Catherine Blakespear — Thanked for partnership in the hearing.
AB2113 — AB 2113 is discussed as a recent reform measure that the Legislature passed to increase DPR funding and advance sustainable pest management and safer alternatives, with the speaker noting that it was enacted two years ago.
AB2113 — AB 2113 is discussed as providing only a partial improvement to the reevaluation process, with the second mention reinforcing that the bill helps reevaluations somewhat but only in a limited way.
AB2113 — Cited as legislation passed to improve the pesticide re-evaluation process.
AB2113 — AB 2113 is discussed as the bill that established statutory timelines for DPR registration decisions, with the speaker emphasizing that its purpose was not to weaken California’s scientific review but to make the process more predictable. The discussion notes that the bill’s timelines will take effect in about a year and characterizes AB 2113 as the result of a difficult but meaningful negotiation.
AB2113 — AB 2113 is discussed as a central framework for DPR’s implementation efforts and ongoing transition. The bill is described as providing new resources and statutory requirements to improve efficiency, urgency, transparency, registration timelines, and reevaluation work. Speakers note that AB 2113 created timeline and reporting requirements for DPR’s review of new pesticide registrations, that DPR has met annual reevaluation requirements since its passage, and that the department continues working to implement the bill’s goals as part of its broader progress and priorities.
AB2113 — The discussion about AB 2113 focuses on how new funding provided to DPR is being used and whether it is being directed toward prioritizing registration of safer alternatives. In response, it is noted that under AB 2113, improving the efficiency of the registration program must come first before additional prioritization can occur.
Nick Schultz — The transcript repeatedly references Assembly Member Connolly in a procedural context: he is identified as the chair, the reference is repeated shortly afterward, and then the speaker hands the hearing back to him. These mentions collectively describe the transition back to Connolly without any substantive topic change.
Nick Schultz — Referred to as 'Assemblymember Schultz' in connection with legislative discussions about chemicals as a class and a Schultz bill.
Nick Schultz — Assembly Member Schultz took the floor, thanked the panelists, and then continued with a policy point supporting DPR’s 2050 goal while arguing that regulation should focus on entire classes of active ingredients and products rather than being handled case by case.
Nick Schultz — The speaker thanks Assembly Member Schultz and then addresses the chair and witness.
Kate Sanchez — Kate Sanchez is referenced as participating in a CDPH briefing about cancer concerns and as joining the hearing, indicating her involvement in the discussion of the issue.
Diane Dixon — Acknowledged as joining the hearing.
Diane Dixon — Referenced as having shared earlier about worker familiarity with protections.
Diane Dixon — Likely the Assembly Member speaking to follow up on the issue and asking whether DPR proactively investigates reports.
Diane Dixon — The speaker twice circles back to Diane Dixon’s earlier point, using it to reinforce the discussion about the need for a simplified map.
Chris Ward — Chris Ward is referenced twice while addressing Chair Connolly in the committee hearing, indicating a continuous exchange directed to the chair without a meaningful topic change.
Anna Maria Mora — Anna Maria Mora introduces herself as a physician and environmental epidemiologist at UC Berkeley, then adds that she grew up in a rural community in Costa Rica and trained as a physician, providing background that frames her work and perspective.
Professor Malley — The speaker says Professor Malley will speak to evaluating chemicals as mixtures.
Tim Maloy — Tim Maloy introduces himself as a recently retired UCLA School of Law professor and explains that, for the past 15 years, he and colleagues at UCLA’s School of Public Health and Institute of Society and Genetics have studied California’s pesticide regulatory system, including its scientific, legal, and real-world aspects.
Dr. Mora — Referenced as having previously discussed cumulative impacts.
Dr. Morris — Dr. Morris was asked whether biomonitoring data could make pesticide regulation more proactive, and he responded that such data would help assess not just the amount of pesticide being used, but how much is actually getting into people’s bodies, improving exposure tracking and regulatory decision-making.
Maggy Krell — The speaker transitions to questioning Professor Malloy about cumulative exposure and safer alternatives.
Angela Garcia — Introduced herself and began testimony criticizing California's pesticide policies.
Steve Bennett — Angela Garcia addressed Chair Connolly at the start of her remarks.
Steve Bennett — The witness opened testimony by addressing Chair Connolly and the committee, urging them to treat pesticide policy as an urgent structural crisis and framing the issue as a serious matter requiring immediate attention.
Steve Bennett — Addressed at the start of testimony.
Ann Katten — Introduced herself as a Pesticide and Work Health and Safety Specialist with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and began testimony criticizing DPR.
Bianca Lopez — Introduced herself as a co-founder of a grassroots organization in the Central Valley and began testimony about DPR governance and implementation.
AB1864 — AB 1864 is referenced as a bill that expanded protections for private school students and strengthened pesticide notification requirements, and it is later discussed as the law a coalition is currently reviewing to identify implementation gaps and ground-truth how it is working in practice.
Mr. Garcia — The committee questions Mr. Garcia about whether department revenue comes from pesticide sales, possible conflicts of interest, and tiered funding. Mr. Garcia begins responding to the pesticide-sales-based funding issue and notes that he would also invite his colleagues to weigh in, indicating the discussion continues on the same topic.
Mr. Garcia — Referenced as an earlier speaker whose comments the witness wanted to echo.
Ms. Lopez — Asked to address DPR's role when communities encounter local enforcement problems.
Christopher Finarelli — Introduced himself as speaking on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association about DPR's registration program.
Director Morrison — Credited, along with her team, for work improving the registration system.
Taylor Truffo — Introduced self as speaking on behalf of a broad coalition representing California's food and agricultural community.
Dr. Morrison — Expected to speak about DPR activities including Spark and EJAC.
Dr. Molloy — Referenced as having noted a similar point about expertise.
Hana Kauk — Introduced themself as a witness, but the name is uncertain because the next section identifies the speaker as Hana Kahl.
Hana Kahl — Identified as a witness from Community Alliance with Family Farmers, describing ecological pest management work.
Mr. Finarelli — The chair/member continued a follow-up exchange with Mr. Finarelli focused on how progress would be measured, what milestones and quantifiable results would be used, and how transparency, communication, and timelines would be handled.
Ms. Kahl — The witness is asked whether existing DPR programs can support farmer adoption of SPM or whether new programs are needed.
Chris [last name unclear], Agricultural Commissioner for Nevada County — Introduces himself as the agricultural commissioner for Nevada County and president of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association.
Karen Morrison — Karen Morrison, Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, opens her testimony by thanking the committee and explaining DPR’s mission to protect human health and the environment through sustainable pest management and pesticide regulation. She then introduces the Sustainable Pest Management Roadmap, describing its goals for human health, ecosystem resilience, agricultural sustainability, community well-being, and economic vitality, and notes that successful implementation requires investment in people and processes. She also explains that pesticide product registration involves layered review, with products first reviewed by the U.S. EPA and then by DPR to add California-specific conditions and safety requirements.
AB1963 — Cited as the bill that required reevaluation of paraquat.
David Alvarez — Identified as the speaker's predecessor who authored or carried AB 1963.
Luz Rivas — The speaker refers to sending a letter with several fellow legislators; this is likely the chair or member asking the question, but the transcript does not explicitly name the speaker here.
Elizabeth Pavia — Elizabeth Pavia introduced herself as an outreach worker with Líderes Campesinas in Merced and a lifelong farm worker. She described working in tomatoes, grapes, and cotton, saying cotton work was her worst experience, including exposure while cleaning cotton and being sprayed multiple times by pesticide drift from nearby aerial spraying. She explained that living in rural areas made her community especially vulnerable to pesticides and said her own exposure during pregnancy affected her two sons, one with ADHD and the other with respiratory problems. She also reported suffering chronic health conditions herself, including liver problems and rheumatoid arthritis, and emphasized that no one is exempt from pesticide exposure or its harms. She closed by thanking the committee and reiterating the shared responsibility to address pesticide dangers.
Victoria Post — Victoria Post, representing Líderes Campesinas from Sacramento, described her firsthand experiences as a farmworker exposed to pesticides. She said she developed a rash and skin irritation while working in the fields, but could not seek care easily because she lacked medical coverage and Medi-Cal cuts made treatment expensive. She also described working around almond pollination while helicopters sprayed poison nearby, underscoring the health risks faced by farmworkers.