Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

It.

I can't. I have become my mother. I think we all have.

Good afternoon, everyone. We are convening as the Environmental, Safety and Toxic Materials Committee. Welcome. Great. To start my first hearing as chair. Excited about it. So we're going to read some initial preliminary rules. Welcome to my Vice Chair as well. And I actually believe we do have a quorum. Now.

The Assembly has rules to make sure we maintain order and run fair and efficient hearings. We apply these rules consistently to all people that participate in our proceedings in order to facilitate the goal of hearing from as many Members of the public within the limits of our time.

We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. Our Committee's policies for testimony in today's hearing are as follows. Primary witness testimony is limited to two witnesses in support and and two in opposition. Each witness will have two minutes to give their testimony.

All additional witnesses will be limited to stating their name, organization, if they represent one, and their position on the Bill. I also want to note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. We will hear three measures today with five measures on consent.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll to establish a quorum.

For the purposes of establishing a quorum, I will call the roll. Connolly.

Connelly. Here. Hadwick. Here. Hadwick. Here. Bauer, cahan. Castillo. Lee. McKenna.

Here.

McKenner. Here. Papen. Here. Chapin. Here.

Here.

Wish.

Thank you. And why don't we go ahead and take this time to adopt Committee rules? These rules were distributed to each Member of the Committee for their Review prior to this hearing. Do I have a motion? And second. To adopt the Committee rules. Second motion. Senate Member McKinner. Second Pappin. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

For the purposes of adopting the Committee rules. I will call the roll. Connolly?

[Roll call]

Yeah. Okay. So those Committee rules have been adopted. Thank you. If the Assembly Member will indulge, why don't we just quickly. Also do the consent calendar. Do we have a motion? And second on the consent calendar.

So move.

Second McKenna. Motion. Pappin. Second. Please call the roll.

On the proposed consent calendar, are items number four, AB599, authored by Assemblymember Connolly, AB Or. I'm sorry. Item number five, AB 696, authored by Assembly Member Ransom. Item number six, AB 961, authored by Assembly Member Avila Farias. Item number seven. AB 1440, authored by the Committee. AB item number six, AB 1459, authored by the Committee.

Each Bill with the motion do pass to the Committee on appropriations. Copies.

Connolly, Aye.

[Roll call]

Thank you. The consent calendar is adopted. All right, we're going to move to file item two. Assembly Member Rodriguez, AB638, dealing with stormwater. Assemblymember, you may begin.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. Today I am proud to present AB 638, a measure that will help guide our state's projects on stormwater capture for irrigation use. Climate change is affecting weather patterns worldwide, resulting in devastating consequences and challenges to communities.

In California, the pattern in number of drought years and non-drought years brings us water scarcity challenges. Over the last decade, we have seen significant investments in stormwater capture projects at the local, state, and federal level. Yet despite these investments, no state guidance exists on capturing and utilizing urban stormwater for non-potable uses like irrigation.

AB 3, AB 638 directs the State Water Board Resources Water. Sorry. State Water Board Resources Control Board to to develop guidelines for capture and use of stormwater for irrigation of urban public lands. Clear guidance is essential to provide certainty on how to safely build and operate stormwater capture and use projects.

The guidance created by AB 638 will outline best management practices for safely using stormwater irrigation on parks and other viable public lands. Speaking today with me in support of AB 638 is Mark Gold, Director of Water Scarcity Solutions with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Connolly and Committee Members. As a point of background, I've worked on water supply, water quality, and coastal issues for over 35 years in roles ranging from running the environmental group Heal the Bay for 20 years, to Associate Vice Chancellor for Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, to serving as Deputy Secretary for Coast and Ocean Policy and Governor Newsom's first term.

The impacts of climate change on California's water supply have been extraordinary, with record drought followed by near record rainfall. The Governor's 2022 water scarcity strategy highlighted the need for a more climate resilient water portfolio, including better stormwater capture and use to reduce potable water demand to offset decreased water supplies of an estimated 10% by 2040 from the Sierras and the Colorado.

AB 638 fills a glaring gap in California's urban stormwater management. Currently, the State Water Board provides no guidance on how to capture, treat, and reuse stormwater for irrigation of urban public lands including parks, parkways, golf courses, cemeteries, medians, strips, and institutional non functional turf. As a result, precious potable water supplies are being used to irrigate turf.

And in the City of LA we have four projects that cost an estimated $50 million that will that were built for this purpose and they are not being used for park and golf course irrigation because our local Department of Public Health has required that captured rainwater be treated to drinking water standards.

Also, over $1 billion in funds from the LA County Safe Clean Water Program have been invested in the last few years, but not on stormwater capture projects. With guidance from the State Water Board on how to capture urban stormwater, treat it, including disinfection, and use it safely to irrigate public lands, there will be less uncertainty and project approval delays and these critical projects will be built more frequently in the near future.

Please support AB 638. We need this guidance to be developed as soon as possible to reduce potable water demand and to encourage local, state, and federal funding to be invested in this climate resilient approach to to sustainable water management. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Do we have any remaining members of the public who wish to indicate their support for this measure? Please come on up.

Good afternoon. Emely Garcia speaking on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper and Heal the Bay in support.

Hello, I'm Rebecca Fuoco with the Green Science Policy Institute in support.

Santiago Rodriguez with California Environmental Voters in support.

Hi, good afternoon. April Robinson with A Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.

Do we have anyone in opposition to AB 638? Seeing none. Are there any questions from Committee Members? Bringing it back. Assembly Member.

Yes. Assembly Member, I would just like to say I am so proud of you about this bill. This is exactly what we need. I love recycling, so to take to get our water and use it on public land to water our grass and keep our golf courses up is going to be amazing. So thank you for the bill, and I'd like to be a co-author.

Assembly Member, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to agree with my colleague from Los Angeles. I think this is really the smart all of the above approach we need to water. I will say I would like to get rid of the median non-functional turf. That is my opinion. But the golf courses and other things, especially in my district which is wildland urban interface is part of our plan to slow the spread of fire.

And those lands are critical and we need to keep them watered in order to execute our fire prevention plans. And so having a way to use this water, to do so safely so that we're removing what's coming off the tires and the other things that can cause toxins in our parks, I think is critical. So I would also like to be out as a co-author, if you'll have me.

Yes, I would love to have you both. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the dais? Okay, with that, would you like to close?

Just thank you, Chair and Members, for hearing this bill today. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And really thank you for bringing the measure forward. This does have a Chair aye recommendation. With that, why don't we call the roll? Motion, Bauer-Kahan. Second, McKinnor. Please call the roll.

This is for file item number two, AB 638, authored by Assembly Member Celeste Rodriguez. The motion is do pass to the Committee of Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That measure is out.

Thank you.

Okay, we're going to move back to file item 1. Assembly Member Papan, AB60 dealing with cosmetic safety. Come on up.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Haven't we all had a little too much musk lately? Well, that's what this Bill seeks to address, but it's musk in the environment. So AB60, the Musk reduction act is all about having a little less musk in the environment.

AB60 will protect Californians health and environment by banning synthetic nitro musks in cosmetics and personal care products. Californians use personal care products like soaps, perfumes, shampoos and deodorants every day, often without realizing they contain harmful synthetic fragrance chemicals. One such group of chemicals, synthetic nitro musks, have been linked to serious health risks.

These compounds build up in the body over time and interfere with hormone function, particularly affecting women's reproductive health. Studies have associated exposure in nitro musks with early puberty in young girls, which has lifelong negative health impacts. Increased cases of endometriosis, ovarian failure, menstrual irregularities and infertility, and increased growth of breast cancer cells.

Beyond their health risks, nitro musks are also a major environmental concern. These chemicals don't break down easily and have been found in waterways, soil and even marine life, contributing to long term contamination of our ecosystems.

Despite these risks, the US has yet to regulate nitro musks while other countries, including Canada and those in the European Union, have already restricted their use AB60 will close this gap by heavily restricting the use of nitro musks, thereby reducing exposure, preventing further environmental contamination and aligning California with global health standards.

With me today to testify in support is Ryan Spencer on behalf of Environmental Working Group.

Mr. Spencer, welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brian Spencer, on behalf of the Environmental Working Group. As mentioned by the author, this Bill addresses a critical gap in the California's chemical safety regulations by banning nitro musks, the synthetic fragrance compound still found in soaps, perfumes, deodorants.

These chemicals are not just unnecessary, they're dangerous and well documented in scientific literature as persistent biocumulative toxins. Multiple peer reviewed studies have shown that nitro musks are resistant to environmental degradation. They accumulate in aquatic organisms, have been detected in breast milk and adipose tissue and are frequently found indoor and air and household dust after personal use.

These environmentally persistent pollutants then pass through the sewage treatment plants through their mission into the environment. Even more concerning is their role as endocrine disruptors. These chemicals interfere with hormone signaling at extremely low doses and are associated, as the author mentioned, with reproductive disorders, altered pupil timing, intermetriosis and infertility. The EU has.

The European Union has banned nitro must since the early 2000s. They put public health ahead of profits and remove these chemicals from consumer products. California has a proud legacy of environmental leadership and this should be no exception. We urge your. I vote on AB60 and thank the author introducing this important measure.

Appreciate it. Do we have any remaining Members of the public who wish to indicate support for the measure? Please come forward.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Sharon Gonzalez. On behalf of the cities of San. Mateo and Santa Rosa in support. Thank you.

That's my city. I'm Santiago with California environmental voters in support.

Jayla Burton with Women's Voices for the Earth in support.

Hi, April Robinson again with a voice. For choice advocacy and support.

Gabriella Fasio is here at Club California. Apologies we didn't get our letter letter. In in time, but we're here for support.

Great, thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition to AB60? Not seeing anyone come forward. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Questions? Comments?

So I just looked it up in Chanel number 18 as Musk in it. And so what happens to that? Does it get canceled? Like if they pull the ingredients out? This is just a question.

Yeah, I don't think it gets canceled per se. My God, I wouldn't want to contribute to that. But it would ban this substance and it's banned in 39 countries, including China. So I would venture to guess that it'll come out and they will find a substitute.

It's my understanding there's something like 29,000 other things that in a manufacturer could choose from to make this replacement. So it's not going to be terribly onerous either. So I think it's just going to get replaced. If I were Chanel.

Thank you.

Further questions or comments? Not seen any Assembly Member. You may close.

I just would like to acknowledge that my office has been in contact with various stakeholders, and we've had really robust conversations, and so we feel that the Bill will be successful.

Yeah, and I was gonna. I appreciate that. I was gonna note that as well. My understanding is there are some ongoing conversations happening. Please keep the Committee informed as discussions progress. I am recommending an I vote. And with that, do I have a motion and second McKenna remove.

I'll second.

Or I will, actually. Yeah. Chair will second. Please call the roll.

This is for file item 1, AB 60, authored by Assemblymember Pappin. The motion is due. Pass to the floor. Connally.

[Roll call]

Okay, I think we have four. So that is out. Thank you. We're going to move to file item 3, AB916. Assemblymember Lee, who has arrived. And this deals with antibacterial soaps and body washes.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'd like to thank the Committee for their Hard work and thoughtful analysis on this Bill.

ABU 916 will ban the sale of consumer hand soaps and body washes that contain benzalkauny chloride, benzyl, taonium chloride and chloroxylenol, three chemicals that I struggle to pronounce, but understandably, the FDA has a lot of concerns about these chemicals.

The FDA has already determined that products with these ingredients provide no added health benefits over regular soap and water. Yet they remain on store shelves, misleading consumers with marketing that antibacterial soaps are more effective in preventing illness. That's not the case.

In 2016, the FDA banned 19 out of 22 antibacterial chemicals from soaps, but pushed off rulemaking of the remaining three in response to comments from manufacturers giving the cleaning products industry one year to provide safety and efficacy data. That was eight years ago. Eight years later today, there has been no conclusive evidence from the industry.

And both the FDA and CDC have repeatedly advised that people use plain soap and water to wash their hands. The chemicals and antibacterial soaps are linked to skin irritation, respiratory issues and developmental toxicity. In addition, these chemicals enter and remain in water, soil and sediment and eventually make their way into the water supply network and food chain.

The overuse of antibacterial chemicals also contributes to antibiotic resistance, a global growing crisis. The science shows that regular soap and water, when used properly, remove 99.9% of pathogens without any unnecessary health risks. And antibacterial soaps are simply a mark marketing tactic.

Colleagues, this Bill is a science backed common sense measures protect Californians from exposure to ineffective and potentially harmful chemicals in everyday products. By supporting this Bill, we are ensuring the public health and environmental safety come before come before misleading marketing and industry profits.

Respectfully ask for your I vote when the time comes to make sure California has a strong track record of leading the nation on consumer and environmental protections. And with me today, I'd like to introduce Rebecca Fuko from the Green Science Policy Institute and Nora Angelus from Children Now.

Hi, welcome. I'm Rebecca. zero, is this on? I'm Rebecca Fuoco of the Green Science Policy Institute. I have a Master's in Environmental Health from UC Berkeley. I've been working in the environmental health field for 15 years and I'm currently obtaining my doctorate at Johns Hopkins with a dissertation on antimicrobials. I strongly endorse the SAFER SOAP Act.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says, I quote, studies have not found any added health benefit from using antibacterial soap. Their ingredients may not be safe and may contribute to antibiotic resistance, end quote.

In 2023, our Institute led a major peer reviewed paper on quaternary ammonium compounds, a chemical class which includes two of the three chemicals addressed by this Bill. The paper concluded that for consumer uses such as over the counter hand soap, these chemicals are more harmful than helpful.

On top of the false sense of security these products may provide is the mounting evidence of health harms. Quaternary ammonium compounds can be absorbed from soap into our bodies and have been linked to reduced fertility, asthma and neurological problems. The other ingredient, chloroxylenol, is a potential hormone disruptor and is neurotoxic to fish.

Numerous studies document these chemicals inducing resistance in bacteria not just to the chemicals themselves, but to critical antibiotics as well. In the US there are already more than 2.8 million antimicrobial resistant infections each year that result in tens of thousands of deaths.

In summary, both the FDA and CDC say there is no evidence that antibacterial soaps have any benefit over plain soap for consumers and actively discourage their use. This science based legislation will protect consumers from health harm from unnecessary chemicals while helping combat the very real threat of antimicrobial resistance. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Nora Angeles with Children Now and we are proud to co sponsor AB916, the Safer Soap Act. We thank Assemblymember Lee for authoring this Bill. Children Now is a statewide research and advocacy organization working to improve the lives of California's children.

Both the CDC and FDA say that antimicrobial soaps are not more effective than plain soap and can cause serious public health risks. Though the FDA discourages the use of antibacterial soap and has banned 19 antimicrobial compounds, they have delayed formal regulatory action on three remaining antimicrobials. Benzalkonium chloride, benzathonium chloride and chloroxylenol.

These common ingredients in antibacterial soap are linked to neurological, reproductive and respiratory harm and can contribute to the rise of antimicrobial resistant superbugs. Children are more vulnerable to the effects of toxic chemicals due to their smaller size and the potential for developmental delays. California's kids deserve to be protected against harmful ingredients in everyday products like soaps.

California can take the lead on this issue by passing the Safer SOAP act, which would ban over the counter hand soaps and body washes containing these three specific antimicrobials. Health care settings are exempted. We ask for your aye vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We switched chairs. Real quick. Do we have any remaining Members of the public in the hearing room who wish to indicate their support for the measure?

Emily Garcia with NRDC.

In support. Jayla Burton with Women's Voices for the Earth. Also co sponsor and in support.

Hi. April Robinson with a Voice for Choice, Advocacy and support.

Do we have anyone in opposition of AB916? If so, please come forward.

Hi, my name is James Kim with The American Cleaning Institute and I am not in favor of this Bill. Thank you.

So this is for the witnesses. Sorry.

That's okay. My first time too.

Okay. Good afternoon. My name is James Kim. I have a PhD in toxicology and environmental health sciences from the Johns Hopkins Public Health School, and I am currently the Senior Vice President of Science and Regulatory Affairs at the American Cleaning Institute, or ACI. I appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective on the proposed bill, AB 916, the Safer Soap Act.

ACI is the trade association for the manufacturers of consumer and healthcare topical antiseptic, over the counter drug products sold in the US. ACI is leading multi-year, multimillion dollar efforts to complete the FDA requested studies on the safety and efficacy for the topical antiseptic ingredients ethanol, benzalkonium chloride or BAC, benzethonium chloride or BZT, and chloroxylenol, PCMX.

AB 916 would remove protections against the spread of bacteria in institutional settings, eliminate key health care solutions for consumers, and would also be preempted under federal law, and therefore we are opposed to this bill. I'd like to make six concise points as they relate to AB 916.

First, in our view, these chemicals do not pose significant risks to human health and the environment when used as directed. They are registered with EPA, requiring human health and environmental assessments to demonstrate safety. Two, according to the findings of multiple peer reviewed publications, there is no credible evidence that these products contribute to antimicrobial resistance.

Three, studies in the literature demonstrate the greater efficacy of antimicrobial soaps compared to bland soaps or non-antimicrobial soaps. Four, ACI is actively working with the FDA to provide data on these ingredients that would establish their status as generally recognized as safe and effective. And FDA has stated in writing that, quote, we are committed to working with you to fill the remaining data gaps.

You have about 5 seconds.

Five, over the counter consumer antiseptic washes containing these ingredients are lawfully marketed under Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act pursuant to the CARES Act. And finally, just want to note that DTSC is also running a research program through their Safer Consumer Products Program. So thank you for your time, and I hope the Committee considers the importance of these products for many susceptible, vulnerable, or sensitive consumer populations. Thank you.

Slightly awkward with my head behind.

It's okay.

Madam Chair and Members, Dan Chia testifying on behalf of the Personal Care Products Council respectfully in opposition to AB 316. Sorry, 916. PCPC is the leading trade association representing 600 cosmetics and personal care products companies. Its members create nearly 600,000 jobs in California and contribute approximately $45 billion to the state's economy.

PCPC represents the body wash category identified in this bill, so I'm only testifying with respect to the ingredients banned in this product category. We oppose the bill because there's no basis for creating an entirely separate regulatory regime, including registration and fee assessments, for just three chemicals on top of the Comprehensive Green Chemistry Program the Legislature created in 2008 to regulate chemical safety.

In fact, DTSC, the agency that the Legislature tasked with evaluating chemical safety, is currently considering these and other chemicals categorized as QACs. As noted in the analysis, DTSC published its preliminary findings in December. What I would add is that DTSC held a public workshop two months ago to seek input from stakeholders and intends to release a product chemical profile later this year or early next. And this profile typically precedes and serves as the basis for regulation.

AB 916 may conflict with, interrupt, or disrupt DTSC's currently regulatory process and timeline. And its ongoing data gathering and assessment efforts are precisely what needs to happen to comprehensively assess risk, the impacts or any impacts of public health, and to evaluate the trade offs of regulation. For these reasons, we ask for your no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any remaining members of the public in the hearing room who wish to indicate their opposition to this measure?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Annalee Augustine here on behalf of Consumer Brands Association. Also adding on in opposition.

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

Good afternoon. Nicole Quiñonez for the Household and Commercial Products Association in opposition.

Good afternoon. Taylor Triffo on behalf of the California Grocers Association in opposition.

Good afternoon. Obed Franco here on behalf of the American Chemistry Council in respectful opposition.

Afternoon. Sarah Pollo Moo with the California Retailers Association, opposed.

Good afternoon. Ashley Hong on behalf of ARCS Data, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments? Assembly Member.

Hi. Okay, I think soap's important. Let's start there. So the analysis and what I've heard from the proponents is that plain soap and water is just as effective as antibacterial soaps. But the analysis also says that most soap that I use isn't plain soap. I didn't know that.

The amount you learned in this Committee is amazing. That most of the soaps I use are detergents. So my reading of this, and I'm not a scientist, and I have to say, let me start by expressing my frustration at DTSC that they don't actually do their job. Because if they actually did their job, we wouldn't have to have this conversation. We would all feel satisfied with the DTSC process. But I also heard from you that what you're relying on is a categorization of these products.

We can't expect that they'll actually protect the community from these products if they were to be detrimental within the year. So I don't know that we'll... God knows when an actual decision around the safety of these would come from DTSC. So if I'm using a detergent, which it turns out is what I mostly use, that doesn't have antimicrobial, is that as effective as regular soap? That wasn't clear to me.

Yes. So for home settings, plain soap is just as effective as antibacterial soap. There's no peer reviewed evidence to the contrary that's conducted.

Right, but I'm not using plain soap. According to the analysis, like 80% of projects are detergent.

Non-antibacterial soap.

Oh, so even the detergents as described in the analysis are as effective as antibacterial soaps. Is that...

For home settings, there's no evidence that an antibacterial soap would have any difference. I think it might help to distinguish the mechanisms between plain soap or detergents. Just non-antibacterial soap. How that works, they work by removing germs, and as Assembly Member Lee says, that removes 99.9% of viruses and bacteria.

Antibacterial soap is meant to kill the bacteria rather than just removing it. And where that is more effective is in hospital settings, primarily for surgery prep. So surgeons are using these soaps before surgery and scrubbing with a specific technique for two to six minutes. So I'm not aware of anybody that washes their hands at home for two to six minutes. I also not sure I know anybody that performs surgery at home.

Well, so, okay. So you're prohibiting the antibacterial soap from all manufacturing, sale, and distribution. Does that include in hospital settings? That's how I read this part of the bill.

No. No, it does not.

Is there an exception?

Yes.

Okay, that's good. Don't know that I...

There's a healthcare setting exception.

Okay, great. That's important. So I did notice a lack of like, what's the scientific data we're relying on here? That's what I was really looking for. I'm asking the proponents of the bill.

Sure. So there's peer reviewed research papers on all of these toxicity endpoints. There's animal studies, there's in vivo cell based studies, and there's some human epidemiology studies, primarily in occupational exposures from people who are in cleaning professions. And there's a consistent weight of evidence, especially for the most commonly used antimicrobial, which is vaccinated benzalkonium chloride. For decades there's been evidence of reproductive health harms, asthma, and respiratory inflammation and inducing antibiotic resistance to species of bacteria, including Listeria and Staphylococcus.

So can you give me some of the research institutions that have done some of those studies?

Sure. UC Davis, Northwestern are frequent publishers of such data.

But they're not cited. It just says studies. That was the problem. Okay. Yeah. The analysis doesn't cite to the studies either, which was part of my frustration. It just says studies. And not all studies are created equal. Any science major will tell you that. And some people pay for studies. That's why I asked the question. I think it is important that we try to rely on good science. So you mentioned, on behalf of PCPC, Thank you. That there's going to be this classification of the QACs this year. Was that what I understood you to say?

I mentioned that DTSC is currently reviewing the class of chemicals that these three fall under, QACs, and intends to issue what's known as the product chemical profile very soon that would serve as the basis for regulation.

Right. But we have no sense of when or if that regulation would come to pass. Just that they might classify them.

I don't know. There very well could be. My guess, my knowledge base is that they typically would not issue a product chemical profile if it did not intend to regulate a substance.

And that makes sense. I think the problem is that in our DTSC oversight hearings, I haven't been on the Committee in a while. I'm welcoming myself back. But in my days here previously when we had oversight hearings, I mean they were reviewing one chemical every three years. I mean it was really shameful the amount that they review.

And so I guess I just find relying on them frustrating. But I find the whole thing frustrating. We should be able to trust government, so we should do better. So I'm really torn here. Cause I think that the last thing I want to do is not provide the soap that is necessary.

I don't love us doing this because I don't think I have the skill set or the time. I voted on I don't know how many bills in Judiciary, now I'm voting on I don't know how many bills here today. So I don't have the capacity to actually read the studies and figure out where the science is. And our meetings on this bill have basically been one side saying that there's good evidence and the other side saying the evidence is mixed. And I'm not in a position to determine which of you is telling me the truth. So I don't love us doing this.

On the other hand, I think that the author is raising some serious concerns around what we are putting in people's bodies. And I think he has good reason to not wait for DTSC to do that. If anyone has, you know, if the opponents want to bring us a good DTSC reform bill, I bet we would all entertain that. But. So I think I'm going to support it today.

But I really do feel like I need to feel confident that we are dealing in the scientific realm, that we are making good decisions based on solid science. And having two sides disagree about the science makes that incredibly hard. I'll support the bill today, but I do feel like this is putting us in a tough position of making sure we're keeping Californians safe because soap has such benefit as well. When we're talking about fragrances that are kind of optional, that feels very different than antibacterial soaps.

Vice Chair.

I have a lot of questions. So this bill bans the soap for consumers to buy, but not in the healthcare scene or medical settings. Can you explain why that is? You kind of touched on it. It's like an add on to...

Yeah. So this is, this is a puzzling issue. FDA has set the standards for success different between the health care and consumer products. Right. So for the healthcare products, FDA has required that we use clinical simulation studies. So these are studies where an inoculum of bacteria is placed on the test subject's hands, the test article is used, and then how much bacteria remaining on the hands is measured. These ingredients show demonstrably that there are several log reductions of bacteria on the hands.

I don't really understand how you can say that these products are not efficacious when the data is clearly there. Now, for the consumer product, FDA has said that they want to see actual disease reduction, not just a surrogate endpoint like bacterial log reduction. So they want us to design the studies to test in a consumer clinical way how these products work. Well, those tests will take several years to complete. They take several years even just to design.

And so when FDA deferred these ingredients back in 2018, and if you read the progress reports and the annual deferrals, they have been pleased with our progress and continued to issue deferrals. Right. If these products... I also want to state that I heard about the absorption of some of these ingredients through the skin.

We are working on what we call maximum use trials. And these are consumer hand washes. There's no absorption of the active ingredient through the skin in a consumer hand wash. Where there is concern about absorption through the skin are with hand rubs or leave on products. Right, but not with consumer washes. So those are sort of the points that I wanted to make.

And is there, have you thought about an agriculture exemption? So I have a farm. We have livestock. We need, we scrub up like a surgeon. If we're pulling a calf or doing something that is not yet ready for the veterinarian. Or veterinarian practices, do they count in those medical settings?

I'm not sure if a veterinarian veterinary practice counts as a medical setting. I believe that it does. In terms of the agricultural setting, so FDA agreed that there should be three monographs. A consumer monograph, healthcare monograph, and the food handler monograph.

The food handler monograph was supposed to have a non-prescription drug advisory committee meeting in March of 2020, and that meeting was canceled because of the COVID pandemic. FDA has not yet taken that back up. So we are due a food handler monograph.

However, in the absence of a food handler monograph, the consumer monograph presumably covers all other products that are not health care. And so the food handler situations that you've described in agriculture would fall under the consumer monograph and would be at risk of being banned.

And most foodborne outbreaks are bacteria based.

Correct. I think around...

Okay, so that makes me nervous. Yes. Not gonna lie, makes me very nervous. Okay, so this one. Is there... Go ahead.

So from my understanding of agriculture and food preparation, most of the use of these chemicals would be for disinfectant, a totally different disinfectant product. Not... This is, we're talking about hand soap. So this would be the food handlers washing their hands. And there's no evidence of any benefit of antibacterial hand soap in food prep.

Plain soap and water is fully compliant with the FDA's food code. It's less expensive, and it removes harmful microbes without contributing to antimicrobial resistance. And what particularly concerns me is that these chemicals have been shown to promote the development of antimicrobial resistant bacteria, including listeria and staphylococcus species. And resistant bacteria surviving on a worker's hands can contaminate food products. And that increases the likelihood of foodborne illness outbreaks that are really difficult to treat.

So if I can just back up a little bit in the settings here, and that's why I love serving this Committee is, though we're all not scientists at all, and that's why we have all these great experts here talking about the very scientific accurate thing, is to think about this is what I'm talking about is hand soap.

So when you go and you wash and you physically rub it, that's where most of the actual bacteria are off. Right. Because of that physical rubbing. And when we talk about your normal think about bar soap or something, it's just as effective as these in that sense because we're still doing the application of rubbing your hand, the physical action of doing so.

And what we're trying to target is these three specific chemicals that can have lots of other side effects and other health effects that can get into soil and get to human health. Exactly. And I agree about the opposition is that, if your efficacy, if what you're targeting is getting the germs off of your hands. That's why we want that in a surgery setting. Right. Because if a surgeon is dipping your hands in a human body that is very different than someone at home, that it's like got some spills or whatever.

Like that's a different setting because in the surgery setting you need to get all that stuff like literally physically off in addition to rubbing it off you. Right. And so in the veterinary space, I'll have to look at that too, how that overlaps. But I would assume it's health care related. I mean it's healthcare of animals.

Well and just the farm space. Like I need that same medical setting for my cows or my sheep or pigs or whatever we're working on. And that is a lot of our state working on that. So I have like three more questions. So my understanding is the European Union did not ban Benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, and chloric... I can't say that. PCMX, but they primarily they restricted the use to preservatives and cosmetics or rinse off products. Can you explain why that is?

Yes. So Committee analysis pulls directly from the DTSC report on the quaternary ammonium compounds and multiple peer reviewed studies. They all reference directly the EU ban on these chemicals in hand and body wash.

Okay. And then the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act says that a state cannot establish any requirement that is not subject to the act. So additionally active ingredients used in hand soaps are already under active review by the Food and Drug Administration. Jim, can you explain if federal law preempts this bill?

Yes, that's right. The OTC non-prescription drug section of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act looks for national uniformity when it comes to regulating over the counter drugs. Which means that this law would be preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Just, Assembly Member Hadwick. I would say that it's not federally preempted. If that was the case, our own DTSC wouldn't be studying these chemicals as part of their own rulemaking process at the moment. Existing law prohibits DTSC from duplicating or adopting conflicting regulations for product categories already regulated or subject to pending regulation.

And given that DTSC is moving forward with the pre-rulemaking workshop, it would appear that federal rulemaking does not apply. So we're not in conflict with federal government. And it's also the case, as you see many bills in this Committee as we are taking on chemical bans or chemical specific things. Right. So it's not in conflict because we can, you know, if the FDA doesn't have it or the federal government doesn't have one, that's not a conflict.

Well, preempts. I said preempts, not conflict. But the Department of Toxic Substances Control is responsible for safe consumer products. My understanding is that they already began looking into this issue more broadly, which you kind of touched on. Jim, can you explain what they're doing about this issue?

Sorry, can you repeat the question?

That the Department of Toxic Substance Control is responsible for safe consumer products? So they've already began looking at this issue more broadly.

Yeah. And they've been looking at QACs as a chemical class. And some of the information we provided back to them is about the inappropriateness of considering them as a single chemical class. Rather it's many different kinds of chemical classes with different properties. Understanding that DTSC, as my colleague has noted, they do have an intent to evaluate these compounds for future regulation.

Can I respond to one? I can confirm that the EU has not banned entirely the use of these chemicals. It has restricted their use in certain cosmetic uses or use cases, primarily to their use as preservatives. So there is still allowable use in the EU.

And then I think just lastly, it imposes a fee on soap and body wash manufacturers to fund the regulations and then those fees will be passed down to consumers. So then we're in turn making the soap more expensive for already struggling families. That makes me nervous.

I just think sometimes we rely on our scientists. Cheap for people that have good jobs. I mean, we want to make sure that there are low income families. Well, bars, even, that it's not something they can pay if they're, you're on aid. You can't go buy soap. So, you know, with food stamps or programs that we have.

So laundry soap. When I was teaching, that was one of the things we provided was hand soap, laundry soap. Those things are very hard for families that are struggling to get. So that I just think in these, the fiscal crisis we're facing right now, that's a really important thing to look at. And I feel like we should let scientists make the regulations, just like my colleague talked about. We're not the experts.

Assembly Member McKinnor.

Yes. I tend to agree with my colleague from the East Bay. We are not scientists. I'm an accountant by trade, so I'm reading this and I get a little confused. But the only place that I'm concerned is in food handling because I want to make sure that when we're handling food that it's clean.

The surrounding is clean, everything is clean. So I hope you're working with the stakeholders and you continue to work with them. I'm going to give you my vote today, but I want to see that you guys are continuing to work with the stakeholders and working with people's questions. Okay, thank you.

Do you want to comment on any of the food handling?

Oh, sure. I would just say, again, that that issue has been studied and the FDA's food code still allows plain soap in food preparation because there's no evidence of benefit of these soaps for food handlers. And I'd also be concerned for the health of the food handlers who are washing their hands multiple times a shift and the cumulative exposure there. And also, plain soap is less expensive than antibacterial soap. For food service operations, especially small businesses with really thin, tight margins. Antibacterial hand soap is an unnecessary ongoing expense.

May I provide a comment?

Yes. Yeah, go ahead.

I want to revisit the question about. I actually did find the way this was set up. Again, it's been a while since I've been on this Committee, but I've voted on bills where we've dealt with chemicals prior. And the fee structure and the way that is set up, Assembly Member, can you explain that to me?

Like, why are we doing it this way versus how we've done it previously, where we just say you can't do it. That's been my experience. So I do. I mean, I have the cost concern as well, and I don't even understand why that part is necessary, to be honest with you.

I believe it is borrowing from other bills in ESTM in this session where we're regulating certain chemicals and applications as well. So I believe there is another bill that this Committee is considering that's similar structure. So we want to have uniformity enforcement. I did not come up with it.

Yeah, yeah, the Papan. But the Papan bill I feel like was a, an update. I missed that because I was down at Judiciary. Different bill, different bill. Okay. Oh, that's signed into law. Okay. See I wasn't on the Committee last year. This happens when you go back and forth.

Yeah, I mean I do think, I think we're in a moment where all of us should be focused on the cost of goods, especially a necessity. By every measure, soap is a necessity. I do hope that you'll look at that piece of it and figure out if there's a better way to do this so as not to lead to the pass down of costs. All the menstrual products are equally as necessary.

But I know that was a many years in the making piece of legislation, and maybe there was a reason that that was done that way and I just don't, I don't know. Although we have made certain exemptions for menstrual products that relates to cost that I don't know apply to soap. So. Yes, so I would, I think that's an important thing as we move forward out of this Committee to pay attention to so we can drive down costs for consumers.

Questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you so much, Members, for this thoughtful discussion. It is a complicated one because the is a very science heavy Committee and not all of us have that kind of background. But rest assured, this is a bill that would really only affect two to three brands. Because as we are unveiling this and talking about like what is detergent, what is a soap, all these things, we colloquially think of all these products as the same thing, but in fact that these products marketed with very specific.

My Vice Chair is here from my own Committee so I'm like, who's running the Committee over there? So these very specific products are much more marketing than anything else. Because we know that the very rudimentary, almost ancient bar soap type behavior of washing your hands is just as good because of the physical reactions. So I really say that.

And especially as I view in this Committee, oftentimes we take the precautionary principle where there are studies and there are information showing that there can be soil, water, or physical human health implications of chemicals where we don't necessarily need them is why this Committee is so great in actually pulling that out of the products. Right.

Because at the same time, many of these products aren't necessary to the real function in many day to day lives. In fact, they're kind of just more marketing terms, if anything. So I think it really is important to take a precautionary look at this, make sure that we are protecting Californians and making sure that we are speeding along a process that unfortunately... You know, often we are very frustrated with DTSC and the bureaucracy. It's not getting as fast as possible. So with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote, and you can wash your hands of this issue and we can be on the next Committee.

On that note, and this is an aye recommendation from the Chair. We'll see if there's a motion and second on this bill. Got a motion, Bauer-Kahan. Second from Assembly Member Papan. Please call the roll.

This is file item number three, AB 916, authored by Assembly Member Lee. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Health. [Roll Call]

You have the votes to get out. That concludes our bills. Why don't we go ahead, and open items back up for add-ons? Welcome Assembly Member Castillo.

All right. We are reopening the rolls for consent.

[Roll Call]

Reopening the vote for adopting the Committee rules.

[Roll Call]

All right. File Item Number 2, Measure AB 638, authored by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez.

[Roll Call]

All right, File Item Number 3, AB 916, authored by Assembly Member Lee. The motion is "Do Pass" to the Committee on Health, with the chair voting "Aye." My apologies, that one already went out.

All right. Got it? All right, thank you again, everyone. We're adjourned.