March 24, 2026 · Environmental Safety And Toxic Materials · 10,482 words · 21 speakers · 246 segments
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 in 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 want to 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 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 Arambula, come on up to present your bill, AB 1600, dealing with disadvantaged communities and farm workers.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I want to begin by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill. California's agricultural economy generates $100 billion annually with an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 farmworkers statewide. Despite their essential role, farmworker 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, farm worker households often do not qualify for DAC based investments despite documented climate expenses 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. AB 1600 crafts a narrowly tailored designation for farm worker 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 1600 is Dora Mendevil Angulo, Program and fiscal administrator for La Cupra Tiva Campesina de California.
Welcome and if we can just hold off one sec, we are going to establish a quorum right now.
For the purposes of establishing a quorum, call. Connolly.
Here.
Connolly. Here. Ellis. Ellis? Here. Bauer, Cahan. Here. Bauer, Cahan. Here. Castillo, Lee. McKinner. Here. McKinnor. Here. And Pappin. Here. Pappin? Here. We have a cor.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you very much. My name is Dora Mendivi Langulo on behalf of La Coperativa Campesina de California, proud sponsors of AB 1600. For over 50 years we have worked alongside farmworker families throughout California, the very workers who sustained our state's over 100 billion 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 farm worker communities are inadvertently excluded from the state's climate investments. We know this investment work because we have seen it firsthand through like through the Low Income Weatherization Program. La Coperativa has helped deliver energy efficiency upgrades and solar installations to farm worker households throughout the state. The program has weatherized more than 2,500 houses and installed nearly 1,000 solar systems, reducing energy bills, improving home safety and 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 to these benefits because California's definition of disadvantaged communities relies on tools designed for urban pollution. Rural farm worker communities are often left out entirely. AB 1600 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 costs and strengthen communities. At its core, AB 1600 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. I vote on AB 1600 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 Comidad, Comite, Deacion del Valle, 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 1600? Seeing none, including any members of the public. Back to the dais. Questions from committee members. So we have motion. Bauer, Cahan, second Pappin. Questions? Comments? Not seeing any. All right. Well, thank you so much and for your steadfast work on behalf of farm workers. This does have an I reco. Would you like to close?
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Thank you. Why don't we go ahead and call the roll?
This is File item number one, AB 1600, authored by Assemblymember Arembula. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Connolly, Aye. Connolly, Aye. Ellis.
No.
Ellis, no. Bauer. Cahan. Bauer. Cahan, aye. Castillo, Lee. McKinner. McKinner, I M. Papin. Papin, I.
Four to one. And we'll. That passes. We'll hold it open for absent members, and we will. I see Assemblymember Pellerin in the audience. Why don't you come on up. This will be file item 4, AB 2462. 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 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 costs and responsibility are being shifted away from manufacturers and and on to 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 2462 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 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 and proud co sponsor of AB 2462. I'd like to thank Assemblymember Pellerin for authoring this important measure and to the committee staff for their thoughtful analysis. AB 2462 would meaningfully improve an existing law designed to protect consumers and hold manufacturers accountable for dangerous product recalls. In 2008, the legislature passed AB 1860, California's product recall safety and protection act. While AB 1860 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 20082008 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 2462 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 has become standard in modern producer responsibility statutes and increases the fines for non compliance 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 I vote on AB 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 most successful. Federal recalls have been in place since the 1970s, so this process of having your products recalled, how to retrieve them from the market and the processes for communication have been in place for several decades. In 2008, states statewide requirements 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 34.5 million units, estimating about 5 million of those units here in California. And these 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. So this practice effectively externalizes the private liability onto unfunded public mandates, forcing the program funders to basically absorb these costs. AB 2462 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 overseed 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 an 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 really important step. So with that, I respectfully ask for an I 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 me tooing on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council in support of.
Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition?
Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology association, representing a diverse cross section of manufacturers across the state, respectfully in opposition to AB 2462 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 logistics systems. Manufacturers currently utilize reverse logistics, reverse logistics centers and other third party systems to manage recall collection, segregation and disposition. AB 2462 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 logistics 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 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 considerations, CMT believes additional specificity regarding agency coordination, enforcement, sequencing and applicable standards would improve implementation certainty and third, secondary market and non traditional 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, CAL 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. CMTA 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 up.
Hi.
Good afternoon. My name is Edwin Bourbon. 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 replacements as allowed by federal law. So another point of clarification. Thank you.
Thank you. Why don't we bring it back? Questions?
Senate Member 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 could have my expert reply to
that specifically through the Chair. I mean, implementation would take a couple months maximum. I mean, these processes have been in place since the 70s and really the California Extra steps have been in place for almost 20 years. So we're really just adding more entities, entities who can file into the process, but not changing the process. So the file to request a reimbursement doesn't change and the process for determining how to reimburse doesn't change.
And how will you guys measure success? Reduced illegal disposal cost savings, compliance rates. Like, you know, I'm going to support you guys today, but as we're doing these bills, I always want to see how are we measuring the success of it? So, 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 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 reimbursement process and as was mentioned, the refund, repair, replacement, that is decided at the 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 processes.
Thank you. Thank you.
Additional questions.
Thank you.
Seeing none. Assemblymember, would you like to close?
I respectfully ask for your.
I vote.
Thank you. No. 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 it is enjoying an eye recommendation from the chair today. Do I have a motion on this bill? Papin. And second, Bauer. Cahan. And this is due pass to the committee on appropriations. Please call the roll.
All right, this is File item number four, AB 2462, offered by Assemblymember Pellerin. The motion is due passed to the committee on Appropriations. Connolly.
Aye.
Connelly, I. Ellis.
Not voting.
Bauer. Cahan. Bauer. Kahan.
Aye.
Castillo, Lee. McKinner. McKinner. Aye. And Papin. Papin.
Aye.
Thank you very much.
Great. That passes, but we will hold it open for absentee members. Thanks again. All right, looks like we have assembly member Berman joining us. Come on up. Wow, you already got emotion.
I don't. I don't.
This is file item 2, AB19 oh, one on children's diapers Ingredient disclosure
All right.
Okay, you got a motion. And second, now I'm relaxed.
Hi.
Good to see you.
Good afternoon. Sharing colleagues. Word got out that I'm a new dad and so here we are.
I think this was already diving right into diapers.
That's exactly right. Exactly right. AB 1901 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 January 1, 2028 and on the outermost packaging by January 1, 2029. Showing parents the list of ingredients allows parents to make an informed decision that is right for their family. Respectfully ask for an I vote and I'm joined today by Susan Little, California 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 1901 CO sponsor. 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. Parents want this information because diapers can contain harmful substances, 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 or severe rashes and asthma. 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 baby's thin skin more easily absorbs chemicals and 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. With me today is Sydney Swanson, EWG science analysts 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 co sponsor AB 1901 in partnership with the other co sponsors and and with Assemblymember 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 chemicals or disclosed ingredients. Babies spend, as everyone has said, 247 in those diapers for Depends, right?
Hopefully two years.
Many of us, yeah. Well, I have a different experience with my kids 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? Chris Versant, on behalf of the Consumer
Federation of California,
Good afternoon. April Robinson with a Voice for Choice Advocacy, also on behalf of Clean Earth for Kids, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Environmental Health Services, Positions for Social Responsibility, San Francisco and calperg, all in support of the bill. Thank you.
Good afternoon. Committee chair members.
Kai Clawson on behalf of Breast Cancer
Prevention partners in strong support, also as a parent.
Thank you. Author.
Any witnesses in opposition? Thank you.
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 with an opposed unless amended position on Assembly Bill 1901. BAHP 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 personal hygiene products in North America. We want to 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 AB 1901 with California's Menstrual Product Ingredient Disclosure Law. In 2020, the state enacted the Menstrual Products Right to Know act, requiring manufacturers to list all intentionally added ingred contained in menstrual products. The Menstrual Product Right to Know act contains provisions that allow sufficient lead 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 non compliance 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 1901 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 requests the inclusion of an ongoing 18 month window for label changes on the outermost package due to ingredients 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 timeframe of 18 months to be implemented. Packaging changes for the entire US market generally require a timeframe of 18 months to be implemented. And as manufacturers continue to innovate and change the ingredients used in products, any labeling law should reflect that those packaging changes will require the same appropriate lead time to enable manufacturers sufficient time to comply and a path to continued compliance. BHP also requests removing language allowing the Attorney General, District attorneys and civil courts to pursue legal action on manufacturers for non compliance and instead 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 AB 1901 does not have protections for confidential business information known as cbi. Absent inclusion of protections for cbi, companies may be required to publicly disclose legitimate cbi, compromising proprietary information and negatively impacting the health of those businesses Further, in some instances, product manufacturers are legally bound through non disclosure agreements with their material suppliers, creating tension between compliance with this law and existing contractual obligations. Product safety is a top priority.
And just to know you're well over three months.
Okay.
Yes.
Now we would like to align this to build the Menstrual Product Safety Ingredient Disclosure Law. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Good afternoon, chair and members, Nicole Quinones. On behalf of the Fragrance Creators association, our members include fragrance ingredient suppliers, fragrance formulators and the consumer product manufacturers. We certainly share the author's 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 know act of 2017 as well as the Menstrual Product Right to know act of 2020 and the Cosmetic, Fragrance and Flavor Ingredient Right to know 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 would 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 lists must be disclosed. 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 with 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 want to 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 is also opposed unless amended.
Thank you.
Additional opposition. And from the public,
Elizabeth Esquivel of the California Manufacturers and Technology association also opposed unless 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 talked to the author already. I appreciate this bill and 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 listen to all the ingredients. I know that the author is thoughtful and I'm going to give you my support today. But hopefully you'll work with the stakeholders on this.
You bet. I appreciate it. Definitely. We'll continue to have conversations with stakeholders. We're not trying to do anything in this bill 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 the bill, product manufacturing or on the products. Also on the websites, there are a lot that don't. For instance, my wife and I'm not gonna throw any companies under the bus, but my wife and I were using diapers that I wasn't aware of this issue or of some of the potential harms. And I went out to the garage and I looked at the box. Nothing. And so we changed the type of diapers that we're using. And I think it's important that we actually provide the real information for parents, for consumers to be able to evaluate. And so putting something like adhesive, which is the common name that's used for some of these products, that doesn't tell a parent anything, as opposed to telling them the actual ingredients, the different chemicals that are used to make that adhesive. And so definitely keep on having conversations with all stakeholders. Absolutely want to. I'm not trying to do anything that is overly onerous for business, but I don't want to do. I don't want to 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 their babies.
What about 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 is a former colleague of mine 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 learn that sometimes those bills weren't as strong as they could have been, or a certain language in those bills creates loopholes that, when in effect, really accomplish the goals that we're trying to accomplish. And so I think that while the Menstrual Product Right to Know act and some of the other legislation that was mentioned was important legislation at the time, we've learned in implementation, and we've learned that some of those provisions have fallen short in providing true transparency for consumers. And so, you know, we should always, I think, be trying to make things, you know, better, make things better and improve them as we go. And that's our goal with this bill.
Senator. Member?
Yeah. Thank you. Seeing as I have teenagers, I will not benefit from this bill, but perhaps my grandkids will. But I really appreciate this, and I think 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 are a parent, you not join this committee because you'll learn everything 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.
Will you just give me the Cliffs Notes of whatever things I can't use? No.
You're telling you, the day that we heard Bill about soap, I was like, that's it.
I don't know what to do.
My kids are gonna stink.
But this is really important. And I do think, as you said, our babies are wearing these around the clock. I mean, this is. This is definitely. It's like tampons. Right? 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 looking out not only for your own son, but for all of California's babies.
Thank you.
Other questions or comments? Okay. Seeing that, I think we already have a motion and second assembly member. Yes.
Well, I guess it'll help us not to go back to cloth diapers.
I know
that was kind of awkward. Definitely appreciate your efforts.
Some 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 eyeball. And we'll definitely continue having conversations with stakeholders about the bill.
No, I appreciate that and obviously your lived experience, but just 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 appreciate you doing some additional work on it. We have a motion and second this is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. If we can have a roll.
This is File item number two, AB 1901, authored by assembly member Berman. The motion is due pass the Committee on Appropriations. Connolly.
Aye.
Connolly, Aye. Ellis, Bauer, Cahan, Aye. Bauer, Cahan. Aye. Castillo, Lee. McKinner. Aye. McKinner, aye. And Pappin? Papin. 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 Papin, are you ready on your bill? Okay, let's do consent. And this is on one item, AB 2086. 6.
On the proposed consent calendar is item number six, AB 2086.
We need a motion and second on consent. Do I have a. Okay, have a motion. And second.
All right, File item number 6, AB 2086, authored by assembly member Ellis. The motion is due pass to the Assembly Judiciary Committee on recommendation to the consent calendar. Connolly?
Aye.
Connelly.
Aye.
Ellis, Ellis. Aye. Bauer, Cahan. Aye. Bauer, Cahan. Aye. Castillo, Lee, McKinner. McKinner, aye. Papin. Aye.
Consent passes, and we'll leave that open as well. Okay, we have assembled member Pap and ready to go.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I'm here today to present a bill about keeping up with the times.
And this is file item three for the record.
That's right. AB 2380, which raises a maximum fee that a board of sups can charge to support operations of the county's agricultural 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 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 registration fees collected from pest control professionals. The problem is, most of those fees haven't been updated since the 1980s, a few of them in 2000, but most of them have been around since the 80s. So as a 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 and the increased costs of the crucial programs that they administer. With me today is Matt Sieverling on behalf of the County Ag Commissioners and Sealers Association.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Matthew Sieverling, 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 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 ask for that and respectfully urge your.
I vote.
Thank you.
Thank you. Additional speakers in support. Not seeing any. How about in opposition? Also not seeing any questions from committee members.
Oh, no.
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. This is an easy support for me because we, they take such good care of us and the elements of safety and, and our guys go in and get permits and they have to go through a class. Safety is so important in the pesticide world.
So.
Assemblymember, I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. This is an easy. An easy yes. So thank you.
Thank you for the support.
Well done. 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?
Respectfully request an I vote.
Great.
Thank you.
And this is an I 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.
All right, this is File item number three, AB 2380, authored by Assemblymember Pappin. The motion is to be adopted to the assembly floor. Connolly.
Aye.
Connolly, I. Ellis. Ellis, I. Bauer. Cahan. Bauer. Cahan. Aye. Castillo. Lee. McKinner. McKinner. Aye. And Pappin.
Aye.
Papin.
Aye.
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.
And that's.
Oh, we have a semi member Hadway
third bill today, so no problem.
File item 5 AB 2667, dealing with vapes and household head hazardous ways.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'd 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 asked kids what percentage of their school was vaping, they almost always said about 80%. When I asked parents that same question, they would say 10 to 20%. An even more troubling trend is kids are using vapes 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 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 could not 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 supplies are closed. 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. I 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 want to use. You can explain what the vape 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 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, okay.
That too.
Sharpies.
Oh, I love a Sharpie.
Yes. You want to pass them around?
Sure.
They smell really good.
They're super expensive, too. You guys. Do you want me to start?
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 the front row seat to what is rightly being called a vaping epidemic. And in the county like mine, the issue 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 the while, you are hiding it from your parents, 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 to our 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, 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 will leave you with this. Here is the ugly truth. I said this. I'm going to 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 in an addiction epidemic. Please help us protect our kids. Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
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 solid waste and hazardous waste streams. And so we operate A number over 150 household hazardous waste collection facilities where people can bring these back so we can safely and appropriately dispose of things. Vapes 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 Sutter 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 as 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 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 going to be hard for us on the waistline 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, implore your support of this bill today so we can keep the discussions and conversations moving. Thank you.
Thank you. Any additional testimony and support.
Thank you.
Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of
California Cities in support.
Good afternoon.
Lindsey Gohorn on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California and support.
Good afternoon. April Robinson with a Voice for Choice advocacy and 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.
McLean Rosanski 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 Conley, members of the committee. Mike Caprio with Republic Services here in support.
Connor Kennedy in support.
Yes. 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, Scene nine.
All right.
Okay.
Let's bring it back to committee questions. We've got to motion second, even though I think we already had a motion. Right. So we're going pappin motion Lee, second power K. And question.
Yes,
I'll take it. I just want to 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 vapor 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 in 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 attractive 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'm going to support the 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 have a $500 fine as a store owner for selling vapes from China that aren't FDA approved or 90% of the vapes sold in the US are illicit. So that's where we have to have some teeth and they have to have something worth losing. They make $500 in a couple hours, 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, 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.
Yeah, $500 is ridiculous.
Yes. Which I also, per violation, as I read it, would be every pen sold could be a violation. So there could rack up real fast, which is a good thing. And again, it's in the discretion of the local whoever to decide what that is actually. But it does give the real, I think, 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. Protect our children's health and safety. So I appreciate this work.
And Senator Papin, well, first of all,
thank you for driving five plus hours 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 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 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. 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 a young mind that's trying to do a whole lot of other things. So I very much appreciate hearing your perspective and I would ask BS at it as a co author.
Absolutely,
yes.
I want to thank the author for this bill and if it was up to me, I want to ban all things.
But that's not a conversation for now.
But you're the principal. I said at that school and I just wanted to get clarification. You said those. Your school has 200 students.
You have 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.
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 kind of seeing firsthand what you're dealing with at our schools. So thank you to the author for this work. Obviously, we want to 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 I vote as a chair. Let's go ahead and call the roll.
This is File item number five, AB 2667 offered by Assemblymember Hadwick. The motion is due pass to the Business and Professions Committee. Connolly.
Aye.
Connolly. Aye. Ellis Ellis.
Aye.
Bauer. Cahan. Bauer. Cahan.
Aye.
Castillo. Aye. Castillo, Aye. Lee. Aye. Lee. Aye. McKinner. Aye. McKinner. Aye. And Pat in.
Thank you.
All the votes unanimous. Bill passes. So we're going to circle back and do add ons right now? Absolutely. Thank you. Okay, let's keep it down if we can. We're going to do some add ons.
I'm going to start with File item number one. AB 1600. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. It has four eyes, one no. Chair voting I. Castillo not voting. Lee, Five eyes, one no. Five eyes, one no. File item number two. AB 1901, authored by Berman. The action is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Chair voting aye. The vote is four eyes as of now. Castillo not voting. Castillo and Lee Lee I. That is five eyes. File item number three. AB 2380. The action is to be adopted to the assembly floor. There is five eyes. Chair voting aye. Castillo Aye. Castillo I and Lee Lee I is seven eyes. File item number four. AB246, authored by Pellerin. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The vote is four eyes. Chair voting aye. Castillo no. Castillo no. Lee Lee aye. That's five eyes and one no. And File item number six. This is AB28. It is. The motion is due pass to the Assembly Judiciary Committee with the recommendation. Recommendation to the consent. Calendar Chair voting aye. Castillo. That's okay. File item number 6, 2086. It was on consent. Castillo I and Lee Lee I. That is 7.
0.
Thank you, everyone. We're adjourned.
Thank you.