Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture

Well, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Senate Committee on Agriculture. Welcome to the the state capital. It is likely to be a little bit chaotic today. In case you haven't noticed, there are lots of committees hearing bills, and so we're gonna try to be run this committee as expeditiously as possible, assuming we can get members here and also, Assembly members to present their bill.

And Assembly Member Alanis, thank you so much for being here. On time, ready to go. So we'll start with the with the first item on the let me let me just housekeeping. We have four items that are on the consent. It's file item number 3AB11 I'm sorry.

11 See what I said? 1711 by Assemblymember Connolly. File item number 6 AB 2326 from the Assembly Agriculture. Is that gonna be and that will be presented by the Chair of the Assembly, agricultural committee, Assembly Member Soria. Or actually, it's on a consent so she won't have to be here, never mind.

AB 2685 by the agricultural committee again from the Assembly and filing item number eight, AB 2778, which is also an Assembly Member AG Bill Assembly AG bill. Been up too late last night. So those four items, we will when we have a quorum, we will take them up and pass them as consent items. So if you're here for those items, we will not be hearing them. So we we now have a welcome.

We now have a potential quorum. Let's take the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. So let's start with file item number one AB 312 by Assembly Member Alanis. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, good morning, Madam Chair, Members, Vice Chair. I'm pleased to present AB 312. This bill makes one narrow administrative change to existing agricultural theft law by reducing the period an agricultural commissioner must hold proceeds from the sale of seized agriculture commodities from six months to three months before those unclaimed funds are deposited into the county general fund. Agricultural theft continues to be a serious problem throughout California, particularly in our Central Valley, which most of us here represent.

As a former law enforcement officer, I understand the importance of protecting growers while also ensuring government processes remain practical and efficient. Importantly, this bill does not change how ownership is determined, how commodities are seized, or a victim's ability to recover the proceeds. Agriculture commissioners will continue to identify and contact law lawful owners using shipping records, invoices, from containers and markings, industry contacts, and information developed through criminal investigations. And speaking with agriculture commissioners throughout California, one consent theme emerged. Uncommon.

Most of these commodities are highly perishable and are either returned, donated, or destroyed. Larger agricultural theft cases are typically investigated jointly with local law enforcement. Where identifying victims and establishing ownership is already a central part of the criminal investigation. In those situations, if a rightful owner exists, they are generally identified well before six months have elapsed. AB 312 simply updates an outdated administrative timeline while preserving every existing safeguard for lawful owners.

It recognizes how the investigations are actually conducted today and allows counties to resolve unclaimed proceeds more efficiently once reasonable efforts to identify an owner have been made. This bill received unanimous bipartisan support in the Assembly and has generated a no record opposition. I respectfully ask your Aye vote.

Thank you very much. Witnesses in support?

I have my leg director here for any technical questions.

Sounds good. So we'll move on since we have no primary witnesses in support, we'll move on to #MeToo's. Is there anyone who would like to add on as in support of the bill? Is there anyone here that would like to testify in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one, is there anybody that would like to, make a comment about a comment in opposition to the bill?

Seeing then, I'll bring it back to the committee for questions, comments, concerns. Senator McNerney.

I see. I just wanna thank the author for this. I have a lot of AG in my, district. Those guys struggle with other issues, and having theft is something that we don't wanna see. So I appreciate you bringing this forward, and I will move the bill when when we have the time.

We'll allow you to move that right now. We have a quorum so we can take up the bill. You may conclude.

Thank you. And, yes, like I mentioned, all of us here all of us right here represent the Central Valley. This is a big help for us. So with that, I ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you very much. We have a motion. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The bill has 3 votes. We'll keep the file open for absent Members.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Why don't we take up the consent agenda items as we wait for the next author? We may wanna call the offices and make sure that they're aware that we're moving pretty quickly. That's file item number 3, AB1711. Number 6, AB 2326.

Number 7, AB 2685. And number 8, AB 2778. I'll entertain a motion on the consent.

The motion is made. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill has three votes. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. So we are waiting for Assemblymember Schultz, Assemblymember Wilson, and Assemblymember Papan. And I know Assemblymember Papan is is chairing a meeting that both Senator McNerney and I just left. So we may need to wait a little bit just to give her time to extricate herself.

So we're we're gonna take a short recess and we'll get the missing the missing Assembly members here presently. Like I said, it's gonna be a little bit of a chaotic day because there are lots of committees meeting. So we're in recess. Good. Good.

The Senate committee on agriculture is back in order, and we have an author. Thank you, Assembly member. You have file item number four, AB1731 by Assemblymember Wilson. Welcome to the committee.

Thank you. Double checking. Are they coming up? Come on up. Okay.

Just wanna make sure my witnesses knew it was appropriate to come forward. Well, good morning, Chair, and Senators soon to be here, I'm pleased to present AB 1731. This is the California Healthy Food Procurement Fund program. This bill will help address critical gaps in California's food system by supporting both farm viability and access to healthy school foods. California is rapidly losing farms.

Between 2017 and 2022, more than 7,000 small to mid sized California farms went out of business due to soaring production costs and shrinking market opportunities. Simultaneously, California schools serve roughly 5,000,000 meals daily and must shift away from ultra processed foods, creating a major opportunity for local farmers, but are constrained by tight budgets and limited access to transparent regional supply chains for healthy locally sourced products.

With the enactment of AB 1264 in 2005, it's more important than ever to ensure our kids, our school kids have access to healthier food options, especially for some kids, School meals are their only access to healthy foods. AB 1731 establishes a targeted procurement fund and approved vendor system to connect California schools with local farmers, enabling the purchase of fresh minimally processed climate smart foods without increasing cost or administrative burdens on schools.

By strengthening regional supply chains, providing farmers with stable markets, and improving student access to nutritional meals, this bill delivers a practical solution that aligns with agriculture, public health, and climate priorities all in one.

With me today is Kat Sultan Murad, director of food and nutrition services at Tahoe Truckee Unified School District, and Lael Gerhart with frog follow sorry. Frog Hollow Farm.

Welcome.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Lael Gerhart from Frog Hollow Farm. We're an orchard in Contra Costa County. As some of you may know, farming is not easy and it's getting harder to stay in business because there's an expectation that food should be cheap even though it's not cheap to grow. This has led to over 7,000 farms being lost in California over the last few years.

Right now, we have a real opportunity to help farms like Frog Hollow stay in business by creating an on ramp to the school market. A law passed last year requiring schools to stop serving ultra processed foods, and we need to make sure that local farms are the ones providing the fresh schools food that schools will need. But the system schools use is still set up for national distributors bringing in food from out of state, even though farms like ours are growing it just miles away.

That's what AB 1731 is aiming to fix. It creates a simple state approved vendor program that will connect farms like ours and provides funding so that schools can actually buy from California farms.

When we first started trying to sell to schools, we found the system to be extremely challenging to navigate, and we quickly realized that we needed help to connect with districts. This program is about building a system that actually works for farmers, not and one that's easier for us to navigate and designed to support us, not out of state farms that are selling to our schools.

When we visited schools and seen the kids taking bites of our peaches, they were genuinely excited to be eating something fresh, juicy, and delicious, and grown from a nearby farm. When we visited the cafeterias, we've often heard from the schools that the food they're serving is not always very appealing, and a lot of it ends up getting thrown away. So how cheap is that food if you're paying for it twice?

Once to buy it and then again to throw it away. AB 1731 is gonna help make it possible for children in our communities to eat a fresh, juicy peach from farms like Frog Hollow instead of a can cup of peaches from out of state farms. We respectfully ask for your support of AB 1731. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Kat Sultan Murad. I'm the Director of Food and Nutrition at Tahoe Truckee Unified, though I'm here today in my personal capacity. We are a small rural school district serving about 4,300 students, and proud to be represented by Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil. Currently, our district has 32% of its student's eligibility for free and reduced meal status, and it's rising.

For the past fourteen years, our school district has made it a priority to source from local and California farmers. We started working with Tahoe Food Hub in 2013, when we became their first wholesale client. Since that time, we have worked with approximately 50 to 80 farmers sourcing healthy, nourishing ingredients for school breakfasts and lunches. Students say the flavor, texture, and overall quality of the produce sourced from California tastes better.

These ingredients are grown and served when in season, rather than stored and held for long periods of time, and then delivered to a school site.

I mentor other food service directors in small and large districts throughout California, who are interested in buying food from local farms. Unfortunately, far too many of them, this is a very challenging achievement. This is why we are here today asking for the support of AB 1731. The approved vendor program and the accompanying procurement fund will unlock barriers that schools face. I'm lucky to have a thriving, robust food hub in my community.

It gives us access to fresh produce that our chefs then turn into scratch cooked meals on a daily basis. Our district has been fortunate to also receive the CDFA Farm to School Incubator grant twice now, to help offset offset the cost of shifting local sourcing model versus the national. But we know this program is oversubscribed. Too many districts struggle to find farmers and vendors that are set up to work with schools. And at times, California grown foods are more expensive than out of state commodities.

This bill will give many more school districts a chance to help farms like Frog Hollow provide healthy California grown foods to kids every single day. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody here that would like to add on as, in support of the bill? Please come forward and join the line. Welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris McCauley here on behalf of Full Well, a San Francisco based, food sustainability advocate, a proud cosponsor asking for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Nico Molina on behalf of Sunrise Fresh in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy and Support.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Leticia Benador with California Certified Organic Farmers. We're a proud sponsor in strong support.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Rebecca Marcus representing American Farmland Trust and the California Climate and Agriculture Network in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, and Vice Chair, Leangela Reed on behalf of the California School Nutrition Association in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Madam Chair. Vince McCailey on behalf of California Food and Farming Network and Californians Against Waste in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair Caballero and our more Members of their committee. My name is Charisse Malabran here on behalf of the Office of Kat Taylor in strong support of 1731. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Susan Little with the Environmental Working Group. We were the co we were cosponsor sponsors of AB 1264 and very pleased to hear to learn about this bill, and we wanna voice our strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody that would that is here to testify in opposition? Testify in opposition? Seeing no one, is there anyone here that would like to express their opposition to the bill? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee.

Senator.

It's you and I Chair.

That's it. It's you and me.

Yeah. So I like this bill and still have some questions. As a small farmer myself, you know, I often wonder, you know, where I can procure some of the items other than feeding my family and neighbors and friends and trying to say, hey. I've got some great food for you. Where I'm stuck on this bill is the Climate Smart Agricultural Practices.

I know what they are, but I also know that they're region specific. So how how are our farms across California going to be able to qualify for, for this program? Do they have to be enrolled in one of the climate smart agricultural practices already, or how are we going to make sure that it's an even playing field for all of our small farms?

They it's it's prioritizes climate smart, and so it's not a preclude it doesn't preclude them, but it does prioritize those who are doing that within the procurement system. And so the whole point is connecting our farmers to our schools. Right? And so going through this, then the school doesn't have that administrative burden. But then within that, those that have a climate smart system I mean, who are part of that climate smart program will be prioritized within that, but you wouldn't be excluded from it.

And I don't believe there's language that excludes it.

So it promotes the climate smart practices as an incentive, would you say?

Or Yes. Yes. It does. It it promotes it as yes. Because you'll have more favorability when within the vendor system.

Right? Within the vendor being, like, the list of vendors, those vendors at with that use the climate that are part of the climate smart agricultural program would then have fit more favorability within the system. But it wouldn't you wouldn't be excluded as I understand it. And I'm double checking my notes as we do it, but I don't believe we had an exclusion, but we do have prioritization.

Right. I do have a question. Being a school administrator for so many years, knowing that you have to do a lot more with less money, and when it comes to healthy nutrition for our students, Not only to provide, healthy, nutritious food, but food that our kiddos want to eat. That's appealing and smells good, tastes good, looks good, that you don't have to open a package.

Equitable market value for our organic farmers, for our small farmers, so that we're not devaluing their work or their commodity because our school districts are so tight for being able to procure fresh nutritious foods.

Like, how do we solve that problem with this bill rather than having or is I should say, or is it a problem? Do you see it as a problem? Or how how are you going to navigate that?

A couple of things. And let me go back, because I did find I was looking for my notes on the first thing. So as the the approved vendors list, when you're when someone's accessing that approved vendors list, they have to 50% have to come from Climate Smart. So that's where that you get that priorities because they're gonna they know it. They have to meet that target, so they're gonna look for Climate Smart first, versus the other.

And so that's where but as a reminder, they're not excluded, but just they're gonna get favorability just because they have to hit that target before they can go to the others. Secondly, you know, to the point that was made and I'll go to the administrator too to answer this question. But to the point that was made from Frog Hollow is that there is an expense associated with feeding children and disposing of foods and cost to that. So it does allow it to be more competitive.

We also have a companion budget item that helps fund this program, so that there is that initial incentives.

Because the the largest cost is that upstart cost to start to bring in that good, and then you then you then once you have that down, when you compare, it's generally, the same, I would say. But I'll look to my technical witnesses. Who, although she's here in her personal capacity, she does have expertise that she can lend to this conversation, but she still is only speaking in her personal capacity.

Definitely. Twenty five years, blood, sweat, and tears. But it's it's great. Great observation and point, And I think that's a great federal conversation on USDA foods, and how commodities are obtained. And there is a pathway on that, and I'm happy to share that with you, and work being done on that.

However, thanks to an investment of California School Meals for All, kit funds, and many other funds that have come through one time, best school practices in foods, local food in schools. These have prepped districts like mine and several others, medium and large, up and down the state to be able to procure this produce and maintain livable wage for farms, maintain that competitive edge while focusing on labor in schools.

Many of us have moved to speed scratch or cooking from scratch, so our costs are now in labor and our food costs have gone down. So that we can make these amazing purchases with frog hollow, the peaches are outstanding, and actually reduce food waste in our schools. So we're producing even less because the food is being eaten.

So it's a food system, and it's all working together, and this is one piece of that wheel that is sorely missed, that will strengthen infrastructure on the procurement side. We've strengthened the kitchen and training side of things, but now we need the side of procurement.

Thank you. I have a question for Frog Hollow. Are you considered a climate smart agricultural farm, and how did you obtain that, moniker?

Yes. We are considered one. We have been certified with CCOF since 1988.

Okay.

And what's the practice that you used for that certification?

We use many practices, so we don't use synthetic inputs. So no synthetic fertilizers, herbicides. We also cover crop and do soil amendment practices using compost.

So in this situation, you would be able to to state that that you're certified, and that would give you kind of a leg up in being able to procure. Is that correct?

Yes. We would be able to qualify as a climate smart practices because of the soil conservation practices that we that we use on the farm.

Okay. And do you see that the the cost of your commodity to school districts for healthy nutritious meals, do you think that that would be in line with with your business model so that you're we're not devaluing your your work as a farmer or your quality of your commodity or even changing some of your practices? Do you feel like that cost benefit is there for you?

Yes. We do. In fact, we have been fortunate to sell to districts, like Tahoe Truckee, a Katz District, and we have been able to obtain a price that is competitive and on par with our other wholesale channels. Yeah. And it's actually been incredibly beneficial for the farm as far as a revenue stream.

Partnering with support has enabled us to have school food become one of our primary channels for wholesale distribution. So that's wonderful from a revenue perspective, but it's also incredible for us knowing that we are feeding our children in our communities. So it's a win win for us in that capacity. It generates needed revenue as well as connects us with our communities and the kids who should be eating food from their neighbors.

Thank you. I think it was yesterday or the day before I opened up, I read the news several times during the day, but there was a headline of a Fresno peach farmer basically giving away I think here in California, we've been hit very hard with the closure of manufacturing facilities, most recently Del Monte in my district in Central Valley. But it is not an outlier. I mean, I've heard of farmers that basically their whole crops have gone, whether it's apricots or peaches.

And so to bring forward a bill like this, it gives us opportunity to bring healthy, nutritious local food back into the schools or even to the schools, something we should have been doing a long time ago.

My lifetime that I get to hear from my grandchildren that they got to taste goat cheese for the first time, or a hard boiled egg for the first time, or had a choice between a peach, an apple, and a banana, and a and that they understood and dairy and meat come from. So I'm gonna support this bill. Thank you for answering my questions. And again, I look forward to seeing the impact of this at our in our local farms. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So I'm really excited to hear about the work that's been done to provide fresh fruits in particular, but fresh fruits and vegetables. I did a bill a number of years ago that was a Buy American, specifically for the school districts with a priority to Buy American and part of that was a recognition that we have to pay more for some of our fresh produce because we have some of the highest standards in the world.

And we have a hard time competing with China, who has been importing peaches of way less quality. And to second what Senator Alvarado-Gil had to say about the processing is part of the challenge is that we have the the the fresh fruits that gets processed in California, a lot of it was for the schools.

And it's a way to be able to store it, but it also employs a lot of people. And not only do we have farmers in Fresno, which is in my district, giving away fruit, but hundreds of thousands of acres were the trees were pulled out of production because it's difficult to get to market a perishable crop. And part of the challenge, as I understand it talking with small and large farmers, is that you have to use a middle person, especially in the school purchasing arena.

You get the better prices if you buy in bulk, and that means storing them for a long time, means you're not providing fresh, and you get undercut by foreign countries and by other states as well. And so this is a really important topic to continue having conversations about because we can say buy American, but then buy local becomes even more important.

The ability to not use a middle person to be able to buy directly means you're cutting out somebody that's making money for not doing much. Whereas the farmer assumes the risk, assumes the costs associated with it and if I could put as a footnote for this is my last year, so I'm I'm tagging people with issues that that we need to keep working on.

We're gonna have a discussion about cap and trade, and I know it is cap and trade, so my apologies to anybody who who's offended because we changed the name. The that program is really important in helping farms bring in new technology that will provide an opportunity for them to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. And this last cycle, there was absolutely no money put into the program as of today.

I've been advocating that a lot of those programs are really critical for if we want agriculture to stay in California, we have to give them the tools that they need to be able to be successful. So appreciate what you've been able to to do in partnership with CCOF. They do really great work. And I see a real interest in agricultural and doing the right thing, it's just expensive and so we've got to make it easier. In any case, I'm going to support your bill today.

I think it's really important and the more that we can make it directly farm to the classroom or to the cafeteria, the better off we're going to be because I'm convinced that once kids eat the fresh produce and that hasn't been picked somewhere else and shipped and can stay on the shelf for two months because it was picked way too soon, they'll they'll get to be eat they'll get to eating this fresh produce and it'll be better for them.

So with that, I'll allow you to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator. Thank you both for your thoughtful questions as well as comments on this subject and, you know, AB 1731 doesn't exist in a vacuum. It actually builds on CDFA's existing farm to school program establishing the statewide structure that will facilitate purchasing between any school and any eligible California farm or food business, and as you noted, will do well, for California, not just for our economy, our agricultural businesses, but also for our students.

I'm reminded of my three year old grandchild who didn't like peas at all, but then when he got a chance to pick peas from his Papa garden, he thinks they're the best thing ever, and it's because they're picked fresh, and they taste way better than something that was picked too early and canned.

And so I appreciate the witnesses, both Frog Hollow Farms for their engagement throughout this legislative process and representing those farmers, as well as our technical expertise here of twenty five years, as she noted, blood, sweat, and tears into feeding our children. I appreciate them. And with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you very much. I'll entertain a motion. Move. The motion's been made. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

So we're gonna put that on call for the absent Members. Thank you for being here. Appreciate it. Thank you very much for, your testimony. Much appreciated.

Thank you.

We could So we are back to waiting for, the last two Assembly member authors, and, we'll take a brief recess.

To call to your attention that today is Viktor Francovich's last day. He is retiring, and I want to thank him for all his years working here in the legislature. So welcome and congratulations.

The Senate Committee on Agriculture is back in session, and we have Assemblymember Pappan here on file item number five, which is AB 2380.

Welcome. Welcome. I knew where you were since I came from your right before.

Thank you for having me, Senator. Yes. Alright. So AB 2380, raises the maximum fee that a county board of supes can charge to support the operations of the county ag commissioner.

For over a century, County Ag commissioners have played a critical role in protecting agriculture, commercial, residential settings from our friends' invasive species. Isn't that a nice way of saying pests? Anyway, agricultural commissioners.

Forget. This committee, we like pests.

I know. You love them all. Agricultural commissioners often administer local pesticide use enforcement programs. They include permits, conduct inspections, investigate pesticide misuse complaints. They enforce worker safety standards and manage and maintain local pesticide registration records.

These are programs that are designed to prioritize environmental protection, worker safety, and public health. It really is a terribly important actually role in keeping a balance to things. So anyway, they charge registration fees to cover their costs, but those fees have largely remained unchanged since the eighties, and they had a slight update in 2000. So here we are, a whopping twenty six years later without any touching to the fees. As a result, counties are generating really insufficient revenue to support the funds.

So this bill allows the localities to charge up to $75 to better reflect inflation and the increase, cost of these critical program, services. With me to testify today is Matt Seiverling on behalf of the County of Ag Commissioners and Sealers Association. Take it away, Matt.

Good morning, madam Chair and member, Senator. Excuse me. Matt Seiverling on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association. Without being too repetitive, it's a very straightforward bill. We haven't raised these fees in some cases in almost forty years.

This is an important program that ensures the health and safety of your constituents as well as our our food sources. We have been negotiating these fee increases with the affected industries and have agreed to do this over a phase in process over three years just to kind of soften the blow, of what people are used to and to make sure that, counties can recover their costs without being overly burdensome on those paying the fees. We urge an aye vote for the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in support of the bill? Please come forward.

Madam Chair, members, we don't have an official position tailored to her on behalf of the California aerial air Ag Aircraft Association and California Association of Pest Control Advisors. We just wanna offer our strong appreciation to the author, to the sponsors, and her staff, and hopefully, we'll be able to get to support with those amendments. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else? How about I don't have any registered opposition, but is there anyone that would like to oppose the bill? Now's your chance. How about any me too's?

Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or concerns? Seeing none, we'll allow you this is really important and I appreciate the work that's been done on it to kind of ease into it. The Ag commissioners are really critically important in rural counties and so I really, I've spent time with them, I've seen with the kind of work that they do and it's detailed work so I appreciate it. So allow you to conclude.

Just thank the committee and I thank the association and all its members for the good work they do and respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you so much. I'll entertain a motion. Okay. I'll have to wait until I get a member we'll we get other members here.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Caballero.

So we'll keep that on call. We have one bill left, and so we'll again recess and we'll wait for the next author. And today, we're hearing, the bill as it was amended in Senate EQ, and also the on page nine, the of the analysis, the committee is recommending an amendment. And the amendment would remove the language prohibiting any applications for PFAS pesticides to be received by the Department of Pesticides regulations. And so that's what we're gonna be discussing today.

And so the the floor is yours.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and by extension to, your colleagues who will be with us soon. I am pleased to present AB163, and I'd like to begin by accepting the suggested committee amendment listed on page nine of the analysis. Of course, I wanna thank you, madam Chair, and the committee for your hard work on the measure and for working with us on the amendment. Thank you.

For just a little bit of background and context, PFAS are a large class of chemicals that are used in many consumer products and industries because of their their their their effects.

They are long lasting and they are waterproof. However, these chemicals are also associated with numerous serious human health effects, and they're known to build up in water, soil, and ultimately our bodies. Quite simply, they they don't go away. Because of PFAS's very problematic properties, the California legislature has taken action in recent years to prohibit their use in many consumer products, including but not limited to textiles, food packaging, and cosmetics.

And state officials have limited PFAS use in carpets and upholstery and are about to regulate PFAS in cleaners.

All prior state legislation banning PFAS in products bans PFAS as a class. That is because there are no good PFOS when it comes to the impacts on human health and the environment. I was shocked to learn, that the state was not doing in my mind, nearly enough about PFOS containing, pesticides that are regularly used on our California crops. The state has banned PFAS in food packaging, but nothing when it comes to PFAS pesticides used on crops grown here in the great state of California.

I was more shocked to find out that these PFAS pesticides are ever present on the fruits and vegetables that we purchase at the grocery store and feed our families every day.

As just one example, strawberries, a fruit known for heavy pesticide use, because of the pests that can attack them, can contain the residue of up to 10 different PFAS pesticides. According to a recent environmental working group analysis, California currently allows 53 PFAS pesticides to be used on our crops, and that means more than 2,500,000 pounds of this PFAS is deposited on California's agriculture and urban lands every year.

The point I'm trying to make, madam Chair, is that California, in my view, is not doing enough to address the use of PFAS and pesticides. PFAS pesticides are not only being used for agriculture, but I will also note in consumer goods used in our homes as well. While the bill no longer bans any PFAS pesticides, it will still be a valuable tool to ensure greater transparency about PFAS pesticide use in the state of California.

Specifically, with the committee amendments, the bill would require the Department of Pesticide Regulation to list PFAS pesticides in the pesticide use reporting database and share that information with the county ag commissioners. Here today to speak with me in support of AB163 is David Andrews, chief science officer with the Environmental Working Group, as well as Myra Sanchez Barber, associate director with Californians for Pesticide Reform.

I'll also note, madam Chair, that we additionally have Jane Seline with Californians for Pesticide Reform here to answer any technical questions.

Very good. Welcome.

Well, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I hold a PhD in chemistry from Northwestern University, and I've coauthored 10 publications, peer reviewed publications on PFAS pesticide on PFAS, including one on PFAS pesticides and another on the importance of regulating PFAS as a class. PFAS or forever chemicals pose a serious health risk. Reproductive problems, harm to the thyroid, immune system, liver, kidney disease, and cancer. 2,500,000 pounds of PFAS pesticides are used each year in California.

40% of non organic produce had at least one PFAS pesticide residue, some with many more. PFAS pesticides are widespread in water and soil around the state. PFAS should be regulated as a class. We do not want one problematic chemical substituted for another. California Department of Toxic Substance Control has stated that all PFAS share the core hazard trait of extreme environmental persistence.

PFAS pesticides fall into a regulatory blind spot. The US EPA and the California Department of Pesticide Regulations currently have been inadequate with respect to evaluating immune system harm or the cumulative impacts of these very small PFAS. TFA or trifluoroacetic acid is one of the small PFAS contaminants that result from PFAS pesticide usage, and levels are increasing in our water, food, and environment.

Testing of water and blood in Indiana and North Carolina found TFA in nearly all of the samples, and it is estimated that PFAS pesticide use in California is adding 600,000 additional pounds of TFA a year. Earlier this year or this month, ECHA, the, the EU scientific committee, conclude that TFA should be classified as toxic to reproduction and also very persistent and very mobile.

With the increasing evidence of harm from PFAS, we're disappointed that the legislator is not acting more decisively on PFAS pesticides, but we support this important step to catalog usage and provide greater transparency. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair and committee members. Californians and people across the nation are deeply concerned about PFAS. More and more, new evidence shows the persistence, pervasiveness, and harm of these forever chemicals, even at tiny amounts. The public health and economic costs of PFAS contamination are staggering. Health care expenses are currently estimated between 5.5 and $8,700,000,000 a year, and there are no technological solutions to removing it from our water.

PFAS pesticides are a significant source of contamination. We are not confident in the Department of Pesticide Regulation's ability to safely regulate PFAS pesticides. The department has rarely used class based regulation to address systemic risks taking up to decades to review a single chemical of concern. Has disregarded critical scientific evidence in its evaluation processes, lacks sufficient monitoring, and frequently fails to establish mitigation measures when needed. The fact is, the department does not track PFAS pesticide use, allowing growers to unknowingly contaminate their lands and water sources.

Furthermore, the department often makes key decisions behind closed doors without providing the public ready access to their analyses or decision making. Since day one, AB163 has earned overwhelming support from farmworker organizations, community groups, consumers, labor unions, environmental health advocates, to sanitation and water agencies, and local city governments. Legislation in California and other states is already being taken to ban PFAS in various products. AB163 is a small step, but in the right direction.

Californians want common sense action to know and potentially reduce PFAS exposure.

Support growers make more informed decisions for their land and businesses, while also giving more information to millions of Californians already impacted by PFAS pesticides. Vote on AB163. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This is your time to testify in support of the bill. If you'd like to do that, please line up at the mic.

Jack Werson from Nossaman on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.

Thank you very much.

Sakira Mascale on behalf of Pesticide Action Agroecology Network, California Environmental Voters, California Public Interest Research Group, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club California, and Union of Concerned Scientists in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good morning. April Robinson with A Voice for Choice Advocacy in support along with Children Now, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, and Friends Committee on Legislation of California. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Kiara Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Susan Little with Environmental Working Group, but also here on on in on behalf of Consumer Attorneys of California, California Federation of Teachers, SEIU 521, Unite Here Local 19, Teamsters, 856 of Central Coast, California Food and Farming Network, and Lideras Campasines in California. Thank you.

In support. Thank you.

Sarah Aird here in support on behalf of the Coalition Californians for Pesticide Reform, as well as the California Environmental Justice Coalition, the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, the Central California Environmental Justice Network, Comite Civico del Valle, Community Water Center, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, Valley Improvement Projects, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and Fresnoans Against Fracking. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, [Unintelligible], on behalf of EnviroVoters in strong support. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? How about lead witnesses in opposition?

Good morning.

Good morning. Welcome. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Taylor Trifo on behalf of a variety of agricultural associations. We wanna thank the Chair and her staff for their very diligent work on this important issue. We also wanna thank Mister Schultz for being open to understanding the constraints our farms are under, from pest and disease and international competition. Our opposition has never been based on having an allergy to new regulation.

Our businesses experience change in every part, every sector of their business every year, but we do believe in protecting the scientific integrity of our pesticide regulatory system, and by extension, our farms and our communities. We believe that the committee amendments do that. They provide opportunities for science and technology to continue to expand our pest management solutions and enhance transparency for everyone. When the amendments are in print, we look forward to removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Nicole Quinones on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association and the California Chamber of Commerce. I wanna echo Ms. Triffo's comments and thank the Chair, committee staff, the author, and his staff on the forthcoming amendments to AB3, and we look forward to removing our opposition when those are in print.

We certainly recognize the importance of this issue and, would like to, you know I've always encouraged the legislature to use the existing system under DPR, to evaluate these pesticides with the available, science, while also balancing what other technologies are available, and the, very real pest pressures that our state faces every day. So, again, thank you so much for the work on this bill, and we look forward to removing our opposition.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in opposition? Yeah. Julie Malinowski Ball on behalf of the American Chemistry Council. Looking forward to removing our opposition as well when we see the new amendments.

Thank you. Thank you.

Dennis Salviano with the California Seed Association, California Pear Growers, several other agricultural organizations. We affiliate our comments with, Ms. Triffo and, and Ms. Quinones. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Tricia Garinger with Agricultural Council of California. Appreciate all the work of the author and the Chair and Committee, on the forthcoming amendments, and we also look forward to removing opposition.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Matthew Allen with Western Growers Association. We appreciate the work of, the Committee and the Chair, and conversations with the author's office, and we look forward to removing our opposition once we see those amendments. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Isabella Quinionez with the California Farm Bureau. Like my colleagues, really looking forward to removing our opposition once those amendments are in print. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Paul Poister with Nutrien Ag Solutions. I'd like to associate our group with the comments from the ag groups and appreciate the author's movement. With the amendment, we hope to move away from opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of California Manufacturers and Technology Association and Chemical Industry Council of California, align our comments, with the speakers and look forward to removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

George Covinta, on behalf of the Almond Alliance, we also look forward to removing our opposition.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. Seeing all testimony concluded, we'll bring it back to the committee for questions. Senator McNerney.

Well, I, I wanna thank the author. I have a lot of ag in my district, and I was prepared to oppose. But like a lot of the opposition, you've worked with the committee, and I appreciate that, and I'll be supporting the bill.

Thank you.

Very much. Any other comments, questions? There is a motion. I wanna also thank you for working with us. The I appreciate everybody's testimony here today.

I understand the complexity of the issue. It for from a from a from a science tech or technological science and technological aspect. Well, let me just say that that part of what is is happening in agriculture is that they are growing produce that our country relies on. It's not just the state of California. And we heard earlier food, fresh vegetables and fruits for for schools.

The only way that becomes possible to do is to be able to grow it in a quantity that that provides an opportunity for us to actually have fresh fruit fruits and vegetables. Otherwise, we've got to freeze everything and keep it forever because you never know what the season is going to be like.

And part of the challenge agriculture is facing right now is pest invasion from other countries where the critters have moved on plants and in soil and have come into the state and we've got to do everything I think we can to maintain our agricultural production because we produce products that are produced almost nowhere else in the country. And so it's a balance and I've seen pesticide use change significantly.

We had this conversation that where it used to be mostly aerial spraying and that doesn't happen anymore for a whole variety of reasons because through good science we've been able to figure out how to be able to do it in a different way with much less potency and much less product, which is expensive in the first place.

Farmers don't use products that they don't need. It's way too expensive. And so we have to develop alternatives. And part of that is starting to gather data on where is it being used, what part of the industry, what products and how can it be reduced and what are the alternatives. And I think that's where we're we we need to go with with this.

And, and then take it out, absolutely take PFAS out of production where it's not necessary. And so that's that's the analysis that we have to do here. So I mean, it's just a multi step process and so I really appreciate the discussion we had and, and what you're what you're trying to do with this. And we do have a motion, so we'll allow you to conclude.

I'll just respectfully ask your aye vote. And again, thank you, madam Chair and committee, for your work on the bill.

Thank you very much. So the role, please.

[Roll call]

That bill is I will put it back on call for the absent members. Thank you so much. And the motion is do passes amended. Let back on the record again, we're gonna go through the roll and then I'll hold it open for, the missing members. We'll start with the consent agenda items.

They are four items. File item number three, AB1711. File item number six, AB2326. File item number seven, AB2685. And file item number eight, AB2778.

We we had a motion, and we'll call the roll.

[Roll call]

Moving moving on to I will put that back on call. Moving on to file item number one, the motion was do pass, AB312 by Assemblymember Alanis. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Put that back on call. File item number two, we just took up. File item number four, AB 1731 by Assemblymember Wilson. The motion is do pass to Appropriations.

Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

File item number five, AB 2380 by Assemblymember Pappan. Do you need a motion? We do need a motion on this one. Thank you very much. It's been moved.

Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll put that back on call. And that concludes our agenda for today. Thank you very much. We're going to recess for the absent members. Committee on Agriculture is back in session, and we're going to go through the file item issues again.

And we'll start with the consent agenda items. There are four items: file item number three, file item number six, number seven, and number eight. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, taking up that, bill is out. Consent agenda items. That is out five to zero. Moving on to file item number one, AB 312.

Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out five to zero. Moving on to file item number two, AB 1603. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out four to one. Moving on to file item number four, AB 1731. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out five to zero. Moving on to file item number five, AB 2380 by Assemblymember Pappan. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out four to zero. That concludes the Committee on Agriculture. We are adjourned. And if I could, because there's nobody here in the room, this is my last day as Senate Chair of Agriculture.

It's been an honor, that is true as far as I know. Yes, as far as I know. So it's been an honor. Thank you so much.

The committee is adjourned.