Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome. We are convening as the environmental safety and toxic materials committee. Sergeants, please call absent members. So we will be hearing five measures today with one measure on consent.

Briefly, to get us going, we'll review our policies for testimony in today's hearing, which are as follows. Primary witnesses and support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a support position with the committee. Primary witnesses and opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee as well. Primary witness testimony is limited to two witnesses in support 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 wanna note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website. So, again, thank you. We'll get underway. I don't believe we have a a quorum right now, but welcome to my vice chair.

So we'll go ahead and hold off on the consent calendar, get into our, file item bills, and then establish a quorum, when we can. So file item one, that we're excited to hear about, Assemblymember Rambula, come on up, to present your bill, ab 1,600, dealing with disadvantaged communities and farm workers.

Thank you, mister chair and members. I wanna begin by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill. California's agricultural economy generates a $100,000,000,000 annually with an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 farm workers statewide.

Despite their essential role, farm worker communities face overlapping climate, environmental, and economic burdens, including increased exposure to extreme heat, to wildfire smoke, to pesticide drift, and to cumulative agricultural chemical exposure, as well as aging and dilapidated housing stock, high energy cost burdens, and contaminated or unreliable drinking water systems, and limited transit and mobility services. To help these impacted communities address these types of standards, the state has adopted a climate investment framework known as disadvantaged communities or DACs.

And there's funding through the greenhouse gas reduction fund that allows us to help those same communities. These communities are eligible to receive funding that can be used to address the aging and substandard housing stock among other uses. DACs are identified through the California environmental screen, and this mapping tool analyzes a set of factors to help to identify the communities most burdened by climate change. In some regions of the state, farmworker households often do not qualify for DAC based investments despite documented climate exposure risks.

The results are that the very workers who sustain California's food supply are frequently excluded from the state's climate equity investments.

A b 1,600 crafts a narrowly tailored designation for farmworker housing as DACs to allow them to access funding to modernize aging and substandard housing so that they can better confront the climate related hazards they face. With me to testify in support of ab 1,600 is Dora Mendivil Angulo, program and fiscal administrator for La Cupertiva Campesina De California.

Welcome. And if we can just hold up one Sec, we are going to establish a quorum right now.

For the purposes of establishing a quorum, Connolly?

Here.

Connolly, here. Ellis? Here. Ellis, here. Bauer Kehind?

Here. Bauer Kehind here. Castillo, Lee McKenner? Here. McKenner, here.

And Pappen? Here. Pappen, here. We have a quorum.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Thank you very much. My name is Dora Mendivilangulo on behalf of La Coprativa Campesina De California, proud sponsors of AB 1,600. For over fifty years, we have worked alongside farmworker families throughout California. The very workers who sustained our state's over 100,000,000,000 agricultural economy. These communities are on the front lines of climate change, facing extreme heat, wildfire smoke, pesticides exposures, and substandard housing.

Yet despite these realities, many farmworker communities are inadvertently excluded from the state's climate investments.

We know these investments work because we have seen it firsthand.

Through, like, through the low income weatherization program, La Coppertiva has helped deliver energy efficiency upgrades and solar installations to farmworker households throughout the state. The program has weatherized more than 2,500 houses and installed nearly a thousand solar systems, reducing energy bills, improving home safety, and lowering emissions. For families, this means going from hundreds of dollars in monthly energy cost to a fraction of that while living in safer, more comfortable, energy efficient homes. But here's the problem.

Many farmworker communities do not have access relies on tools designed for urban pollution, rural farmworker communities are often left out entirely.

AB 1,600 provides a targeted solution. It does not dismantle existing tools. It simply clarifies in statute that farmworker communities must be included in the definition of disadvantaged communities. By doing so, this bill will expand access to energy efficient program, climate resilience investments, clean transportation, and safe water infrastructure, resources that directly improve health, reduce cost, and strengthen communities. At its core, ab 1,600 is about aligning California's climate investments with the people that need the most.

Farm workers feed California. They should not be left behind in California's climate future. We respectfully ask for your aye vote on ab 1,600, and thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional folks in support of the bill, come on up.

Alejandro Solis, on behalf of Los Amigos de La Comida, Center for Employment Training, Central Valley Opportunity Center, California Human Development, and Proteus Incorporated, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses? Okay. Why don't we move to is there any opposition to ab 1,600? Seeing none, including any members of the public.

Back to the dais, questions from committee members. So we have motion, Bauer Kehans, second, Pappen. Questions, comments? Not seeing any. Alright.

Well, thank you so much and for your steadfast work on behalf of, Farmworkers. This does have an eye, Raco. Would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chair. I respectfully ask for an eye vote.

Thank you. Why don't we go ahead and call the roll?

This is file item number one, ab 1,600 authored by assembly member Arambula. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye.

Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Bauer Kehan?

Aye.

Bauer Kehan, aye. Castillo Lee McKenna? Aye. McKenna, aye. And Pappan?

Pappan, aye.

Four to one. And we'll that passes will hold it open for APSA members. And we will I see Assemblymember Pellerin in the audience. Why don't you come on up? This will be file item four, ab 2462.

But we can do that later. And this deals with recalled products. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, chair members. In 2008, California passed 1860 to make sure unsafe or recalled products are taken off the market and that consumers are notified. The intent was simple, protect public health and keep dangerous products out of circulation. But in practice, that system is not working the way it was intended.

Instead of taking products back, manufacturers are often directing consumers to dispose of recalled items at local waste facilities or recycling centers. That means the cost and responsibility are being shifted away from manufacturers and onto local governments, taxpayers, and even nonprofit thrift stores who can't resell these items and are stuck trying to are stuck paying to dispose of them. As a result, recalled products are still showing up in recycling streams, landfills, and secondhand markets, creating public health risks, environmental concerns, and unnecessary costs for local agencies.

At the same time, product recalls are increasing significantly. Millions of unsafe items are being recalled each year, and many are never returned to the manufacturers.

When products are recalled, the responsibility should remain with the companies that made and sold them, not with taxpayers or local agencies. AB twenty four sixty two clarifies that manufacturers must take back recalled products at no cost, not just to consumers or retailers, but also to recycling centers, waste facilities, and thrift stores. This bill also strengthens enforcement by giving CalRecycle authority to issue administrative penalties when companies fail to comply.

And with me to testify and support are Joanne Brash, director of advocacy at the California Product Stewardship Count Council, and Jordan Wells, legislative advocate for CSAC.

Good afternoon, chair Connolly and members of the committee. My name is Jordan Wells, and I'm here on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, which represents all of California's 58 counties and proud cosponsor of AB twenty four sixty two. I'd like to thank Assemblymember Pellerin for authoring this important measure and to the committee staff for their thoughtful analysis. AB twenty four sixty two would meaningfully improve an existing law designed to protect consumers and hold manufacturers accountable for dangerous product recalls.

In 2008, the legislature passed a b eighteen sixty, California's product recall safety and protection act.

While a b eighteen sixty requires recalled products to be returned and disposed to at no cost at to consumers or retailers, manufacturers are often unresponsive and fail to facilitate their safe return, shifting the burden to local waste facilities. Unfortunately, the 2000 and late 2008 law did not anticipate this failure to fulfill manufacturers' responsibilities, and recycling and waste facilities were not included in the entities eligible to use this process.

As a result, local jurisdictions, which are already under operating under significant financial and operational strain, ultimately bear the end of life management costs, not the manufacturers. AB twenty four sixty two would remedy this issue by ensuring recycling and waste facilities as well as thrift stores are eligible entities under the state's product recall safety and protection act.

The bill would also improve enforceability by updating the definition of manufacturer to reflect the tiered definition that it has become standard in modern producer responsibility statutes and increases the fines for noncompliance to match current day penalties.

For nearly two decades, these critical gaps have undermined the law's effectiveness. And for these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote on eb 2462. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair, committee. My name is Joanne Brash. I'm director of advocacy for the California Product Stewardship Council. We're a nonprofit that advocates for EPR, extended producer responsibility and product stewardship laws.

And what we have found successful, as sponsoring bills on medicine, needles, and propane, and textiles that working with the regulated community is how these programs are are most successful. Communication have been in place for several decades. In 2008, statewide requirements by set by 1860, added some additional requirements for those products that have been sold in California. Those additional requirements were to, reimbursement processes and communication requirements that are faster than the federal requirements. Recalls have increased in frequency, volume, and toxicity.

In 2025 alone, there were 422 federal recalls covering three 34,500,000 units, estimating about 5,000,000 of those units here in California. And these recall recalls happen because there are unsafe components, unsafe design features, and a lot of these products cover batteries, electronics, mattresses that are going into established programs. And these products have increased cost, increased administrative burdens, and increased risk because of these unsafe features of the product. Effectively externalizes the private liability onto unfunded public mandates, forcing the program funders to, basically, absorb these costs.

AB two four six two updates that 2008 law by delegating oversight authority, expanding the list of collection sites eligible for reimbursement, and updating the penalties and enforcement to match some of the other programs that are oversought, seeding by CalRecycle that have passed since 2008.

So just making sure there's cohesiveness in the CalRecycle enforcement procedures. So it really uses real world experiences, to inform and update to an established program that's really important this works. Recalled products is considered one of the original EPR programs. And in a time when we need EPR to really work, cleaning up this program is a really important step. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak in support, come on up.

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

Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste in support.

John Kennedy, Rural County representatives of California and also mutually on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition?

Afternoon. Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association representing a diverse cross section of manufacturers across the state, respectfully in opposition to AB twenty four sixty two in its current form. We appreciate the author's intent to strengthen consumer safety and improve the effectiveness of product recalls, and we also want to acknowledge and thank the author's office and the sponsors for their engagement.

While we support the goal of ensuring, recalled products are safely removed from circulation, we have several concerns and are seeking clarification in the following areas, which are also noted in the committee analysis. First, it's the interaction with existing recall logistic systems.

Manufacturers currently utilize reverse logistics sys reverse logistics centers and other third party systems to manage recall collection, segregation, and disposition. AB twenty four sixty two expands the authority return points to include several other entities noted in the bill. However, the bill does not specify how these newly authorized collection points are intended to integrate with existing recall logistic systems or whether they are expected to operate in parallel or in coordination with the manufacturer directed recall processes.

Clarification may be warranted to avoid duplication or inconsistent hand handling pathways. Second is enforcement authority and regulatory coordination.

The analysis identifies the need to clarify and respect respective enforcement roles of CalRecycle and DTSC, particularly where recalled products may also be classified as hazardous waste under the hazardous waste control law. Given the overlapping jurisdictions consideration, CMT believes additional specificity regarding agency coordination, enforcement, sequencing, and of applicable standards would improve implementation certainty. And third, secondary market and nontraditional collection points.

While the bill extends obligation to thrift retail stores and other reuse entities, tracking recalled products within secondary markets present operational challenges due to distributed inventory flows and limited traceability mechanisms. Additionally, clarification may be helpful regarding expectations for identifications, segregation, and return processes in these settings, particularly where product origin or recall status may not be readily verifiable at point of receipt.

Lastly, penalty structure and compliance administration. As noted, CalRecycle, the bill gives authority to CalRecycle to impose administrative penalties. The committee analysis also notes concerns regarding the potential disproportionality where compliance issues arise from logistical or third party factors, Clarification regarding enforcement discretion, cure periods, or safe harbor provisions may assist in ensuring penalties are applied consistently in relation to feasible compliance pathways.

CMT remains committed to continued engagement with the author on these technical and logistical issues with clarification in these areas, particularly regarding system integration, interagency coordination, secondary market implementation, and enforcement parameters, the bill may be better positioned to achieve its state stated objective objectives in a workable manner across the existing recall and waste management frameworks. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers in opposition? Come on.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Edwin Borbon on behalf of the Baby Safety Alliance, a trade association of juvenile product manufacturers. Also respectfully opposed for the reasons outlined by CMTA. Also, it's unclear whether the legislation allows for refunds, repairs, or replacement as allowed by federal law.

So, another point of clarification. Thank you.

Thank you. Whenever you bring it back, questions? Assemblymember.

Yes. Good afternoon. I have a couple of questions about implementation and readiness. What's the realistic timeline for implementation, and what benchmarks should we expect in one year?

I can have my expert reply

to that.

That's strictly through the chair. Yeah.

I mean, implementation would take mine a couple months maximum. I mean, these processes have been in place since the seventies, and really the California extra steps have been in place for almost twenty years. So we're really just adding more entities who can file into the process, but not changing the process. So the file to request a reimbursement doesn't change, and the and the process for determining the how to reimburse doesn't change.

That's okay. And how will you guys measure success? Reduced illegal disposal, cost savings, compliant rates, like, you know I'm gonna support you guys today, but as we're doing these bills, I always wanna see how we're measuring the success of it. So how are you guys measured success, and what's your benchmarks for that?

I think the easiest benchmark for success would be the reduced cost and burden to these entities who are adding so secondhand thrifts and the recycling centers. So we're seeing in just this summer alone, the Anchor brand battery recalls, we're seeing them show up at every event, every location. So if we can reduce that cost burden, it would be a really clear success.

Do you guys collect data? Like, are you guys collecting that data so that next year, this time, maybe we could come back and see see how it's working?

Yeah. Because during the the reimbursement process and as it was mentioned,

the the refund repair replacement that is decided at the

federal level, sometimes these, federal level, sometimes these, they need receipts or evidence of the disposal. So as local government are being forced to change their processes, we're also getting better data from these new process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Additional questions? Seeing none, assembly member, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you. I appreciate the thoughtful bill. You know, I believe it's reasonable for manufacturers to be responsible for ensuring, their recalled product is safely returned to them. I think this is a good step. Sounds like there'll be some additional

And we'll continue to work conversations.

Absolutely. And and it is and join a I recommendation from the chair today. Do I have a motion on this bill? Pappen, and second Bauer Kayhan. And this is do passed to the committee on appropriations.

Please call the roll.

Alright. This is file item number four AB 2462 offered by assembly member Pellerin. The motion is do passed to the make committee on appropriations. Connolly?

Aye.

Connolly, aye. Ellis?

Not really.

Bauer Kehan? Bauer Kehan, aye. Castillo, Lee, McKinner. McKinner, aye. And Pappan.

Pappan, aye.

Thank you very much.

Great. That passes, but we will hold it open for absentee members. Thanks again. Alright. Looks like we have assembly member Berman joining us.

Come on up. Wow. You already got a motion.

I don't. I don't.

This is file item two, ab 19 O one on children's diapers ingredient disclosure.

Alright.

K. You got a motion in second.

Now I'm relaxed. Good afternoon, chair and colleagues. Word got out, that I'm a new dad, and so here we are. I

think this was Already diving right into diving. That's exactly right. Okay. Exactly right.

A v 19 o one would require manufacturers of children's diapers to clearly label all ingredients on both the products package and online. As a new dad, I have a greater appreciation for how important it is for parents to make informed decisions when it comes to the health and wellness health and wellness of their child. Recent testing shows many diapers are made with ingredients linked to health and environmental concerns.

Given this, the lack of an industry wide transparency around diaper ingredients prevents Californians from making the best decision for their families when buying the one thing that is touching their baby's skin every minute of their child's life for the first couple of years. Some manufacturers already voluntarily disclosed their ingredients showing that this requirement is feasible for businesses to comply with.

To ensure transparency across the board, AB 1901 would require all children's diapers, all children's diaper manufacturers to disclose ingredients online by 01/01/2028 and on the outermost packaging by 01/01/2029. Showing parents the list of ingredients allows parents to make an informed decision that is right for their family. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I'm joined today by Susan Little, legislative director at Environmental Working Group, and Kelly Hardy, senior managing director of Health and Research at Children Now.

Thank you very much. My name is Susan Little. I'm the California legislative director for the Environmental Working Group, an AB nineteen oh one cosponsor. First, we'd like to thank Assemblymember Berman for authoring this bill, which, as he said, will provide California parents with the data they need to choose diapers for their children.

Contain harmful substances, like hormone disrupting phthalates and volatile organic compounds, or synthetic musks, which are linked to reproductive harm and cancer, or halogenated organic compounds which are linked to reproductive neurotoxic, immunotoxic, endocrine, behavioral and carcinogenic effects or many other chemicals associated with reproductive and developmental harm that ends or severe rashes and asthma.

With these when these ingredients sit next to a baby's skin, the infant is especially vulnerable to the chemicals effects. The Centers for Disease Control says babies thin skin more easily absorbs chemicals and causes babies to be more susceptible to chemical impacts. Despite these risks, the Federal Government does not require manufacturers to disclose diaper ingredients to anyone. New York, however, has required full disclosure. As of December 2025, manufacturers selling diapers in the state must disclose all intentionally added ingredients on diaper packaging.

And New York's law does not shield any intentionally added or confidential ingredients from public view. California's parents, caregivers, and children deserve the same. And with me today is Sydney Swanson, EWG's science analyst, who can also answer further questions during the discussion about diapers and their ingredients. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Kelly Hardy with Children Now. We're very pleased to cosponsor 190 AB 1901 in partnership with the other cosponsors and with assembly member Berman. AB 1901 is a pro kid bill. It makes transparent information about diapers easily accessible so families can make informed choices.

The FDA doesn't regulate children's diapers as medical devices, which is how it regulates adult incontinence supplies. Instead, baby diapers fall under the purview of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which requires diapers to be tested for lead but doesn't require manufacturers to test for a variety of other harmful harmful chemicals or disclosed ingredients. Babies spend, as everyone has said, $24.07 in those diapers for depends. Right? We

Hopefully. Two years?

I many of us, yeah. Well, I'll I have a different experience with my kids. So and children and youth with special health care needs often need to use diapers longer, and those are children who may be more vulnerable to these impacts. When we hear about protecting families from unnecessary concerns in quotes, it sounds paternalistic at best in a bad way. The lack of reliable transparent information is what makes caregivers fearful not having the information.

Parents can be trusted to make informed decisions for their families. Please vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional speakers in support of the bill?

Christopher Saenz from the Department of Consumer Federation of California.

Good afternoon. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy. Also, on behalf of Clean Earth for Kids, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Environmental Health Services, Physicians for Social Responsibility San Francisco, and CalPurg, all in support of the bill. Thank you.

Committee chair and members. Kai Clawson on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in strong support, also as a parent. Thank you, Arthur. Bye.

Any witnesses in opposition?

Yes. Thank you, Chair Connolly and members of the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name's Edwin Bourbon. I'm here on behalf of the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products within a post unless amended position on Assembly Bill 1901. BHP represents manufacturers of absorbent hygiene products such as menstrual products, diapers, and incontinence garments and pads, and companies that supply materials for those products representing over 85% of the market for absorbent high personal hygiene products in North America.

We wanna be clear that BHP members do take the safety of consumers as our utmost priority, and this commitment to safety goes down to the level of ingredients that are present in our products. However, to ensure that manufacturers can comply with the letter of the law, we are requesting amendments to align a b 19 o one with California's menstrual product ingredient disclosure law. In 2020, the state enacted the menstrual products right to no act requiring manufacturers to list all intentionally added ingredients contained in menstrual products.

The menstrual product right to know act contains provisions that allow sufficiently time to change labels when there's an ingredient update, an ingredient hierarchy that lists ingredients using standard nomenclature that's broadly understood by consumers, administrative penalties for noncompliant, and protections for confidential business information. Many people are likely consumers of both menstrual products and children's diapers and often simultaneously, Given that both our absorbent hygiene products comprise of similar materials, we recommend having similar compliance requirements for both products.

We urge removing the provisions under 19 o one to disclose the chemical abstract service number, and instead use the hierarchy of ingredients outlined in the California menstrual product disclosure law, which would assist the consumer by having a single regulatory structure in a format that's familiar to the consumer.

BHP also request the inclusion of an ongoing eighteen month window for label changes on the outermost package due to ingredient updates and a six month window to update the list of ingredients online, both provisions coming directly from that menstrual product ingredient disclosure law. Packaging changes generally require a time frame of eighteen months to be implemented. Packaging changes for the entire US market generally require a time frame of eighteen months to be implemented. And as manufacturers continue to innovate and change the

ingredients used in products, any BHP also requests removing language allowing the attorney general district to BHP also requests removing language allowing the attorney general, district attorneys, and civil courts to pursue legal action on manufacturers for noncompliance and instead align aligning the enforcement provisions with similar ingredient disclosure laws in California by maintaining authority for administrative penalties by DTSC. And last, I would just highlight that a b 19 o one does not have protections for confidential business information known as CBI.

Absent inclusion of protections, for CBI, companies may be required to publicly legitimate CBI compromising proprietary information and that, and negatively impacting the health of those businesses. Further, in some instances, product manufacturers are legally bound through nondisclosure agreements with their material suppliers creating tension between compliance with this law and existing contractual obligations. Product safety is a top priority

And just in every number. Well over three minutes.

Okay. Yes. Now we would like to align to both the management product ingredient disclosure law. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, chair

and members. Nicole Quiniones on behalf of the Fragrance Creators Association. Our members include fragrance ingredient suppliers, fragrance formulators, and the consumer product manufacturers. Goal. Parents do deserve to know what's in the products that they are using on their children.

We are not opposed to transparency. We're just here to, in our view, we believe make it stronger by aligning the disclosure pieces in this bill with, the cleaning product right to no act of 2017 as well as the menstrual product right to no act of 2020 and the cosmetic fragrance and flavor ingredient right to no act of 2020.

These laws were developed with input from consumer advocates, including the environmental working group and industry and a number of other stakeholders, and, you know, has been adopted three times as I mentioned. So we believe it'd be a workable framework in this instance as well, for a couple of reasons. First, it ensures that any ingredient on any of the 22 designated hazard list must be disclosed.

Those any ingredient cannot be claimed as CBI, if it is on one of those lists. And we believe this creates, an enforceable clear floor that is, used across all manufacturers. Second, it requires disclosure of all fragrance allergens at concentrations as low as 10 parts per million. That's a rigorous threshold, which we think is especially relevant for diapers, which, again, are in constant contact with sensitive skin. Again, it ensures that these ingredients cannot be claimed confidential business information.

And thirdly, it creates consistency across manufacturers. So when you're comparing different diaper products in the store, you can be confident that they are both interpreting the law the same way due to that specificity. Additionally, manufacturers can invest in one robust compliance system that works across all product categories. So to be clear, anything claimed as confidential business information under those bills must be disclosed by its common name. So it's not just hidden entirely.

It must be indicated on the label and on the website by its common name and is also subject to an audit by the attorney general. So and again, I, you know, just wanna reiterate that it would require the disclosure of any hazard ingredient on those lists, which are updated consistently and over time. And also there's a number of fragrance free diapers out there. Thank you.

So with that, I would just say we are opposed unless amended, but look forward to working with the author and just would put a quick me too in for the California Chamber of Commerce.

So it's also opposed unless amended.

You. Additional opposition in from the public?

Elizabeth Esquivel of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also a opposed and less amended position. Thank you.

Thanks. Seeing no other, we'll bring it back to committee. Questions? Yeah.

I'm sorry. So many questions today. I I just I talked to the the author already. I appreciate this bill, and it's it's really cute. I really love it.

But we don't want to I do agree with the manufacturers about the trade secrets. I know that other products, they list the very harmful products, and they don't list all the ingredients. I know that the author is thoughtful, and I'm gonna give you my support today. But I know

I'm hopefully, you'll work with the with the stakeholders on this.

You bet. I appreciate it. Definitely, we'll continue to have conversations with stakeholders. You know, we're not asking we're not trying to do anything in this bill that that a lot of companies aren't already doing. And so there are a lot of companies that already disclose all the ingredients that they use on on the the product manufacturing or on the the the products also on on the websites.

There are a lot that don't. For instance, my wife and I are not gonna throw any companies under the bus, but my my wife and I were using diapers that I wasn't aware of of this issue, or of some of the potential harms. And I went out to the garage, and I looked in the box. Nothing. And and so we changed the type of diapers that we're using.

And I think it's important that we actually provide the the the real information for for parents, for consumers to be able to evaluate. And so, you know, putting something like adhesive, which is like the common name that's used, for some of these products, that that doesn't tell a parent anything, as opposed to telling them the actual ingredients, the different chemicals that are used to to make that adhesive. And so definitely keep on having conversations with all stakeholders. Absolutely.

You know, wanna don't I I I'm not trying to do anything that is overly onerous for business, but I don't wanna do I don't wanna water the bill down so much that there can be huge loopholes that still leave parents in the dark about these really important things they're putting on the babies.

What about the, the alignment piece that we heard about?

With the other with prior law? We all stand on the shoulders of giants. And in this instance, the giant is Cristina Garcia, who was a former colleague of mine, you know, who authored the menstrual product right to know act, back in 2020. But we also all learn from bills that we pass.

And once they're implemented, we we learn that sometimes those bills weren't as strong as they could have been, or a certain language in those bills creates loopholes, that that when in effect, don't really accomplish the goals that we're trying to accomplish.

And and so, I think that while the menstrual product right to know act and and some of the other legislation that was mentioned, it was important legislation at the time. We've learned in implementation, and and we've learned that some of those provisions have fallen short in providing true transparency for consumers. And so, you know, we we should always, I think, be trying to make things, you know, and better make things better and improve them as we go, and and that's our goal this bill.

Senate member.

Yeah. Thank you. Seeing as I have teenagers, I will not benefit from this bill, but perhaps my grandkids will. But I really I really appreciate this. And I think it's, it is about consumers knowing and making choice.

And I think that that's a really important distinction. Often in this committee, we hear bills that ban things and we hear bills that give consumers power and you're giving consumers power. And I think that's a really important thing to do. And I trust you to work through this. I also recommend now that you're a parent, you not join this committee because you'll learn everything is going to cause some harm to your child and you can't even wash them with soap and so you give up.

But, I appreciate the effort.

Well, you just give me the CliffsNotes of whatever.

No. You don't want

me to know

what I'm telling you.

that we

The day

heard Bill about soap,

I was like, that's it.

I know what to do.

My kids are gonna stay.

So, but this is really important. And I do think, you know, as you said, our babies are wearing these around the clock. I mean, this is definitely it's like tampons. Right? I you know, that is something that we put into our bodies.

And so what is in these products is causing impacts to our babies who are their skin is so beautiful and sensitive. And so appreciate you looking at not only for your own son, but for all of California's babies.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none. I think we already have a motion in second. Assembly member.

Yes.

Well, I guess it'll help us enough to go back to cloth diapers.

I know. I know there was a big one for cloth diapers.

That was kind of all. Definitely back

in line.

I appreciate your efforts.

So folks warned me ahead of time not to even not to even try that, and we did not. So there's enough challenges with a newborn.

If you'd like to

close. No. Respectfully ask for your eye vote.

We'll definitely continue having conversations with stakeholders about the bill.

And I appreciate that. And, obviously, your lived experience, but just the the right of parents and caregivers to know, particularly in those crucial first couple years and really your approach, kind of as our colleagues said, the consumer's right to know perspective. So I appreciate you doing some additional work on it. We have a motion in second. This is do passed to the committee on appropriations, if we can have a roll call.

This is file item number two, ab 1901 authored by assembly member Berman. The motion is do passed the committee on appropriations. Connelly?

Aye.

Connelly, aye. Ellis?

Pass the

line. Bauer Kehan. Aye. Bauer Kehan, aye. Castillo, Lee McKenna.

Aye.

McKenna, aye. And Pappan. Aye. Pappan, aye.

That passes, and we will leave the roll open for absent members.

Thanks, everyone.

Yep. Why don't we go ahead and take up the consent calendar at this time? And then Assemblymember Papan, are you ready on your bill? Okay. Let's do consent.

And this is on one item, AB 2086.

On the proposed consent calendar is item number six, ab 20 86.

We need a motion and second on consent.

So moved.

Travis. Okay. I have a motion and second.

Alright. File item number six ab 2086 authored by Assembly Member Ellis. The motion is do passed to the Assembly Judiciary Committee on recommendation to the consent calendar. Connolly? Aye.

[Roll call]

Consent passes, and we'll leave that open as well. Okay. We have Assemblymember Papan and ready to go.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'm here today to present a bill about keeping up with the times.

And this is bio item three for the rec.

That's right. AB 2380, which raises a maximum fee that a board of supes can charge to support operations of the county's agricultural commissioner. So let me tell you a little bit just briefly about the import of AG commissioners in each county.

They played a critical role in protecting agricultural, commercial, and residential settings from invasive pests.

Agricultural commissioners offices administer local pesticide use enforcement programs, which include issuing permits, conducting inspections, investigating pesticide misuse complaints, enforcing worker safety standards, and maintaining local pesticide registration records.

These programs are designed to prioritize environmental protection, worker safety, and public health. They really do serve a, you know, very, crucial need even though we might not pay a whole lot of attention to it at any given day.

But to fund pesticide enforcement activities, counties recover costs through annual reg fee registration fees collected from pest control professionals. The problem is most of those fees haven't been updated since the nineteen eighties. A few of them in 2000, but most of them have been around since the eighties.

Result, counties aren't really generating sufficient funds, or revenue to support these critical oversight activities. So 2380 addresses this underfunding issue by allowing counties to adjust fees to better reflect inflation increased cost of the crucial programs that they administer.

With me today is Matt Seiverling on behalf of the County AG Commissioners and Sealers Association.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Matthew Seiverling on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association. As stated, we're here today to attempt to, allow counties to recover some costs for administering some very critical programs.

These programs ensure legal authorization and compliance with various pesticide laws in our counties and in our state, protect public health and the environment, support local oversight and enforcement, and facilitate accountability and traceability to ensure that when and if something does

go wrong or there are questions about certain applications within the counties, we know who is there to do it.

We know how to get a hold of them, and we know how to enforce, enforce pesticide laws and, potentially penalties on them when and if we do find issues.

So, we do appreciate, the the committee's consideration of allowing the counties to recover these costs. Again, it has not been done in decades, so we're here today to to ask for that and and respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional speakers in support? Not seeing any. How about in opposition? Also not seen any.

Questions from committee Members? It's like we're good to go. Vice Chair.

So when I first seen this, you know, I'm the one that's always complaining and moaning about extra fees and over regulation. And, you know, I'm in Kern County. I have a pistachio ranch. And we go into Kern County, and they provide us our permit safety regulations. They are underpaid.

So, Assembly Member, I wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward. This is an easy an easy yes. So thank you.

This is an easy support for me because we they take such good care of us and and the elements of safety and and our guys go in and and get permits and they have to go through a class. Safety is so important in the pesticide world.

Thank you for the support.

Well done. And and I would echo that. And, obviously, our local regulators need to have the funds to do this important work. So thank you for flagging this issue, addressing it. Would you like to close?

Respect the request an Aye vote. Great.

Thank you.

And this is an Aye recommendation. We do need a motion and second. We have a motion and a second. This is to be adopted to the or to be moved to the assembly floor, if we can have a roll call.

Alright. This is file item number three, AB2380 authored by Assembly Member Papan. The motion is to be adopted to the assembly floor. [Roll Call]

That bill passes. We will leave the roll open for absent members. We do have one more, bill scheduled, from Assemblymember Hadwick. We can get in touch with her.

Alright. We have Assembly Member Hadwick.

Third bill today. So

No problem. File item five, AB2667 dealing with vapes and household hazardous waste.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I first really like to apologize for my tardiness. This is the first time I've

been late. So it's been a crazy day. I would like to thank the Chair of the committee staff for working with me on this critical issue.

Teenagers and adults in America are buying roughly 12 million disposable vapes per month, and four and a half million are thrown away every second. Nicotine is a highly addictive substance, and early exposure increases the likelihood of long term addiction and adverse health outcomes.

As a mom of teenagers, I fought the vaping crisis with my own children. We don't yet have the research to know the full damage that vaping will have on our youth. Rural areas are seeing even higher statistics. In my schools, almost every kid has tried it,

and half of them are addicted. When we ask kids what percentage of their school was vaping, they almost always said about 80%. When I ask parents that same question, they would say 10 to 20%. An even more troubling trend is kids are using vapes that are at school that are

disguised as everyday items like pens, key fobs, chargers, highlighters, and hoodie strings. Some have features intentionally designed to increase dependency and addiction like built in video games.

These hidden devices make it even harder to train teachers and staff on what to look for to to stop students from vaping in class. Even if a school can detect and confiscate these disguised vapes, the school has no way to dispose of it.

As a tobacco use prevention education program director, I had a drawer full of vapes that I could use that I cannot do anything with, because they are considered hazardous waste. While a parent can take a vape to a household hazardous waste facility, a school cannot

since it is not considered to be created by a household. When these vapes do make their way to a facility, they are unable to process them cost effectively.

A special permit is required to separate the nicotine and cannabis cartridge from the battery and other electronic components. Because some vapes are disguised, some waste facilities never catch them, leading to battery fires and the release of this hazardous waste.

Disguised vapes are poisoning our kids, causing fires at small underfunded waste facilities and wasting precious tax dollars in additional processing costs. AB 2667 bans deceptively marketed and disguised vapes targeting children that look like a handheld

video game, food, candy, school supplies, or clothes. The bill also reduces vape processing costs by allowing household hazardous waste facilities to safely disassemble vapes. Finally, this bill requires the Department of Toxic Substance Control to address the

management and disposal of vapes confiscated from students by a school. AB 2667 will protect kids, support schools, and ensure hazardous materials are handled responsibly.

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote, and I would like to ask permission to use a prop. And I'm joined or for one of my witnesses to use a prop. And I'm joined here by Modoc High School principal, Kristen Budmark, and John Kennedy representing Rural County representatives of California.

Do you wanna use you can explain what the process is.

So as she takes these out, these are the vapes that we are a small school, a school of about 244 students currently. This is from this school year that we have confiscated. Modoc County. Modoc High School. Yes.

There's also I have some chew in there and some bottles of pills, but most of these are what we collect on the daily. Yeah. K. That too.

Sharpies.

I love a Sharpie.

You wanna, Yes. You wanna pass them around. Sure.

They're super expensive too, you guys. Do you want me to start? Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. Good afternoon, and thank you all for having me.

My name is Kristen Budmark, and I am the principal of Modoc High School in Alturas, California. I drove 5.5 miles one way for this opportunity to share my thoughts, and I'll drive 5.5 hours home after I do that.

I'm here as a rural school leader with a front row seat to what is rightly being called a vaping epidemic. And in the county like mine, the issue gets hits harder. In Modoc County, the need is greater and the resources are fewer.

17.1% of Modoc County residents live in poverty. Modoc County's local health assessment reports that 30% of our children live in poverty. Nearly 17% of adults are current smokers, and 22% of adults report excessive drinking.

In rural county in a rural county already carrying that level of a hardship, addiction lands harder and hope is harder to access. And what that looks like at our school is heartbreaking.

At my school, vaping is not a small discipline problem. It is an addiction issue, a learning issue, and a safety issue. The bathroom has become a vape lounge. Some students cannot make it through one class period without leaving to use the restroom because they need a hit.

Other students are uncomfortable and at times afraid to walk into that environment. This is not normal, and this is not acceptable. And when we talk about vaping, we need to remember who we are really talking about. Imagine being a teenager trying to keep your grades up,

your behavior in line, and your athletic performance strong. Add in friendships, extracurriculars, a job, and the normal pressure of growing up, then you start vaping, then you realize you can't stop. Now you are trying to navigate teenage life while battling cravings,

withdrawal, secrecy, and shame. You know you need to quit. You may try and try again, but you will fail every time. And all of all the while you are hiding it from your parents to your family, trying to keep functioning, and trying not to be let trying not to let your life slip.

This is the face of vaping, and this is not rebellion. This is addiction. And the reason this is so dangerous is because teenage brains are still developing. Nicotine addiction is especially destructive for teenagers because the adolescent brain is still developing.

The CDC says that withdrawal can look like irritability, restlessness, anxiety, depressed mood, trouble sleeping, cravings, and problems concentrating, behaviors that we witness every day at Modoc High School. That means that vaping is not just hurting health.

It is actively getting in the way of students being able to learn, regular regulate themselves, and succeed in school. And to make matters worse, access is too easy. Students are getting vapes online. Some parents are purchasing them online and giving them to their students.

Students are reselling them on campus, and local businesses are selling to minors illegally. I can go to the businesses that I know are selling to my kiddos and demand that they stop. I have done that. They have not stopped. That should tell us everything.

Schools cannot fight a community wide, statewide addiction pipeline by themselves. And what I am hearing from parents is deeply concerning.

They do not know what to do. They do not know how to help their children once they are addicted. We are in trouble. So I'm here today with a very direct plea. I am pleading for your help.

We are willing to do the work, but please help us. Help us with real consequences and real enforcement for people and businesses that illegally sell nicotine products to our minors. I believe you with this. Here is the ugly truth. I said this.

I'm gonna say it again. I can go out to all the businesses that I know who are selling to my kids and demand that they stop. I have done that. They have not stopped. Schools cannot fight this alone.

We are willing to do the work, but schools cannot out discipline an addiction epidemic. Please help us protect our kids. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Alright. Good afternoon. John Kennedy with the Rural County representatives of California. We represent 40 of the state's 58 counties. As local governments, we're charged with managing the state's solid waste and hazardous waste streams.

And so we operate a number over a 150 household hazardous waste collection facilities where people can bring these back so we can safely and appropriately dispose of things. Dates are ubiquitous. They pose a real growing challenge in the waste stream for our

facilities. We've tried to craft AB 2667 to address three distinct but interrelated issues. You've heard about the school issues. We've, been working really closely with Yuba and Tutter County Schools for how to manage the vapes that they've confiscated.

It's not an easy regulatory environment. We've been in discussions with DTSC for a couple years now, trying to break down the silos and find better ways, cheaper ways for schools to manage this. It was actually surprising.

We've heard the same comments and concerns from the law enforcement agencies out there. Local police departments are also having serious challenges because our cost is household hazardous waste facilities. It's about $350 to manage a five gallon bucket of vapes.

That's not sustainable, especially with the number that we see in society. So we're looking to get authority to simply crack the case on these vapes. If we can manage the batteries and the circuitry, we can recycle those and it's much more cost effective.

We can get far more of those vape cartridges in a five gallon bucket, and then be able to manage that much more cost effectively. And then the other thing, I passed around the Sharpie vape. Thank you to some of my colleagues out there who happened to to stumble upon

that. I didn't think it was vape until I looked a little more closely and saw the couple of holes that are in there aside from the patent, or trademark infringement issues. I think it it would be hard for a school to tell that that's a vape.

Right? And when they throw it in the trash can, it's gonna be hard for us on the waste line to figure out that it's a vape. If we have it on the sort line and it goes through our facility, if it gets crushed, if it gets, run over by a bulldozer or something, we could spark a fire from that.

So we're seeing more of those. We're seeing even more of these, which are video game vapes. And the video game vape increases addiction and dependency on the device. You can turn it on. Some of them play Tetris. Others play different types of apps.

They're a real challenge. So we need help in managing these. We've been having conversations, like I said, with US EPA, with DTSC to find creative solutions to these, problems from the waste management perspective.

We're happy to address the larger societal problems of how do we enforce some of the laws that we have on our books today. This is a step in the right direction and one that will reduce costs and simplify management challenges for us as local governments.

So for those reasons and for your support of this bill today so we can keep the discussions and conversation moving.

Thank you. Thank you. Any additional, testimony in support?

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

Good afternoon. Lindsay Gordon on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California in support.

Good afternoon. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.

Good afternoon. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, in support and appreciate the leadership of the author on this measure.

McClain Rozanski with the Alameda County Office of Education, in support.

Hi. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Connolly, Members of the committee. Mike Caprio with Republic Services here in support.

Connor Kennedy in support.

Yeah. Say it again.

My name is Connor Kennedy. I'm in support.

Thank you.

Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste and Support. We're the sponsor of the disposable vape ban. We see this as entirely complimentary and a necessary strategy for enforcement. Thank you.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition. Seeing that? Important. Alright.

Let's bring it back to committee questions. We've got second. It's a motion second, even though I think we already had a motion. Right? So we're gonna go Papan, motion, Lee, Second, Bauer-Kahan question.

Yes.

I'll take it. I just wanna start by thanking you, Assemblymember, for bringing this bill. It's really important. You and I both sit on business and professions, and I believe you were also in that hearing we had recently on marketing of vapes to children, which was frankly appalling.

And I think it really highlighted the failures of the agency, the enforcement agency to properly understand.

Well, I mean, I don't even know what they were failing at, but a lot of things. But I noticed your bill uses very similar language to what they were failing to do in that hearing, which was so you in part ban, the sale entirely of the vapes that mimic pens, and other things.

But then you also have language in here that, which I like because it's just an outright don't sell it if it's confusing to parents and schools, and I think there will be no misunderstanding of that. But then you also have the marketing language,

so you're banning anything that is marketed to be attracted to children. I guess my concern is that we're already seeing that agency isn't able to properly analyze that.

So putting that into I mean, it's support bill today. No question. But I'm just wondering if we should make a change to that to make it more effective.

We can look into that. There's also, some stricter guidelines for people selling illicit vapes because I truly believe that's where the problem lies is there's no teeth in it. So if you're gonna you have a $500 fine as a store owner for selling vapes from China that aren't

FDA approved or, you know, 90% of the vapes sold in The US are illicit. So that's where we have to have some teeth. Yeah. And they have to have something worth losing. 500 they make $500 in a couple hours. Or an hour probably in some of these places.

I mean, you can go down the street. There were kids here yesterday lobbying, about, vape stores that were across the street from their school.

Yep. You know? And so I think that this is in part, like, to help the schools and then to give us some teeth on the other side of it too so we can be able to have more enforcement.

Yeah. I did notice your $50,000 fine, which is per violation.

100 yeah. $500 is ridiculous.

Yes. Which I also per violation as I read it would be every pen sold could be a violation. So this could rack up real fast, which is a good thing. Yeah. And, again, it's in the discretion of the court for it.

Yeah.

Whoever to decide what that is actually. But it does give it real, I think

Yeah.

Disincentive to be selling these things, which I think is really important. I also noticed that you had those penalties going back to the agency to help fund enforcement on the front end. So I think all of that creates a real dynamic of enforcement,

which is critical because I think this is to your point, thank you for being here to speak on behalf of our kids. There is a real epidemic, and we need to be doing everything we can to protect our children's health and safety.

So I appreciate this work.

Assemblymember Papan.

Well, first of all, thank you for driving five plus hours You're very welcome. To be here. I appreciate that. I know in my own city, when I was on the city council, we did ban the ability to sell to kids and and then we eventually went after the shop staying open at all.

But it's a much more suburban environment. It's a little different when you're, you know, come from a rural area. So I can appreciate, you know, the sort of whack a mole that might be happening. So I thank you for bringing the bill.

Of course.

Obviously, you left an impression on all of us here as to how easy it is, how addictive it is, and detrimental. So especially with the young minds trying to do a whole lot of other things. So I I very much appreciate hearing your perspective, and I would ask to be asked added as a co author.

Absolutely.

Yes.

I wanna thank the author for this bill. And if it was up to me, I wanna ban all things. But that's not a conversation for now, but you're the principal I am. At that school. And I just wanted to get clarification.

You said those your school has 200 students?

Yep. 200 I think we're at I would check this morning. I think we're at 241 today.

And this is just from this year?

This is from this school year.

And and that's what they caught. Like, they're very hard to catch them because they know where to hide them.

They've been many years.

Yeah.

Thank you. You're welcome. Sorry. It's bad news. It's the truth.

May I be added as a co author as well?

Yeah. Thank you. Yes, please.

Great. No. Great, Bill. Eye opening and, obviously, kinda seeing firsthand what you're dealing with at at our schools. So thank you to the author for this work.

Obviously, we wanna give schools cost effective ways of dealing with these vape products that are confiscated. So appreciate you coming forward with this. We do have a motion and second. This would be a due pass to the business and professions committee.

I am recommending an Aye vote as a Chair. Let's go ahead and call the roll.

This is file item number 582667 offered by Assemblymember Hadwick. The motion is do passed to the Business and Professions Committee. [Roll Call. Thank you all.

The vote's unanimous. Bill passes. So we're gonna circle back and do add ons, right now. Everything. Absolutely.

Thank you. K. Let's keep it down if we can. We're gonna do some add ons.

I'm gonna start with file item number one, AB 1600. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. It has 4 Ayes, 1 No, Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call]

5 Ayes, 1 No. File item number two, AB 1901 authored by Berman. The action is do passed the Committee on Appropriations. Chair voting Aye. The vote is 4 Ayes as of now.

[Roll Call]

And Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. That is five ayes. File item number 3AB280.

The action is to be adopted to the assembly floor. There is five ayes. Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call] It's 7 Ayes.

File item number four, AB2462 authored by Pellerin. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. The vote is 4 Ayes. Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call] That's 5 Ayes and 1 No.

And file item number six, this is AB2086. It is the motion is due passed to the Assembly Judiciary Committee with the recognition recommendation to the consent calendar. Chair voting Aye, Castillo.

That's okay. File item number six 2086. It was on consent. [Roll Call]. That is 7-0.

Thank you, everyone. We're adjourned.