Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

All right, let's call this hearing of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee to order. Thank you for your patience, Mister Vice Chair. And let's hear from Senator Wood, who's here to present AB 2902.

Good morning, Mister chair and Members of the Committee. I'd like to start by thanking the Committee staff for their efforts and accepting the Committee amendments. SB 1383 established a statewide framework focused on redirecting organic waste to landfills, which reduces the amount of methane released into the atmosphere.

While this framework can be readily adapted to dense urban communities, it's become increasingly clear that more flexibility is needed for rural communities to address implementation challenges, increase local benefits, and avoid costly rate increases for rural residents.

AB 2902 extends the rural exemption for organic waste collection and procurement by counties with a population under 70,000 people for an additional 10 years, but maintains the requirement for those counties to participate in the edible food recovery program. The Bill also provides an organic waste compliance pathway for 12 smaller counties containing more than 70,000 residents but generating less than 200,000 tons of solid waste annually.

By allowing those counties to submit alternative organic waste management plans to Cal recycle for approval, additional provisions in Navy 2902 continue the use of organics for local animal feed practices, promote carbon farming, adjust procurement targets to exclude populations covered by exemptions, and facilitate the development of smaller scale community composting programs.

California is not a one size fits all state with many regional differences to consider. This Bill is about striking a balance, providing our rural communities with the flexibility needed to contribute to our climate goals and achieve SB 13803's organic waste diversion objectives. Here with me to testify in support is John Kennedy with Rural County Representatives of California, and they are the sponsors of AB 2902. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning. John Kennedy with RCRC here sponsoring AB 290. Two thank you to the author and the Committee for your work to improve the Bill. We really appreciate it. Local governments have been implementing 1383 for several years now, but there have been a lot of implementation challenges.

What works well in denser urban areas really doesn't work as well in rural communities. So we've based this proposal on years of feedback from local governments.

Tried to thread the needle with some rather non controversial but important programmatic changes that provide flexibility not only for us as local governments implementing the program, but also for Cal Recycle, whose regulations are pretty restrictive right now. So the author really covered many of the components of the Bill quite well.

This rural exemption, extending that for an additional 10 years, is incredibly important. We're not seeking to exempt ourselves from anything else that we're not doing today.

But we are looking to actually help the state achieve its organic reduction goals through doing some extra requirements, providing flexibility for another dozen smaller counties so they can develop tailored, innovative programs to address organic waste in unincorporated areas. We understand the Committee took some amends to the bear piece and the Bill.

Look forward to continuing to trying to find a way to thread that needle. We want to avoid and minimize adverse human bear interactions in some higher elevation areas and really appreciate all the work that's gone into this. Look forward to any questions or anything else that you all have.

Anyone else who wants to voice their support for SB 2902?

Good morning. Catherine Freeman, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support.

Thank you.

Taylor Roshan, on behalf of a variety of agricultural associations. Apologies. We're not in the analysis, but support thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Chris Zgraggen, on behalf of Republic Services in support.

Good morning. Erica Parker with Californians Against Waste with concerns. Thank you.

All right, anyone else who wants to voice opposition or concerns, clarify their concerns? Okay. We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions. Thoughts? Senator Dahle?

Well, I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I know that both of us represent a lot of these counties, and, you know, I don't want the perfect to get in way of the good in a lot of cases. We have counties where we have a huge land mass with very few people and very few businesses out there to be able to actually do what the original law intended us to do actually creates more of a carbon footprint and more of a problem than it does to alleviate.

So giving this exemption or this pathway to getting there I think is great. So I'll be supporting the Bill when we get a quorum.

All right. Thank you so much. Let's hear from Senator Garcia, who's here, and as he comes to the front, just a couple things I wanted to say.

I just respectfully ask your aye vote when you have a quorum. Thank you.

Okay. We're supporting it as well. Thank you for working with our Committee and we'll let you close.

This is, of course, a very interesting and unique Bill. AB 2113 by Senator Garcia is the policy vehicle for the administration's mill assessment trailer Bill.

And so I just wanted to note, I know this is unusual that the Chair makes comments in advance, but this is a special case, as I think you know, the Bill is still being negotiated with the concurrent with the budget process and those discussions are ongoing, and this Bill will continue to evolve through that process.

And I want to thank this author, the author, for bringing this forward to give the public a forum for discussion today. This Bill in its current form reflects a great deal of stakeholder input work by the author and staff, a genuinely challenging set of issues at play.

And I think it's testament to all that work and the collaboration among and between the environmental and agricultural communities that the Bill has no formal opposition today. So that being said, we all know there are some serious issues to address that we need to address, those to ensure that we get this right.

The implications are pretty significant for the health of farmworkers, for agricultural communities, for consumers, for wildlife, for our economy, for our food security. Let me also just acknowledge that this proposal is now years in the making at the Department of Pesticide Regulation.

It reflects a significant amount of work by departmental staff and the Department of Finance who are seeking to balance many competing priorities. So I know the department's here to answer technical questions, and with that, Mister Garcia, the floor is yours.

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote. I mean, I think you've done an excellent job in outlining the Bill 20 Years in really a discussion. The Department is in need of some policy reforms. The Department is in need of some efficiencies to be implemented.

All sides, all stakeholders find common ground that there is much to be done at the Department, perhaps for different reasons, but nonetheless, the Department needs to be more effective, efficient in how they use the resources, and the resources are needed to be able to do the efficiencies and implement the policies more effectively.

And so, as you mentioned, the Bill continues to be a vehicle to have discussions with the Administration. Very productive conversations have been had with all stakeholders and the Administration. Progress is being made.

This vehicle was introduced to be able to allow the public and the stakeholders to have some input versus just the budget trailer Bill having discussions there. There are a lot of people that I think want to come up and say they're two cent and I want to allow them to have that space.

So with that, thank you for your attention. The analysis outlines exactly what the policy Bill does. Respectfully asked for your aye vote.

So folks who want to. So we've got folks who want to speak in support. Yeah, come on up. Yeah, yeah, we got, we got two primary witnesses and you can come up to the front tables here.

Great. Sure. I can go first. Hi, Jane Sellen, Co-Director, Californians for Pesticide Reform. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for the excellent amendments taken so far on behalf of CPR.

I just want to say our top priority is a commitment by the Department to finish and not merely initiate a specific number of re-evaluations and mitigations of pesticides already prioritized by the Department, in many cases for more than a decade.

We strongly support the current language that commits DPR to initiate five re evaluations per year, finish them within two years, mitigate if necessary, within one year. The Department has stated that statutory requirements necessitate a process that takes a decade or more.

They have not provided any statutory evidence that that is the case without firm deadlines for reevaluation and mitigation. We will oppose this Bill. We support the existing language allowing any interested party to request review of approved permits for restricted material pesticides.

We also urge you to retain the provision that would expedite registration of reduced risk pesticides and also to include a strong definition of reduced risk. And finally, we urge you to codify DPR's plan in the SPM roadmap to phase out priority pesticides by 2050. Thank you.

Thank you. That was a support with a warning.

Good morning. Cheering Members Nicole Quinonez, representing the Household and Commercial Products Association. Our Members include manufacturers of the non agricultural pesticides. So these are the products used in your homes, in hospitals such as disinfectants, pet care products like flea and tick collars, and lawn and garden products, to name a few.

Our manufacturers contribute roughly half of the total mill assessment collected by DPR each year, and we certainly want to thank the author for carrying 2113.

It has afforded a much more robust conversation around what is a very significant tax increase and as the Assembly Member mentioned, what reforms or efficiencies could be achieved through the Department in light of those additional resources. Our Members work with the Department daily and support a well functioning DPR and recognize that it will take those additional resources.

So that's why we're here at the table. AB 2113 has done a very important job of trying to balance all the different priorities from the various stakeholders. I'll just highlight a few of our priorities that were included, recognizing it wasn't everything, nobody ever gets everything, but certainly appreciate what was included.

We've advocated for registration timelines in statute and certainly support their inclusion in this Bill.

We have seen that it takes the time it has taken to register new products for use in the state or amend existing products, has continually increased over the past several years, and we believe these statutory timelines will drive improvements and provide more predictability for manufacturers who want to provide new and innovative products to the State of California.

Also, registering new products will lead to more mill fees being collected by the Department and helping their overall funding resources. We also appreciate the additional transparency measures related to reporting on registration timelines and believe these will help the Legislature understand whether the additional resources have improved operations.

And then lastly 2113 does not allow DPR to raise the mill in future years as the governor's trailer Bill proposed through a regulatory process. We strongly feel the Legislature should retain this important oversight function and allow for these robust discussions again when the Department needs additional resources in the future.

But in recognition of these key pieces, we have removed our opposition to 2113 and we're encouraged by the engagement with the Administration on this Bill and are hopeful that the appropriate balance will be achieved to provide DPR with needed resources and stakeholders with needed improvements. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Member Taylor Roshan on behalf of an agricultural coalition that's relatively large. Obviously, on this particular proposal, we would like to echo the comments of Miss Quinonez and really offer our appreciation for the author and staff in finding what is a very challenging and delicate balance between many stakeholders in this process.

But the stark reality is California is behind 49 other states have access to products that are more effective, safer, softer than we have in California. And that's simply because our registration system is broken and the appetite to remove products is not met with the same appetite to add alternatives in their place.

So even though the mill is a tax on farmers at a particularly hard time, at a time when farmers can't pass those costs down to consumers, we see this painful increase as an investment in our future. And it's also an investment in reevaluation, which we understand is important to others as well.

So in that we believe that this proposal has something for everyone. It's uncomfortable, but it does have something that appeases, to some extent, every stakeholder group. And for that reason, we will move to neutral. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, folks who want to come to the mic to voice their support for the Bill or complicated feelings?

Perfect. That's where we're at.

Jamie Finouse on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, we appreciate the author, the author's staff, but we take a position of support with amended and hope that the amendments will utilize materials and technical assistance from UCAN R, as well as provide greater benefits to farmers that a portion of the mill fee goes to CDFA for the BIFS program, the biologically integrated farming systems program.

Thank you.

Abby Alvarez on behalf of the California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, the California Food and Farming Network, the Pesticide Action Network, Clean Water Action, and Routes of Change getting much closer, but also currently aligning with CPR support if amended position.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of the California Seed Association of Pear Growers and several other ag interests, we are enthusiastically neutral on this proposal. Thanks

Mister Chair Members. Chris Reardon, California Farm Bureau we also like Mister Albiani, are neutral on the Bill. Let me just say however, we appreciate the author taking those amendments and I concur with Miss Quinonez and Miss Roshan on their testimony. But I hope we continue to talk about Mister Chair.

Those outstanding issues regarding the way we view it is sort of what that mill number is okay? In terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and then secondly, timelines to make sure we can ensure we get product in the marketplace to sort of backfill some of the challenges we've had historically. So thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning Mister Chair Members. Matthew Allen with Western Growers Association. We would also align our comments with Miss Roshan and Miss Quinonez and appreciate the work of the author and staff and working in this important area. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Jesse Cuevas on behalf of the TriCal group, we are neutral if amended. General concern is over the size of the proposal. We'd like to see it. Conversations continue to talk about a more modest approach to increase in the mill, but appreciate the author introducing the Bill and having this go through the legislative policy process. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Erin Norwood on behalf of the Allman Alliance, I would align our comments with Miss Roshan. Appreciate the work of the author on this complicated issue and there's still things we would like to see, but happy to be in support. Thanks.

Good morning Mister Chair and Members Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, also neutral. Appreciate the work of the author and the Committee. Thank you.

Ariana Creed with CleanEarthforKids.org. also in support is NCCA and we support the concerns.

Good morning. Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce aligning our comments with Miss Roshan. Thank you.

Good morning. Victor Torres with Future Leaders of Change in support, if amended, aligning with California's for Pesticide Reform.

Jonathan Evans, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, supporting if amended, aligned with the California's Pesticide Reform, particularly regarding the reevaluation portion. Reevaluation of pesticides lasts decades currently under DPR, and it needs to be occurring at a faster rate. Thank you.

Okay. Any other comments, thoughts, concerns from folks in the audience? Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. Yeah. This is very much a negotiation that's underway, so we'll turn it over to you.

Well I just had a question. The first question I have is, so you are still working on amendments going to the next committee?

There are conversations that are ongoing. There were conversations as recently as yesterday with the Administration on finding some common ground on some things that they had concerns with, some things that don't align with their budget trailer bill, and so progress is being made and stakeholders are being engaged as well along the way.

Okay, if I may, then I just want to, as a farmer, a family farmer, and first of all, with all due respect to the author, I appreciate the fact that we're actually doing this in a bill and not doing it in a trailer bill where we don't have this opportunity, so I want to put that out in the open for first.

And to all the folks who have been in my office and weighed in and have come to some sort of an agreement, which I guess is great for now, but I just want to say some things that I think need to be said as somebody who is in this industry and these fees and regulations affect my business very much so.

And so I just want to say that, you know, over the years that I've been here, over the 12 years I've been here, this is not the first time we've seen, you know, a negotiation that really at the end of the day impacts family farms, and there are a lot of big operators in the state that can absorb that and the household products folks can absorb that and pass it on, but at the end of the day, in my farm, we compete against farms outside of California.

And in California we have a lot of, not just this, but many other factors that cause our prices to go up and our cost to go up, and this is one of those. And so what I say is, you know, we negotiate our death every day here. That's what we do. We never win. We negotiate our death.

And so when, when the agencies can't do their job and get it done in the, in the timeframe that we need, we just tax more people and give them more money and expect something to happen different than actually getting results. So I just want to put that all on the table.

I won't be supporting the bill today because I am dying from a thousand cuts, and somewhere there has to be a line drawn in the sand that says, hey, we have to do something to help business stay in California and specifically family farms. I know the family farm folks that come up and testify.

I don't know who they are, but my family's been farming here for 93 years and we are truly a family farm. It's my sons and a few employees and that's it, and so just wanted to put that out there. With all due respect to the author and the Chair and all of you folks who have been working, but I just want to say it.

I'm dying from a thousand cuts and this is just another cut that will cause my farm to be less competitive against farms from Mexico who use all these products, don't pay any, and ship their food in here, and we're eating food with pesticides on them and we can trace that.

We know that. That's because they're coming from other countries. So you're pushing the farmers out of California into other places and they're shipping their food in here. It's not as safe as what we can do here. So there's got to be some other solution besides just pushing us out of business. So I just want to say that. Thank you.

Do you have any thoughts or comments on the--Mr. Vice Chair?

No, you know, we respectfully, you know, will acknowledge his comments. He speaks from a place that I don't have a direct, you know, experience. I can only just say that, you know, the Department of Pesticide Regulation has been asked to take on some responsibilities to be more effective, efficient in how they process, whether it be applications, whether it be how they deliver their services.

And for 20 years, you know, they've been saying and asking that they've been lacking the resources to do so, and there's been an unwillingness to maybe directly take on the issue of how do you do that, right? And if there has been a will, it's been an unsuccessful one thus far, and I know that parties have come together this year thanks to the trailer bill that the Governor put forward to try to find some common ground, albeit maybe not a perfect solution.

And as you mentioned in the prior bill, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have a proposal before us that has allowed for stakeholders to have input and you know, the long line of neutral positions to me is a signal that we have a reasonable proposal thus far to continue to move through the process.

Perhaps when we get to a closer place to finalizing this proposal, you'll come to a conclusion that maybe this is the best approach to addressing the problems at the DPR agency and we can garner your support. That being said, respectfully ask for your aye vote, and we'll continue to work with the stakeholder.

We'll continue to work with those members of this body who want to remain engaged. I want to acknowledge the work of Josh and the team at the ESTM Committee who have been spearheading this work on our behalf, on behalf of the industry, the stakeholders.

We need to get this done this year, not only because of the budget circumstances of the Department, but because stakeholders from across the spectrum have agreed that there's a problem there and there's a common ground that we have some proposal before us that can solve some of these problems. So thank you for your attention on this.

All right. This bill will go to Agriculture Committee, assuming it gets out today, so there'll be additional opportunities for public engagement on the issue as it moves along, but I'll certainly be supporting it today and when we have a quorum, and so appreciate your work on this. All right, let's invite Senator Connolly to come to the dais.

He's here to present item 10, which is AB 1864. That was the date of Abraham Lincoln's reelection today, 1864. Oh, your birthday. Well, that's more, that's, you know, almost as important. All right. Happy birthday.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Members, good morning. I would like to begin by thanking the Committee and staff for their work and input on this Bill. I will be accepting the Committee amendments.

Children attending public schools and daycares in California are intended to be protected by a regulation that currently restricts the most drift-prone agricultural pesticide applications during the school day from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

In practice, this regulation is often uninforceable. While notices of intent, and we'll call those NOIs this morning, must be submitted to county agricultural commissioners before using pesticides classified as restricted materials and must include the method of application. Often the information provided isn't specific enough to determine whether or not the method triggers regulations.

For example, if the application method listed on the NOI is, quote, "ground," it's unclear whether that means a ground rig sprayer, which has a distance restriction, or a hand pump sprayer, which does not. Further, the exact location of applications cannot be verified under current reporting requirements, and exact start and end times are often inaccurately reported.

AB 1864 seeks to make process improvements by requiring annual permits to include method of application and specific site identification, and for use reports to include method and timing of application to provide corroboration that laws are adhered to.

This Bill requires, in addition to DPR's existing materials and distance restrictions and regulations, that, when pesticides classified by the US EPA as cancerous and harmful to the reproductive and nervous systems are going to be applied using drift-prone methods, agricultural businesses must provide notice in advance.

The application methods restricted by this Bill and by current DPR regulations are aircraft, air blast sprayers, sprinkler chemigration equipment, and fumigants. The dangers of pesticide exposure and pesticide drift are well documented, to put this in context. Pesticide exposure is linked to a wide range of health harms, including cancer, autism, asthma, ADHD, brain tumors, and more.

The National Pesticide Information Center and the Public Health Institute recognize children are more sensitive to the effects of pesticides exposure than adults. A study published in the National Library of Medicine recognizes pesticides are known to have disproportionate effects on Black, Indigenous, and people of color, as well as communities of low-income and wealth.

This is a common sense, narrowly tailored Bill that seeks to increase transparency and awareness, protect public health, and does not ban the application of pesticides. Finally, AB 1864 also ensures equity by extending the same protections to children, teachers, and school staff in private schools that public schools and daycares are already afforded.

So I'll now pass it off to my two witnesses, Jane Sellen, Co-Director for Californians for Pesticide Reform, and Victor Torres, representing future leaders of change.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Jane Sellen, Co-Director of the Statewide Coalition Californians for Pesticide Reform. I thank Assembly Member Connolly for his leadership for authoring AB 1864, which is a critical step toward ensuring that all California children are protected from agricultural pesticide exposure at school.

This Bill is needed, because in the six years since the California Department of Pesticide Regulation implemented restrictions on certain pesticide application methods next to schools during the school day, ground truthing by our coalition has revealed some serious issues with enforceability. Those issues can be addressed by simple reporting changes.

Pesticide exposure at school is a serious and underreported issue, as you will hear from Co-Sponsor Victor Torres. Even an acute illness at school that was reported and resulted in a hospital visit was not included in the State Pesticide Illness Database, and we brought copies of that report and hospitalization. Glad to share.

We know that chronic exposure is an issue at schools because DPRs own air monitoring network confirms the presence of multiple pesticides in the air at each of its monitoring stations, most of which are located in schools.

Industry has expressed concern about the administrative burden of notifying the Agricultural Commissioner before applying pesticides known to cause cancer, reproductive or nervous system harm next to schools using aerial, airblast or other highly drift-prone methods, citing the sheer number of applications involved. This concern speaks to the alarming scale of exposure suffered by rural children every day.

To be clear, this provision imposes no restrictions on the use of these chemicals, but enhances the ability of agricultural commissioners to ensure that applications are in compliance with the regulation before they happen. Industry also claims that this requirement would affect hundreds of active ingredients.

In fact, the Bill adds only 54 hazardous chemicals out of over 1000 registered for use in California, only when used near schools, only when using the most drift-prone application methods. Industry has voiced concern about the potential cost and workload of identifying private schools.

We believe the number of impacted private schools is small and CDE has stated that they will provide school addresses at no cost, which can then be incorporated into the existing GIS mapping contract used to locate public schools and daycares. Thank you, Chair and Members, I'll pass on my testimony.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Victor Torres and I am 17 years old and a new graduate of Greenfield High School in my hometown in the heart of the Salinas Valley, Greenfield. I am a Co-Founder, Salinas Valley. Sorry.

I am a Co-Founder of Future Leaders of Change, based in Greenfield and Watsonville. I am here today to bring awareness about the danger of pesticide application near our schools. I myself was a victim of pesticide drift at the age of 10 at my local middle school.

No child should have to worry about their health in a place of learning. No child should have to be rushed to the emergency room for something out of their control. We need better protections around schools, both public and private.

It is important for us to know the exact location of each of the pesticide application, how the pesticides are applied, and more importantly, that every notice of intent, or NOI, brought to commissioners is examined thoroughly before approval.

This would in fact, guarantee that no other 10 year old has to experience the consequences of having such dangerous chemicals applied near their schools. There are many hazardous pesticides that are not classified as restricted materials and so currently no NOI is required.

When I was a victim of pesticide drift, there were eight different pesticides involved and not one of them was restricted, even though four of the eight are known to trigger asthma. Another of the eight also unrestricted was Dacthal, or DCPA.

The US EPA now says allowable levels of DCPA are 1500 times more harmful to developing brains than is considered safe. Half of all DCPA use in California is in my county, Monterey County. There are 29 growers who plan to apply DCPA within a quarter mile of 65 schools in Monterey County in the current school year.

We are the future leaders of change in the community, and I ask you all to provide an opportunity to us to not only learn, meet with peers, but to also enjoy our childhood in a safe environment. Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee.

Thank you. And congratulations on what I assume is your first testimony here before the Legislature. Or maybe not.

This is my third time here.

Wow. Wow. All right, well, you're a pro now. Thank you. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

All right, let's hear from folks who want to weigh in support of the Bill.

Mister Chair and Members, Matt Broad on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Abby Alvarez on behalf of the California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, the California Food and Farming Network, the Pesticide Action Network, the Californians for Pesticide Reform and Clean Water Action, in strong support.

Good morning. My name is Isabel Ramirez and I support AB 1864. Thanks.

Morning. Noemi Chico. I'm a parent and educator and member of Safe Ag Safe Schools in support of AB 1864.

Good morning. Jacob Evans of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Nancy Buermeyer, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support. Thank you.

Arianna Creed with cleanearth4kids.org in support. Also those in support are North County Equity and Justice. NCCA, Ecosustainability Peeps, Activists San Diego, Facts, Beyond Pesticides, Yards Martin Marin, and Moms Advocating for Sustainability. Thank you.

Bill Allayaud, Environmental Working Group, support.

[Translation needed].

Yanely Martinez with Safe Ag Safe Schools, Greenfield City Councilwoman in full support of AB 1864.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you. All right, thank you everybody. Let's hear from opposition, folks who want to raise concerns. Come on up. You can sit in the front.

Apologies. I might be up here quite a bit, this Committee hearing. Taylor Roshan on behalf of a Coalition of Agricultural Associations, we'd like to thank staff for their thorough analysis and to the author for his availability to hear our concerns. And happy birthday. But unfortunately we are opposed at this time.

1864 requires a grower to submit a notice of intent to their county ag commissioner in advance of an application of a Proposition 65 listed product using certain methods within a quarter mile of a school zone. This is problematic to our coalition for a variety of reasons.

California has the strictest pesticide laws in the nation and has unique specific requirements on use near schools. Every April, growers within a quarter mile of a radius of a school give a school administration a list of products they may apply that year, as well as the Ag Commissioner.

The law prohibits farmers from using certain methods of applications and pesticides between 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, or anytime children are present. It's because of these laws that there has not been a single documented instance of agricultural-related pesticide exposure to school children since the inception of the regulations. That's not our data.

That's data from the Department of Public Health, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and mandated reporters. And mandated reporters include ER doctors, teachers, pediatricians. If underreporting here is the issue, the Bill does not rectify that. Ironically, where pesticide illnesses of school children have been repeatedly found is on campus when they're used by untrained people without oversight.

So it's concerning to us that AB 1864 is based on the premise that ag pesticide exposure to children is rampant and unregulated. The bills also predicated on the premise that Prop 65 listed products, which would be subject to notification, are serious threats to our children.

The analysis does an excellent job highlighting the differences between hazard, which is the basis for Prop 65, and risk, which is DPR's basis for pesticide enforcement. Hazard is the potential for something to harm you, but risk is the likelihood of that hazard actually causing harm. Risk is the basis of our regulatory system in California.

It's the same criteria that we use for air quality and water quality, sea level rise. Risk lets us drive our car to work every morning and drink coffee. Pesticidal products that actually have unknown risk are known as restricted use materials, which do require notice of intent to be filed with an ag commissioner.

We believe 1864 applying the same paradigm over new products obligate unnecessary work on farmers using the same products that a quarter mile away that homeowners are using right next door or groundskeepers are using or teachers are using on campus.

In short, our coalition objects to new permanent requirements that don't cause an actual risk without data to support that. But we do agree that use reporting can be improved and that data can be improved for the notice of intent requirement for restricted use product, including some of the items that the author mentioned.

We'll continue to work with them on that portion of the Bill. And while we don't agree with the sponsors about the number of potential violations, we think greater information sharing in terms of notices of intent for restricted use materials can corroborate that the regulation is being properly enforced. So for these reasons, we're opposed.

Good morning, Chair Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on this important topic. I'm Steve Scheer, Yuba County Ag Commissioner. I also serve as the Pesticide Regulatory Affairs Committee Chair for the California Ag Commissioners Association, representing our 55 county ag commissioners and their work protecting people and the environment throughout California.

AB 1864 simply creates extra paperwork for growers and county enforcement staff and does not further protect our schools, children or our communities. The main emphasis of this Bill is to require a notice of intent for materials that are already prohibited to be applied during school hours under the current regulations.

Therefore, the ultimate outcome of the provision is simply increased paperwork for both the grower and for my enforcement staff, all our enforcement staff throughout the state, for applications that are already heavily restricted and must occur outside of school hours, as discussed earlier. It isn't just a matter of more work for our staff in the field, it's the matter of doing the right work.

And having my staff in the office reviewing this paperwork takes them out of the field to do enforcement work where that's really the important part, where we're protecting the vulnerable portions of our communities, specifically schools. From the introduction of this Bill, we've asked for data to support the sponsors claim of hundreds of violations of the current regulations.

We have not received that to date. Our inspection data from the ag commissioners includes 30,000 inspections by over 500 inspectors statewide, and we have not been noting those violations out in the field.

We do not have data to substantiate the claims made by the sponsors or proponents of this Bill, nor have we received data to corroborate claims to the contrary.

In conclusion, while the intent of this Bill is to prioritize and protect schools and children, all the Bill actually does is bury local enforcement staff in paperwork and place it additional restrictions on growers who are already complying with the strictest regulations in these sensitive locations.

It removes our inspectors from the field and tasks local and state governments to foot the Bill, all while not increasing the safety to our schoolchildren. We encourage you to be realistic in your consideration of this Bill and oppose the Bill in its current form. Thank you.

Folks who want to raise concerns or voice opposition to the Bill, if they can come to the mic and express their opposition.

Good morning. John Moffatt, on behalf of the Milk Producers Council with opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Matthew Allen with Western Growers. We also are opposed unless amended on the Bill.

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

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

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of California Seed Association, Pera Growers, several other agricultural interests, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Mister Chair, Members. Chris Reardon, California Farm Bureau. We appreciate the opportunity to work with the, with the author both in the last house and here today, and we look forward to continued discussions on this Bill as well. But we're opposed unless ammended.

Mister Chair and Members, Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed unless amended. Thanks.

All right, we'll bring the Bill back to Committee. Just if the Bill does get out today, it's going to go to the Agriculture Committee where I know there'll be a robust discussion of a lot of the issues that have been raised by the opposition, but we're certainly happy to have it here too. So, Mister Vice Chair.

Well, thank you, Assemblymember. So I have a couple questions. There's been some, obviously some. First of all, I want to thank the ag commissioners for finally coming to the Committee. So I have an applicators permit in my farm operation. I work with my ag commissioner every day with notice of intent. We have continuing training.

A lot goes on in this space. And thank God I don't have a school within a quarter of a mile of my fill. But with that being said, I want to thank you guys for showing up.

I did get receive a letter from my ag commissioner's coalition saying how much work is getting pushed down on them from regulations that come from the state. And it is a difficult job. So, thanks for being here.

So, let's talk about the differences between the witnesses' experience and what's been reported, because I think that's really the crux of this Bill. And then I want to also talk about the Prop. 65 space that we both talked in.

So maybe the sponsors of the Bill could talk about the experience where you had some, somebody got sick, but there's no obvious reporting of that. So what's going on there?

So Victor was the.

I don't care who answers it. I just would like to have an answer because there's.

Yeah, then I'd be happy to, with all respect, push back on a lot of the tests.

Yeah, well, we're gonna have that. Hopefully, if the Chair allows, we will have those conversations.

Why don't we hear from our witnesses first.

So I couldn't tell you why this. This drift incident is not reported in the Pesticide Illness Database. But I can tell you that's the tip of the iceberg. And that people, children that attend rural schools can testify that they're frequently, they are frequently exposed to agricultural pesticides during the school day.

Just recently at Modesto Christian School, 25 kids were taken to the hospital because of a pesticide drift that was not on campus. It was agricultural pesticide use. That's a private school, not protected by this regulation. This Bill will change that, at least. And as I said, we brought the reports from Victor's drift incident.

His parents did everything right. They went to the ag commissioner. It was investigated. He went to the ER. He was having a full blown asthma attack that could have killed him. And it was due to exposure to pesticides on campus, used in agricultural fields nearby.

Okay, now to the opposition.

Well, I'd like to say that there are a lot of circumstances where people are doing a, using maybe a spray rig to spray alternative products, not pesticides, like water. Sometimes that's misinterpreted as a pesticidal incident. I can't speak to Victor's circumstances.

What I can say is that every teacher, every ER doctor, every EMT, every pediatrician, ER doctors are all mandated reporters for pesticide illness. So I can't speak to why your circumstance wasn't properly reported. But I want to reiterate, nothing in this Bill fixes that problem. This doesn't better educate mandated reporters on what their standards are.

It doesn't audit the pesticide illness and injury reporting system that's in California, which is what the data DPR uses to derive to create these reports. So, noticing does nothing for our ag commissioners to enforce when violations may be present. And I think that's our concern.

Yeah, so as Taylor said, every time someone goes to the doctor and says they had a pesticide related exposure or illness, it is report. They're mandated to report that to the Pesticide Department, Pesticide Regulation.

And as an ag commissioner, if that happened in my county, I investigate that, every one of those, it could be a household bleach, which is also a pesticide, right, to a child. We investigate those as well as any. So, Mister Torres' illness happened before our current regulate pesticide use near schools regulation was in place.

That's been in place for about six years, right? Eight years. So anyway, his happened before our current regulations, and being Ag Commissioner before that, we already locally restricted applications around schools. From our perspective, if it was happening, we would be hearing about it.

I personally would know about it, or my colleagues in another county would know that there was a drift out of school and it would probably make the local papers. And as we know, it's not making local papers.

All right. The Assemblymember said that you wanted to, I'd like to get the crux of it. So we have obviously no data that says this actually happened. No doctor said this was a pesticide. This was pesticide.

Yeah, may I share the report?

Who's it from, though?

This is the Ag Commissioner's report from Victor's drift incident, which was before the regulation, but it's not in the Pesticide Illness Database. So the problem is under.

The question is, will this Bill change that?

This Bill, I mean, it's not going to restrict use. No, it's not going to restrict it in any way. But it will allow ag commissioners to know before one of these pesticides is going to be used rather than after, so that they can deploy inspection teams as appropriate next to schools, which are a highly vulnerable site.

Would the sergeant be willing to hand this out to Members? Thank you so much.

Yeah. So let me jump in. And I, too, appreciate kind of the discussion that has been going on on this Bill. There actually has been a lot of agreement around it. So, let's set the context. Number one, we have agreement from the industry that there should be more specificity around notifications as to type of use and whatnot.

So secondly, I think we do have agreement now, let's apply this to private schools with adequate notification to farmers about where those private schools are. So really what we're talking about is the kind of what is subject to the NOI requirement at this point. I would push back on analogizing these large scale spray methods which create aerial risk to someone, a neighbor nearby spraying their lawn, frankly. I would also push back, as I did in an earlier hearing on the main defense, seems to be the paperwork burden, that is unpersuasive in the face of public health risk here.

We do have documentation. I was surprised to hear the testimony this morning that some sort of request has been made that we have not complied with. I certainly don't have knowledge of that. So, really what we're talking about is there's a set of restricted toxins right now.

And what we're talking about is expanding that to fairly specific categories identified by the US EPA as carcinogens. As Miss Sellen testified, we're talking about approximately 54 new toxins here. This will go to the AG Committee. We're continuing the discussions, including one of your counterparts in the Assembly who's working with us.

We're better understanding the concerns, and we commit to continuing to have those discussions as this hopefully moves forward to the AG Committee as well. So if we can answer any other questions at this time, we'd be happy to.

Okay. So I just want to make sure that I understand what you're saying. So the incident for, I believe it's Victor, was before the regulations were put into place. So that at this point, shouldn't happen. We should know where we're at, or we should have some good reporting. Those two things.

It shouldn't, but. And with the reporting fixes, I think it won't.

Yeah. The other question was about Prop. 65 or what's been added. So I'd like to get a little more clarification on what is in those. What is, where's that at? Because that's critical to knowing where the actual incident's coming from. So, yeah, go ahead.

With the Chair's permission. While it is 54 active ingredients, each active ingredient is formulated into tens or hundreds of products.

So we are talking about thousands of new products that we are requiring a farmer to put a notice of intent in 24 to 48 hours in advance for the same exact product that's being applied on campus or right next to campus. I think, once again, I'll go back to the commentary that Proposition 65 is a hazard categorization.

DPR uses that hazard category and then applies label restrictions, like use restrictions, PPE, times of days that application can happen. So it's risk, or, I'm sorry, it's hazard plus exposure equals actual risk. Something like that's designated as a carcinogen by us EPA, I could have, it's potentially, it's a carcinogen.

I'd have to douse myself in that product 10 hours a day, every day for 60 years to have a potential risk of cancer exposure. Every product has different types of exposures realistically.

And so I think that's where this is a paradigm shift of the regulatory system that we have for public health and natural resource and environmental protection from a risk-based approach, which considers context, to a hazard-based approach, which does not, which is really the basis of what our opposition is about in this Bill.

Thank you.

May I just respond about the hazard versus risk? The Bill does address risks as well, because it only would require an NOI when applied next to a vulnerable site, a school with the most referral methods, aerial, air blast, those kind of methods.

So you take a hazardous chemical and you use it in a risky way, and it doesn't restrict in any way, it just requires notice to the Ag Commissioner, that's all.

What do you say to the argument that these pesticides can be used by the school itself without any notice to the.

Well, they're not spraying them from an airplane. That would be one thing. They're not airblasting them. They tend to be spot treatments. I don't know if they're the exact, if all of these chemicals that we're talking about are used on campus, I kind of doubt it.

And actually would be subject to the Healthy Schools Act which requires notice in advance to parents before they're used. So it is a pretty different situation.

If I may just, I want to make a last comment, so I won't be supporting the Bill today. I think there's a lot of work in this area. I actually have an applicators permit. I do this, and I've been very frustrated, and I've been on EQ forever, the whole time I've been here.

I used to love this Committee, but I'm not liking it much today for sure. But here's the deal, at the end of the day, so I don't want to see anybody get sick. We have to do our NOIs and there's all kinds of restrictions. How much air movement is there?

There's a window of time that you can actually apply, and that window gets narrower and narrower and narrower and pretty soon you're out of time as your crops getting destroyed by aphid or something. So it is hard, very hard.

At the same time, we have the custodians, the school going up, buying over-the-counter roundup and just going and doing. And there's nobody, no restriction for them at all. There's no timing, there's no anything. So it's been a very, I think it's more targeted towards the person who's trying to do it right, who's really regulated.

At the same time, I have my Ag Commissioner who does all kinds of tasks and is required to. We're all trying to fit in those windows and they're, and they're also trying to go out and, and monitor at the same time.

So when you, when you push back on the paperwork, look, they're overloaded, because we pass a lot of laws here. They have to go do it. We don't give them any more money to go do it. We don't give them any more staff, we just push it onto them.

So they've actually written a letter pushing back to DPR and DSC finally, I'm happy for them because we're just burning them. And sometimes you can't get the job done, then we're going to end up with something really bad happening. So I can't support this Bill.

I think there needs to be a lot of work in this area. And I think it's really unfortunate that the producer is always on the hook. He's somebody we can regulate. He's somebody we can fine. He's somebody we can target.

But we don't target the tens of thousands of people who in their backyard are spraying all kinds of stuff, not on the label, not at the rate they should. And it's getting into our water systems. It's getting into all kinds of stuff.

And it's like they get a pass, but we're gonna go after the farmer and we're gonna hammer him. Look, I don't want anybody getting sick. It's very difficult to do this because you have to, weather dictates a lot.

And also, if you can't spray for three days because of weather, your crops getting destroyed at the same time, because we have kids at school and we don't want to hurt anybody, but at the same time, we have to get our job done. And we are regulated heavily. I want you to hear that. So.

And little things matter, risk versus whatever, it matters. It matters hugely in what we're trying to do out there. So I just want to put it out there. And I want to say my last comment is they're shipping this stuff in from Mexico with all kinds of stuff on it because our farm farmers are leaving California.

They literally are. And they're shipping those products in here. We eat every day. They look beautiful. But they're covered in pesticides and herbicides that are illegal in California.

So we have to strike a balance here that is common sense that works, keeps people safe, but not just burden the guy that actually has the permit, because there's a whole bunch of people out there that do a lot of bad things that nobody even knows about, but we see it elsewhere. Thank you.

All right. Why don't we give the author the opportunity to respond to some of this in close? Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, of course. Yeah, please.

I didn't know if I wanted to ask after that beautiful speech there, Senator.

I just want to, if you could clarify, during, you started talking about some things that you agreed with in the opposition, and I know that was also in the analysis regarding some on the notification that what's being notified is really not addressing the crux of the issue.

And I just wanted to clarify, are you going to be adding that in your Bill related to the time that the application, the time that the pesticides is being introduced and so forth? Just wanted to make sure that's what you said.

Not clear I'm understanding the question.

So earlier you spoke about some of the things that you agreed with.

Yes.

The opposition, one of them was related to maybe perhaps changing what is included in the notification and the NOI. And I just wanted to confirm that's what you meant.

No, I was actually commenting that the opposition, just to be clear, agrees with a lot of the Bill already. There's really one area of disagreement left, and that is over the scope of the products subject to the NOI.

Maybe a misunderstanding. Is your Bill changing what is going to be in the NOI?

Yes.

Just doing, in effect, it's doing three things. One is requiring more specificity as to what, regarding, for example, the method as stated in the NOI, mine is saying is there's no disagreement on improving.

Okay.

That's what you're trying to say. Thank you so much.

Number two is applicability to private schools. I believe we have come to agreement on that understanding that it will not be farmers or the ag community that has to identify where the private school is. But once known, then it is. The third piece, and there's not agreement yet, at least, is the substances that will, this will apply to current law, it is restricted toxins. What we're trying to do is extend it to effectively include US EPA-identified carcinogens. We believe that.

Just the first ones that I. Yeah, I got it. Thank you.

Okay. So why don't we give you the chance to, to respond to some of the Vice Chair's comments, and then as you close.

Yeah. And again, what we're not talking about is we're not banning these substances. So whether or not products are coming in from a foreign country, we're not trying to tilt the balance on that.

What we're talking about is giving the public informed decision making capability about what kind of toxins are being large scale, applied near schools, and just making sure that those are being identified and that people can make choices accordingly. So I appreciate some of the analogies. I don't think they're very applicable.

We'll continue to discuss with the commissioners information they have or don't have. We have not had those conversations to the extent that has been represented here today. And furthermore, we'll continue to work with interested parties on what are the toxins that should be included. I mean, it sounds like there's different ways of looking at that.

That seems to be behind some of the claims of burden. Are we talking about 54 or are we talking about 10,000? That's a big spread. So we'll continue those discussions to try to better understand in the real world how that looks. With that, I'll respectfully ask for an aye vote today to continue that discussion.

Well, thank you. You had me at the number 54. We'll take a vote on your measure when we have a quorum. So thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I see Congresswoman Friedman here to present AB 1963 and AB 2552.

Yes, just let's keep talking. Pesticides. I guess this is why Vice Chair's not liking the day to day. All right, you may proceed when ready.

Good morning, Mister chair and Members, I will be accepting this suggested Committee amendment starting on page nine. Comment three of the analysis. I want to thank the Committee and the Committee staff for their work on this bill. Paraquat, first manufactured in 1962, is a highly toxic herbicide, or weed killer.

Used in almonds, pistachios and walnut orchards, and on grapes and cotton. Paraquat is sprayed to burn down or clear fields before planting and throughout the growing season to manage weeds between crop rows. Much of this chemical ends up in the soil for years, but it can eventually reach nearby communities via dust or drift when strong winds occur.

This poses an increased risk to people living and working near fields who are exposed to paraquat. However, the people who are most at risk are agricultural workers who mix, load or apply paraquat and enter areas after paraquat has been applied.

Recent common peer reviewed science has confirmed that exposure to paraquat greatly increases the risk of developing Parkinson's disease. Paraquat is banned in more than 60 countries, including those with large agricultural economies like the United Kingdom, China, Brazil, and the Members of the European Union. California should follow their lead.

Why should we continue to use this pesticide that's been around since 1962? AB 1963 is structured so that the Department can complete its investigation of the current science on paraquat before any prohibition of its use would occur. That's over a year and a half from today. We can do better because alternatives to paraquat exists today.

As the Committee analysis discussed in detailed findings that production data consistently failed to show any negative effects of banning paraquat on agricultural productivity. California's Department of Pesticide Regulation is emphasizing that we need to be using less pesticides and herbicides in their new planning effort titled Sustainable Pest Management.

Integrated Pest management is a strategy that focuses on long term pest prevention through biological controls, habitat manipulation and other approaches. I agree with DPR that we need to be the leader in eliminating highly toxic pesticides like paraquat.

Furthermore, the pesticide industry, always proud of their ability to innovate, should step forward and agree to stop producing this product and produce far less toxic weed killers. Testifying in support of AB 1963 is Bill Allayaud with the Environmental Working Group and Jonathan Evans with the Center for Biological Diversity. And I would request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Good morning, Mister chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Jonathan Evans. I'm the environmental health Legal Director at the Center for Biological Diversity. There is robust science connecting Paraquat to Parkinson's disease.

Serious human health harms significant risks to the environment, which is why in 2022, my organization, along with California Pesticide reform, requested that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation reevaluate the state's approval of paraquat and suspend and cancel its use, submitting a wealth of peer reviewed literature and science documenting the threats of paraquat.

Unfortunately, to date, DPR has yet to provide a substantive response. Paraquat is acutely toxic and also has long term chronic effects. It harms people both when they're exposed to a single dose and repeatedly over time to lower doses. Ingestion of paraquat, even just a teaspoon, can cause illness, organ failure, and even death.

EPA itself has a website entitled Paraquat one Sip can kill. Research published in 2011 found that farmworkers who sprayed paraquat were two and a half times more likely to develop Parkinson's disease, and the longer they used the herbicide, the stronger the connection.

Earlier this year, a UCLA study found that people living or working near the most intense paraquat applications in our Central Valley were 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 studies, occupational and environmental exposure to paraquat increased the risk of Parkinson's disease by 64%. The EPA and paraquat manufacturers claim that paraquat can be safely used with proper restrictions.

However, EPA openly acknowledges that risks to farmworkers persist despite restrictions, respectively request an aye vote.

Okay, I'm Bill Allayaud with Environmental Working Group sponsoring the legislation. First on the science, is it strong enough? We think it is. If you want to give rodents Parkinson's disease in the lab, you give them paraquat. It works. The opponents are saying there is no proof that paraquat causes Parkinson's disease.

But do we have proof that smoking causes cancer? In lung cancer, everyone knows my grandfather smoked until he was 96. He didn't die of lung cancer. There's a strong correlation, same with Parkinson's and paraquat. It's a correlation, not proof that it causes on alternatives.

We heard with chloropyrifos a few years ago, the industry came and said this is the end of industry for citrus and grapes and whatever. They're doing fine without chlorpyrifos. I think they can do fine without paraquat it's a highly restricted pesticide.

That's what DPR terms it, and so therefore use restrictions, as Senator Dawley was talking about, are important about wind and location and all that. However, violations keep occurring nationally. We have a list of violations that this Michael J. Fox foundation submitted and that shows widespread places, instances where farmworkers were exposed.

In California, EWG is in the process of compiling it in the counties where it's used most heavily. We're finding places where it ran down into the boots, gloves weren't used, goggles, et cetera. So even though it's highly restricted, accidents happen, and this is highly toxic.

So if you get a little bit here and a little bit there, you may not get Parkinson's. You won't in a year or two, but 10 years from now, that's the concern. Finally, I want to say this isn't a permanent ban on paraquat. It suspends its use until the Department completes a scientific reevaluation.

Then the bill, the author, we all will stand by what they do. They can put more restrictions on, continue a ban, make it permanent, or do nothing. It's up to what they do. So we'll have to trust the science that DPR does.

I note that per the earlier bill on the mill fee, hopefully the Department goes a lot faster on reviewing this pesticide and all the rest and also getting alternatives that are safer. Thank you.

All right, folks, who want to voice our support for the bill.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in strong support.

Thank you.

Abby Alvarez, on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, and Clean Water Action.

Jean Sellen, Californians for Pesticide Reform, in strong support.

Victor Torres, on behalf of Future Leaders of Change, in full support.

Isabel Ramirez with us in support.

Noemi Chico, Safe Ag Safe schools, in full support.

Chair and Members, Nate Sullivan, on behalf of the Michael J. Fox foundation for Parkinson's research and support. Thank you.

Ariana Khalid with cleanearthforkids.org and support. Also those in support are North County equity and justice, NCCA ecosustainability peeps, Activist San Diego facts, Sonoma Sass, beyond pesticides yards Martin Marin and moms advocating for sustainability. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Torres in support.

Yanely Martinez with Safe Ag Safe Schools. Also Greenfield City councilwoman in full support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Yes, our friendly opposition witness. Come on up. Nice to see you both. Right. Yeah.

Once again, good morning, Mister chair and Members Taylor Roschen, on behalf of Western Plant Health and a coalition expressing respectful opposition to 1963. Ensuring California's our workforce, environment, and communities are safe are of the utmost importance. Paraquat is one of the most highly studied active ingredients ever.

USCPA has evaluated thousands of studies, including published toxicology and epidemiological literature on paraquat exposure and adverse health outcomes. Because of that data, paraquat is a restricted use product, meaning, as we discussed before, it's not available to the General public and is sold in limited quantities.

Beyond that designation, it can only be applied by a licensed applicator with highly specialized training. A permit is required prior to use.

Ag commissioners are present during types of applications, PPE is extensive, reentry into the field after an application is severely restricted, and the product is even contained in a closed loop system that prevents even the applicator from accessing the material.

These are above and beyond what all of the restricted use and label requirements are set to protect public health and the environment. Cumulatively, these restrictions and more make paraquat one of the most highly regulated products in the world, and as our scientific discoveries and our capacities expand.

As the sponsors have mentioned, federal and state regulatory requirements adaptation in 2019 and 2020 to address incidental ingestion, major new restrictions were put in place. And if any scientific data that's new is developed on paraquat, it can be submitted to us, EPA and DPR anytime.

And if DPR finds them to be valid, DPR and USCPA have a mandatory duty to further restrict use. All of these is to say that there is a system that's in place and this bill does not use that system.

The author and sponsors alleged a causal relationship between Paraquatin Parkinson's disease and while the sponsors in the analysis sign cite a meta analysis of 13 case studies to support their claim, USCPA has studied 1200 studies and found conclusively the claim is not accurate.

According to a 2024 USCPA review released in response to a petition, quote after a thorough review, the agency has concluded that the weight of evidence was insufficient to link paraquat exposure from pesticidal use to Parkinson's disease in humans.

This conclusion is supported by, among other things, a National Institute of Health sponsored study of 66,000 pesticide application applicators and their spouses over 25 years.

Additionally, in March, a federal judge dismissed the plaintiff's expert witness testimony, citing the causal theory has not been adopted or independently validated in a peer reviewed analysis, and the expert's methodology was, quote, unclear, inconsistently applied, not replicable, and at times reverse engineered, unquote.

Even with scientific debate pending 1963 doesn't direct DPR to review data and let science dictate if an action is warranted. It bans first and says study second. As we also discussed, Mister Garcia's bill just resourced the Department to do expansive work, and negotiations will absolutely include an annual target for reevaluations and mitigations.

Our coalition believes in science and that our agency is full of toxicologists and biochemists. Endocrinologists and biologists are best suited to opine on the science, and it's the Legislature's purview to direct them to do that work. Even with the Committee's proposed amendments, 1963 is still, from our perspective, an unscientifically unsubstantiated ban.

And for those reasons, we respectfully oppose.

Mister chair Members Chris Reardon, California Farm Bureau, in California paraquato is a very effective weed control and resistance management tool. She's done a variety of crops, significant crops including almonds, walnuts, citrus, cotton, corn, tomatoes, peppers and potatoes. The application of paraquatis is strictly regulated to ensure that the safety of applicators, bystanders, consumers and the environment.

Some of the key protective regular requirements and guidelines include restricted use material. Paraquat is classified as restricted use material in California. That means only certified applicators who have been trained and licensed can purchase and apply paraquat contained products. Applicators must follow strict guidelines regarding application rates and timing specified under product label.

This includes ensuring that paraquat is applied only when weather conditions are suitable and when there is a minimum risk adrift. Buffer zones are also required to minimize potential exposure to sensitive areas such as residential areas, schools, water bodies, organic crops.

The size of buffered zones depends on a lot of different factors, including weather conditions, proximity to these sensitive areas. Personal protective equipment applicators must wear PPE as specified in the product label. This typically includes long sleeve shirts, long pants, chemical resistant gloves, goggles, or face shields to protect against potential skin and eye exposure.

Anyone applying paraquat in California must undergo specific training and obtain certification as a pesticide applicator. The training covers safety handling, application techniques, emergency procedures, and environmental stewardship. Also, applicators are required to keep detailed records of paraquat applications, including dates, locations, applications, application rates, weather conditions, any adverse effects observed.

It's also important to note Mister chair and members that integrate pest management, as many of you know, is a cornerstone of modern agricultural emphasizing the use of multiple approaches for pest control while minimizing environmental impact.

Paraquat, when used judiciously as part of this IPM strategy, contributes to this goal by reducing the reliance on more persistent herbicides and promoting biodiversity on farms. And then lastly, I just wanted to mention one of the concerns we have as well is, and we talked about in a previous bill is alternatives.

Right now it takes a significant amount of time in California to get a new registration to deal with some of these issues. And so let's make sure before we just throw out an effective product that it has enormous impact on California agriculture, that we alternatives that actually work. So thank you, Mister chair.

Thank you. All right, folks who want to voice their opposition to the Bill.

Hello, Mister chair Members, Matthew Allen with Western Growers were also opposed and would align our comments made by Miss Roschen and Mister Reardon. Thank you.

Mister chair. Members of the Committee, Louie Brown, on behalf of the California Cotton Growers and Generators Association and Western Agricultural Processors Association, in opposition.

Lindsey Carter, on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association in opposition.

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

Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition.

Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition.

Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association, in opposition.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the California Seed Association, California Pear Growers, and several other ag associations in opposition.

Patricia Geringer, Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed.

Erin Norwood, on behalf of the Allman alliance, also respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Okay. All right. The items back before the Committee. You. Know, this is one of these, well, one of these things where there's obviously an ongoing investigation at the EPA, and they had an interim decision where they found that there wasn't a strong enough connection between paraquat and Parkinson's to prohibit the use of the product.

But they're coming out with a final decision in January. You know, this is one of these. There's certainly a lot of scary evidence that we've been presented, but we also know there's a real impact on the agricultural community.

And I know that's going to be a big topic of conversation at the Ag Committee if the bill passes out today. But this is a hard bill, actually, in many respects, because I think you want to. Because of how tenant. Well, because of the situation at the EPA.

But the flip side is, I guess this bill would sunset at the completion of the DPR process. So if they decide that they want to go ahead with continuing use of the pesticide, then the state's policy would revert back to the EPA's decision. All right, questions? Thoughts?

Oh, let me establish a quorum since we see Senator Nguyen here. Do you want to please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Okay, so we have a quorum, finally. Took us an hour and a half, but let's. Let's open up the floor to questions, comments, thoughts?

Yep. Obviously, it's, you know, ag zero today so far. I think probably gonna be zero again. But this bill, first of all, there's some discrepancy on whether it really causes Parkinsons disease or not. I think that in analysis I looked at, there's been several different studies. And so, you know, I know Michael J.

Fox may think that, but the science hasn't determined that yet, at least from what I see here. Also, this is a ban until. It's up on the wall. This is a ban until reevaluated, if they ever reevaluate it.

So I think that's pretty aggressive, pretty strong, to take something away that, you know, and then there's going to be some action, maybe by EPA, you know, later this fall. So I think it's premature. Number one, I think we should wait.

So I'm not going to be supporting the bill today, and I think that we should just wait and then see what happens.

And also, then I think on top of that, if the bill before passes, and we know there's going to be some action with DPR and funding, and then they'll have some resources to maybe take on some of these. So for me, it's a no. Yeah. Okay.

Thoughts or questions from the other Members? Okay. You know, I do share some of the concerns. The Vice Chair, I'm gonna support the bill today.

I know it's gonna go to agriculture, and they're gonna have a real robust discussion of the impacts on the industry, and they're gonna have to weigh the health concerns that have been raised and will continue to be raised. The science is still being investigated.

And I guess, let me just turn to the author to just kind of make the case for us as to the urgency of this now with the EPA investigation pending.

I think it's. We have seen over the years how easy it is to throw doubt on evidence that we see of correlation. The tobacco industry did it for many years. We see this commonly with chemicals that are in dispute.

But what we do know is that farmworkers who use paraquat have more than twice the amount of Parkinson's than farmworkers who don't. We know that the EPA banned the use of paraquat on golf courses during their last review, I guess, implying that it's too dangerous for golfers, but it's okay for farmworkers. This bill is

It takes a very measured approach. The ban doesn't start or the moratorium doesn't start until 2026. And if EPA acts before then, this bill might become unnecessary.

But if you're going to air on one side or the other, if you have a dispute, do you act the way that is the most protective to the people who are most heavily impacted, which is those farmworkers?

Do you err on the side of protection, given the enormous impacts of Parkinson's disease, of that kind of neurological damage, or do you err on the side of allowing the use? Remember, this product's been banned in over 60 countries, countries that have robust agricultural sectors that are healthy. So we do know that there are alternatives.

And my feeling is that given that there is a scientific dispute and a lot of scientific evidence showing harm, and by the way, the fact that some of the testimony was not allowed in one case really didn't have to do, it had to do with one particular witness.

And we can show that that was one witness whose evidence wasn't allowed, but many, but hundreds of cases were allowed to go forward and many, many other witnesses as well. So it's not at all conclusive as to the evidence that's out in the scientific literature.

If you do a look, this material has been heavily studied, showing a very large link. That's why there is so much protective gear that has to be used with this. So it's a dangerous chemical. Everybody admits that. The question is, are we using it safely enough to be protective of farmworkers?

The fact that they're getting Parkinson's right now at high rates.

When we did this bill a few weeks ago, a few weeks back in the Assembly, we had an owner of a farm who came in who has Parkinson's, who said she regretted not knowing how serious this was, that she now has Parkinson's, and she believes it's from the use of this product on her farm. So I just.

I feel very strongly that, given that there is this dispute and the gravity of this illness, that we should allow for this pause, which doesn't take effect for another couple of years, maybe it'll push EPA to work. So I would urge an aye vote.

And your point? I mean, given the fact, fact that they're expected to finalize their decision in January of 25 or perhaps earlier, your bill doesn't even kick in until January of 26. So assuming that actually gives a lot of Runway. So there won't be any, there won't be any impact.

Assuming that the EPA is on track if they do decide to not prohibit. Is that right? So, yeah. Okay. Yep.

Yep. Sorry, Mister Vice. I just want to say, you know, with that logic, why don't we just ban everything? Everything. Why don't. By 2026, why don't we just say, hey, we know no farm worker is going to be exposed to any pesticide.

But some pesticides are more dangerous than others

There's a reason we don't do that, because we actually do really need some of these things. Most of them.

Some pesticides are more dangerous than others

Huh?

Yes but we have, in California, we have Prop 65, which is nobody pays attention to anymore because everything's labeled, really, at the end of the day. I mean, I think this has probably got a label on it somewhere. It's water, for God's sakes. There's a reason for these things. It is.

And we have to have some common sense to our approach here. Look, I don't want any farm workers to get sick or damaged. We have very strict protocols in California more than any other state, and we also produce more than the other state. But we're losing that. We're losing that edge in California because we are so regulated.

So I just want to say, you know, it's like, for example, it's the minimum wage battle. Why don't we just make it $100 an hour? Because there's a reason we don't make it $100 an hour because everybody go out of business.

There's a reason we need these products to be competitive, to do the right thing, to not push again, all of our Ag people to a different country where they use all these things. Now, I know that 60 countries are banning this stuff, but wait on. We need some more time. This is, I think, very aggressive. There is.

Obviously, the EPA is doing some stuff. So I just want to push back a little bit and say, you know, if that's the methodology, then we should just ban everything and see what happens.

I'd like to take, if we could just look ahead six months, if we banned all this stuff and see what happens in California, it would be disastrous. We need these products. We need to do it in a safe way, and we do that already. So I just want to make that for the record.

I mean, obviously, we're not seeking to ban every product with this bill, but we'll. Yeah. Is that on the record? All right, so Senator Dahle is in support of banning all pesticides. You heard it here. All right. So when I leave, you'll probably do it all. Senator Menjivar, I think, has moved the Bill.

Let's give the author the opportunity to close. Thank you.

Well, this is a chemical that has already been banned in many, many countries. And, you know, in other countries, they have processes where their regulators try to ensure that products are safe before they're brought to market. And this country doesn't work that way.

In this country, we allow for the use of a lot of chemicals that do a lot of harm, and it takes action, legal action, from people like Erin Brockowich and others, to sometimes to show proof and then to get things taken off the market.

And we have seen over and over again the result of that with all of our water being more expensive because we're now going to have to pay to filter out chemicals and pfas and lots of other things that we know have an effect on human health because we did wait a long time and people said it's too expensive and we need these things.

If we had processes that really ensured that products were safe before they got to market, we wouldn't have to be sitting here in these hearing rooms over and over again trying to look at these materials one by one.

So I do think that there's a failure of federal regulators, and I do think that it is upon us many times to be protective of our community because we have seen in many cases where people have gotten very sick because of things that federal, EPA and federal laws have allowed to be put into our product stream.

And I will use that as my close. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Secretary, please call the role. You want to stay up here for the Rodenticide side one. Yeah. Okay. You might as well stay. All right. Please call her the role

The motion is do pass as amended to Agriculture Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, we'll leave that open for the members out on. Okay. All right. It is pesticide day here in EQ Committee. So let's next here. This is a rodenticide. Of course it's different.

Another bill to make my good friend Senator Dahle happy. I am going to pass some photos around, if that's okay with you, to the members on the dais. So I'll start with Senator Dahle.

So this is a map, a buffer map.

There's a buffer map as well that shows in Senator Hurtado's district what this would look like in terms of the buffer zone so that people can understand the impact. And so let me explain what this Bill does.

First of all, exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides, which is basically rat poison, a certain class of rat poison can result in both lethal and sublethal effects on nontarget wildlife, including severe skin diseases and decreased immune system responses. Anticoagulants work by stopping clotting, and so animals that are poisoned with anticoagulants basically bleed out internally.

Now, these chemicals are used widely. They continue to result in unreasonable number of public health incidences, with over 3000 human poisonings in 2021, and at least 2300 of these involving children under six years, according to the American Association of Poison Control Center.

AB 2552 adds the two remaining first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, known as FGARs, Chlorphacinone and Warfarin, to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintentional rodenticide poisonings while maintaining exceptions for its use in public health, water supplies, and agriculture. So I want to be clear.

This Bill does not impact agriculture except in one instance, which is if you have a farm that is next to a designated wildlife habitat zone. So not just some forest, but a forest that is a publicly owned forest, like a state park, that's a wildfire, that's a wildlife habitat. So it has to meet those two criteria.

Then you have a buffer between where you can use these chemicals on your farm and where the critters from that wildlife area are sort of moving into your farm a bit.

The reason we brought this map is to show you what it looks like in an area that has both a lot of agriculture and a lot of these state parks. We're talking about rings around the park. That's the buffer area where in an agricultural area, you couldn't use the chemicals.

So it's not huge amounts of farmland, it's that buffer. And that's only in an area where you have those wildlife areas already sort of in law.

So the Bill requires that the Department of Pesticide Regulation enact stronger, permanent restrictions on FGARs to limit unintended wildlife poisonings, making these chemicals a restricted material so that your average, you can no longer get them at Home Depot, which is a real problem, given how toxic these are.

And yes, us EPA is undergoing its periodic review of rodenticides, but unfortunately, that process is again too slow and behind schedule. Now, I live in an urban area with a lot of a wildlife urban interface zone. A lot of big cats, bears, coyotes.

People constantly complain about the presence of these animals who are visibly poisoned, often dying around their communities. We see dead owls and dead hawks frequently in my neighborhood, coyotes with what looks like mange, that is, rodenticide poisoning.

When P 22 was captured, they tested his blood, and he had extensive amounts of liver damage from rodenticides, from eating poisoned rats. We also have the famous photo of him with the rodenticide-induced mange where he looked so sick. Our wildlife is already at the breaking point in many of our areas, and now we are poisoning them.

And there's really no reason, because the best way of preventing vermin in these areas is actually apex predators like hawks and coyotes. And if we poison them, we throw the whole system out of balance. And we have seen evidence from studies that were done.

There was a study, I believe, in Irvine, where they tested rodenticide in a water dam against putting in some owl and hawk boxes. And guess what won? The owl in the hawk box area, the rodents were much lesser than in the area where they were using the poison because they were a better way of killing the pests.

As the LA Times recently highlighted, a new mountain lion was just found in Griffith Park. We welcome him or her, and we have the opportunity to give that big cat a better life than P 22 endured through our constant poisoning of him.

There are a wide range of safer, more sustainable, and cost-effective alternatives to these dangerous rodenticides available for use today. And these are chemicals. I'm not even talking about the owls and the hawks. I'm talking about actual poisons that are safer, that don't bioaccumulate in the secondary, in the rats, and poison other animals.

Testifying in support this afternoon is Dr. Rebecca Gooley, a Smith fellow and postdoc at UC Davis, and Jonathan Evans, an environmental health legal Director and senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. And I would urge an aye vote.

Good morning, Chair Allen and Committee Members. My name is Dr.1 Rebecca Gooley. I am a conservation scientist investigating the sub-lethal impacts of rodenticides in California wildlife. The California Ecosystem Protection Act of 2020 restricted second-generation anticoagulants. However, necropsies performed by CDFW in 2023 showed ongoing widespread poisoning of anticoagulants.

Over 73% of wildlife tested positive for second-generation anticoagulants, and over 57% tested positive for first-generation, including Chlorphacinone and Warfarin. When these poisons don't directly kill wildlife, they make them sick and weak. Sublethal doses of anticoagulants have been associated with lower immune function, increased parasite and pathogen load, lowered egg hatching, and lowered fledgling success.

For most wildlife, natural habitat is where they nest and reproduce, and offspring are particularly sensitive to these poisons. The habitat buffer zone is science-based. It correlates to the home ranges of commonly affected wildlife such as great horned owls, barn owls, gray foxes, and red-tailed hawks.

This is crucial as despite the restrictions, we are still seeing widespread exposure to all anticoagulants. The use of these anticoagulants also pose a public health concern. In a 2021 study by Murray and Sanchez, it was found that poisoned rats were significantly more likely to be infected with leptospira than non-poisoned rats.

Rodent fertility control successfully reduces rodent numbers, but it does not disrupt their immune system like poisons do. In a 2022 study by Ray and Pizena published an 18-month-long study that showed rat birth control at a California agricultural facility used this and they had a reduction of over 94% of rat activity.

This was noted by the farm managers to be something they had been unable to achieve prior. The addition of rodent fertility control to exclusion and better sanitation practices will aid in a more secure food supply. There are alternatives to poison, and with this Bill, California will continue to move towards a more biodiverse future. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Jonathan Evans, Environmental Health Legal Director at the Center for Biological Diversity Anticoagulant genocides, including those covered by the Poison Tree Wildlife Act of 2024, are some of the most scientifically studied and widespread wildlife poisons.

Anticoagulants have a unique mode of toxicity that makes them particularly lethal to other animals higher in the food chain because they bioaccumulate and create a cumulative body burden in wildlife higher up in the food web. The poisoning is widespread, as Dr. Gooley alluded to.

In 2023, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife studied all of the necropsies it could obtain in terms of poison. Wildlife and anticoagulants are found in over 88% of birds of prey like hawks and owls, 80% of large game mammals, 86% of bobcats, including the vast majority of mountain lions, and over 90% of gray foxes.

The Poison Free Wildlife Act works stepwise with previous bills to add the remaining anticoagulants to the existing moratoriums of AB 1788 and AB 1322, allowing industry to innovate and more fully adopt sustainable approaches over several years and reducing the cumulative threats to non target wildlife.

Some of the arguments we saw with AB 1788 and AB 1322 that removing these anticoagulants would, would result in public health threats and plagues of rats have proven untrue, and we'll hear the same arguments today. Importantly, we don't need these dangerous rodenticides. That's why we haven't seen the issue arise with rodent infestations that are causing problems.

Safer, cost effective alternatives are readily available, necessary and frequently used already in birth and pest control. Sealing buildings and eliminating food and water sources are a necessary first step. Fertility control has proven highly effective in reducing rodent populations and is already in use by municipal governments. In California.

Lethal rodent control strategies that involve snap traps and electric traps can then be implemented for underground rodents. You can also use carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and importantly, there are over 100 different rodenticide products, some discussed in this Committee analysis of acute toxicants that would still be available and don't pose as great of a threat to California ecosystems if the Bill passes.

There are alternatives that are safer. We should be using them in California and reducing anticoagulants. I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

And I just want to reinforce that agriculture is exempted. It's just a 25-foot buffer zone only if you're next to a designated wildlife habitat area, not all parks. It has to be a wildlife habitat area.

Let's have, let's hear from folks who want to voice their support for the Bill.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee, Sosan Madanat here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund, a proud cosponsor in support. And I've been asked to give a courtesy me too for Social Compassion in Legislation in support. Thank you.

Hello. Kayla Robinson on behalf of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support. Thanks.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson, on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council as well as the Humane Society of the United States in support. Thanks.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, Paul Gonsalves, on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks, in support.

Bill Allayaud, EWG in support.

Katie Jones from Jelly's Place Animal Rescue and Adoption. Strong support.

Melinda Yu on behalf of the Raptors on Solution and co-sponsor of this Bill in strong support.

Hi, good morning. My name is Yuri Forgas. I'm a passionate birdwatcher and I'm speaking on behalf of Wisdom Good Works, and I'm in strong support of this Bill.

Good morning. Julia Saxby concerned citizen and law student representing the Animal Law and Advocacy Program at Berkeley Law. Strong support.

Carla West on behalf of Yeagersville Wildlife Refuge and strong support.

Hi, Ariana Creed with cleanearth4kids.org in support. Also those in support are North County Equity and Justice, NCCCA, Eco-sustainability Peeps, Activist San Diego, Facts, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Sonoma SASS, Beyond Pesticides, Yard Smart Marin, and Moms Advocating for Sustainability. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, opposition witnesses. See, I told you you could have stayed. All right.

I work on other issues. I'm figuring the more I'm here, maybe you gotta give me one.

Yeah. Yeah.

Once again, good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Last time, Taylor Roschen on behalf of the Rodenticide Task Force and a series of agricultural associations in opposition to AB 2552. Our opposition is based on a series of factors.

Firstly, because we have robust administrative penalties and enforcement procedures for illegal sale, use, and possession of pesticides, including anticoagulant rodenticides and reporting with Ag commissioners DPR Instructional Pest Licensing Board. We believe imposing additional civil penalties as proposed in this Bill is unnecessary.

We also believe that state and local officials are better versed in pesticide enforcement and equipped to handle and verify complaints versus local city attorneys. Secondly, we object to the Bill as an abdication of the process in place for pesticides to be prohibited or use limited.

DPR has a procedure in place to review wildlife and environmental impacts, including on non target species. And when legitimate information is presented, DPR is obligated to review and mitigate or cancel products. The sponsors are well suited to avail themselves of that process. But here we have legislation which seems to be the theme of today's hearing.

I want to correct the record. All pesticides are banned for use in California until they're registered for use and deemed safe.

And rather than present a Bill that obligates GPR to re-review that data or new data and issue a new determination to the Legislature or the public by a certain date, which has been done on rodenticides historically and yielded results. AB 2552 bans these products outright.

Once again, we believe our agencies are best suited to opine on science, and it's the Legislature's prerogative to direct them to do that work. Finally, we'd like to highlight serious concerns with the agricultural exemption that has been eroded from our perspective in this Bill.

When the original second-generation ban was contemplated and even the author carried a Bill last year on diphacinone, the agricultural exemption was maintained in those circumstances. This is because keeping our farms and our food facilities free from rats is not just good business sense, it's a public health necessity.

Rats destroy infrastructure, spread feces and urine, and care uncommunicable diseases that we can't otherwise control. And to be clear, the Bill specifically states, and the Bill analysis confirms that the agricultural exemption is for all anticoagulants. So we're not just talking about warfarin and chlorophastanone.

We're talking about all of the other anticoagulant rodenticides that are there as well, which would no longer be eligible for use on your farm, ranch, cold storage, or food processing facilities within a half a mile of a park or a wildlife refuge.

We've provided your offices our version of maps that are statewide that show where prohibition would be limited to.

And while we can understand that there may not be many national forests in Senator Hurtado's district, there definitely are in Senator Dahle's and the entire county, from our perspective, in Senator Dahle's district would be banned for use from these products.

The alternative methods, like rat fertility control, removing debris, restricting rodent accents, that has been suggested, are not in the realm of reality in farming or already has happened. And even the noncoagulant chemical alternatives aren't all registered for agricultural use and come with significant trade-offs, which, the analysis notes, neurotoxicity, nontarget species exposure products without antidotes.

And as evidenced by the history on this issue, we have no confidence that even those products won't be taken away by this Legislature next year. We request a stop to the whack-a-mole approach of removing products, one active ingredient at a time, that keep us safe and let the science lead us.

So for these reasons, we request a no vote.

Thank you, Dennis Albiani on behalf of the California Seed Association, California Pear Growers, but also the California Warehouse Association. California Warehouse Association is the rice dryers and handlers of rice products.

And so one of the things that's inconvenient about being in agriculture and being in rice country is one example is that we are actually in the park nature interface, and that's where we go. And we actually feed quite a bit of the habitat and endangered species in California.

So the rice industry has been, you know, very well praised for their environmental transformation over the last two decades, and yet there's obviously still an in the interface.

And so when you look at these rice warehouse dryers, which would be exempt by the Bill except for the half mile around a wildlife situation, and that's where there are refuges all over Northern California, we promote them. There is duck hunting facilities that are owned and managed and operated by the state and the Fish and Wildlife entities.

And so that's where it starts to become very significant into the impact on those specific entities using rice as an example.

The other issue I'd like to bring forward is the further we restrict the materials outside of agriculture, for instance, the less available they're going to be, and the less available that entities will come in and try to get more benign products registered that may have a smaller dose or a different formulation.

Because if they can only use it in these two little narrow sectors of the industry, that's their entire market. And California has significantly more restrictions and barriers to entry into the market for new products.

And finally, I'd just like to bring up that there is a difference and that's why they're categorized between first generation and second generation. And Mr. Bloom carried this and we worked with him closely. And his political corpse is not even an entire session through. And we're back to the other ones that come forward.

And so there was a lot of discussion went into those previous ones that man, one element of anticoagulants. And so again, we need to look to the science, look to DPR. That's what they're there for. That's why they have science persons and follow that lead. Thank you.

Thank you. Hopefully his corpse isn't suffering from mange. Fair enough. Just an overburdened court in Northern LA County. You can stay up here if you want. Let's just hear from folks who want to weigh in in opposition, express their...

Chair and Members of the Committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the California Rice Commission, in opposition.

I'm not going to let you guys escape this time.

Mr. Chair and Members, Matthew Allen with Western Growers, also opposed. Thanks.

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

Tricia Geringer, Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Michael Miller, California Association of Wine Grape Growers, respectfully opposed.

Marge Lee, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in respectful opposition.

Mr. Ruden, California Farm Bureau, oppposed.

George Covinta with the Almond Alliance, also respectfully opposed.

Lindsey Carter, Ag Commissioners and Sealers Association, opposed.

Dominic Di Mare here on behalf of the Pest Control Operators of California. Disrespectfully. No, just kidding. Respectfully opposed.

Yes, respectfully.

All right, discussion from the Committee. This is, I just want to ask one question. I noticed when the assertion was made that this was going to impact nearly all of Senator Dahle's county. I saw some of you shake your heads. I just wanted to get some clarity on. Obviously, this map is interesting.

It's a very particular part of the state, but I'd love to go ahead.

To clarify, you know, state law can't control federal lands. Federal government has control over federal lands. This, we cannot, as a Legislature, say to California, control what happens there. We have no authority over that. So that's clearly patently wrong.

But how, but when you talk about refuges, I should probably know the answer to this, but...

I can clarify what those wildlife habitat areas are defined under the Bill.

Wildlife habitat area under the Bill means a park or wildlife refuge managed by a state agency, regional government, or quasi-governmental agency, or by a special district. Only thing the State of California has jurisdiction over, national wildlife refuges, national parks, Bureau of Land Management areas, national forests are not covered by this Bill.

Sure.

So the wildlife habitat area is just things that the State of California has control over and its sub-agencies. And also the buffer zone would only be around those wildlife habitat areas themselves.

So there would not be buffer zones, as the Bill is, is drafted now around those federal lands, because that's not the appropriate level of oversight the state can provide.

Let me just push back on that. Why isn't it, we still have regulatory power over the land that's near federal land.

Correct. And that is a discussion we've had and that's ongoing with the committees. But to date, the Bill as draft, that does not have that language of buffer zones around federal areas. It's a large area. We recognize that there were a lot of concerns raised, and so that's part of the negotiation.

So in Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, we have. There's National Park Service land or state land. So you're able to apply the rodenticide next to the National Park Service land in the mountains, but not the state park land?

As drafted under this Bill. I mean, the wildlife habitat area depends on whether there may be overlap and what specifically the jurisdiction is. So if there's a local special district, you know, adjacent to the Santa Monica Mountains, California has the control over that.

But just as the Bill is drafted right now, it does not have the buffer around federal lands.

I also want to clarify that, just to be clear, there's 114 other pesticides that can be rodenticides that can be used in these buffers. The Bill only is banning the anticoagulants. So it's not like we're saying you can't use rat killer in these buffers.

We're saying don't use the rodenticide because we know it's particularly harmful to nontarget wildlife. So I want to be very clear, this is not a ban on rat poison in these buffers. Only on rodenticide rat poison, only on anticoagulant rat poison.

Okay. Yes, Senator Hurtado.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm really interested in learning a little bit more. I mean, this map seems very targeted. And actually it's majority of my Senate district. And so I know that the argument was made that it was more so Northern California, but this map tells me that it's a lot of my district.

And I heard from testimony today that a lot of the issues that you're facing come from communities that are not in this area. So I'm just, I've never heard from my constituents of these similar concerns that you're trying to alleviate here. And so I'm just trying to understand why the need here. What have you heard?

Have you heard, I mean, because it just, it seems a little...

We just wanted to show what the buffer looked like in an agricultural area because agriculture is exempted. So if we had done a map for our area, we don't, you know, my district, we don't have much agriculture, so it wouldn't have given there's no buffer. I mean, there's no buffer around a farm in my district.

We were trying to show a typical agricultural. We have done the mapping for Senator Dahle's district. We can show you that it looks the same in terms of the amount of area that it's covering, because in previous hearings, people wanted to understand with the buffers how much agricultural land is actually in the buffer.

That's why we picked an area that was heavily agricultural. It's your district. We can provide this to Senator Dahle. We can provide for anybody. But the issues are the same. Any place that you're going to have wildlife encountering anticoagulants, you're going to have the same level of poisonings.

And what is around these buffers is, are these wildlife habitat areas around them? So what's around this is the wildlife habitat area. So you have wildlife there, you're going to have big cats, you're going to have owls, you're going to have a high preponderance of wildlife because they are habitat areas.

So we're just trying to show how much land is, how much agriculture, what the buffers look like in your district.

But the impact is different from your district, for example? Well, the impact from anticoagulant rodenticides is the same anywhere there's wildlife. Yeah, I mean, I've never heard a complaint from any constituent in my district.

So that's, I guess that's what I'm trying to get at is that if you've heard any, any concerns coming out of, you know, this particular region.

So we have county by county data that I would be happy to share with you. I think. Bakersfield, is that in your district? Yeah. We do have a lot of poisoning necropsies coming in from CDFW. They get reported every year. And I have a huge spreadsheet that I'm happy to share with people.

So I can give you the exact numbers. I don't know it off the top of my head, but we definitely have wildlife getting poisoned in Bakersfield.

And confirming that, the same with San Joaquin Kit Fox, isn't it? San Joaquin Kit Fox is a lovely endangered species in your district. We have confirmed necropsies of mortality to Kit Fox from anticoagulant rodenticide. So it is something that's occurring everywhere.

The difference here is that, you know, Senator Friedman's district doesn't have as much agriculture and all the commercial and residential uses are prohibited with under this Bill as well. So that would be in your town as well as in the town that you represent as well as other towns.

Yes. In other words, in my district it's more of a ban because we don't have as, except for water infrastructure is exempted. We're trying to, but agriculture is exempted from our Bill. So the farms can all still use the anticoagulants in your district. This is showing you the areas where they couldn't use it.

So we're trying to show that it's not a huge amount of property, you know, given the amount of agriculture in the area.

Just want to make a quick comment.

I obviously won't be supporting the Bill from all the things I said before, but one thing I did want to say is when we did the Bill came through last time with Assemblymember Bloom, one of the things was that I know is very prevalent in my district is illegal Marijuana grows where they use a ton of this stuff that is not legal.

So we have, for our agricultural storage facilities that we have, we get a permit, we go do all the same things we did with our applicator's permit for anticoagulants.

But the use of illegal anticoagulants is huge throughout the state and there's really no way to know until you. Till they go out and enforce, which is a county person that does code enforcement violation, typically. But in many of our cases, we found really, I mean, bags of anticoagulants that weren't even sold in California.

They're coming from somewhere else because they're using it. They're in our watersheds. And so I just want to, for the record, go. We're not going to this. This is going to go after people who have to go to get permits, not people that do it illegally.

We should go after them, too. Okay. Yeah. Well, there's a lot of enforcement we need to do up in Marijuana grow company. Yeah. Yeah. Seriously. Okay, well, any additional comments or thoughts or motion from Members? Okay, so move by Senator Menjivar. This is a do pass to Senate Natural Resources and Water, we'll let you close.

Thank you. And the reason for this Bill is because even though we have been doing work on rodenticide, we are still seeing a lot of poisonings, unintended poisonings through necropsies. And we think that we struck a really good balance by exempting agriculture. Really, the fight is over these little rings that you see on there.

And given that there's 114 other lethal rodenticides that can be used, we think that this is very reasonable, very sensible. Not going to drive anybody out of business. This shouldn't be a hardship, but it could, given that we're abutting habitats where we've told animals, come and live here, here's your habitat.

And then we're bringing this really toxic poison in where these rats stumble into the forest now and they're sick and they get eaten, and they poison these other animals. And we know that through necropsies, through blood tests.

Don't go anywhere Phil. Okay. All right. Sorry.

That's okay. This is, you know, this is. We believe that this is unnecessary. It's sort of low-hanging fruit of animal protection. And I would request, and aye vote.

But not if the Federal Government tells them to go live there. Then that's a...

You know, we are very open to do, you know, to putting a buffer in around the federal forest. We'll continue to discuss that, but, you know, as of now, it's not covered under this Bill.

Yeah, I'd love it if we could just also look at some of the national recreation areas where there's mixed ownership.

There's very limited use on federal lands. They have to go...

Of course. But the adjacent to federal lands, I mean, I care about those lands, too. So, anyhow, it's been moved. Secretary please call the roll.

AB 2552. Do pass to Senate Natural Resources and Water. [Roll Call]

All right, thank you. So we've got a couple more Members to add on. All right, Assemblymember Ting. Sorry to rope you back, but you're our next author, so.

Well, I learned something today about pesticides, so it's helpful. If it's okay with you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to present AB 347.

Mr. Vice Chair is very anxious to vote on the consent calendar, so. Okay, good. All right. It feels good sometimes. Let's just call a roll on the consent calendar with your forbearance or something.

The consent calendar consists of file items number 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19. [Roll Call]

All right, so Senator Dahle is on the record voting aye. Here we go. Let's go to item two. That's AB 347. More toxics.

There we go. That is this committee, right? So first, let me thank you, Mr. Chair, your committee staff, for your committee amendments. We are expecting all of them, except for the amendment on cookware, which we will continue to work with you and the committee on. And we appreciate your patience on that issue.

So AB 347 will require the Department of Toxic and substance control to test, enforce, and ensure compliance with all existing laws regulating the use of PFAS, chemicals and food packaging, cosmetics, juvenile products and textiles. We passed numerous laws on PFAS and getting PFAS out of products. As well as regulating pfas.

We want to make sure that the DTSC has the authority and the ability to actually test products and make sure there's compliance. This bill specifically establishes a registration and testing process for the covered products with the fee requires DTSC to publish a list of accepted methods. It permits DTSC to test products for compliance.

It also establishes an enforcement process, establishes a PFAS enforcement fund and a PFAS fine account. And also, lastly, it asks DTSC to submit a report to the Legislature. We've been working very closely with the department, as well as stakeholders, appreciate everyone's patience with this bill.

And again, this bill is merely taking all the good work that we've done for a number of years, making sure there's a clear enforcement mechanism, and that the agency is empowered to actually do the work that we have tasked someone in the state to go do with that respect for aye vote on AB 347.

No witnesses, just moving on from there.

Great. Anyone who wants to express their support for the bill at the microphone.

Erica Parker with Californians Against Waste. No concerns this time. Thank you.

No concerns this time. Okay. Support I assume.

Arianna Creed with cleanearth4kids.org, in support. Also those in support are North County Equity and Justice, NCCA, Ecosustainability Peeps, Activist San Diego Fax, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Sonoma Sass, Beyond Pesticides, Yardsmart, Marin and Moms Advocating for Sustainability. Thank you.

Kayla Robinson on behalf of the California Compost Coalition, in support. Thanks.

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

Bill Allayaud, Environmental Working Group and they're either between support and opposition, we still have some concerns, but we certainly appreciate the need for getting enforcement and DTSC getting it together, and we appreciate that. We're still a little concerned about the way cosmetics are handled in terms of enforcement. We're working with the staff for several months now. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, let's hear from opponents. Anyone who wants to raise concerns about the bill, come on up.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Mandy Isaacs-Lee, Omni Government Relations here on behalf of the Personal Care Products Council or the national trade for the personal care and beauty industry.

First, I want to thank the committee for an excellent and thorough analysis on this bill and the time that the author and his staff has taken to discuss our issue.

And while we appreciate the committee amendments to remove the non PFAS ingredients from being in scope and AB 347, we are still continuing to be concerned about the inclusion of cosmetics in this regulatory and enforcement structure. I just want to give the committee a little bit of context on why it is that we have this position.

Back in 2022, we negotiated in good faith with NGO's Assemblymember Friedman, and the ultimate construct in AB 2771 was one that our Members could work with. We agreed to phase out the use of intentionally added pfas in cosmetics, and that ban is effective January 1, 2025.

And what is implicit in this is the agreement that trace and technically unavoidable PFAS was sort of going to be in our products regardless of what happened.

And so the intentionally added verbiage in 2771 was critically important, important for that reason, to ensure that a primary ingredient in our products, such as water, which as we know, you know, unfortunately contains PFAS, would not trip us up from a compliance standpoint.

And the author, a couple of years ago, when committee testified to that effect, she actually said, and I quote, I don't want the manufacturers to be held liable simply for the inclusion of water in their products. So we can't be held liable for things beyond our control, which is what the ultimate construct of 2771 acknowledged.

It's also been well documented that PFAS is persistent and ubiquitous and ever present everywhere. It's in our water sources, it's in the air. And absent a way to completely eradicate PFAS, there will always be trace levels of PFAS in our products.

I would also welcome anybody on this dais in the committee to go back to their offices, pull out your lotion, turn it around, look at the ingredient list, and water will be the top, if not the first 23 ingredients on that product.

So absent a way to eradicate PFAS from our products, we will always have trace levels in it. Furthermore, unlike the other product categories as acknowledged in page nine of the committee analysis, you know, our PFAS band was different. All the other product categories, with the exception of cookware, had a deminimis level of allowable PFAS in there.

100 ppms was the standard, as you can see. And so without that parts per million applicable to cosmetics, we're really unclear how DTSC is going to determine intentionality if we actually added the PFAS intentionally, and how they're going to determine compliance without that deminimis parts per million prescribed in our statute.

And because our statute is only intentionally added PFAS that's prohibited from our products, it's unclear how the department of manufacturer or department or manufacturers is going to prove their compliance with this specification. Test results will not prove if the PFAS was added intentionally. This is actually a direct quote from the from the committee analysis.

So for these reasons, we remain opposed. Unless cosmetics is removed from the structure, it creates a great level of uncertainty for our products, and for these reasons, we'd ask for no vote.

Okay, bet she knows that.

Good morning, members. Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association let me just start by saying CMTA and our core, our coalition partners, excuse me, are currently opposed, unless amended to this bill.

For CMTA and our coalition partners, we have long said in all of these one off PFAS bans that we need regulatory oversight and guidance provided by any number of regulatory agencies in California to provide some very direct, meaningful clarity surrounding the regulatory enforcement mechanisms as well as testing protocols surrounding each one of these covered products.

So 347, we can certainly say, is an attempt at getting there. It's definitely covering the bills as mentioned in the committee analysis being AB 1817 related to textiles 2771 to cosmetics, AB 652 to juvenile products, as well as AB 1200 related to cookware and plant based food packaging.

While we appreciate the amendments from committee, I will say that our coalition as of this morning and just recently, we're disappointed with the author not accepting the cookware labeling requirements or the cookware amendments as provided by the analysis. AB 1200 was two parts.

It was a PFAS prohibition on plant based food packaging with an acceptable level of 100 parts per million. The cookware provisions in that bill are not a PFAS restriction, which is how it is characterized and classified under AB 347. It is a labeling requirement.

It was providing customers in California the right to know what ingredients may have been used in the manufacturing of that particular piece of cookware or bakeware.

So now what we have is a problem in 347 in which, while the bill should be focused on PFAS and the presence of it, the legal presence of it and various consumer products, we're now enforcing a labeling requirement that can only be proven and determined under AB 1200 for not what is only on the label or identified by a manufacturer, but the list in and of itself itself also references the DTSC's Canada chemical List, which is over 3000 chemicals long.

So the only way bakeware or cookware in this bill can be thoroughly proven or justified by the Department of Manufacturer for not containing one of those ingredients is to test for both what is listed on the label and for the others that are not.

And that is why that particular amendment, that particular consideration, was so important to this particular bill. Beyond that, we have concerns as well regarding enforcement provisions. We still have arguments and concerns related to the notice of violations. We do believe that the bill is headed in the right direction.

We feel that the scope of it, however, needs to be narrowed. We need to ensure the viability and availability of cosmetic products. Given the considerations that my colleague has just raised, we have significant concerns, but are willing to work with the authority on a pragmatic solution that controls costs of enforcement.

We do not have an enforcement mechanism in California to do this.

So through the legislative, through the legislature's prerogative, we have to provide clarity to the department of what is intended to be put together to create enforcement mechanisms surrounding potentially tens, if not hundreds of thousands of covered products covered, any covered under each and every one of of the four bills this bill intends to cover.

We also don't yet understand how this particular legislation will deal with future bans on PFAS restrictions for consumer products. We feel the scope of this is too large at the present time. We definitely believe that cosmetics should be stricken from this bill.

We also would like to see the cookware or bakeware provisions reinstated through the committee amendments and focus purely on the PFAS restrictions and covered products under the previous legislation. Senators, with that, our coalition is asking for a no vote today. We do intend to continue working with the author. Appreciate the consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, let's hear from other folks who want to weigh it.

Faith Borges on behalf of the Cookware Sustainability Alliance, we'd like to align our comments with those of CMTA, particularly on the subject of cookware. Thank you.

Good morning. Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, also aligned with the comments on cookware. Thank you.

Good morning Mr. Chair and members. Lauren De Valencia, representing the International Sleep Products Association do support a regulatory process, but to continue to remain opposed to the bill. Thank you.

Thank you chair and members. Lauren Aguilar, on behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association, the affirm group and the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association also and opposed unless amended position. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Randy Pollack, on behalf of the American Chemistry Council, in opposition.

All right, the item is before the committee for questions, thoughts and comments. Sorry, Senator Menjivar.

Sorry, I'm just getting clarification, assembly member, because I was under the impression you were taking the amendment of the cookware. So just.

No, no. I clarified in my opening statement that I. We're taking all the amendments except for the cookware amendment. And then we are, with the chair's indulgence, we're going to continue to.

Sorry, I mean, coming into this hearing, I was under the impression I have a lot of concerns, and I think I agree with the opposition on the cosmetics part especially, and I know it's going to be referred to health as well. Maybe that's what you're focusing on. Could you just share a little bit more?

Someone in the background is shaking their head. So can you just clarify the commitment? Maybe that's where you're looking to focus more.

Yeah, that's what we're focused on is moving into, as we move into senate health to focus on that cosmetics portion. We completely understand the industry's concern, especially about the intentionally added part.

We believe that also within the amendments taken, that it is a good first step around the statement of compliance, certifying that the registered products in compliance with the applicable PFAS restriction. And so we think that's a good first step in terms of AB 1200 and the cookware. I'm very familiar with AB 1200. That was my bill.

And we want to make sure that there is an enforcement mechanism around the labeling happy to continue to work with opposition on what that is. We don't think that leaving the whole point of this Bill is actually to enforce legislation.

So I think it would be irresponsible for us to leave out legislation that I authored and not have some enforcement mechanism. I appreciate the opposition's comments and concerns about having something that's not onerous. Happy to figure out how we can still have enforcement without making it onerous.

But again, we have, we're committed to continuing to work with both groups.

And this is a question maybe, well, I'll start with you, assembly member, on the amendment. Do you look at that as a self attestation from each manufacturer on the state of compliance?

I mean, that's the way that we interpreted it.

And question to the opposition with the self attestation and compliance, at least for the cosmetics, if cosmetics attest that there's none intentionally, would that satisfy.

Through the chair? Thank you for the question, senator. I think our concerns would still be outstanding because all the other three other product categories have 100 ppm. So under the bill, DTSC could test random, randomly test these products, and there's a very clear way for them to determine compliance.

So if they test a piece of clothing, for example, and the test results came back to be higher than 100 ppm, the testing of that clearly indicates that that piece of clothing is out of compliance and therefore, you know, they'd take the enforcement action, remove the products from the shelves, et cetera.

Same thing for the food packaging provision, same thing for the juvenile products provision. We do not have that certainty. So the provision in 347 that allows for DTSC to test our products, we are very, very unclear how they're going to determine noncompliance without that same parts per million structure in this Bill.

And actually that was discussed when we were originally discussing ABC 2771 with Assemblymember Friedman. And we all determined that because of the uniqueness of our products and the fact that we do use a significant amount of water, which can have varying levels of PFAS, that they wanted to acknowledge that trace amounts were allowable.

So given all that, and just to take a couple steps back, we are not sure how DTSC is going to determine compliance with our products without that ppm. And as was mentioned, it was discussed at 1.0 during the deliberations in 2771 about including a parts per million deminimis level.

And that we all determined and we all agreed and we went neutral on the bill that that was not a feasible thing for our products in particular.

Thank you. Assembly member were any I don't know if you wanted, you don't need to respond to that, but if there's anything you wanted to counter to.

No, again, you know, you stated, my understanding was in hopes that we got on this committee and the next committee is really where we were going to be focused on that particular piece. We believe that certification of compliance was a major first step in that direction.

And so we're going to continue to work with opposition on that and we feel like we can get there.

And on the cookware part, is that what you're going to, you shared in the beginning that you.

So with the cookware part is. We heard his comments, happy. If he, if the opposition has amendments for us outside of a blanket exemption, I think we're very open to discussing them. You know, what they think would be reasonable enforcement that would not be overly onerous or expensive because we.

Okay, because our proposal was a complete exemption, correct?

Yeah, this is a regular.

I would say. It just seemed to me, it would just seem odd to again have a bill around enforcing legislation and to leave that part out even though it was just a labeling piece.

Yeah, please. Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the added opportunity. So for our coalition, we did in good faith put together a series of amendments quite substantial to the bill in print. And what we attempted to do was provide the structure and the guardrails, the guidance to, from the legislature to DTSC, as a mechanism to enforce.

Now within that, the concepts from surrounding notice of violations, the testing protocols, etcetera, gets further diluted and complicated as you add mechanisms and other bills like 2771 that doesn't have a threshold to include then a labeling requirement that doesn't have any testing protocols.

You're essentially then designing a program, one for testing for PFAS, another one strictly for enforcement. And it doesn't make sense to me or to us as a coalition as to why we would bifurcate the bill.

If it is truly focused on consumer, consumer products and the presence of PFAS, let's focus on that and leave the labeling provisions and other elements out of it. AB 1200 would still be enforced with the exception of cookware.

It would still consider the plant based food packaging elements of the bill that Mr. King authored a couple years ago to accomplish that portion of it. But again, the focus of this Bill has always been testing and enforcement for the protocols that are there in statute and why I can understand the labeling provisions of it.

I would argue that that is a separate and distinct conversation that needs to happen outside of this bill.

Yeah. Okay. Let me go to Senator Hurtado. And I know Senator Dahle's questions, too.

Yes, I like to express the same concerns as my colleague, Senator Menjivar. And I too, also happen to sit on the Senate Health Committee as well. And so it sounds to me like there's a commitment coming from you to work with opposition to address the issues in that committee.

Yes. Now regarding the, with cosmetics in particular, right now regarding cookware, I won't be accepting their proposal to strike it out. I think, you know, I think the department could figure out a way to comply with layer labeling. Again, labeling is the most minimal amount of compliance that's needed.

So I think we can work on a way that they could enforce that mechanism without making it overly onerous.

With that. I'll be supporting your bill today.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Dahle.

The question is that you're not taking the amendment. So why don't we just strike it out here then and say that it's not in there. What is the process here?

Zero, we're going to continue to work with the chair, especially as we go into the next committee.

Okay. So just this is about, I totally think we need to work. First of all, back to, I asked for a hearing on PFAS and then we're doing one offs and here now we're trying to get some regulation there. It's a frustrating thing for me. Look, we want to get PFAS out of our system.

We understand the health risk to it, but it's very frustrating to see a manufacturer. We have PFAs in astroturf, for example. And when it rains on it, it gets into our water supply and ends up in a manufacturing plant somewhere.

And we have parts per billion, parts per million make a difference to those folks who are manufacturing and we're trying to pin them down. That's what this bill's doing, trying to pin them down. So it's critical. Those numbers matter and liability are where on the manufacturing part of it. So that's what this is about.

I think it's frustrating that we need to have some clarity in that. What is that amount for the manufacturers? Unintended amount.

There is an amount for all the other products. Cosmetics does not have that because that was not part of their negotiated. So every other, every other item in the bill there already has, all the bill does is enforcing previous bills. So again, this has been working on for two years now.

So this is not something I thought up last month. I'm presenting to you. This has been a two year process, working with the department, working with stakeholders, trying to find a way to, again, not present a new bill, but just to regulate previous bills that have been signed into law.

So again, there is a line for everybody else but cosmetics, which is why we're going to continue to work with them. That was not something that was negotiated into their bill. It wasn't my bill. It was Assemblymember Friedman's bill.

So again, we're just trying to, again, make sure that there is a mechanism to actually, I know we don't always do the best job of follow through at the State of California, but this is our effort to actually try to do that. And now you can see, Senator, how damn hard it is.

Appreciate that. But still, we need to have some ability for the manufacturer not to be held liable for something they have no control over.

But that ultimately comes down to. Yeah, so this is this sort of question of intentionality or supply chain issues. Is that the point you're making, that.

If you have water that's contaminated with PFAS and you manufacture something and the PFAS gets in there, you're held liable? Right. So that's the problem.

So again, that's. It's. Yeah, but that was already. It's only an issue with cosmetics. That's why we had this. We work with the committee on the statement of compliance. We'll continue to work with them. Everybody else, they have a line in the sand.

What about feminine products?

That's not in the bill.

Right. It's coming next. That's why I said we need to have a PFAS hearing, but we didn't.

Yeah. Food packaging, cosmetics, juvenile products, textiles.

Yeah. Because you're basically enforcing the existing laws. On the existing law right now. That problem that you just described as already exists. Yeah.

Thank you, senator. Again, appreciate the added time. Specific to cosmetics, whether it's a self attestation or the certificate of compliance.

The challenge here is even though as a manufacturer, if you don't intentionally add anything to cosmetic, which is the law under AB 2771 do not intentionally add, should a test be done at any time and it register a part per trillion, a part per billion, or a part per million threshold, that test does not determine intentionality.

I guess. So with that, quite literally a one part per trillion, which is almost practically impossible, test for these products would trigger a violation under AB 347. That is why the threshold consideration for the other bills makes so much more functional sense in the construct of what we're providing.

And so for a manufacturer to defend itself against, did you allegedly add or not to that particular product is the question. And so if a test or a challenge is brought to that self certification or that assessment from the manufacturer, that manufacturer then would have to prove, essentially that they didn't do it.

But how do you do that? Like, that is the structure that we're trying to work in for a bill that doesn't have a threshold continuation of part of it.

But that's exactly why this committee added the amendment around the statement of compliance, because that is exactly the whole point of intentionality. Right. So if you had the. It's like. It's like saying, I'm stating I'm trying to follow the law, and I have every intention to follow the law.

And if I had, and if I used water with PFAS, as the senator and the opposition have talked about, that, it was not my intention to put fest in the product.

But if then they get tested, then at that moment, they're in violation regardless of what they attested to. Correct with your bill.

So, again, that's, I think, where we have to fine tune it, because unlike the other bills that had a particular measurement, that the Friedman bill did not have a particular measurement. So that's what we're. Again, that's what we absolutely promise to work on that in Senate health for.

Okay. That's an important thing to address.

Absolutely.

Okay. All right. Thank you for the discussion. I know several of you. Are you in health as well? Yeah. Okay, great. So, yeah, yeah. I love it. So you'll. They're all gonna hold you?

Absolutely. As is their job, too.

Yes. Okay.

All right. Well, with that understanding, I'll entertain a motion. I'll entertain a motion from one of you to. Okay. And then as soon as he gets out, you'll do this work before Health Committee. Let's give you the opportunity to close again.

Appreciate the robust discussion. Discussion, absolutely. We'll continue working on the bill, appreciate the committee's amendments and guidance and respect for an aye vote on AB 347.

Okay. Secretary. Please call the roll.

AB 347 do pass, as amended, to Health Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay. More work to come. And you have two more bills.

I have two more bills that are much simpler. So first, let me thank you. And the Committee for the Amendments on AB 2244. Happy to take the amendments. AB 2244 would prohibit the use of intentionally added BPA or bisphenol A in PPA paper receipts by January 2025 and all intentionally bisphenol chemicals and paper receipts by January 2026.

Actually, the very much concern with bisphenol is that actually, it's not when you, when you actually come into contact with that receipt. So when you grab that receipt, you're actually being exposed to that toxic chemical. We think there's no reason for that to be in paper receipts.

I have Nancy Buermeyer from Breast Cancer Prevention Partners to give testimony respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Good morning, Members and Chair. Nancy Beer Meyer on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and thank you Assemblymember Ting for your continued leadership on AB 2244 to ban all bisphenols from thermal receipt paper.

BCPP is a science based organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposures to chemicals linked to the disease. Bisphenol A, or BPA, is, for good reason, one of the better known hazardous chemicals. And today you will see BPA free stickers on numerous products.

Unfortunately, all too often BPA has been replaced with an alphabet soup of bisphenol substitutes, BPS, BPF and so on. That's exactly what has happened with thermal receipt papers. A 2023 report found that BPA has largely been replaced with BPS, a case of regrettable substitutions.

Of the receipts that were tested, less than 1% contained BPA and nearly 80% contained BPS.

While these substitutes are often less well studied, the more we learn, the better we understand that the entire class of bisphenols has implications for health, including increased risk of asthma and hyperactivity in children and cardiovascular disease, fertility problems, obesity, diabetes, and an increased risk of breast and other cancers in adults.

BPA and BPS are both listed on California's Prop 65 as reproductive toxicants. Bisphenols are absorbed through the skin when handling thermal paper receipts. This exposure is concerning for all consumers. However, the risk greatest for cashiers, over 70% of which are women. Occupational studies have confirmed that BPA and BPS levels are significantly higher in cashiers.

The good news is that the report I referenced earlier also showed that 20% of receipts tested were free of all bisphenols. Clearly, alternatives are currently available and in use. It's time to remove this entire class of toxic chemicals from thermal receipt paper by passing AB 2244 I ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Other folks who want to voice support for the bill.

Bill Alio for Environmental Working Group we were sponsors of the Baby Bottle Bill in 2011 by Betsy Butler that started this we're really glad to see the regrettable substitution issue being addressed. Thank you.

Hello. Kayla Robinson, registering support for Californians Against Waste. Thanks.

Hi, Arianna Creed with cleanearthforkids.org in support. Also those in support are North County Equity and Justice, NCCA, Eco-Sustainability Peeps, Activists in San Diego, Facts, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Sonoma Sass, Beyond Pesticides, YardSmartMarin, Moms Advocating for Sustainability, Center for Environmental Health and Grandparents Acting Together. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. All right, opposition to the bill. Folks who want to raise concerns? No? Okay, let's turn back to the Committee for questions, thoughts, comments? Yeah.