CA SB 89
deadGlyphosate: prohibition on sale.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA SB 89 pass?
No. CA SB 89 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process. Latest recorded action (2026-02-02): Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
What is CA SB 89 about?
Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of specified pesticides, as prescribed. Existing law provides that the regulation of pesticides is of statewide concern and that the state occupies the whole field of regulation regarding the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides to the exclusion of all local regulation. This bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2028, the sale of a product that contains glyphosate in this state, except to a person or business that holds a valid license or certificate issued by the Department of Pesticide Regulation. The bill would require the department to levy a civil penalty of $100 for each violation of this prohibition.
Who sponsors CA SB 89?
Weber Pierson is the primary sponsor of CA SB 89.
Description
Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of specified pesticides, as prescribed. Existing law provides that the regulation of pesticides is of statewide concern and that the state occupies the whole field of regulation regarding the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides to the exclusion of all local regulation. This bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2028, the sale of a product that contains glyphosate in this state, except to a person or business that holds a valid license or certificate issued by the Department of Pesticide Regulation. The bill would require the department to levy a civil penalty of $100 for each violation of this prohibition.
- Introduced
- 2025-01-22
- Latest action
- 2026-02-02 — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Weber Piersonauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-02-02
Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
failure
2025-03-19
April 2 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.
2025-03-11
Set for hearing April 2.
2025-03-05
Re-referred to Coms. on E.Q. and AGRI.
referral-committee
2025-02-25
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-01-29
Referred to Com. on RLS.
referral-committee
2025-01-23
From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 22.
2025-01-22
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
introduction,reading-1,referral-committee
Versions
Documents
Votes
Not provided by source.
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-10-30T21:44:13.670118Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=SB 89. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.