Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/09/2018 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB129 | |
| HB315 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 315 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 315-CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL & CROP RECORDS
2:10:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 315, "An Act relating to the confidentiality of
certain records on animals and crops; and providing for an
effective date."
2:10:44 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), turned to the
PowerPoint presentation titled, "HB 315: Confidentiality of
Animal and Crop Records," slide 1, and advised that the Division
of Environmental Health worked with Governor Bill Walker's
office to introduce HB 315 because for at least the last 10-
years, the division has heard from the agricultural producers
that they would like the same level of protection provided to
other commercial industries. This protection would be by
keeping the animal importation and animal testing results
confidential. This legislation, she explained, would afford
those producers the same protection currently offered to
commercial fishermen, for example, the Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) has a similar statute. This bill amends AS 03.05 and
adds new sections authorizing the records held by Office of the
State Veterinarian (OSV) to be confidential, she reiterated.
This has been a coordinated effort with the Departments of
Environmental Conservation and Natural Resources, and she
advised that this presentation will reference the records
contained in the Division of Environmental Health, but this
would also give similar protection to the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), Division of Agriculture, who often holds crop
testing records.
2:12:54 PM
MS. CARPENTER turned to slide 3, titled "HB 315: Need Overview"
and explained that farmers requested this legislation because if
they work with her division on disease issues, that that
information may be subject to a public records release. The
division views this as an agricultural Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and would
provide those testing records and animal health records held in
the division as confidential. Therefore, this legislation would
be more protective of public health because it would allow
producers to engage with the division early on if there was a
disease outbreak or a morbidity event in which the division
could respond.
MS. CARPENTER then turned the presentation over to Dr. Bob
Gerlach, Alaska State Veterinarian regarding the role of his
office and the records the division is often responsible.
2:14:23 PM
DR. BOB GERLACH, State Veterinarian, Division of Environmental
Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), turned
to slide 4, titled "Office of the State Veterinarian" and
advised that his office is to responsible for the following:
prevention, control, and eradication of diseases in animals,
including livestock and pets; safeguard the health and food
production in the state; and prevent public health issues. Many
of these functions rely on his office to gather information
necessary to investigate an outbreak of a disease and know where
the risks are that are involved with the disease. This would
include: where animals are housed; animal movements; animal
imports; animal test records; and provide disease surveillance
records to show proof of concept, or proof of the state's
freedom from disease.
2:15:34 PM
DR. GERLACH turned to slide 5, titled "Program Functions and
Record Examples," and advised that the Office of the State
Veterinarian (OVR) maintains reportable disease records
containing reference data from slaughter plants, laboratories,
farms, and veterinarians. He explained that this slide depicts
some of its program functions, and basically these are different
functions available to collect the data it needs to understand
the risks involved with diseases in the state. Many functions
related to the animal input records that OSV has gathered data
from a health certificate, as well as input records from animals
coming into the state which provides animal inventories, disease
test records for these animals, origin, and destination of the
animals, he explained. Therefore, he offered, in the event or
an outbreak, the OSV could determine the location of that
outbreak and where those animals traveled to and from the state.
It also involves reporting of morbidity and mortality
investigations that the OSV may be involved in with other state
agencies. Many of these programs are certification programs
such as, the dairy program and the produce food safety program,
wherein if a producer wants to enter a market they must meet
federal requirements and provide his office with this
information and provide testing information to qualify and sell
their products. He explained that the Chronic Waste and Disease
Program or the National Poultry Improvement Plan provides
certification for these producers to show that the products they
are producing are free of disease, have a high standard of
quality, or validate the quality. For example, he offered,
Grade A milk to be sold within the state requires proof of
animal health and proof and verification of food safety being
produced.
2:17:55 PM
DR. GERLACH turned to slide 6, titled "Alaska Animal Imports:
OSV Records," and advised that the slide depicts some of the
import records OSV collects, and verification of the number of
imports associated with the number of animals coming into the
state. The slide illustrates the increase in the amount of
information gathered and records that OSV maintains as the
farmers and backyard operators begin to import animals or own
animals in the state. The Produce Food Safety Program was
recently created, due to an FDA requirement, wherein OSV
collects data and information on many agricultural farms that
requires the farmers to provide some personal data, business
data, and proprietary data. He noted that many other states are
gathering this same information and requiring that state to
address this issue and provide protections for personal,
proprietary, and business data to protect these individual farms
and businesses. Except, he said, also allowing release of that
data, when necessary, to follow-up on an investigation if there
is an outbreak, determine the source of the outbreak, and
perform the functions of which the OSV is required. For
example, he explained, provide animal health, ensure animal
health, protect public health, and make sure food safety is of
primary concern. In that regard, he advised, in the event of an
outbreak, "we do share that information" with the OSV's
collaborative partners to perform these investigations and
determine what could be done to mitigate this threat and correct
an outbreak.
2:19:48 PM
DR. GERLACH turned to slide 7, titled "Disease Outbreaks in
Alaska," and noted that the slide depicts an example of some of
the disease outbreaks that have occurred in Alaska, and offers
an appreciation for the number of diseases. He pointed out that
the slide shows some of the diseases that may solely affect
animals, and in those cases it works with the following:
veterinarians in the state; the Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) because the state does not want a domestic outbreak to
move into the wildlife; the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA); and if the situation involved public health
issues it would work with the Division of Public Health,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), as well as the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
[Slide 8 was described at timestamp 2:21:30.]
2:20:35 PM
DR. GERLACH turned to slide 9, titled "HB 315: Benefits," and
advised that the intent of this legislation is to protect
personal, proprietary, and business information, yet share that
data when necessary to protect animal health resources in the
state, public health, and food safety. He explained that it is
not that the OSV would collect it and not share it, because it
does share that data in a general format when there is an
outbreak to let veterinarians and farmers know there is an
issue, and that they should increase their biosecurity or their
preparedness in order to prevent the infection from entering
their farm or affecting their animals.
2:21:30 PM
MS. CARPENTER turned to slide 8, titled "HB 315: Sectional
Analysis," and advised that Section 1 amends AS 03.05 to make
certain animal and crop records, maintained by the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), exempt from the Alaska Public Records Act if
they contain personal, business, or proprietary information.
This legislation does allow the Office of the State Veterinarian
(OSV) to disclose that information if the department determines
there is a threat to the health or safety of an animal, crop, or
the public. Section 2 allows DEC and DNR to adopt regulations
to implement the Act, and at this time DEC does not foresee a
need to adopt regulations. Section 3 provides for an immediate
effective date, she said.
2:22:39 PM
MS. CARPENTER turned to slide 9, titled "HB 316: Benefits" and
added to Dr. Gerlach's testimony by noting that HB 315 has a
number of benefits specific to the agricultural industry growth.
It is the hope of OSV that by engaging with the OSV more often,
that there will be more routine surveillance testing of crops
and animals which would results in a higher quality product for
sale with increased production efficiency. There would also be
early identification and testing of sick or dead animals and in
the event of a disease outbreak, it would be contained, and the
OSV would keep that proprietary data confidential from potential
competitors.
2:23:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Dr. Gerlach's testimony that a
reason for the bill was to prevent public health hazards and not
end up with the public health hazard of a sick animal. In the
event the sickness is a public health hazard, she asked why the
testing is voluntary.
DR. GERLACH answered that some of the testing is voluntary and
other testing is required based on state and federal regulations
for access to markets in the sale and movement of animals.
2:24:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested an example of what disease tests
are voluntary and what tests are not voluntary.
DR. GERLACH responded that there is no required salmonella
testing in poultry, such as a backyard chicken house or a large-
scale producer selling eggs. Salmonella is a public health
disease that can cause illness in people and those people
performing voluntary testing use the results to show the quality
of their product and use that information as a sales marketing
tool, in comparison to other producers. Required disease
testing, for example, would be brucellosis testing for those
animals producing milk to be sold for consumption in the state,
the Grade A milk and cows must be tested. He offered that
brucellosis is very transmissible through animals and can make
them sick, but also can be transmitted to people and cause
severe illness, he explained.
2:25:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that brucellosis testing is
mandatory, and salmonella is voluntary, and asked whether
brucellosis is lethal and salmonella is not lethal.
DR. GERLACH explained that brucellosis was identified in the
early 1900s as a widespread disease within the animal industry
with current continuing pockets of brucellosis within the
wildlife in Alaska and the Greater Yellowstone area. Due to the
wide distribution of dairy products throughout that early time
period for brucellosis, and with the advent of pasteurization,
the testing is still required because it is a venereal disease
that can spread silently through a herd causing severe problems
and put the farmer at risk. Salmonella, he explained, can cause
severe illness but it is such a widespread disease that is
routinely found in the environment throughout the state. The
intention here is to try to decrease the risk for a transmission
of disease to people. In the event a person ate a raw egg,
their chance of ingesting salmonella could be upwards of about
10 percent of the commercial eggs having salmonella, he said,
and cooked eggs may be lower. He said that it is not based on
the OSV's determination but what federal or other laws have
already been required.
2:28:28 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether that was a long-hand way of saying
there was a risk benefit analysis, and based on that analysis,
"they are choosing" what is and is not mandatory.
DR. GERLACH answered in the affirmative.
2:28:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented the brucellosis risk benefit
analysis happened 100 years ago.
DR. GERLACH agreed, and he advised that if brucellosis disease
moves from state to state, there are strong regulations to
prevent that spread between any cattle or elk in the Greater
Yellowstone area, and the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana.
The implications of a disease spreading causes a great impact on
the general commercial industry, and in the event that disease
spread within the commercial industry within the United States,
that could impact global trade issues with respect to the
movement of animals and animal products out of the country, he
explained.
2:29:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that the testing is for the
industry and trade as opposed to public health.
DR. GERLACH answered that the testing performs both purposes, it
protects the industry and commerce on a local, state, and global
commercial level; as well as protects public health.
2:30:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that the Matanuska-Susitna Valley is
proud of its agriculture, particularly the "Alaska Grown"
program piece. He referred to the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee wherein Ms. Carpenter had mentioned partnering with
the Division of Agriculture to investigate abuses of the "Alaska
Grown" program, and he asked her to speak to that issue.
MS. CARPENTER advised that, under current state law, if DNR is
looking into an abuse of the "Alaska Grown" program, the OSV
could provide that information to DNR. Under this legislation,
the OSV would no longer be allowed to provide that information
to DNR unless there was a public health risk. Although, she
said, because the "Alaska Grown" program is voluntary, it would
be possible for DNR to require those animal importation records
as part of its verification process and remove DEC from the
middle of the process.
2:32:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered concern that when addressing
confidentiality, some of the information regarding which animals
are [imported into] Alaska will be harder to access for the
public. There may not be a robust and aggressive investigation
into the prosecution of abuses regarding the "Alaska Grown"
program, and he asked the last time someone was prosecuted for
abuse of this program.
MS. CARPENTER advised that the "Alaska Grown" program is under
DNR and she could not speak to that issue.
2:33:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked Dr. Gerach whether he was part of the
family from Glennallen.
DR. GERLACH advised that his family was originally from
Pennsylvania and not from Glennallen.
2:33:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that the gist of this bill is to try to
put farm and ranch producers on equal footing with seafood
producers and the manner in which information is handled. This
would be with regard to disease and the confidentiality of those
records, and when the department can make public those records,
and be treated in the same manner as the seafood industry, he
offered.
DR. GERLACH added that this would also provide protection of
personal and business data, not just from any proprietary
business data. He explained that for anyone running a business,
it would be protection of their business and marketing plan, it
is not solely related to food safety issues.
2:34:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered a scenario of one particular producer
having a diseased product and asked whether this bill would
allow the public identification of that producer or would this
prevent the identification of that one specific producer.
DR. GERLACH answered that the information would be released to
other collaborative partners in the event of a public health
threat, or in order to investigate, contain, and remove that
threat. Thereby, allowing the continuation of business
throughout the state so that other producers are not involved
and impacted by that disease outbreak or contamination, or a
public health threat associated with their products, he
explained.
2:36:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to slide 6, noting that the
state has imported more than 95,000 animals during this last
year and asked whether that is a trend he expects to continue.
DR. GERLACH answered that that trend is expected to continue
because there are a large number of small backyard operations
importing poultry for meat and egg productions and sales. He
also noted an increase in swine and cattle to meet the needs for
local market demand in restaurants and stores.
2:36:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that 401 horses were imported in
2017, and he asked Dr. Gerlach to speak to what is driving those
imports.
DR. GERLACH referred to the chart for 2016 and noted there was
not "too much of a variation," but there had been an increase in
pleasure horses and pack/work horses entering the state used for
guides and trail rides. The number of pleasure horses increased
drastically and the movement throughout the lower '48 has
increased much more than is being seen here, he advised.
2:37:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Dr. Gerlach to address the concern
that this confidentiality makes it harder for the public to know
whether an animal entered the state from Canada or was actually
Alaska grown. In the event the animal was not Alaska grown but
yet someone puts that label onto it, he asked how this bill is
serving, through confidentiality, to sweep that fact under the
rug.
MS. CARPENTER reiterated that the "Alaska Grown" program is held
under DNR and it is up to DNR to make sure the producers
qualifying for that program meet DNR's requirements. She
deferred to DNR to address the concerns from producers that
other producers may not meet those requirements.
2:39:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that it was clear the DEC could not
answer any questions about the "Alaska Grown" program.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there was a DNR person
online to address those issues.
CHAIR CLAMAN said the committee would move to public testimony
because someone online is from DNR.
2:40:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened the public hearing on HB 315.
2:41:04 PM
BRYCE WRIGLEY, Alaska Farm Bureau, advised that the Alaska Farm
Bureau is deeply committed to strengthening security in Alaska
by growing more of its own food. This, he commented, requires
commitment from farmers and statutes/regulations encouraging
local food production and processing. He pointed out that this
legislation is important because it will encourage farmers and
ranchers to communicate their concerns about their crops or
animals to the state agencies without fear that information will
become public. For example, he offered, a competitor could
leverage information about a neighbor's problem in order to
increase their own market share. Also, he offered, the
voluntary testing of animals or agricultural products allows for
early detection of a disease and allows treatment to be taken,
thereby, decreasing the potential for more serious outbreaks.
In spite of the benefits, he related that many farmers are
reluctant to subject their animals or products to this voluntary
testing because the results of those tests are not confidential.
He said that the Alaska Farm Bureau believes the state agencies
should function as a resource to help its members be successful,
and that cultivating that partnership is vital to developing a
strong local food system in Alaska. He then encouraged the
committee to pass this bill as it does no harm and it will build
trust between the state's food producers and the government. In
working together, they can transform the state's food (indisc.).
2:42:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 315.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Mr. Keys, Division of Agriculture, that a
member has questions regarding the "Alaska Grown" program, how
it intersects with HB 315, and the position of the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) on this legislation.
2:43:35 PM
ARTHUR KEYES, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), related that it is important the
farmers' trust the government when they have a problem.
Certainly, Dr. Gerlach was professionally speaking on the
livestock side of things, and on the plant side, he advised that
the Division of Agriculture provides testing for the farmers as
needed. As Mr. Wrigley had advised, he stated that it is
important the farmers trust that when they go to DNR with a
problem, that DNR is able to help them address their problem
without fear a neighbor may be able to use the legal Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) process to use that information against
the farmer on the marketing side of things. He expressed that
the importance of trust could not be understated, including the
importance of the relationship between DNR and its farmers.
2:44:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the last time someone had been
prosecuted for an abuse of the "Alaska Grown" program.
MR. KEYES answered that he could not say there had been a
prosecution, but there was a 2016 lawsuit wherein the State of
Alaska sued the Mat-Su Chapter of the Alaska Farm Bureau over
the use of the logo.
2:45:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the fact that cattle or a
horse had been imported from out-of-state is proprietary
information or should that information be available to the
public.
MR. KEYES opined, after listening to Dr. Gerlach's testimony
today, that an animal being imported into the State of Alaska
would not be protected information, and the proprietary business
information attached to that would be confidential.
2:46:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether "becoming confidential"
would make it more difficult for the public to determine whether
an animal had been Alaska grown.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out to Representative Eastman that Mr.
Keyes' answer was that the information that the animal
originated in Canada was not confidential.
MR. KEYES answered that Chair Claman was correct.
CHAIR CLAMAN verified that the confidential information has to
do more with disease issues, such as brucellosis and salmonella,
but in terms of the fact where the animal originated (audio
difficulties).
2:46:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether this bill would make that
type of information more difficult for the public to obtain or
would it stay the same as it is currently.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked which information Representative Eastman was
referencing.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered, specifically regarding the
origin of an animal.
MR. KEYES responded that finding out the number of animals that
came in from Canada is fine, but the information of the origin
of his neighbor animals is proprietary information because that
is not in the public's interest, he opined.
2:47:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that the effect of this bill
would be to include that information with other proprietary
information.
MR. KEYES said he was not sure he understood the question. He
opined that wherever the farmer gets the cattle he puts on his
farm, it is not the neighbor's business where that cattle
originated.
CHAIR CLAMAN related that he was confused because he had asked
Mr. Keyes whether obtaining a permit to import an animal from
Canada was public information and if so, how can it be private
that the animal in his backyard is from Canada.
MR. KEYES deferred to Dr. Gerlach because he is the better
person to answer this specific livestock question. He opined
that there is information on the import tags where the animal
originated and the farm. As Mr. Wrigley had noted, it would be
detrimental to a business to have it out there for public
consumption. Although, he said, that does not mean a person
cannot know an animal came from Canada, but there is information
that should be protected.
2:49:31 PM
DR. GERLACH explained that every animal coming into the state is
required to have an ear tag listing the source of origin for
that animal. In the event they are specifically arriving from
Canada, they must have a Canadian specific ear tag, as well as a
tattoo or a brand. Those animals are identified from their
source, which is extremely important to trace if there is a
disease outbreak or an issue with the health and safety of that
product, he explained.
2:50:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he understands it is important
for the department to have that information but offered concern
that the public may not readily have that information. He asked
whether the tag is required to stay with the animal for the life
of the animal or only when they come into the state.
DR. GERLACH advised that the tag, through federal requirements,
is forbidden to be taken out of that animal until it is
slaughtered or processed for food.
2:50:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Dr. Gerlach whether this
legislation will make the information regarding the animal's
origin more difficult to obtain, or not have any effect.
DR. GERLACH answered that if the question is whether this animal
is Alaska grown, that would be directed toward the Division of
Agriculture to evaluate the circumstances, where that animal was
raised, and how long it was raised in Alaska, to determine
whether it met that label requirement. With respect to the
number of animals coming into Alaska, OSV publishes a yearly
chart to let people know how many animals have been imported
into the state, which is part of annual information OSV
distributes to veterinarians, farmers, and the Alaska Farm
Bureau.
2:51:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN re-asked his question in a different
manner, as a member of the public, will this bill make it more
difficult from him to determine whether a particular animal was
imported.
DR. GERLACH advised that if Representative Eastman was asking
him whether he could tell advise if Chair Claman's cattle were
Canadian cattle, he would say, "I will not tell you that because
that's proprietary business where he has his cattle." In the
event Representative Claman is marketing the cattle and selling
them to Representative Eastman through the "Alaskan Grown"
program, then Representative Eastman would go through the
Division of Agriculture to determine whether those cattle met
the requirements of the "Alaskan Grown" program.
2:52:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she was thoroughly confused, and
surmised that the public can find out, due to this permit,
tattoo, or whatever, what animals have arrived from Canada. In
the event her neighbor imported an animal from Canada, it is
public information as to "where that animal is, correct?"
DR. GERLACH said that that information can be obtained, but
through this regulation and proprietary information, how
Representative Claman is building his cattle herd to enter
different markets is his business plan, and it is protected as
proprietary information, personal information.
2:53:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that under this bill, the public
will not be able to know where these cattle originated, it will
only be allowed to know that 100 head of cattle came into Alaska
from Canada. She further surmised that, in whose backyard those
cattle have landed, the public will be not allowed to know.
DR. GERLACH answered that Representative LeDoux was correct
because these cattle came in through Canada and met all of the
USDA health requirements to come into the country and have met
all of the Alaska requirements that they are healthy and free
from infectious/contagious disease.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that if a person was worried about where
their neighbor's cattle originated, they could walk to the fence
and wave the cow over and read its tag.
2:55:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether any member has a potential amendment
for HB 315.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he does have an amendment
because the witnesses have not been able to answer the state of
the enforcement of the "Alaska Grown" program, and this
legislation will limit the ability of public to oversee and
identify what is "Alaska Grown." He related that it puts all
of the onerous on the department "to do so," and he has heard
concerns that the department is not aggressively pursuing those
investigations even when credible information was offered. He
said he would like to receive information from the department as
to the last time it prosecuted someone for that type of abuse,
and how robust is its investigation process.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Jennifer Currie, Department of Law (DOL)
whether there are any provisions in the criminal code or other
code that would allow for criminal prosecution related to misuse
of the "Alaska Grown" program.
2:57:18 PM
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Environmental Section, Department of Law (DOL), advised that she
is unaware of any criminal provisions that would go to
prosecution for improper use of the "Alaska Grown" program.
2:57:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN (audio difficulties) asked whether there has been
any practice in the Department of Law (DOL) to bring civil
actions relating to misuse of the "Alaska Grown" program.
MS. CURRIE replied that, unfortunately, she represents the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and it does not
have that program, and she was unaware whether there had been
prosecutions.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented, or at least civil cases if not criminal
prosecutions. In order to get Representative Eastman's
questions answered they would need a different section in the
DOL.
2:58:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether any of the cannabis
operations adopted the "Alaska Grown" program for their
operations.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP advised that "we don't have the testing
down" even for the facilities the state does have to teach
[laughter through comment - indisc.] much less "Alaska Grown."
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that as a legal matter, it must be grown
in Alaska because it is illegal to cross state lines.
2:59:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that marijuana producers can use
the label "Alaska Grown."
MR. KEYES responded that currently, no marijuana producers are
allowed to use the "Alaska Grown" logo with their crop because
that program is run through the Division of Agriculture and it
is not accepting marijuana producers' applications. The primary
reason being that it uses a lot of federal dollars for that
program and it is still an illegal crop on the federal level,
which would jeopardize the division's funding for that program.
Also, he said, to Representative Eastman's question, if the
division saw or heard of a violator possibly using "Alaska
Grown" improperly, it would contact that person and potentially
remove them from the "Alaska Grown" program.
3:01:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Keyes, as Director of the Division of
Agriculture, whether he was familiar with any civil lawsuits
filed against anyone in connection with the misuse of the
"Alaska Grown" program.
MR. KEYES reiterated that in 2016, a civil lawsuit was filed,
and pointed out that during the two years of his tenure as
director, the division has contacted various retail outlets when
the "Alaska Grown" program was used in a questionable manner.
He related that on every occasion that the division contacted
the vendor, the problem was rectified with minimal issues.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB129 ver D 1.29.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB129 Updated Fiscal Note DOA-SSOA 2.9.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB129 Amendments #1-3 2.9.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB129 Amendments #1-3 HJUD Final Votes 2.9.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB315 ver A 2.9.18.PDF |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 Transmittal Letter 2.9.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 Supporting Document-Public Comment.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 PowerPoint Presentation 2.9.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB315 Fiscal Note DEC-EHL 2.9.18.PDF |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |