Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture

Good morning. The Senate Committee on Agriculture will come to order. We are holding our committee hearings here in the state capitol. Ask all members of the committee be president. Room 112 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing.

We have 10 bills on today's agenda, and we will begin as a subcommittee until we establish a quorum forum. And with that we will begin with bill presentations. We have an author here ready to go. So, file item one, AB 660 by Assemblymember Irwin is on the agenda for today. And come on up and feel free to begin when you are ready.

Well, good morning, Madam Chair. I'm pleased to present AB 660 today. For too long, Californians have been misled by unclear labels on food store stores offer products with all sorts of different labels, like expires on best before enjoy, buy, sell by, just to name a few. These labels consistently mislead and confuse consumers.

Sell by dates, for example, are meant to show grocers when to rotate stock. They are generally meaningless to the consumer. The result of this food consumer confusion is staggering. It is estimated that 20% of all food waste is caused by consumer confusion.

And this ultimately costs consumers money at the grocery store and contributes to climate change as wasted food rots in landfills. AB 660 would end this confusion. It requires the industry's own adopted standards and requires food items that use date labels to use standard terms best if used by to indicate peak freshness or used by to indicate safety.

I would like to express my continued appreciation to the industry for engaging in productive conversations with our office to find a path forward on this bill. Especially want to thank Louis Brown and Katie Davey for really moving things forward this year.

The recent amendments for our bill were carefully negotiated over the course of last year, and as a result, a significant number of stakeholders have removed their opposition. These include the Dairy Institute of California, the Consumer Brands Association, the California Grocers Association, and the California Farm Bureau.

With me to testify in support of the bill are Andrea Collins, representing the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Erica Parker, representing Californians Against Waste.

Thank you, Chair and committee members. My name is Andrea Collins with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and we support AB 660 because it addresses a systemic cause of food waste with implications for our environment, our health, and our economy. Too many of us look at a container in the fridge or our pantry and see that the date has passed and decide to toss it rather than getting sick. And some of those are actually sell by dates.

They're meant to help grocery stores, stock rotation and many others are intended to rely peak quality or freshness, but you can't tell that just by the phrase on the package. Instead, we're left to guess at what it's meant. And more than 80% of Americans tossed food just because it's past date. ReFED is a data analysis group that conservatively estimates 600,000 tons of food are wasted in California last year just because of the date on the package. And standardizing date labels would have a financial benefit of $350 million.

Most of that would go to Californians in their households, but some would also go to manufacturers and retailers as well. Kroger and Walmart have already implemented the standards on their house brands, but that's a small number of items that are on the shelves already. We need consistency across all food items, and we have enough food.

But 8 million Californians face food insecurity, and these food package dates are a challenge to food banks and pantries that help seniors and families in need of food assistance to have enough food to eat.

But pantry recipients may be relatively reluctant to take food that's near or past a date because they're unsure whether it's safe for them or their families, even if that's not the case. We need consistent date labels so that people stop tossing good food prematurely when it could have been nourishing us instead. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Chair and members. Erica Parker with the environmental group Californians Against Waste, a proud co-sponsor of AB 660. Californians throw away nearly 6 million tons of food waste each year, and consumer confusion over date labels is a leading cause. There are more than 50 differently phrased date labels in the US.

Each term can be used to communicate different things when used by different brands. While some date labels contain no explanation at all, I'm sure we've all found ourselves confused by one of these labels. Just the other day, I was scratching my own head confused at PEB next to a date on a bag of tortillas dated for February.

The lack of consistent and clear labeling results in consumer confusion and subsequent premature food waste of wholesome and nutritious food. In fact, about 20% of avoidable food waste can be attributed to date labeling. In case you're wondering, PEB means please enjoy buying. It's polite, but still unclear. In 2017, the industry's two largest trade associations attempted to alleviate this confusion, announcing that they would implement uniform date labeling using best of use by and use by.

This announcement was followed by a report entitled "Best if Clearly Labeled", which found Americans could feel safer about their food, throw less away, and save money with these labels. They promised large scale adoption and committed 100% implementation by 2020. The Legislature also codified the industry's proposed terminology as a voluntary standard in AB 954. In 2024, inconsistency in date labeling continues to confuse and date label related food waste remains an ongoing concern. AB 660 simply requires brands to use current voluntary standards which are the same terms that they themselves have identified to reduce consumer confusion. The food cycle doesn't end at the trash can and food waste comes with a significant environmental and social price. AB 660 builds on existing efforts to protect natural resources and reduce food waste going to landfills. And for these reasons, we ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

I'm going to briefly interject here to see if we can just establish quorum. So, assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Quorum has been established. Thank you so much. Okay, so moving on. Do we have any individuals here in support of AB 660? Please come on up. State your name, organization and your position on the bill.

Hello, my name is Laura Deehan. I'm the State Director for Environment California. We are in support and also wanted to add on CalPIRG strong support, the Public Interest Research Group. Thank you.

Good morning. Savannah Jorgensen on behalf of the Lutheran Office of Public Policy California in strong support.

Hi, I'm Julie Arnez and I'm here representing the California Food Recovery Coalition. It is our mission to unite, empower and advance California's food recovery organizations to alleviate food insecurity, reduce waste and champion sustainability. We are in full support.

Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of Stop Waste, California Product Stewardship Council and the City and County of San Francisco in support.

Hello, my name is Jalen Joyce. On behalf of California Food and Farming Network, we are in support.

My name is Emily Black. I'm here from Replate. We are a food rescue organization. We're here to show our full support.

Madam Chair, members of the committee: Louis Brown here today on behalf of California Dairies Incorporated and California Grocers Association. We want to express our appreciation to the author and her staff for working with us. And we've officially removed our opposition to the bill. Thank you.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of the Consumer Brands Association. We are actually the ones who created the initial language and did studies nationwide to see what the correct language is here. And so, after working through it with the author, we've removed our opposition as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Katie Davey with the Dairy Institute of California. We're here to express our thanks to the author and her staff for working with us to address our members concerns regarding this bill. And we're pleased to be removing our opposition. Thank you.

Madam Chair, members: Chris Reardon, California Farm Bureau. We also want to thank the author and her staff for your patience and your language. And we also have removed our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. As seen, no additional individuals here just in support. We'll move to anyone in the room who's looking to be lead opposition. Seeing none. Anyone here wants to come up and state their opposition to this bill. Seeing none. Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Okay. And we have a comment from Senator Grove.

I want to thank you for working with the opposition. I represent a lot of those individuals in the dairy industry and the ag industry, obviously the top three food producing counties in the world that produce food. And I appreciate you working with them to address the concerns that they have. I have the largest egg producer in my district, or one of the largest, if not the largest.

And so, I appreciate you working with the opposition to make sure that their concerns were addressed, because the witnesses that came up in support talked about food security and making sure that there was a food distribution system, you know, like food security and less food waste. And there would be a lot of food waste if these dates were set in stone. And I do believe that from the grocers that I talked to and specifically those individuals that I represent in my district. So, thank you.

Assemblywoman Irwin, I just want to thank you for working with us on this bill. We wanted to make sure that we provide all the support that we could to get it right and get it going, because it is important about food security. It's about food waste. It's about our environment, and it's also, hopefully, to save money for many Californians. So, thank you for working with us. And with that, we have a motion. And so, assistant- oh, would you like to close?

This has been a long time coming. I think we've been working on this well, for a year and a half. And obviously, this policy was introduced back in 2017, so it took a lot of people coming together.

I do want to thank the Chair and the committee staff, our great supporters who were willing to travel over the state to preach the word. I've had great staff work here, but especially the opposition who was willing to continue to come to us and try to hammer out a solicitude. And so, I feel we're in a really good place and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Assistant, can you please call the roll on AB 660.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so the bill has three votes, but we'll place this bill on call to allow other members the opportunity to vote. Thank you. Okay, moving on. We have - we are 2313. Assemblymember Bennett's in the room, so we'll move on over to file item number six.

Thank you for joining us, and feel free to begin when you are ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members, AB 20313 will create a regional heavy equipment sharing program for farmers. After the purchase of land, this expensive farm equipment is the second most important, significant capital investment that farmers have to make.

And these equipment-sharing programs allow particularly small farmers to borrow equipment that they perhaps only use for a few days a year from Regional Centers. And if we can bring down that equipment cost, we can really help small farmers in particular survive.

And with me today is Ann Larson from California Climate and Agricultural Network and Jamie Fanos from Community Alliance with Family Farmers. And I look forward to what they have to say. Thank you.

All right, good morning, I'm Anna Larson, Associate Policy Director with CalCAN, the California Climate and Agriculture Network. And we're a coalition of eight sustainable and organic farming organizations that advocate for policies to help farmers be more resilient to climate change. And so, while California leads the country in agricultural production, we're losing family farms.

And the number of farms decreases with each agricultural census due to market pressures and climate change impacts, with the latest census showing a 10% decrease from 2017 census. And so, more than ever, farmers need support to have viable and resilient agricultural operations and to help meet state goals and targets for agriculture.

And so, as Assemblymember Bennett mentioned, after land, equipment is often the highest capital expense for farmers and can be out of reach. And so investments in specialized equipment for healthy soils practices or wildfire mitigation strategies such as no-till drills, wood chippers, and compost spreaders are often out of reach, particularly for small and mid-scale farmers.

So this bill would create a program at CDFA to fund farmers, resource conservation districts, cooperative extension, and others to start or expand equipment-sharing programs.

We already know this works because there's programs across the state that have started this, but they're not able to meet the current demand and scale or start to meet the demand for new equipment-sharing programs.

And so this Bill would help those organizations meet that and be able to help farms support their farm viability and resilience and support sharing. Thanks so much for your support and we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Hello. Good morning to our members. Jamie Fanous, Policy Director on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, or CAFF, we represent around 8000 small and mid-scale farmers across the State of California. You've heard me say this in this Committee. We are losing roughly 1500 small farms a year.

The challenge is facing small-scale farmers make it impossible for the simple act of growing food. Not only that, but their margins are razor thin, and investing in equipment like a compost spreader or a seed drill is just out of reach.

AB 20313 as has been described, is an opportunity to reduce equipment cost, but also increase the capacity for technical assistance to develop farmer cooperatives and find ways to actually just increase the capacity of small-scale farmers. I think they've shared enough. I hope that you can support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and move to others in support of this measure here in room 112. Please come up. Name, organization, and position.

Abby Alvarez with the Pesticide Action Network in support.

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

Jalen Joyce, on behalf of California Food and Farming Network and support.

Addison Peterson with the California Certified Organic Farmers in support.

Michael Jarred on behalf of NextGen California, in support. Thank you.

Erica Parker with Californians Against Waste in support. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of American Farmland Trust in support.

Okay, we'll go ahead and move to any opposition to this measure in this room. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Senator Grove.

Thank you. I get frustrated because policy comes out of this building regardless if it's this Bill or other bills that create high cost for operational, whether it's farming, energy production, or housing cost, bills and policy that come out of this building increase those costs, and then we see a group of individuals come back and want those costs subsidized by the state.

If we address the root cause and stop passing policy that increase the cost, we might all be in a better place financially for the budget, and we wouldn't drive businesses. You said 1500 small family farms. They operated on a razor-thin margin. Well, what's the root cause of that? Yeah, go right ahead. Sure, you said it.

What's the root cause of their razor thin margin and not being able to survive?

I think it's a number of things, and I think there's a lot of elements to it. But ultimately, the average small-scale farmer only brings in somewhere between 20,000, 40,000 a year. That's often because they can't find markets that purchase their products at what it's valued at.

You're a small operation, you're growing anywhere between 40 to 100 different types of crops. It's a lot of work to maintain that very diverse ecosystem. So I would say oftentimes, sometimes just price along with a number of other things. But that's just one example.

You know, it's cost. It's the cost of doing business, it's the cost to produce that stuff. It's the cost of the regulatory compliance, it's the cost. And then the other side of that, defending those small farmers as they go through this entire process.

And then we import food from Venezuela that we can, can grow here, that is grown with human feces, human feces exposure water, you know, wastewater that's not even adequate, we would not consider adequate for human consumption. But we bring that food here.

And so I guess my thing is, is that, you know, we import, and this is just an example, and I'm going to go on my little tirade.

We import energy from foreign countries, and then we lay off all our oil fed workers, second chancers, and then we subsidize them and we give them food, food stamps and snap benefits, and oil field worker retraining programs that cost the state resources. Just give them their job back. These small farmers are paying permits, water mitigation fees.

I mean, water in the Central Valley is an ungodly dollar amount for every acre foot. You're not allowed to drill on your own land anymore. That's a SGMA issue.

You have to pay fees and permit things to subsidize or be able to fund the entire State Water Resources Control Board that is 100% farmer-funded, or people that apply for permits. It's permit-funded or fee-funded, I guess you would say. And then we come back and we subsidize it.

Let's just get to the root cause and stop passing policy. And then we would address our budget crisis, because even in childcare, we increase the cost of childcare with policies that go out of this building, and then we subsidize childcare. We increase the cost of food and we subsidize food.

We are one of the most greatest innovative states in the world, and we have the greatest farmland ever available. I mean, when you think about it, probably better than Iowa. We have great farmland, but we regulate the heck out of it. And then we import food from other countries.

And I just wish we would take a step back and say, this doesn't make sense anymore. I appreciate the author bringing forward the bill because I do believe that people need help with it, but they don't need help from the subsidization part, they need help from the regulatory relief part.

So thank you for letting me go on a rant. Sorry.

Yeah, thank you. Just briefly, and it's the ongoing debate about where the costs are calculated, where they're incremental, and what are the primary factors that drive ultimate pricing and survivability. I get all that.

I think the Bill in chief here actually, ironically, in some respects, allows a small farmer who doesn't have leverage and a lot of capital to be able to leverage in the financial sense, those resources in a way that maximizes benefit they otherwise couldn't afford.

Understand there may be some indirect subsidy, but the ability to make those purchases, to be able to operate, seems to me there's some savings here for the individual who utilizes the program. For those reasons, I'm happy to support the Bill. And move the Bill.

Thank you. I will go ahead and add and say that I've had the opportunity earlier this year to visit a couple of farmers in my district, small-scale farmers, and this is a much-needed program that they benefit from, and we need to further support it. And so I'm happy to support this Bill today.

We do have a motion. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much. Appreciate the supportive comments. I think I'd be remiss if I didn't address the concerns, and I appreciate the Senator's concerns about regulation and the debate that we can have about whether we're over-regulating or not.

But I would offer this, that even if we removed virtually all of the regulations out there, that may be increasing cost. Farmers who have gross revenues of $20,000 to $40,000 would still need help with large equipment if we have a desire to keep small farmers as part of the agricultural network here in California.

And I would offer, because of climate change and a number of associated issues with that, the resiliency of California's agriculture is partially going to depend upon small farmers located near large urban centers that can provide the farmers markets and all of those issues.

So regardless of where we might fall on the regulatory question, we need to support small farmers, because if not, in a few years, they simply will not exist.

And so the question in front of us today is not how do we deal with questions of how much regulation, that's not going to protect these small farmers over the next five years. Regardless of that, we have to find some ways to deal with this most expensive issue, which is this farm equipment.

So I appreciate the support and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Padilla, and at this moment, we'll have the assistant do the roll.

File item six, AB 20313 by Assemblymember Bennett. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have. That Bill has two votes, and we'll place it on call to allow other Members the opportunity to vote. Thank you so much. And we don't. I don't believe we have an author in the room.

We have two bills left, but we'll go ahead and take up consent before Senator Grove heads to her other Committee hearing. So we'll go ahead and take up the consent calendar. Assistant can you please call the roll on the consent calendar?

Okay, the content calendar is on call.

Three Members. We established a quorum with the roll call.

We have a motion by Senator Steve Padilla to move the consent calendar.

The consent. The motion is on the consent calendar. File items 3489 and 10 AB's 1861, 2143, 2606, 2745, and 2827 [Roll Call]

We will go on a short recess pending we get new authors in the room. And we have one. So actually, never mind. Good timing. Okay, moving on. We are going to move to file item number two, AB 1042 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan. Kahan, right?

Kahan, but, you know.

Close enough.

Differently. So, we're good.

Thank you. Please feel free to begin when you are ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee, I want to begin by expressing my deep gratitude to committee staff for their partnership on getting this bill out during year two and working with us on that. Hopefully it gets out.

Currently, in the state, treated seed labels must identify the treatments used. However, they do not include the concentration amount of each treatment. With increasing levels on seed treatments, it's important to understand the impact of these pesticides. The treatment used on seeds are often systemic, meaning they stay in the plants through their life cycle.

Research has shown that when applied directly to a seed, 95% or more of the active ingredients typically stay in the soil, contaminating our water supply and our food sources. Exposure from pesticides on seeds has been linked to bee population decline and negative health impacts for humans.

Making the concentration information of seed treatments more transparent will make progress in allowing people to make informed decisions in what they use. This bill does not ban the use of anything. It merely gives consumers the information they need to make informed decisions.

And I think this is, you know, I want to also reiterate that I am not here to say that treated seeds are worse than other pesticides, but I think that on other pesticides, we have very clear disclosures, very clear understanding of what's happening. And seeds have been this gaping hole in that understanding.

And so, this will allow for a broader understanding for farmers or others who use these pesticides to make informed decisions. With that, I will turn it over to. Oh, and I'm accepting committee amendments. I didn't say that. I read your mind.

And I also wanted to say that as I've had a conversation with others, I'm committed to continuing to work with all the stakeholders who you'll hear from today to continue to make sure that the implementation timeline and other issues that remain a question of the bill are worked through as we move forward.

And with me today in support are Laura Deehan from Environment California and Andrea Collins with NRDC.

Hello. Thank you so much, Assembly Member, and thank you, Chair and Committee Members. My name's Laura Deehan. I'm the Director for Environment California and we are also in strong support.

We're happy to sponsor AB 1042 and we think it's really important that farmers and the public that there's clear transparency on the concentrations of the pesticides on the seed labels. So, it's especially important for seeds that are treated with neonicotinoids or neonics, which are linked to pretty widespread impacts on pollinator health, like our bees.

Now, here in California, one in three native bee species are at risk of extinction and we have incredible biodiversity. There's 1,600 different species of native bees. But that alarming statistic is really concerning. And also, there's been serious impacts with neonicotinoid exposure on bird populations.

In fact, one seed that's been treated with these pesticides, it could have enough of that pesticide to actually kill a single songbird. When the birds eat the seeds, it can really suppress their appetite. It can affect reproduction as well if it doesn't actually kill them directly. And so, you know, obviously, that's concerning.

We've also seen, just over the last 25 years, a growing toxicity of our farmlands. In fact, there was a recent study that found that farmlands across America are 25, or, sorry, actually 48 times more toxic than they were just 25 years ago to insects, to the birds, and to the bees and the butterflies and other wildlife.

And of course, all of that toxicity also affects human health. So, that's all reasons why we want to make sure we empower farmers with as much information as we can so they can make responsible choices to limit the impacts on nature as they're growing food. So, that's why we're in strong support.

Yeah, sorry.

Thank you, Chair Hurtado and Committee Members. My name is Andrea Collins with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and we support AB 1042, which will provide greater clarity to growers regarding the pesticides that are used to coat their seeds.

Currently, labels for treated seeds are required to identify which pesticides are used in the seed treatment, but not the amount. And AB 1042 would simply require that the amounts be listed as well. It's important because the use of seed treatments is widespread throughout California, but individual farmers have limited info about how much pesticides they're actually using.

And California growers deserve better information about the chemicals that they're spending their hard-earned money on and putting into their soil. With accurate, easily accessible quantity information for seed treatments, farmers will be able to compare products and reduce the use of unnecessary, sometimes harmful, and often costly chemical inputs.

And this information is especially important for seeds treated with neonics. As was mentioned previously, they're exceptionally toxic to insects. One treated corn seed has enough active ingredient to kill a quarter of a million bees. We're deeply concerned about the harms to pollinators and birds. But it doesn't stop there, either.

Research links neonics to neurological development and reproductive harm, including birth defects of the heart and the brain, and a recent study found that 95% of pregnant women had neonics in their bodies. It's especially high in levels of Hispanic women.

Treated seeds also threatened the health of farmworkers and those who come into contact with high concentrations of pesticides when they're either applying the seed coatings or they're handling treated seeds in their day-to-day jobs.

With transparency offered by AB 1042, it will be easier for farmers to track their needs, their costs, and the actual value that they're receiving from these products, as well as to take the necessary safety precautions when handling them. AB 1042 is a light lift that will significantly improve transparency in California and protect public health and the environment.

And so, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and move to others in support of this measure. Please come up and state your position.

Good morning, Abigail Smet, on behalf of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, in support.

Abby Alvarez with the Pesticide Action Network and Californians for Pesticide Reform in support.

Justin Bowers, cleanearth4kids.org strongly supports. In addition, North County Equity and Justice, Facts, Eco-Sustainability Peeps, the NCCCA, Sonoma SASS, Safe Ag Safe Schools, YardSmartMarin, Beyond Pesticides, Moms Advocating Sustainability, and Non-Toxic Communities also support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Michael Jarred, on behalf of the California Institute for Biodiversity, in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of the Center for Food Safety and CalPERG, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no additional support. Is there any opposition to this measure? If so, please come on up. Upront here.

I want to make sure there's room for you, Dennis.

Thank you very much. Dennis Albiani on behalf of the California Seed Association, California Grain and Feed Association, the Alfalfa and Forage Association, several other entities. So, first of all, we appreciate the activities from the author and have been very involved in treated seeds discussions, and treated seeds are already labeled.

So, I think that's something that needs to be clarified from the previous testimony. And we have worked very closely. And it's also, there's some scientific, there's quite a bit of scientific evidence. We put it in our letters and cited it, that actually when using treated seeds, getting the seed and the plant out of the ground and germinated in an effective manner actually reduces the need for foliar applications.

It can reduce the overall amount of pesticides needed in the environment to grow a healthy crop. So, I think that's something that's needed to be doing.

We use treated seeds because it helps bring a healthy plant. Just like we do early childhood education, to bring the students along, same thing with plants. So, treated seats have been subject to a lot of activity with legislation, petitions at DPR, and there's actually currently a lawsuit that's in a court-approved settlement conference there at DPR.

So, we were a little surprised on this bill that when the Senate Ag Committee called us and said, hey, are you aware that they're looking at amendments to it? Because it was quite a controversial little subject. So, we immediately got involved, got our convened last Tuesday when we saw the language.

When it was put into print, we convened our experts and said, what's the regulatory area out there? What's really going on, what's necessary, what's not? We actually even reached out. We were the first ones to reach out to CDFA and gave them the language and had those conversations with CDFA as well.

So, we've put a lot of time in the last one week on this issue. And so, I think we can agree that if you want to do the concentration on the deal that we have agreed to that. But it's much more complex than even a simple one-line in a bill.

And so, I think we need to do that. So, we have proposed some areas. First of all, the area of law that the bill amends actually is much more broad than just pesticides. It could be fertilizer, there could be other ingredients. It's about poisons.

And what they don't want to do is take that seed, say it's corn seed, and feed it to cattle or feed it to people if it was pumpkin seeds or something like that. So, that's what the labeling section that they selected does. So, we need to narrow it down.

If we're going to add requirements about concentration and active ingredients in those areas, then we need to narrow it down and focus it on pesticides because that's really where the concern is. And so, we've proposed that to get it focused on to pesticides.

And the best way to do that is to use either DPR number or the U.S. EPA number. That way we know what it is and then the concentrations. Dates we have proposed.

There's obviously sell-through requirements or stuff that's on the shelf or will be on the shelf throughout the rest of the year and maybe next year as we get there. So, we need a sell-through date. We think that 11/27 for both the sell-through date and the inaction date makes sense.

Gives time to change these over to get your labels approved, all those areas. Again, anything dealing with a pesticide label has to go through several regulation, tiers of regulation. So, we think that's a fair date. And again, I've already talked about the sell-through, and then we need labeling for trans-shipment.

California does, has a great seed industry, very productive seed industry, and our demand all over the world as well as in other states, if we're doing this and we're putting it into a bag and shipping it into Arizona, Mexico or Southeast Asia, then they probably ought to have labels that meet those requirements.

And I know you say, well, of course, that wouldn't meet. Well, the, the way the section's written is it's any transfer. And so that would be transferred could happen within California, but then it, you know, gets driven to Arizona or Mexico or wherever. So, need a labeling, not necessarily trans-shipment.

Other than that, I think there's a very modest request for, for amendments, and we appreciate your time. And with that, we look forward to getting the bill to a neutral position with these amendments. Thank you.

Is there any additional opposition to this measure? Please come state your name and organization position on the bill.

Hi, we are Gail Delihant with Western Growers Association, and we align our comments with Denis Albiani, and we are opposed unless amended.

Good morning. Taylor Roschen, on behalf of a variety of agricultural associations, we appreciate the narrowing of the bill, but request amendments continuing to move forward. Thank you.

Good morning. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council, also oppose unless amended.

Chris Reardon, California Farm Bureau, oppose unless amended.

Jennifer Roe with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, also an oppose unless amended position. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the California Association of Professional Scientists, UAW. We're in support of the bill. Sorry, I was late. Thank you.

I was like, wait, what happened?

Thank you for the last person in support. Okay. Bringing it back to Committee for any questions or comments. Senator Padilla.

Thank you very much. Look, this is a worthy Bill. And recognize that there are concerns on the industrial side of a deep personal sensitivity to environmental elements that impact public health in ways that we're only beginning to understand. And the primary driver there is getting it right.

This bill is about maximum disclosure, and I think it's pretty clear, at least at this point, that we're talking about existing state-regulated labeling. So, it's a good place to start. This Bill deserves in my view to get out of Committee, and I'm happy to move it at the right time.

Senator Alvarado-Gil.

I'm having the same issue with the button. Yeah. Hi, Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. I appreciate you bringing this bill forward. Unfortunately, because of the kind of like the late concerns, I haven't had a lot of time to dive deep into it.

So, I wanted just to talk to you a little bit about the concerns of the opposition. There are some technical areas, right? That still need to be worked on. But overall, the intent, I agree with the overall intent.

I'm just wondering about the implementation and how we can help to connect those, the gaps right now between the support and opposition.

Thank you, Senator, for the question. And got my name right, which is impressive.

So yes, as I mentioned earlier, we have been in conversations over the last week with the opposition and continue to be, there are certain things where I think we're just trying to nail down the final pieces, such as the sell-through date, the implementation date, things like that. The other concerns around transferring out of state.

I'm currently trying to understand how the inconsistencies work with other labeling requirements so we can make sure to get that right. I don't have a full grasp of that quite yet, but I'm in conversations to fully understand that.

And then I think, and I apologize to the opposition if I forget something, but I think I'm getting them all so correct. The fourth was the scope of what is labeled.

And I think that's probably where we're trying to get better understanding from experts, from the scientists and others, whether they're, you know, as far as I'm concerned, and I appreciate the comments about the importance of disclosures. You know, I don't fully understand why in the setting of like a fertilizer, we shouldn't be disclosing the quantities.

I think that the point was made by my sponsors that you also don't want to be buying something that has de minimis treatment that isn't going to do what you want it to do. So, there are consumer protection elements of this that I think are also critically important.

And so as far as I'm concerned, I don't see the downside of those disclosures and I see the upside. So, trying to understand if that's something that would benefit Californians to change or not. So, I think that's where I am in all the points if that's helpful.

Yes, that's helpful. These buttons. Help me with the science. Like how do you go about measuring the quantity on a seed I mean, help me with that understanding of the science.

Now you're challenging the lawyer.

Okay.

I didn't become a scientist for a reason, Senator. But I know that this is something that is absolutely possible. And I don't know if one of my experts has a better understanding of how they do it.

Okay. I'm not a scientist on that item in particular, but seed handlers should have that information already available. It's something that they should already have when they have the pesticide. So, it's not something that's difficult to acquire.

And I will, I will add to that that, as you heard from the opposition, they actually are not, as I understand it, opposed the idea of labeling that in California, but for all the things he mentioned, which means, I think that they're conceding that it's possible to provide this information. Unless I'm wrong, Dennis.

No, no. I think we need to back up. Even that.

I don't want to speak for you.

Madam Chair, so I just want to point out. Well, a couple things. The concentration issue, it is, some entities provide it, some don't.

But how you do it is you apply it and it's usually just they run on a conveyor belt and, you know, you spray on, or you coat them, but it does become an issue where when post they do test these things. So, how is there a labeling issue when you run into?

It's a pretty simple process on a conveyor belt. So, some of them may be underneath, a seed may be underneath another seed. So, maybe not every seed gets coated, but there's an application concentration average, for lack of a better term.

One of the first things we brought forward on Thursday, when we brought forward, you know, our concerns was we need to have regulatory authority at the CDFA so that they can further define things like how do you test, what ratios, those kinds of things. And then, you know, we, while working with CDFA, we discovered that they have broad authority over this chapter to do regulation.

So, we didn't need that. That was one we had first spoke to the staff said, hey, you probably need regulatory authority for CDFA. Don't need that. So, I think we've been. I don't even want to think. I think we have been.

I'm going to use the term gracious coming to the table immediately in a very short period of time trying to get these very technical issues worked out. We concede that if they want the concentration of pesticides put on the bill on the thing.

And that is what was articulated by the author's staff when we met a couple times, then we concede that. These amendments just say, if you look at the section of law, it doesn't even have an enactment date because it's an old section of law. So, that would be January 1st.

If you look at it how it's written, January 1st, 2025, we'd have to meet these requirements. Well, the bill, because that's when the bill would be enacted by normal process of enactment. Well, hang on. There's products in the warehouses. We have to figure out how to do this. There's going to be some regs, just some simple things.

Again, I'm not overstating that it's too challenging, but it just takes time, it takes experts to figure out how to test these, how to make it sure that we're not improperly labeling, if not every seed is properly coated. And so those are the issues that we want to address.

Frankly, I appreciate the Senator's enthusiasm on some of the things, but I don't know why we wouldn't try to address these issues in this Committee, the Agricultural Committee. This is our expertise and do this. There's a couple issues that are being brought up in the.

And I think there's some amendments the author wanted to provide, if I'm not mistaken, and those are even awkwardly drafted. So, we just need some work to draft them.

Hey, we're not saying hold the bill, but what we're saying is let's amend the bill, at least conceptually, before at least this Committee, because this is where some expertise is. And frankly, I think it's fairly basic amendments, nothing too controversial. This is the first time, I'll be honest with you, from the author, that I've heard that okay, it's okay.

Let's continue. Let's look at fertilizers and other, maybe even inerts that might have, that might be poisonous to humans or whatever. And that would probably change some of the conversation that if. Because now we got to bring in the fertilizer guys, we got to bring in everybody.

This is, I would keep it down to pesticides. That's where the controversy has been. That's where all those activities are. That's where the lawsuits are. That's where everything is. I wouldn't expand it at this point and think that would be not a productive conversation to enter into at this time.

If I may, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Just wanted to add, of course, that, as I said at the beginning, absolutely appreciate and respect the expertise of this Committee and they provided, and that I have every intention of ensuring, as is practiced, that they continue to be engaged in the amendments as we move them forward. So, I wanted to make sure that was clear.

Okay, great. Thank you. So, I, you know, I'm looking quite a bit at the support and the opposition. I know that the bill has kind of evolved over the last year. I do want to have some more time to be able to kind of see those gaps be filled.

I kind of chuckled at the analogy between the coating of the seed and early childhood education. So, you made my morning there, Dennis.

You get a healthy start.

But also the science to me is important for me to understand the science.

If we're doing it in other areas, other states, other countries, I want to see what the impact is as well as the economic impact, because again, if we're talking about the seed, which is the most, you know, the origin of our food and the origin of our agricultural industry, I want to ensure that, you know, that we are not adding an additional economic driver that changes the direction of food affordability.

So, thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Senator Alvarado-Gil. Okay, well, I mean, laughter is a good way to ask if you'd like to close. I mean, I have no doubts that you guys are going to continue to work on this and just ask at this moment if you'd like to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I will say that I know the Chair appropriately, has been concerned about the fact that many of the seeds we use today are foreign produced and that part of when we talk about food security, we need to make sure we're producing those things here at home.

And so, the last thing I want to do is hurt that market. But I think a label doesn't do that. So, I think we can really get there. And I think that there, the posture of the opposition, I think is accurately reflective of that.

And those conversations will absolutely still continue with the expertise of this Committee and others. So, with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. We do have a motion by Senator Padilla, and I'll go ahead and ask Assistant to do the roll.

File item two, AB 1042 by Bauer-Kahan. The motion is do pass as amended to Environmental Quality. [Roll call]

Okay, we'll place that bill on call. Thank you. Okay. Up next, we have file item number five. AB 2734. Assemblymember Connolly, feel free to begin when you are ready.

Thank you, Chair and Members, good morning. AB 2734 seeks to update the California Department in food and Agriculture's Healthy soils program based on farmer input. Farmers have applied to healthy soils and I'll call it HSP for nearly a decade to implement climate smart conservation practices on their farms.

Based on this experience, farmers recommend several updates to the program. While HSP's have made substantial contributions to implementing climate smart conservation practices on farms, several program changes would help better support the participation of particularly small scale and organic producers. Organic farmers feel disincentivized as early adopters of of climate smart practices.

Because HSP only funds farmers to implement new practices, small scale producers in particular struggle with the paperwork burden and complicated application process. These farmers would also benefit from more tools like an equipment sharing program. Finally, farmers face financial challenges with the upfront costs of implementing practices and cost disparities across different regions.

AB 2734 proposes several amendments to HSP to ensure all farmers can access it, promoting climate smart practices across California.

Specifically, the bill directs CDFA to offer grants for on farm demonstration projects lasting up to five years, requires consultation with any relevant advisory bodies to address barriers organic producers face when applying to the program, and requires CDFA to authorize HSP grant recipients to request advance payments of their remaining awards for incentive payments made pursuant to the program.

Additionally, the bill would require CDFA to provide funds to technical assistance providers to support farmers and ranchers in the application process for grants for from these programs and the implementation of funded projects.

Finally, it would provide general planning and training for climate smart and sustainable agriculture and lease, purchase or repair farming, ranching and food processing equipment that can be centrally housed with the technical assistance provider and shared regionally with producers. This bill has bipartisan support and no opposition on file.

I will now pass it to my witnesses, Addison Peterson, senior policy manager representing California certified organic farmers, the Bill sponsor and Anna Larson, representing California Climate and Agriculture network.

Thank you, Senator Connolly. Thank you Chairwoman Hurtado, vice Chairwoman Grove and Members of the Committee. I am Addison Peterson, senior policy manager for the California Certified organic farmers, better known as CCOF. CCOF is a farmer led nonprofit organization representing over 3000 organic farms, ranches and businesses throughout California.

AB 2734 seeks to update the California Department of Food and Agriculture's Healthy Soils program based on farmer input. Farmers have applied to the Healthy Soils program for nearly a decade to implement climate smart conservation program practices on their farms. The Healthy Soils program is critical because it is essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We appreciate CDFA's leadership in spearheading the healthy soils program and making continuous improvements. It is what it's needed to combat climate change and also be effective for our farmers. Healthy soils helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions by sequestering carbon dioxide from the air in the soil and retaining more water in the soil, which helps to reduce flooding.

The proposed changes in AB 2734 are designed to enhance the participation of small scale inorganic producers, a move that will not only benefit these producers, but also contribute to the overall success of the healthy soils program. This Bill will also direct CDFA to offer grants for on farm demonstration projects lasting up to five years.

Allow farmers to request higher advance payments, which will make it easier for farmers to purchase needed materials upfront. The Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory panel may consult relevant advisory bodies to address barriers organic producers face when applying to the healthy soils program.

Amends the CDFA Climate Smart Technical Assistance grants program to include equipment sharing as an allowable cost for technical assistance grants expands technical assistance to farmers, including training, conservation, agriculture planning and grant writing. CDFA has estimated that the Healthy Soils program has contributed to removing over 350,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

We look forward to increasing the program's participation in removing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning. I'm Anna Larson, associate policy Director with Calgary and the California Climate, Agriculture, California Climate and Agriculture Network. And as I shared, we're a coalition of eight sustainable and organic farming organizations that support farmers in becoming more resilient to climate change.

And so, as Addison and Assembly Member Connolly shared, the Healthy Soils program has been an important and effective program to help farmers adopt new practices to increase their climate resilience and sequester carbon.

And so the proposed changes that have been shared reflect feedback we've heard from farmers, technical assistance providers and researchers to help ensure that the program is accessible to all types of farmers.

And as mentioned, some of these changes include extending the demonstration projects to five years, which would be an important source of funding for longer term on farm research to understand the climate change and greenhouse gas impacts of these practices.

And then allowing farmers to request higher advanced patients payments will make it easier to access needed materials upfront, as Addison shared, and then providing more flexibility around the Ta funds will enable Ta providers to provide more wraparound support and also help support the capacity of Ta providers to continue delivering this really essential and high quality technical assistance.

And I just wanted to underscore, we know that technical assistance can be really critical for project success, especially if farmers are trying out something new.

And this was also underscored by a preliminary Cal Poly evaluation of the Healthy Soils program, which found that the majority of the grantees who utilize technical assistance found it to be either important or extremely important for the success of their project. Yeah. So thank you and respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you. Do we have any additional individuals here in this room in support of this measure? Please come up. State your name, organization, and your position on the measure.

Abby Alvarez with the Pesticide Action Network and Californians for Pesticide Reform in support. Thank you.

Erika Parker with Californians against waste in support.

Thank you, Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and associates, representing the California Association of Professional Scientists, UAW in support. Thank you.

Jalen Joyce with California Food and Farming Network and support. Thank you.

Justin Bowers, cleanerthforkids.org strongly supports. In addition, North County equity and justice facts, California nurses for environmental health and justice, ecosustainability peeps, the NCCCA, Sonoma, SAS, Safeag safe schools, moms advocating sustainability, CEH, the Center for Environmental Health, non toxic Communities and yardsmart Marin also support this Bill. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of American Farmland Trust and support.

Thank you. Seeing no additional individuals, we'll move on to opposition. Is there any opposition to this measure in this room? Seen none. I'll bring it back to Committee for any questions or comments. We have a motion. Okay. And I'll bring it back to the author. Just would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Really appreciate your consideration. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. So we have a motion by Senator Padilla on this measure. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item five, AB 2734 by Assemblymember Connolly. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we will place that measure on call to allow other Members the opportunity to vote. Thank you. Okay, we have one Bill left, and we will wait for Assemblymember Kalra to come in and present on AB 2509. I think this is also a good opportunity, maybe through take-up call.

I mean, take up items that are on call and for those individuals that. That are now here and can vote on. So, assistant, can you please call. Can you please go through the roll?

File, item one, AB 660, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. The current vote is 3-0, with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

Vote is 5-0 and that Bill is out.

So we have file item two, AB 1042, the motion is do pass as Amended to Environmental Quality. The current vote is 2-0, with the the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

That measure will be on call.

The motion is on the consent calendar. The current vote is 3-0, with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

So the consent calendar has five to zero, and all those items are out.

File item six, AB 20313 by Assemblymember Bennett. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is 2-0, with the Chair voting aye. Senators Alvarado-Gil.

I'm sorry, I missed the item number.

On, it's item number six, AB 201313. [Roll Call]

So that Bill has four votes, and that Bill is out.

Okay, at this moment, we'll go ahead and take a brief recess to give the opportunity to Assemblymember Kalra to come in and present his Bill. Thank you.

Do we know if Grove is coming back?

Okay, the Senate Committee on Agriculture is back to order. Assemblymember Kalra, welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members of the Committee. AB 2509 would codify definitions of integrated pest management and invasive species and require the Invasive Species Council of California to prioritize principles of integrated pest management in all of its activities.

Integrated pest management, also known as IPM, is a pest management strategy that seeks to maximize the effectiveness of pest management remedies while minimizing harm to people and the environment. It accomplishes this by moving away from traditional chemical-only treatments in favor of nuanced solutions that utilize various pest management methods, including nonchemical, biological, physical, and cultural techniques.

IPM status as an effective, environmentally friendly approach to pest management has caused it to become an increasingly popular subject of legislation. Unfortunately, there is no codified definition of IPM, leaving each piece of legislation to create its own. This can lead to confusion, delays in Bill implementation, and conflicting enforcement action.

AB 2509 addresses this issue by codifying the University of California IPM program's definition of IPM. Numerous stakeholders came together to ensure that this definition balances important human health, environmental human health, environmental protection... I lost my spot here. Oh, and pest management needs.

I look forward to working with CDFA to ensure that this Bill is compatible with existing invasive species, early detection practices, and the greater food and agricultural code. With me to provide supporting testimony are Doug Johnson, Executive Director of the California Invasive Plant Council, and Abigail Smet on behalf of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. I am Doug Johnson, the Executive Director of the California Invasive Plant Council.

We're a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the state's environment and economy from invasive plants, and the community we serve is the community of land stewards, both professional and volunteer across the state, working in everything from national parks and national forests on down to local parks and conservancies, and even volunteering in one's local watershed.

We sponsored this Bill, too. As was mentioned, define in law two terms that are fundamental to the work that our community does, invasive species and integrated pest management.

First, on invasive species, they're recognized as a global issue, and here in California, numerous plans discuss the importance of addressing them, from the natural and working lands conservation, sorry, climate-smart strategy to the state wildlife Action Plan. Having a definition in code will provide a strong foundation for this work.

The Bill bases the definition of invasive species on language that is already mentioned in statute in the 2018 language that was added to establish the Invasive Species Council, the state's interagency Invasive Species Council. The proposed definition aligns with the federal definition.

The second term, integrated pest management, is the approach that is taken, the current modern approach that is taken to managing invasive species, and defining IPM will avoid confusion from having different definitions in different places in statute.

The definition proposed is concurrent with the University of California's definition, and it's widely accepted and has been for decades by a range of stakeholders and the stakeholder representatives serving on the state's sustainable pest management working group used this definition of IPM.

IPM, integrated pest management, prioritizes prevention, which means you need to know how a particular organism, its biology, the pathways for its potential introduction, and ways to stop that. But if it's already here, IPM means that you look to manage it in the safest and most effective way.

Prioritizing non chemical methods are folks working on invasive plants across the state, you know, cut them down, dig them up, mow, graze, burn, mulch, tarp, a whole bunch of things. And in the particular situations where that alone is not enough, then herbicides may be integrated as part of the approach.

The organizations we work with are charged with protecting biodiversity on the state's lands, including threatened and endangered species. They're also providing public access, and they're protecting communities from wildfire and floods. They're devoted to finding the safest and most effective ways to control invasive plants, and the definitions in this Bill help provide the foundation for doing that.

So for these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members, Abigail Smet on behalf of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, Mid-Pen owns and manages over 70,000 acres of lands in the San Francisco Bay Area for recreation and protection of natural resources.

An essential part of stewarding lands is working to control invasive plant species such as French Broom, Slender False Broom, and Yellow Star Thistle.

In 2014, Mid-Pen's board of directors adopted an integrated pest management program with the goals of managing pests through consistent implementation of IPM principles, protecting and restoring the natural environment, and providing for human safety and enjoyment while visiting and working on Mid-Pen lands. Mid-Pen is firmly dedicated to minimizing pesticide use and risk.

Our IPM program focuses on the management of invasive plants and protection of native biodiversity through the preferential use of nonchemical methods whenever possible, reserving the ability to use chemical methods only when absolutely necessary.

AB 2509 establishes a firm foundation for ongoing work to protect the state's environment and economy from invasive species by providing clear definitions of invasive species and IPM. California's initiatives around protecting biodiversity and climate resilience, including 30 by 30 and the other initiatives the previous testimony mentioned, all stress the critical need to address invasive species, and this legislation will help to create a firm statutory foundation for future guidelines, directives, and initiatives to fulfill these goals.

This is an important step in furthering establishing the importance of addressing invasive species in California, and we strongly support the clarity and commitment to IPM that AB 2509 outlines. Thank you. We respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, do we have any additional members of the audience that would like to come and state their position on this measure?

Chair and Members, Pat Brown with Aaron Reed Associates, representing the California Association of Professional Scientists, UAW in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Justin Bowers, cleanearth4kids.org. We oppose this Bill. In addition, North County Equity and Justice, Facts, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Ecosustainability Peeps, NCCCA, Sonoma SASS, Safe Ag Safe Schools, Moms Advocating Sustainability, CEH, Center for Environmental Health, Beyond Pesticides, non-toxic communities, and Yard Smart Marin, also oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying that you're in opposition to this measure. At this point, we'll go ahead and see no additional members of the audience here to testify and support or state their position. We'll move to opposition. Any additional members of the audience here in opposition to the measure? Okay.

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Okay, we have a motion to move the Bill, so at this point we'll go ahead and ask our Committee assistant to... would you like to close? I'm so sorry about that. Assemblymember Kalra, go ahead.

I appreciate the Committee's work on this and thank you, Madam Chair, for your recommendation and for the moving of the Bill. Appreciate an aye vote.

Assistant, please call the roll.

File item seven, AB 2509 by Assemblymember Kalra. The motion is do pass to Natural Resources and Water. [Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill is placed on call to allow other Members the opportunity vote. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, at this moment, we are going to go ahead and move to close the roll. We'll just go ahead and go through the remainder ones that are still on call. So assistant, can you please call the roll on the remainder items and to close these items.

[Roll Call]

The Bill has three votes and that measure is out.

[Roll Call]

And that measure is out. That wraps up our Committee hearing for today. We'll see you at the next one. Thank you, everybody.