Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
04/19/2021 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio
and video
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB22 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 22-SHARED ANIMAL AND RAW MILK/PRODUCTS
1:01:51 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 22, "An Act relating to shared animal
ownership; and relating to the sharing and sale of raw milk and
raw milk products."
1:02:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, provided introductory remarks on HB 22. She expressed
her excitement regarding how much support there is for the bill.
She offered to answer any questions on the bill and said the
forthcoming amendment by Representative Rauscher will provide
further discussion on the bill.
1:03:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that he visited a farm and has
returned with some tasty cheese for committee members to try.
1:03:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
which read:
Page 2, line 6
Delete item (c)
Re-letter the rest accordingly
1:03:43 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
1:03:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER explained that Conceptual Amendment 1
comes from trying to understand what HB 22 is attempting to do,
which, in his opinion, is to ensure that raw milk is available
for people to purchase. He said Conceptual Amendment 1 points
out that the language on page 2, line 6, "(c) A person may not
sell raw milk or a raw milk product", is foreign to what is
trying to be accomplished with the bill. Therefore, the
amendment would delete (c) and re-letter the rest accordingly.
1:04:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR spoke to what would be the effects of
Conceptual Amendment 1. She provided a history to put things
into context. She related that in 2017 she learned about a
movement called Food Freedom when she met a North Dakota state
representative who had introduced a food freedom bill in that
state's legislature. In talking with the representative about
the bill, she became very interested in bringing this to Alaska.
Conceptually it is about shortening the supply chain and making
it easier for consumers to get products directly from producers,
ranchers, and farmers. She said she filed House Bill 217, which
would have expanded the opportunity for raw milk products as
well as animal products. However, she continued, at that time
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) expressed
concern that this much more expansive option would cause an
increase in foodborne illness outbreaks. The original fiscal
note provided by DEC for the bill projected about $1 million per
year to hire staff to investigate and respond to DEC's
anticipated increase in foodborne illnesses. Since then,
Representative Tarr specified, multiple states North Dakota,
Wyoming, Utah, to name a few have expanded these policies and
have more fully adopted this food freedom policy. Those states
are not seeing increases in foodborne illnesses, she related,
and therefore she believes Alaska could accomplish this safely.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR added that in recognition of Alaska's fiscal
situation, the bill currently before the committee is much more
modest in what it is attempting to accomplish. She explained
that when there has been tension between public health and
safety and increasing opportunity, she has tried to find ways to
move forward and prove the safety. One example is food hubs,
which are online sales opportunities for farmers and producers.
When food hubs were first proposed [DEC] was very concerned, she
said, so only one food hub was allowed in Alaska as a pilot
program during the original year. It was successful and proved
it could be done safely. The food hub concept has now been
expanded and there are multiple food hubs around Alaska,
increasing the opportunity for consumers to get these products
and using online sales as the platform for making those
purchases. So similarly, she pointed out, it was decided to
pick a more modest step forward in this bill.
1:08:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that HB 22 would put the existing
herd share program into statute. Strengthening this program by
moving it from regulation into statute would provide certainty
to the farmers that it will exist in perpetuity. Currently the
herd share program is limited to fluid milk products, she said,
[and HB 22 would provide] expansion to value-added products like
cheese, ice cream, butter, kefir, and other products that a
[producer] wants to make available.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated she finds herself in the position of
saying she supports what Representative Rauscher is suggesting
and thinks it can be accomplished safely in Alaska. She said
she wants HB 22 to move forward and be passed by the legislature
because it would provide a new business opportunity in Alaska at
a time when people are struggling, and the state is recovering
economically. The bill would have immediate positive business
and consumer impacts for Alaskans, she noted, so she doesn't
want to do anything that might slow the bill down. She said she
is therefore cautiously opposing the amendment right now with
the understanding that the conversation will be continued and
that she will continue working with the governor who personally
called her last week about the legislation. Representative Tarr
related that the governor is interested in this legislation and
even in the more expansive opportunity, but she thinks the best
option today is to move forward with what is known and make sure
there are no unintended consequences. She emphasized that she
is very committed to working with anyone who is interested in
food freedom more broadly. She said it doesn't have to be her
who is working on this, she would be happy to share the
legislation that was originally drafted with any other member
and support that member in working on it too.
1:10:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY requested clarification on whether
Representative Tarr is in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied she is opposing the amendment today
because she doesn't want to have any unintended consequences
that would slow down HB 22. She said she has talked with the
amendment sponsor and has committed to continue working with
him. If this is realistic and feasible in this legislature,
then, yes, she would take the opportunity to strengthen Alaska's
agriculture. It isn't about her idea, she added, but rather
about ensuring that [the bill] keeps moving forward.
CHAIR PATKOTAK invited the director of DEC's Division of
Environmental Health to provide an understanding of what
Conceptual Amendment 1 might change as far as the administrative
side of things for raw milk and the industry as a whole.
1:11:37 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), stated she would
need to look at the bill and revisit the fiscal analysis since
it was done a few years ago. She said DEC is committed to
working collaboratively on this issue and offered her
appreciation for the sponsor's willingness to engage with DEC.
1:12:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said she appreciates Representative
Rauscher's attempt to broaden the scope, but as stated by the
bill sponsor, this incremental change to what currently exists
of herd sharing from the milk's fluid state to cheeses and such,
keeps it within herd sharing. She recalled that the committee
looked at some legislation last year about a bigger legalization
of raw milk products and it quickly got complex financially and
statutorily. While she would like to look at things that would
support a bigger dairy industry, including raw milk as a part of
that, she said she thinks it would derail the proposed bill's
passage and she would like to see the bill move forward now.
She pointed out that the bill's fiscal note is zero, the bill
has no agency opposition or concern, and the bill has very broad
support in both bodies. She further recalled that last year
when the legislature looked at cutting the dairy inspector in
the budget, it was learned that there are many federal
regulations about what a state can do to sell milk. She said
herd sharing is not a work-around, but is an avenue permitted
under the law that the state can expand on and prove up. She
said she therefore will oppose Conceptual Amendment 1.
1:15:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his appreciation for the
discussion but said he doesn't see anywhere in HB 22 that says
selling raw milk is acceptable. He continued:
So, this is basically saying that now you're confining
something that has really nothing to do with the bill
at all. It steps outside of what we're talking about,
which is herd sharing. So, I'm not saying this
changes it to allowing, and nowhere in the bill does
it say allows us to sell raw milk to, or ... a raw
milk product. All of a sudden, this language appears
where it says we can't, nowhere did we say we can, and
nowhere are we talking about doing that. But here we
just come out of the blue and we say a person may not
sell raw milk or raw milk product. And so you see why
I don't understand why it fits, why I've drawn the
amendment. To what you said and to what I've heard
from the maker of the bill, and I have also by the way
co-sponsored this bill from its inception when it was
first planted into the House, and I did in the years
before only because I would like to see the bill move
forward also. But I really don't understand why we
start ... to make laws against things that have
nothing to do with what we're talking about. I'll
remove it, but I think that discussion needs to happen
because I don't know why you want to make other things
illegal when we're just trying to talk about something
we'd like to see illegal, which is why I'll withdraw
it at this time. But I would like to at least find
out a better understanding of why.
CHAIR PATKOTAK clarified Representative Rauscher had withdrawn
Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB 22.
1:17:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to report HB 22 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero]
fiscal notes.
1:18:11 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR thanked the committee for its interest and
support of HB 22. She restated her commitment to Representative
Rauscher to continue discussing the amendment he proposed.
1:18:45 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection. There being no further
objection, HB 22 was reported out of the House Resources
Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 98 Letter Becky Long 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 Letter John Strasenburgh 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 HRES Amendment Packet 1 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/23/2021 10:30:00 AM HRES 4/23/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 Memo Amendment A.15 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/23/2021 10:30:00 AM HRES 4/23/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 Amendment Cronk A.24 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/23/2021 10:30:00 AM HRES 4/23/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 22 Conceptual Amendment Rauscher 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB 98 HRES Action on Amendments 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/23/2021 10:30:00 AM HRES 4/23/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |