the FDCA, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, have been implemented, and essentially, despite what Congress intended in 1958, the FDA has exited the field in two important ways.

One is they're allowing the vast majority of food chemicals to enter commerce without ever being reviewed by the FDA. 99% of food chemicals enter commerce through what's called the generally recognized as safe or grass loophole. They're never reviewed by the FDA. But what's more important for this conversation is that there's no requirement, and this is different for pesticides. I teach a separate class on that. There's no requirement for the FDA to go back and say, every 15 years as we do for pesticides, are these chemicals still safe? They're relying on decisions in this case that were made in the sixties and seventies or eighties based on toxicology done in the sixties using 1950s animal studies. And there's no requirement in the law for them to go back and reconsider. Now, what my colleague referred to was a 2011 meeting. The Cal EPA scientists spent two years asking this question: are some of our kids susceptible to these dyes? The Food Advisory Committee meeting that my colleague referred to lasted 2 hours.

That was not the kind of review we should rely on when we're making this important decision about how to protect our kids and making sure they're ready to learn.

Okay. And I get the sense that the opposition may have a slightly different take. So I was curious if you just want to respond briefly to some of the-

Yeah, I appreciate it. Thanks, Adam. Yeah, I would just briefly look at that. We can, we can hang all kinds of asterisks or qualifications on what the FDA did or didn't do, but the fact of the matter, if it's a two-hour meeting or if it's a 20 hours meeting, the fact of the matter is that they reviewed all the published literature that was available on that I've already read. It's in the handout what their conclusion was. I don't need to recite that.

I do want to just point out just because 25 randomized samples, but we won't pick with respect to Ohio whether it's 25 or 27. We'll just jump right to the conclusion. And OEHHA themselves said there's a need to reevaluate exposure in children for additional research to provide a more complete database for establishing adis protective of neurological behavior effects. We won't get into all of the problems that OEHHA report had. I'll just note on the handout that I provided you all.

The Senate Health Committee evaluated this very same issue. Instead of colors, in 2021, the then chair and the committee analysis laid out a two-part question on causation. Unfortunately, the bill was set for a hearing, but the author chose to remove it from the calendar. So, we never got to have that public debate on it. But we believe that causation isn't established. The committee rightfully pointed that out back in 2021.

And the volume of studies that are out there from FDA as well as the world experts also corroborate that as well. Cherry-picking from an OEHHA report, I do not believe, is where we need to be setting and establishing a policy as important as this.

And if I may?

Oh, yeah, that's all my questions, I think. I mean, I'm happy to hear what you have to say. I do think I've been looking at this bill very closely, and I feel that there is still some narrowing that needs to happen. And so, again, I'm been speaking a lot with the author, but I think that we still need to do a little more to tailor this bill to the specific purpose.

Yes, and I know that the author, with the support of the chair, has been having those meetings, and I think intends to continue to do that work and looks forward to further conversations. I would add that, I mean, I think we can go back and forth about where the science is.

And I would say that this bill, as acknowledged by the opposition, is significantly different than the bill Mister Gabriel moved last year, which did ban certain products where the science, to the point of the opposition, was clearer. I think that what we're talking about here is parents who want to make certain choices based on science that is out there and good science.

And maybe it's not conclusive enough that we've decided to ban things, but we've decided that we're going to give parents the right to make choices for the foods they eat, where there is science to say it is causing these harms. And so parents make those choices at home or they don't, and then they send their kids off to school. And we've now provided every single California student with lunch and breakfast, which is a wonderful, wonderful thing.

But as the mom of a school-aged child, I can tell you he's eating a lot more sugar at school than he did before. Right. And that's not a choice I get to make anymore. But where it's these kind of things that might be harming certain kids in this way, and there is science to back it up.

And again, maybe there's a dispute between the parties, then I think parents should be given the choice that their kids don't eat these things, especially given that it isn't a minority of the foods that are served. But I know that the author is absolutely committed to further narrowing the bill.

So the author has made a number of commitments, and one of them is to focus very closely on the scope of the Bill. And the scope of the Bill is also tied to the implementation timeline for the Bill. The back and forth on the science, I think, is a good thing for us to deliberate and debate. It will help us determine, I think, at some point, the actual scope of the Bill. Right. So I'm looking forward to remaining engaged in this particular policy matter.

The author of the Bill has asked us to help facilitate these discussions, and we did not propose any amendments because there was an agreement amongst stakeholders, both the author and the concerned opposition, that the scope of the Bill would be narrowed and that the implementation timeline would be different to what's in writing today.

But I think that there will be further deliberation and debate on the science and allow the policy committees, both here and in the Senate, if the Bill does get the opportunity to continue through the process, to be able to land in a place where the objectives are met, a lot is said, and this afternoon we've heard quite a bit about, well, they are already doing this in other countries, and I think that that's, you know, commendable to countries that are moving faster than us in United States or in California.

What's different is our process of certifying whatever those alternatives are when it comes to putting them on the market, whether we're talking about food alternatives or earlier in the discussions, it had to do with herbicides and other types of chemicals. Right. And so sometimes I don't know that it is fair to compare what's happening in other parts of the world to, well, if they're doing it there, we should be able to just do it here, because the process to get here in California is very different.

And so if we want to accelerate the banning of things, then we should also look at the acceleration of how we approve the alternatives. And that's a conversation that I want to kind of continue to talk about because that's the missing piece here. We want to move very quickly in banning chemicals and in some cases food additives, what we're talking about today.

But we're being told that, that the implementation could be far different and take far longer than what they've done in other parts of the world. So I just want us to be mindful that if the objective is to make sure the kids are safe, which I 100% agree, I've got a little girl that trying to keep these duckies and hot cheetos away from her.

Right. Good luck. Aside from them being all over the walls close. Right. We noticed a different kind of attitude and behavior, and I don't know, because the science seems to be questionable still in some cases, whether or not we can move the conversation in one direction or the other. But what we're hopeful here is that we can continue the discussion.

As the author has said, he's willing to continue to work with the stakeholders, and we're going to remain engaged and hope that we get a Bill that meets the objectives, but also that strikes the balance. These industries are important to California, they are important to our economy. They employ a tremendous amount of people in various regions of the state. But I also understand and recognize that the public health conversation is kind of front and center.

And these industries, at least the ones that are at the table having this conversation, have pledged that that is also a priority and important to them. For those reasons, I think we'll be able to land at a place where we'll get a good piece of public policy to be able to be implemented respectfully and responsibly. So we do have a recommendation to move the Bill, and I don't know if you want to close on behalf.

On behalf of Mr. Gabriel I jsut respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right, we do have a motion and a second. Okay, I'll move the Bill. Second roll call.

[Roll call].

All right, we'll keep the roll open for other Members to add on file number five. Assembly Member Wilson.

Good job, Scott.

Here with notes. I don't even have to use my phone. I actually have something in print.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Mister chair Members, I am pleased to present AB 2300, a Bill that will ban DHP form used in iv bags and in certain cases, tubing. DHP belongs to a family of hormonally active industrial chemical called folates, which are used to make plastic soft and pliable and can be found in a myriad of products ranging from garden hoses to shower curtains, to vinyl flooring and building materials. DHP impacts the thyroid and immune system.

Research indicates that DHP promotes drug resistance and inhibits the effectiveness of breast cancer drugs. It interferes with the ability of chemotherapies to fight breast cancer, and that patients with higher levels of DHP in their system had higher rates of relapse and mortality. This is extremely important to me. As many of you know, last year I battled breast cancer and proud to say that I'm happily on the other side. One thing that. Thank you for that clap. Thank you everybody.

But one thing that I am excited about as working on this legislation is that my particular facility healthcare system where I was getting care, had DH DEHP bags. So that was a good thing. Like DHP free bags, excuse me, whereas others who receive care in other systems do not have that benefit. And this is important because DHP has been shown to leach out of the iv bags and tubings and into the medication and other fluids being infused into the bloodstream of patients.

The good news is that, as I noted, safer alternatives exist and are already being used in FDA approved DHV IV bags. For example, B. Braun and Fresnius Kabie already exclusively manufacture DEHP free IV bags, and their competitors, Baxter and ICU Medical, also offer a large portfolio of FDA approved DEHP free IV bags. Many companies also manufacture iv tubing free of DEHP.

But because the sector of industry is more complicated, much more complicated, and I'm sure you're aware of it, by serving on this Committee, you know this, we have given these manufacturers more time to comply with the bill's required phase out of DEHP and IV tubing. I also has also taken. My office has also taken amendments to exclude human blood and blood product collection, processing and storage bags, including integral tubing.

Now, this amendment was taken after concerns had raised around there not being an alternative non DEHP bags. We have heard the concerns around supply chain issues from the Members of the Health Committee and as well as the opposition, we are working to address these concerns. We made a commitment in the Health Committee to be able to work with the opposition to figure out a pathway forward, and we have been faithful to that commitment to continue to work with opposition.

Some companies do not currently have FDA approved EHP free IV tubing. Given the situation, the Bill provides a longer ramp up for tubing. And as I noted, we are actively working on a timeline that works for everyone on implementing the DEHP ban on the IV bags. I would also like to thank all of the stakeholders for the robust conversations we've had over the past few weeks, and I'm happy to continue those conversations if the Bill would move forward today.

With me today is Janet Noodleman from breast cancer prevention partners and Peter Allen from Fresinius Cabela. I thought about. I said it wrong earlier. Fresinius Cobb to speak more on the importance of AB 2300 and to help answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Wonderful. Good afternoon, Chairman Garcia and Members of the ESTM Committee. My name is Janet Noodleman, and I am the senior Director of program and policy at Breast Cancer Prevention Partnership. We are one of the AB 2300 Bill sponsors, along with the California Black Health Network. I am pleased to testify today in support of AB 2300. As you heard, this Bill would prohibit the manufacture, sale and distribution of IV bags and tubing made with DHP in California.

DHP is an endocrine disrupting compound that is used in many products, particularly those products made out of polyvinyl chloride or PVC plastic. The purpose of DHP is to make IV bags and plastic tubing flexible, and some IV bags and tubing can be made up of 40% to 80% DHp by weight.

This is important because DHP is not a stable molecule and it has been shown to leach out of IV bags and tubing and into the medication and the other fluids being infused into the bloodstream of patients. This presents a risk of exposure to DHP for patients and represents a serious public health concern because DHP has been linked to breast, liver, lung and testicular cancer and is a California Prop 65 listed carcinogen and reproductive and developmental toxicant.

A number of scientific studies show that DHP interferes with the ability of chemotherapy drugs to fight breast cancer and that patients with higher levels of DHP in their system had higher rates of breast cancer relapse and mortality. In addition, DHP has been shown in laboratory studies to increase the growth of human breast cancer cells and decrease the efficacy of Tamoxifen, which is a drug commonly used to treat breast cancer.

Now, I'm not a Doctor, but even I know that it simply does not make sense that it would be okay for DHP to be present in a medical device if it stopped that medical device from being able to deliver a life saving medicine to a patient. That simply doesn't make sense to me, especially when safer alternatives to DHP have been used in medical devices for well over four decades.

The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, even the FDA, encourages hospitals and physicians to reduce and phase out the use of medical devices containing DHP. Given the many well established health concerns related to DHP, I urge your support of this common sense health protective legislation, and I thank you for your leadership on this important issue.

Thank you very much. Okay, Bill, we have a second. We do have a do pass to the Assembly for recommendation.

Sounds good. Did you want to share any testimonies? All right, I'm going to make sure sometimes in some committees, first and a second means stop talking. But he came all this way.

Kind of means the same thing here, too. But we want to hear what he has to say in a very brief way. Very, very brief way.

So. Good afternoon, Chairman Garcia and Committee Members. My name is Peter. This is Peter Allen. I'm the Senior Vice President for iv therapy at Fresenius Kabi, and we're obviously very supportive of this. Bill Fresenius Kabi made the decision long ago to stop using DEHP in the design and manufacturing of IV bags everywhere in the world, globally, because we recognize the environmental and the patient risks that are associated with products that contain DEHP. And I'm here to testify that switching to DHP is not a cumbersome process.

100% of the manufacturers, every single one that participate in the US market already make products that don't have DEHP in them. They're companion products to the ones that do. It's not, would not be cumbersome to make that switch, and we're in full support of that. As for iv tubing, it's a much more complicated process, much more fragmented market. So I do think we need a longer phase in process for that, but we certainly don't for the IV solutions markets. Thank you.

It's always nice to hear industry representatives say that it can be done. Thank you. I will ask Members of the audience if they will please come forward. Name, organization and position.

Hi, Christie Foy, on behalf of Fresenius Medical care in support and want to thank the author for all of her work on the Bill. Thank you.

Anna Chico Cornel, on behalf of California nurses for environmental Health and Justice and the alliance of Nurses for healthy environments in strong support. Thank you.

Vanessa Forsythe, breast cancer survivor and also a registered nurse, asking again, support, please. Family advocating for chemical toxicities, grandparents for action, North County Climate Change Alliance, Interfaith Coalition for Earth justice, and also North County equity and justice and Clean Earth for kids.org. Thank you.

Jen Angstrom with Calperg in strong support. Thank you.

Hello. Whitney Francis with the Western center on Law and Poverty in support.

Hello. Leah Jones, on behalf of Voice for choice advocacy in strong support. Thank you.

Hi. Laura Gillan, on behalf of Center for Environmental Health, Gwen Bissino, California Health Coalition advocacy and clean Water action. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Alicia Kerry Mica with B. Braun Medical. We manufacture the products that are addressed in this legislation down in Irvine and we are in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Katrina Dunn, RN with California Black Health Network in strong support.

Meg Snyder on behalf of the Vinyl Institute opposed.

All right, those wishing to testify in opposition, please come forward. All right.

Thank you Mister chair Members. John Winger on behalf of the Advanced Medical Technology Association avamed we are the National Trade Association for the medical Device Industry. I just want to thank the author and her staff for the continued discussion. We've had a lot of dialogue, she said.

Weeks. I think it's been months at this point, but appreciate all the, all the dialogue and the consideration. I think from our Members perspective, we still have a lot of concerns around the implementation timeline that's outlined in the Bill. A typical conversion plan for flexible solution container products includes several phases and has to be done for every single product at one time. So shelf testing alone can take several years to complete. Some companies have as many as 100 unique intravenous administered drug products in the California market.

The work to qualify each configuration cannot occur in parallel because the need to prioritize the production of releasable products to prevent interruption to patient care worldwide. So as such, DEHP free products will become available on a rolling basis. Some products will be available prior to the implementation date, but it will take, we believe, until 2035 to fully get all iv bags and tubing products transitioned and approved with the FDA.

We would also like to see a threshold around what constitutes intentionally added DEHP, which is consistent with other chemical bans, so that we don't get penalized for trace amounts. The Assembly health analysis, I thought did a great job of highlighting our concerns and suggesting that the author consider a later implementation date. I think this Committee did a great job of highlighting the challenges the EU has had in its implementation, which I believe is on pace for 13 years at this point.

We continue to believe that the industry as a whole and the supply chain as a whole needs 10 years to fully transition away from DEHP. And so for those reasons, we continue to have an opposed, unless amended position on the Bill.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Those wishing to associate themselves with the opposition of this Bill, please name, organization and position. Thank you.

David Gonzalez today, on behalf of the California Life sciences, we would like to associate ourselves with the comments made by Mister Winger. We appreciate the conversations we had with the author's office, but we do remain concerned about the implementation deadlines. We are an extensively regulated industry through the FDA, and the things that we supply to patients are actually critical and very important. So it's not like making a cell phone or a nail, it's really patient critical.

And so we make sure that those deadlines are appropriate and that patients have access to these important medications.

Thank you.

Thank you Mister chair Members. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California manufacturers and Technology Association, CMTA would align our comments with that of advamed and respectful. Opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tim Shestak with the American Chemistry Council. Also opposed, unless amended. Appreciate the ongoing conversation. Look forward to those discussions. Thank you.

Moira Topp, on behalf of Biocom California. Also opposed, unless amended. And very much appreciate all the conversations we've had. Thank you.

So, you know, and also bring the item back to dais. Questions, please.

Well, I appreciate the opposition's position. Not just no, we won't do it and no, this is not good, but give us 10 years. But I also appreciate that the author accepted to delay implementation for five years. I want to applaud Kaiser hospitals. Since 2010 they have used products that do not have DEHP Fresenius. Congratulations to you too. So clearly, as they say, where there is a will, there is a way.

And maybe there's more discussion to be held about delayed implementation, but five years delay implementation for most of these bills. Who we're talking about giving a little more time, I think is quite some time. But I appreciate your position that this is something that can be done, you just need a little more time. Wanted to comment on the fact that I appreciate that the two of you are talking with that I want to move the Bill.

All right. Thank you. No other questions? Comments? There is a motion. A second, please. Would you like to close?

Yes, thank you. To the Committee. I appreciate the position of opposition and understand the impact that it could have on not only industry, but supply chains. And so that's why committed to continuing those conversations and have done that in good faith and appreciate, as he said, it has been months. I think I still had my notes from weeks before when it was weeks, but it has been months that we've been having this conversation.

That's how we've gotten to where we are and look forward to those continued discussions. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. All right, roll call please.

[Roll call].

Thank you. We'll leave that open for the Members to add on, we have file number eight, AB 24547 Member Lee. The Bill does have a do pass to the Committee on Appropriations Recommendation.

Well, thank you so much. I'm back again. No props this time. I'd like to thank the Committee first and foremost, sponsors, for working very hard with me on this Bill. This Bill follows up on my work related to domestic wells and ensuring safe drinking water for all. Despite the existence of free domestic well testing programs in many regions of the state, domestic well participation remains far too Low, putting well drinkers at risk of exposure to dangerous contaminants.

As noted in the Committee analysis, neither the US EPA nor State Water Board regulate domestic wells, although both recommend annual testing of wells used for drinking water. This Bill will ensure that those living in areas serviced by domestic wells are not drinking toxic tap water. This is consistent with California's human right to water law, which states that it is a right of every human being to have access to safe drinking water. With that, I'd like to introduce my two witnesses in support today.

Michael Claiborne, directing attorney at the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, and Abraham Mendoza of the Community Water center.

Good afternoon to the chair and to the Committee. My name is Michael Claiborne. I'm a directing attorney at Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability. 10 years after this state has recognized the human rights of safe and affordable water, approximately 1 million Californians still lack access to safe water in their homes. A significant portion of this population is the nearly 2 million Californians that receive their water from private wells. There's no legal requirement in most of the state for these private wells to ever be tested.

So residents served by these wells may be drinking contaminated water without ever knowing it. In an attempt to address this problem, state and regional agencies have established free domestic well testing programs offered to well owners. These programs target high risk areas, and we've seen in some areas, over 50% of tested wells exceed standards for arsenic, 123 TCp, nitrates, uranium and other contaminants. Yet participation in these free well testing programs remains dangerously Low, depending on the program.

Despite extensive outreach efforts, between 10 and 20% of customers generally participate in these programs. This is especially troubling when domestic well owners failure to participate puts other residents at risk. AB 2454 is a common sense measure that would require domestic well owners with units that are not occupied by the owner to participate in free domestic well testing programs, provide that information to residents served by the domestic well, and also ensure there's an adequate supply of drinking water. We urge, an aye vote, thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair and Committee, Abraham Mendoza, on behalf of the Community Water Center. So we work with over 34 different farm worker communities across the central coast in San Joaquin Valley. And as my colleague Michael and the Member has mentioned, there's more than 1 million Californians that lack access to safe, clean and affordable drinking water in the state.

In some areas of the Central Valley that we work in directly, nitrates and other pesticides have accumulated to the point that tap water for rural households and small water systems do not meet safe drinking water standards. And there's over 1700 households that are relying on bottled water deliveries for their primary source of drinking water due to just contamination and dried wells. I'd like to share a story of a woman who I worked with directly.

Her name is Dona Maria and she is a Tulare county residential who was outreached to by self help enterprises and community water center about well testing, hall replacement and bottled water services being offered to her free as part of a local public private partnership with growers, nonprofits and local governments to provide safe drinking water access.

She let us know that the well at her home had went dry, and we worked on our end to try and contact the well owner of the property to be able to get her connected with these resources that were available for her free of charge. Unfortunately, it was a delay and it was a challenge to be able to get ahold of this person.

And in the meantime, Dona Maria was actually forced to purchase out of her own pocket replacement bottled water service for over five months while that delay was processing. And so we personally feel that AB 2454 builds on existing law to ensure that these types of communities and other tenants in these high risk areas are able to access these vital services, like well testing and domestic water replacement services. And we urge an I vote from the Committee.

Thank you very much. I'll ask those who want to register their support for the Bill, please come forward.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you.

Bill Allayaud, Environmental Working Group. In support.

Jane Sellen, Californians for Pesticide Reform in support.

Mark Weller, on behalf of Safe AG, Safe Schools, Monterey Bay Coalition advocating for pesticide safety, Tulare County AG Coalition. I'm sorry, advocating for Pesticide Safety, Ventura County as well in support.

Thank you. See no one else. I don't believe there's any opposition to the Bill, but I'll ask is there anyone wanting to register opposition to the Bill? Okay, see no one. I will bring it back to the dais. It does have a do pass recommendation. I'll move the Bill. Is there a second, second, a second. Thank you so much for bringing this Bill forward.

Anytime we have bills that are dealing with the issue of clean, safe drinking water, I mean, those are important bills for all of us. And I believe we can start telling people that, I don't know that it's a million people anymore. I think that number's decreasing. I think we're somewhere in the 700 5800 thousand. So we're making a little progress along the way. And you know, I appreciate you sharing the story of Dona Maria.

There's too many Dona Marias that don't have access to safe, clean drinking water. But there's also a lot of misses. Mary's out there in some parts of the state that also don't have access to safely drinking water. And so I know that when we start seeing diverse populations of individuals being affected by this problem, that's when we get the attention of folks. And so thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I look forward to supporting it today.

And of course, as it gets to the floor, this is a really important matter that needs a lot of work to continue, not just with one Bill, but kind of the follow through that takes place and the oversight at the Water Board. So thank you for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Couldn't say better myself, Mister chair. I vote.

Thank you. Please call.

Item eight, AB 2454. Lee. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Garcia, aye. Garcia, aye. Hoover? Hoover not voting. Conley? McKinner? Papin? Papin, aye. Rayes? Rayes? I Ta three.

All right, we'll leave that open for other Members to add on. Doctor Weber, thank you for waiting patiently. The Bill does have a do pass to the Committee on appropriations. I believe there is no opposition to the Bill.

All right, well, good evening chair and Members. I am here to present AB 2671 a Bill to protect our children's health and home daycares. In California, there are approximately 38,000 child care licensors, including both child day care facilities and daycare homes. In 2018, Assemblymember Holden had a Bill, AB 2370, requiring child daycare facilities to test their drinking water for lead contamination. That testing is still underway now, and to date, 50% of the licensed centers have tested their waters in accordance with licensing directives.

However, the lead content results are alarming. One in four centers found water lead levels in excess of the allowable amount, five parts per billion. And lead in some water centers was far above the legal limit. In some facilities, lead levels were more than 100 to even 2000 times the legal limit.

The CDC has stated that there is no safe level of lead, especially for our children, and exposure to lead can lead to serious medical problems for our children, causing well documented adverse effects such as damage to the brain and nervous system, slowed growth and development, and learning and behavioral problems. California's 28,000 licensed family child care homes are not required to address drinking water levels at all.

But given the startling levels of lead in child care centers, we can safely assume that those in homes also have water levels similar to those in our child care centers. The best approach to deal with this is a filter first approach.

For these reasons, AB 2671 requires licensed family daycare homes that serve children with water or food prepared with water that has been filtered using a point of use water filtration device and requires the Department of Social Services, in consultation with the State Water Resource Control Board, to adopt regulations to implement the requirements of the Bill.

Working with the Human Services and this Committee, we amended the Bill to add protections for enforcement, which include the if a child care provider is found to be noncompliant, DSS would issue a letter of violation to the provider, which would have five business days to demonstrate a filter had been installed. If a provider has failed to use or maintain a filtration device, a provider would have to provide proof within 210 days documenting the use and maintenance of this filtration device.

If a provider does not meet that requirement, they then must test their drinking water to determine whether the lead levels are below five parts per billion. Parents would then be notified of this requirement to test as well. And if the test shows lead levels above five parts per billion, the child care provider would be required to use an alternative source of water, like bottled water. Our goal for this Bill is not to create burdensome process for providers or harsh penalties.

We simply want the water that is being consumed by our children to be safe. DSS will be required to provide a list of water filtration devices that meet the requirement of this Bill to help with compliance. I want to thank the Committee and the chair for all of the work that they have done with my staff on this Bill, and we will be accepting the amendments.

And today with me are the sponsors of the Bill, Jenn Engstrom, on behalf of Calpregg, and Anna Chico Cornell, a nurse and program manager at Stanford Health Care System.

Thank you. Good evening, chair Garcia and Members. My name is Anna Chico Cornell. I'm a registered nurse at Stanford Healthcare. I'm also a mom of two. I'm also a veteran of the United States Air Force, and I'm a Member of the alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments and the California nurses for Environmental Health and Justice. All views expressed are my own.

Across the board, the EPA, CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the World Health Organization all agree that there is no safe level of lead for our children. Infants and children are especially vulnerable to lead because the physical and behavioral effects of lead occur at lower exposure levels in children than in adults. A dose of lead that would have little effect on you or I because we're adults, can have a significant effect on a child.

In children, low levels of exposure have been linked to damage to the central and peripheral nervous system, slowed growth and developmental delays, learning and behavioral problems, impaired hearing and speech, inattention, hyperactivity and irritability, as well as impaired formation and function of blood cells. While in rare cases ingestion of lead can cause seizures, coma and even death, with the alarming impact lead has to our children's health, it is imperative that we support AB 2671.

This requires family home daycare facilities to use certified filters to remove lead from drinking and cooking water as part of their licensing health and safety requirements. This ensures that all family daycare homes prioritize providing safe and clean drinking water for children, offering a swift and cost effective solution to safeguarding their health. We ask that you support AB 2671. Thank you.