Senate Standing Committee on Health

Test 123. Test. Test 12. Test 12.

The Senate Committee on Health will begin in 30 seconds.

The Senate Committee on Health will come to an order. We have one bill on the agenda. He will be here shortly. But for now, let's establish quorum. Please call the attendance.

[roll call].

We've established a quorum and we'll hopefully get started soon. We'll take a quick recess. This- The Senate Committee and Health will reconvene. Like I mentioned, we have one bill today pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10 D AB 1264. Assemblymember. Please, please get started.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Senators, and my apologies. And I understand there are many things that are pulling people's attention in different directions.

So I will just say, since I've had the opportunity, I think, to speak to all of you about this bill individually, that this is something that is going to protect our kids, that we're really proud of. We have worked really hard on this bill. We have taken over 50 amendments to address stakeholder concerns.

I'm really grateful to the committee staff and the chair for their thoughtful feedback that really has strengthened this bill and improved it.

And we think this is something that is going to make a big difference on protecting kids and communities here in the State of California to make sure that our kids get the healthy, nutritious food that they deserves in school. It is a balanced and thoughtful approach based on science. And I would respectfully request your aye vote.

Move the bill.

We have two witnesses here. You have a combined total of five minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Scott Faber. I'm testifying today on behalf of the Environmental Working Group. I also teach food law at Georgetown's Law school. Before joining EWG, I was the Vice President for Federal Affairs for the Consumer Brands Association.

The overwhelming scientific evidence shows that ultra processed foods have been linked to serious health harms. Processed foods are part of a healthy diet. But ultra processed foods are different from processed foods because they combine industrial ingredients and additives in ways that make our food not just delicious, but irresistible. Let me be clear.

AB 1264 does not ban UPFs. AB 1264 simply defines UPFs and makes clear that foods that are raw agricultural products, unprocessed local foods, minimally processed foods like canned beans and vegetables and pasteurized milk are not UPFs.

AB 1264 also makes clear that a food cannot be a UPF solely because salt, spices, natural seasonings or other natural colors have been added. Defining UPFS is only the first step in AB 1264.

CDPH must then work with CDE, CDFA and industry stakeholders to identify UPFs of concern and must consider whether the food is linked to serious health harms as well as whether the food has been identified as healthy by the FDA.

By directing state experts to identify UPFs of concern, AB 1264 will send the right signal to school food vendors who will be charged with distinguishing between processed foods, ultra processed foods and UPFs of concern. Only UPFs of concern will will have to be phased out of our schools and vendors will have until 2032 to comply.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. My name is Dr. Ravinder Khaira. I'm a board certified pediatrician and a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics. I'm also a Medical Director and Founding Physician for Pediatric Medical Associates of Northern California, the largest ambulatory provider of pediatric care in Northern California.

I'm here on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics in support of AB 1264. As pediatricians, we don't just see numbers, we see kids. We see how diet shapes their health, their behavior, their futures. And we're not just talking about calories, we're talking about consequences. Ultra processed foods are fueling a surge in chronic conditions among children.

Obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, anxiety, even mental health challenges like depression. These aren't distant threats. They're showing up in our exam rooms every day, even today in my offices. And the science is clear. Studies published in Lancet show a 50% increased risk of cardiovascular disease among people who consume the most ultra processed foods.

And data from the CDC and NIH confirmed that even short term exposure can lead to overeating, weight gain, behavioral issues, especially in school aged children. Yet today, nearly 2/3 of the calories our children consume come from these products. Many are served in our school cafeterias, places that should nourish children, not expose them to preventable harm.

AB 1264 offers a thoughtful phase solution. It defines ultra processed foods, directs the state to identify the most concerning foods, and gives schools to remove them. This approach aligns with the American Academy of Pediatrics core message that children deserve real access to food that is nutritious and supports their physical, emotional and cognitive development.

Schools should be safe havens, not a source of chronic disease. By passing AB 1264. We have a real opportunity to transform the nutritional environment in our schools and give our children and our kids the healthy foundation they deserve. I ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you, gentlemen. Now is the time for anyone who'd like to record their MeToo in support of this bill. Don't be shy, folks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ryan Spencer representing the California Podiatric Medical Association, the California Medical Association and the Crohn's and Clients Foundation in support. And I was also asked to read off some other members who cannot be here today.

So also in support is Calperg, the Consumer Federation of America in Chronic Disease, Consumer Reports, co sponsor of the measure National Farm to School Network, Chef Ann Foundation, A Voice for Choice Advocacy, Food and Watch- Food and Water Watch, Center for Environmental Health, Children Now Families Advocating for Chemicals and Toxic Safety and the Center for Food Safety. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good evening, Madam Chair. Taylor Triffo on behalf of a variety of agricultural associations, we'd like to gladly move to neutral and thank the author. And I'd also like to register support on behalf of the California Citrus Mutual and California Fresh Fruit Association.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Andrew Antwih here today on behalf of the office of Kat Taylor. We thank the author for long term collaboration on this issue in prior bills and we support.

Thank you.

Good evening. Kristin Zellhart, I'm with Eat Real Certified, a public health nonprofit that works with school districts across California in full support. I'm also here on behalf of Michael Jochner. He is a food service Director from Morgan Hill Unified School District. He's also in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, chair and members. Tricia Geringer, Agricultural Council of California. We've removed opposition, moved to neutral. Great respect to the offer for all. The work with the agricultural community. Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Nick Dramis. I'm a culinary supervisor or school chef for Marysville Joint Unified School District which is also a rural community. And I fully support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Josh Hagen. I'm here with as a K12 vendor for a pizza manufacturer. I am in full support of this bill. Thank you.

Hi everyone, my name is Christina Lawson. I'm the proud food service Director for Western Placer Unified School District located in Lincoln, California. And we are very much in support of this bill. Thank you very much.

Good evening. I'm Shan Bunch. I am a school food professional with Western Place for Unified School District and I am for this bill.

Thank you so much. Do we have formal opposition presentation? Thank you. You two will also have a combined five minutes.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, I'm Erin Raden on behalf of Consumer Brands Association to share our concerns with with AB 1264, we want to thank the author for his commitment to improving school nutrition in California and for his openness to continue discussions on this bill and future cleanup legislation.

We also appreciate the work of the chair and committee to move authority to CDPH and better meet the stated intent of the bill by working to limit the bill to food served or sold in schools. However, many serious concerns remain. The new broadened UPF definition restricting added sugar, saturated fat and sodium is problematic for many reasons.

The model used for this new definition is outdated. Peg sodium to calories, which will have unintended consequences and does not correlate to California's or the nation's school meal programs. Manufacturers formulate products for schools in accordance with nutritional standards established by the USDA and in alignment with FDA daily or weekly recommendations, not recommendations of other countries.

A California model should be based on the US Nutritional framework. This bill's one to one calorie to sodium ratio disproportionately penalizes low calorie foods, does not effectively identify products that actually contribute to excess sodium intake, and is in conflict with state and federal school meal standards that establish limits per day rather than per individual item.

In addition, the FDA Healthy Rule that was finalized in 2025 which is a better standard to base California laws on, whereas the framework of this bill was developed in 2014 and might actually not be up to current science?

A few other issues worth noting if this bill is about school nutrition, then why do we have an alcohol exemption? Why do we still have language allowing other public entities to enact more stringent restrictions undermining nutritional science and CDPH's process. Shouldn't we have one school nutritional standard for all students?

Lastly, if we're providing exemptions for infant formula and medical foods, they should align with the definitions in other California laws.

We look forward to continuing to work together on this important topic and respectfully request that this committee and the author commit to clean up legislation next session to address some of these issues we've outlined today and additional concerns. Thank you again.

Thank you. Thank the author, thank the chair, thank the staff. The staff consultant did a fantastic job in working this bill through since the July 18 amendments, but more needs to be done.

One of the most interesting elements of the expansive definition of UPF that's different from the July 18 version is the way non nutritive sweeteners are handled, they become UPF regardless of the caloric and nutrient contents of the other ingredients. And so we think that's an odd way of handling it.

Many- There's emerging science that shows that many of these non nutritive sweeteners are actually treated by the body just like water. Also, the author has a history in a previous legislation to distinguish and this bill actually also distinguishes between natural and synthetic in things like dyes and those areas, but it does not in the ingredients.

So we think that's an interesting thing that needs further exploration in the future. Gases. Gases are used like nitrous oxide, often in the package to replace oxygen and in the package, which leads to promote food preservation, longevity, antimicrobial contamination and freshness.

Yet if you use a gas even in packaging meat or dealing with olive oil or something in that area, it qualifies you to fall under UPF and be evaluated for UPF foods that are fortified.

It took a couple medical foods and some of those, but there's some additionally foods that are actually nutritionally fortified and we may want them to be processed and that for nutrition reasons. So those are ones that should be fermentation. Many cultural foods are fermented. Fermentation was one thing that could should be continued to be worked on.

We need to get this definition correct. While this is focused on foods, I think even the way the bill's structured, this is a health and safety code definition and will likely be referenced in future conversations.

So it's important to get this right, to commit to get it right whether this bill moves forward now and we clean it up. But it's very important to make sure that we address some of these issues because this will affect other areas as the issue matures. Thank you.

Sir, for the record, can you introduce yourself?

Yeah, sorry, jumped right into it. Dennis Albiani here on behalf of Coalition of Agricultural Food Production and Manufacturing Entities.

Thank you so much. MeToos in opposition. Please come on forward.

Good evening. Nicole Quinones on behalf of the Food Ingredient Safety Coalition, also opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members. Tim Shestick on behalf of the American Chemistry Council. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members. George Miller on behalf of the National National Pork Producers Council, having thought we had reached an agreement sponsor on the gas issue. We were, we thought we were going to be neutral, but unfortunately we must remain opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and members. Annalee Augustine here on behalf of the American Beverage Association, also opposed unless amended.

And Michael Boccadoro on behalf of the California Poultry Federation and our member- our member entities here in California. Also on the gas issue that we reached agreement on.

Thank you so much. And before I recognize the motions that we heard earlier, does any member have a question? Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to commend the author for your work on this bill. It's my understanding that you spent quite some time doing it and anyone who has accepted 50 amendments has certainly worked with everyone trying to address all the concerns.

I would just point out, however it was brought to my attention there, would this, would these changes potentially increase. And let me preface my comments by saying I'm supporting the bill. I just want to clarify a couple questions.

And then with all of us, all authors, there are times when we build on bills and there might be areas where we can continue, continue to improve. So that being said is with by having this definition, will the schools be paying more money for these types of foods?

Yeah. Thank you, Senator.

So we talked about this a lot in Education Committee and we actually had testimony, I think you've seen from some of the school food service professionals that have come in, districts that have already done this have actually reported that they have saved money by switching to some of these more natural ingredients to switching to locally grown organic type of produce.

So we actually, we talked about this issue quite a bit in Education Committee and I think the consensus here was that there was not going to be significant cost pressure on the schools.

And could you help talk about the natural non nutrition sweeteners? I guess that's a part of this.

Yeah, the natural non nutritive sweeteners. And I don't know if my witnesses want to jump in here. So this was, I guess I'll say, an issue where we engage very deeply in maybe 9-10 rounds of negotiations with various stakeholders.

We're very fortunate to be able to have some of the leading researchers in the world on this topic to help us develop this bill.

We engage with a lot of the stakeholders that you see here and also with some of our we're very fortunate to have a lot of engagement from the California Department of Public Health and from the governor's office and others.

And so this was an issue that was brought to our attention as being important to make sure that we are serving our kids food in school that is actually going to be healthy and nutritious and not harm them and interfere with their ability to learn.

And so there's a lot of conversation about how to make sure that the definition captured non nutritive sweeteners. And that's why we decided after many rounds of consultation with industry experts that the easiest way to do it was actually to list them.

So there was no confusion about exactly what we were trying to target and not target so that we wouldn't be over inclusive or under inclusive. We, we just listed the ones that the scientists and the research told us were the most important to get it.

Okay, and then my final question. Is it your intention as the author that this would remain focused on school foods or expanding into adult meals that could be considered in the future?

We have always been very clear that the intention of this Bill is focused on the food that is served in our schools. They could have introduced a bill this year that would have been more broadly targeted at ultra processed foods. That's not what we've done. We've focused here to be very specific about all of that.

And that is what we have tried to stay true to, is to really keep the conversation focused there. I know that many of the much of the feedback we got from stakeholders was concerned about hypothetical future legislation. And so we engage with them, understanding where their concerns may lie around that.

But we have been very clear that this bill is clearly about, and I think by its very text speaks only to being about food service in schools.

Okay. So with that, if the bill had not been moved, I would have been. I was planning on moving your bill. Congratulations on your hard work. And this is not an easy topic to take on. This is a big one.

And so congratulations on your efforts and look forward to you working maybe with those where there are still some outstanding items if we might continue to enhance and improve. That's always a good thing. Thank you very much.

Senator Durazo.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you. I want to thank the author and communicate on behalf of LULAC League of United Latin American Citizens for the work that you've done. They are very appreciative of that work and also because they raise the issues that are really important when you're trying to be both culturally sensitive and also nutritious and affordable.

And sometimes that could be misinterpreted. And instead of providing affordable and nutritious food, they could be taken off the list of healthy foods because of the way that it's defined. So this issue of defining these processed foods is really important to the community. So I'm glad you addressed that and I hope continue to address it.

Yeah, I appreciate that, Senator. And I would note, I mean, one of the things that the bill spells out at the beginning is that what we are targeting foods that are healthy, good quality, culturally appropriate and affordable. So those are the metrics that we're using here.

Thank you, Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the author for really working to make sure that this came together in the right way. And the reason why I say that I think I've been here longer than anybody since 2010 and everybody up here seems to have like, good ideas, 100% clean air.

But there's no consideration of how it impacts people in the State of California. Doesn't matter what it costs, doesn't matter what happens, doesn't matter how it's taken care of. You thoughtfully came up with this and again, healthy food for kids. Who wouldn't want to support that?

But in the original language, it would disqualify, you know, simple people doing salted pistachios, roasted salted almonds, which my grandkids love. And it's a healthy snack. And when we brought that to your attention, you immediately saw that your bill needed to be amended.

And when we brought another amendment to you that we weren't aware of, that industry was you immediately address that. You have been one of the most. I made the chair, she kind of got upset because she wasn't my favorite. But you have been the most genuinely, just extremely genuous- genuine when you have worked on this bill.

And it's like my colleague said, it's a very hard piece of legislation. And I get it. We all want kids to eat healthy. I have a school grow academy in my district where they grow, you know, they have salad bars and they have, I mean, I think at Thanksgiving they get a corn dog.

And that's the only time they get any type of processed food, food whatsoever. But they get nuts and, you know, fresh fruits and it works. And you walk on campus and these kids are not obese. They're healthy. They have healthy classes at night where they're. And it's a, you know, it's in a Hispanic ARVN.

It's an ARVN, right? 95% Hispanic Latino farm worker population. And so I can tell you that you have, you have been over the top, a quality Legislator to work with, coming from somebody from the far right side of the aisle. And you working on this issue has been a tremendous honor to work with you.

So thank you and I look forward to supporting this bill now and on the floor.

Thank you very much, Senator.

Might be the Assembly Gabriel Lefez Committee.

It's the only place in the building.

Senator- Senator Dr. Weber Pierson.

Thank you, chair. I also want to thank the author for his tremendous work on this bill and working with supporters and opposition to try to make it the best bill possible. This is an extremely, an extremely important issue. What our children are seeing, what they are putting in their bodies is causing significant harm.

And I think our pediatrician stated it best. The amount of chronic illnesses that our children are having now are things that we never even dreamed of as kids. And when we were in medical school, we were taught were adult conditions that we're now seeing in children.

And I think I heard from the opposition that, you know, the US has standards and we shouldn't be looking at other countries and basing what we do here.

However, when you look at the US and you see that the US has higher obesity rates and higher rates of diabetes and other countries, and what that says is that what we're doing is not right. It's not right for the people who live here now and for the future.

And so focusing on our children, creating good nutritional habits early on, changing their taste buds so that they like the healthier things and don't go for the- for the ultra processed or the high, the things that are high in sugar, is extremely important to creating healthy adults and healthy communities. So I commend you for this.

Very, very excited about the language and where, where you all have gone. There is no perfect bill, but this is close to it. So thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator Rubio.

Sorry for my delay. I had a committee hearing. I just want to say something about Mr. Gabriel. One of the things that I often say is like, no, no one works harder than you in terms of trying to bring people together. You're relentless, which I appreciate. I think you know what I mean.

And just, you know, when I take- took a peek at all the amendments that you took, it just really does speak. It's a testament on how much you care about the issue and how hard you work with others. And I always appreciate it. So I will not belabor the point because I know we all have to go.

But just want to say that the one thing I do know is that you care very much and you work really hard to get to a good place where everyone can agree. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Any other love letters to the assembly? Okay. Seeing no other assemblymember, this has been a long road for you. This is your third Senate Committee hearing on this. And you heard in EQ some of the concerns that I had there, not kind of knowing that it might come to this committee. And you addressed them.

You know, we thought the, I thought the definition was a bit too broad. If the focus was on kids focus on kids specifically. And you took that amendment while there's still concerns. And I know not everything was able to come to the table. Department still has some issues. I can't make any commitments.

That's up to the author to, you know, continue conversations how he sees fit. But we were able to condense it to really make it clear that we were focused on schools specifically in the meals there. And at the end of the day, the department's going to go through their regulatory process.

Stakeholder input is going to still be considered. We're making a list that they can look at and then pull from there to put in those two definitions that you've created. Yes, I, you know, some look at it still being super broad.

I can see that and agree that it might be still super broad, but do agree that it's a much needed bill. Very supportive. And I know you and your staff are now experts and have had heartburn, Alicia, on this bill for a long time. But I thank you for your work on this. I'll entertain a motion.

I think I had my Vice Chair moved. Senator Valladares on this. Please close assemblymember.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I just want to thank all the Senators for your overly generous comments on this. And I will say, this bill, to me, feels like the ultimate group project. And so I want to thank all of you who have helped to make this bill stronger.

You, Madam Chair, your consultant, for really thoughtful and helpful feedback to all the different Senators from different parts of the state representing different interests who help us to think about these issues to the opposition. I'm very grateful to the people who came forward to the table and helped us to understand their perspectives better.

I have a newfound appreciation for the people who grow our food, for the people who pick our food, for the people who process our food. They're doing something that's really important for all of us. And I'm really grateful.

And I do want to thank, just with a moment of personal privilege, my staff, who worked really hard on this, our, our fellow Genevieve, and also to Scott Faber from EWG, who has been a partner every step of the way.

So I am just appreciative to all of you for the comments, but more for that, to helping us make this a better bill and would respectfully request your aye vote.

Perfect. The motion in front of us is due pass, moved by our Vice Chair. Please call the roll.

[roll call].

Assemblymember that currently enjoys a call of 10 to 0. We're missing one member. We're gonna maybe put it on call. I'm not sure.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Thank you, everybody.

Sorry. Sorry I kept you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, Senator. Thank you so much. Well, two more steps.

Once an advancement, always an advancement.

Let's open the roll call on file item one. If we could just keep it quiet a bit. Committee is still going. If we could keep it quiet or step outside. Thank you. Senator Wiener. That Bill is out 10 to zero. That concludes the business of the day. Senate Committee on Health has adjourned.