Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/15/1999 03:15 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 110 - SALE/LABELING OF MEAT/MILK PRODUCTS
Number 1923
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is HB 110, "An Act relating to the sale, offer to sell, and
labeling of fluid milk, meat, and meat products."
Number 1929
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, as the bill sponsor, said he has been asked
to introduce this legislation by Alaskan dairy farmers. The bill
does two things: 1) it institutes a pull date on milk for shelf
life in Alaska; 2) it gives a niche market for milk produced
without hormones in Alaska. He commented he thinks all milk
produced in the state is produced without the use of synthetic
hormones, unlike a lot of milk produced outside Alaska and sold in
the state. The bill provides a penalty if milk is labeled as
produced without hormones but does contain them; it would be false
advertising. He understands that there is a market for
non-hormone-induced milk and this provides a penalty if producers,
especially Alaskan producers, label their milk falsely in this
respect. Representative Harris indicated Pete Fellman would
provide the committee with more detail. He commented Mr. Fellman
has been working with the dairy farmers and is a dairy farmer
himself.
Number 2016
PETE FELLMAN, Researcher for Representative John Harris, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward to explain HB 110. He commented
Representative Harris had said everything he had intended to say.
Mr. Fellman noted a March 15, 1999, Monsanto Company letter in the
bill packet indicates voluntary labeling of milk as
non-hormone-induced is legal and is happening in the Lower 48. The
letter further indicates Monsanto supports the labeling as long as
it meets the guidelines set forth. Mr. Fellman said there is milk
labeled non-hormone-induced for sale in Alaska, in Juneau. The
authority to regulate this comes from the state where the milk is
produced. He believes the milk sold in Juneau comes from
Minnesota, therefore Minnesota sets the standard for the
regulations and enforcement. Alaska has no such law. Mr. Fellman
indicated the intent is to support Alaskan agriculture which is
small and 40 years behind the Lower 48. The hope is to put this
legislation through as a consumer-choice bill. Whether bST [bovine
somatotropin, also called bovine growth hormone] is harmful or not
is not the issue, the issue is the choice to not drink milk
produced by a synthetic hormone. Consumers currently have that
choice from milk produced outside the state; the intent is to allow
the same choice with milk produced in the state. This will create
niche markets. Mr. Fellman stated he personally is attempting to
build a cheese plant and would like to be able to label his cheese
non-hormone-induced. He commented they cannot compete with Lower
48 thousand-cow dairy farms, and noted he believes about 72 percent
[of these farms] use bST to increase milk production. By creating
markets for milk and meat producers, HB 110 will help protect
Alaska's already substantial investment in agriculture. Mr.
Fellman said they are looking for ways to secure agriculture and
the state's investment.
Number 2168
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked where Mr. Fellman's dairy farm is located.
MR. FELLMAN replied Delta Junction.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Mr. Fellman if he has read the letter
from Monsanto and has any answers to their questions. [The March
15, 1999, letter from Michael J. Diamond, Associate Director,
Monsanto State Government Affairs, to Chairman Rokeberg reads:
On behalf of Monsanto, I am pleased to provide you with
some additional information concerning the voluntary
labeling of milk, dairy and other meat products as
proposed by HB 110. While Monsanto does not oppose
voluntary labeling, we do express our concerns over the
way in which labeling is addressed.
Attached, please find some information which I think you
will find helpful in discussing the issue of milk/dairy
safety. I would, however, like to point out the
following points, which I believe merit serious
consideration:
1. The federal Food and Drug Administration determined
there is no significant difference between dairy products
produced by cows administered with rBGH and cows not
administered with rBGH. The products are essentially the
same, and in fact, no differentiation can be made.
2. In a 1997 court ruling in Illinois, Ben & Jerry's
Homemade Inc. was prohibited from placing a "no rBGH"
label on their product because it was deemed misleading
to consumers.
3. The FDA has reaffirmed its 1993 finding that rBGH is
safe for human consumption. A letter from Health
Secretary Donna Shalala to House Minority Leader Gephardt
stated that "the lack of oral activity of rBST/rBGH and
insulin [-like] growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and the low level
and non-toxic nature of the residues of these compounds,
even at exaggerated doses, results in an extremely large
margin of safety for humans consuming dairy produced from
rBST-treated cows.["?] In 1998, the Joint Food and
Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization
Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) reaffirmed the
safety of milk and meat from treated cows.
4. Current law already permits producers to engage in
voluntary labeling, provided their claims are truthful
and not misleading, nor do they make a claim they cannot
support.
Additional concerns, which should be considered, include:
1. Are the state's Agricultural Department or Health
agencies capable of testing milk, meat, or dairy products
for the presence of rBGH? Unlikely, since the products
are essentially identical and BST is a naturally
occurring protein found in cows - hence, it would be
impossible to support a claim that any product is, in
effect, "BST-Free."
2. What kind of affidavit would be needed to guarantee
compliance by dairy producers?
3. Finally, who is liable in a situation where a producer
sells a milk/dairy product from a treated cow, despite
claiming that his product is rBGH free? The producer?
The packager? Or the State?
Monsanto does not oppose voluntary labeling, since it is
already legally permissible - however, we do maintain
that any voluntary labeling must follow FDA guidelines,
and be entirely truthful and verifiable.]
Number 2178
MR. FELLMAN replied he received this information about an hour
before the hearing and commented he has spoken with Mr. Diamond.
Monsanto is not against this labeling, the company is concerned the
bill itself meets the criteria. Mr. Fellman indicated he believes
it might be possible to address this language in the Alaska
Administrative Code if such legislation is enacted.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to a letter in opposition to HB 110
in the bill packet from the National Food Processors Association
(NFPA). He noted part of the letter says that HB 110 is
unnecessary because voluntary disclosure is already permitted under
FDA [Food and Drug Administration] rules. He asked if Mr. Fellman
is aware of this.
MR. FELLMAN answered in the affirmative, but his research shows
that individual states have the right to regulate milk and milk
labeling. There is a federal milk quality guideline that must be
met for bacteria, pasteurization, et cetera, but the state sets
certain limits and can set certain guidelines.
Number 2255
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO pointed out that criminal sanctions are being
proposed when bST is a naturally-occurring hormone and it might be
in any given cow. He asked if Mr. Fellman could address this.
MR. FELLMAN replied he has talked to Monsanto's veterinarians at
length and has entertained the idea himself over the years of
injecting his cows because it is profitable. The bST in the milk
cannot be distinguished from naturally-occurring bST, although the
levels are higher. However, a veterinarian can examine the known
injection sites: at the tail-head or in the shoulders. Mr.
Fellman indicted the cows develop a small cyst because the product
is oil-based and is slowly released into the bloodstream. If there
was a consumer complaint, the state veterinarian could exhume that
cyst and, if all or many of a farmer's cows had these cysts, make
a reasonable determination or correlation that the cattle were
being given bST.
Number 2328
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he believes the question is: If it is
naturally occurring, how do you differentiate and why make it
criminal?
MR. FELLMAN referred to information in the bill packet on the
milk-cancer connection ["Milk and the Cancer Connection," Hans R.
Larsen, MSc ChE, International Health News, Editor/Publisher: Hans
R. Larsen]. Mr. Fellman stated there is evidence the higher levels
change some of the components in milk. He said when that happens,
"IGF" [IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor 1] changes. Mr. Fellman
indicated there may be possible connections to breast cancer. All
they are speaking of is giving people the right to choose.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned whether Alaska has a state
veterinarian that would actually go out and enforce this.
MR. FELLMAN indicated the farms are inspected on a regular basis by
the state veterinarian. He confirmed for Representative Halcro
that there is an enforcement mechanism in place; the state vet
could be called in if there would be a complaint.
Number 2384
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if Mr. Fellman markets his milk
through Matanuska Maid [Matanuska Maid, Incorporated].
MR. FELLMAN replied they market their milk through Northern Lights
Dairy in Delta Junction; their milk goes to Fairbanks. He
confirmed for Representative Sanders that the labeling would be on
the carton and would be voluntary. Mr. Fellman mentioned that a
small producer in the "Valley" [Trytten Farms, Wasilla, Matanuska
Valley, letter of support in bill packet] would like to start its
own processing plant. Since the owner milks his own cows and is
there for all aspects of the process, he would be able to purchase
a carton stating he does not use hormones in his milk. However,
"Mat-Maid" [Matanuska Maid, Incorporated] could not use the label
because 70 percent of its milk comes from out-of-state. This milk
is pooled with Alaskan-produced milk. There is no way to tell if
that 70 percent has been produced with bST; therefore Mat-Maid
would not be able to use the label. Mr. Fellman noted it is
essentially a voluntary label for small family farmers.
Number 2433
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if North Star Dairy imported milk.
MR. FELLMAN stated all of their milk is produced in Delta from five
dairy farms. Everything they have goes into fluid milk right into
the market. Mr. Fellman noted the decision to use the label would
be up to Don Lintelman, the owner of Northern Lights Dairy. If so,
Mr. Lintelman and all the farmers would have to sign a statement
guaranteeing they are not using the hormone. Mr. Fellman noted he
doesn't think Mr. Lintelman is interested in using the label, but
he himself and others in the state are interested in attacking the
small niche markets.
Number 2479
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI returned to the enforcement aspect and the
associated criminal negligence penalties. She asked, "If you have
a small dairy, say you only have five cows, and you inject four of
them, and you get caught, all you..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY
TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 99-23, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI continued, "... hang over somebody's head
without the enforcement aspect being clear. So if you can help me
out with that I'd appreciate it."
MR. FELLMAN commented there is going to be an element of honesty
here. He doesn't know anyone milking five cows who is selling
their milk legally. Normally, anybody who is milking five cows is
not pasteurizing or homogenizing their milk, and does not have a
"Grade A" permit to start with.
Number 0024
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) personnel were available via teleconference for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said they might want to move from a Class A
misdemeanor to a violation, to possibly address Representative
Murkowski's concern and for Representative Harris's consideration.
With a violation, a ticket could be written and the farmer could be
penalized economically.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would go to
teleconference testimony.
Number 0076
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She noted Bert Gore is the state
veterinarian and Belinda Clifton is the division's dairy
specialist. Both are present for technical questions.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that HB 110 includes meat and
products as well as milk. The chairman asked Mr. Fellman why this
had been expanded to meat products.
MR. FELLMAN replied that rBGH [synthetic bovine growth hormone] is
being used to induce growth in beef cattle. Instead of an
injection, the hormone is most commonly introduced through an
implant in the steer's ear for sustained release, enhancing the
cow's growth.
Number 0129
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if Mr. Fellman could show him where
cheese would be included in the legislation regarding the labeling.
He noted it appeared to speak to fluid milk.
MR. FELLMAN said he thought it covered cheese, and with
Representative Halcro's assistance noted page 2, line 6. [This
subsection reads:
* Section 1. AS 17.20.005 is amended to read:
Sec. 17.20.005. Powers and duties of commissioner.
To carry out the requirements of this chapter, the
commissioner may issue orders, regulations, permits,
quarantines, and embargoes relating to ...
(4) labeling, subject to AS 17.20.013 and
17.20.015, and grading of milk and milk products and
standards of sanitation for dairies offering to the
public or selling milk or milk products to at least he
minimum of current recommendations of the United States
Public Health Service pasteurized milk ordinance as it
may be periodically revised;]
Number 0167
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Adair or her support staff wished to
comment on the legislation.
Number 0171
MS. ADAIR answered in the affirmative and began her formal
testimony as director of the Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation. Food safety issues fall
within this division. She said the legislation essentially has two
aspects: 1) the pull date for milk, 2) the bST labeling. The
division finds the milk pull date problematic: there are new
pasteurization techniques that can give milk a 65 to 70 day shelf
life. There are also pasteurization techniques that give
shelf-stable product not requiring refrigeration. A scenario could
be set up where a lot of good milk would be thrown away because it
would not be bad after 18 days. The division also wonders how this
would affect shipment into rural Alaska, where the milk products
could be arriving in villages around the pull date.
Number 0212
MS. ADAIR noted there is guidance from the FDA regarding synthetic
hormone labeling. This is something which has been the subject of
many court suits and has generated a lot of consumer interest. The
FDA does not oppose labeling of milk or meat products as not being
produced using bST. It does oppose the labeling "bST-free" but
that is not being proposed here, to Ms. Adair's understanding.
However, the FDA says labeling must be truthful and not misleading
in any way. Ms. Adair stated there is no health effect from bST;
the milk from bST-supplemented cows is the same in every way -
safety, composition, (indisc.) nutrition - as milk from other cows.
She indicated very low levels of bST occur naturally in milk. The
division would have no way to test a milk product and determine
whether or not it was obtained from a bST-induced cow. Bovine
somatotropin (bST) has no effect on people; it is destroyed during
digestion just like any other protein. Ms. Adair noted, therefore,
no safety reason has been found to label products as not being from
bST-induced cows.
Number 0275
MS. ADAIR confirmed it would be possible for Dr. Gore to determine
whether or not a living cow had been induced with bST. Because the
injection location is part of the animal discarded during
slaughtering, according to Ms. Adair's understanding, it is
unlikely Dr. Gore could make this determination for a nonliving
animal. Ms. Adair stated, therefore, the division is unsure it
could fairly enforce this. Because of these problems, the FDA
recommends that states require firms using such claims to establish
a plan, maintain records to substantiate the claim, and make those
records available for inspection. Ms. Adair said she would hate to
see them establish a large recordkeeping requirement for a
voluntary label but she is not sure they would be able to ensure
the label was accurately used any other way.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that concluded Ms. Adair's testimony.
He asked about the zero fiscal note and its relation to her last
statement.
Number 0327
MS. ADAIR indicated the fiscal note is zero because she is not
really sure how the division could deal with the legislation. She
confirmed to the chairman that an indeterminate [fiscal note] might
be a better characterization. Ms. Adair added that the Department
of Law had been considering submitting a fiscal note because of
potential legal challenges based on some issues with interstate
commerce. She was not sure what that department had decided, if it
had decided.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the problems regarding the issue of
meat and meat products.
MS. ADAIR replied that, as she understands it, they would not be
able to tell if the meat was from cattle "injected with bST." She
stated, "The injection site on the animal is not saved, and, as was
testified previously, that is one of the things the state vet would
need to look for in order to tell if a cow had been injected, and
that wouldn't be available to him."
Number 0385
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if it is correct that in other states
with these voluntary labeling requirements, it is basically up to
the individual farmer or cattle raiser to keep records that would
be audited if there is a question.
MS. ADAIR replied she understands that is what the FDA recommends
but the division has not checked into other states' practices. To
Representative Halcro's further question, Ms. Adair answered that
she is not aware of any other states with criminal penalties for
false labeling on this issue, but she has not checked with all 49
other states.
Number 0441
MR. FELLMAN said he wanted to address the pasteurization issue. He
noted there are two types of pasteurization: ultrapasteurization
and high-temperature pasteurization. Ultrapasteurization is fairly
new technology. Regarding the issue of interstate commerce, he
brought up Florida's 12-day milk pull date and Georgia's 18-day
pull date. The only problem occurs if Georgia wants to send milk
to Florida; in this situation Georgia must label its milk
accordingly. Most of the milk Alaska imports comes from Washington
State; Washington is presently at 18 days. Mr. Fellman indicated
the 18-day labeling requirement in the legislation is set because
of Washington's date. Mr. Fellman noted, "But we did include
high-temperature pasteurization [ultrapasteurization?]. Like I
stated before, we are 40 years behind here in Alaska and it will be
a long time before any producers can afford the technology for
high-temperature pasteurization [ultrapasteurization?]. So, if we
don't support the small farmer now, ... if the small farmer cannot
compete with longer shelf life, then the state of Alaska has lost
everything that it has invested in agriculture."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated that almost completely answered
her question regarding ultrapasteurization, the technology
improvements, et cetera. However, the language in Section 2 of the
bill speaks about 18 days after the date of ultrapasteurization or
high-temperature pasteurization. She thought Mr. Fellman had said
because it was 40 years behind Alaska was not to that
ultrapasteurization point.
Number 0538
MR. FELLMAN replied this is correct but some of the milk coming
from Washington State has been ultrapasteurized. The largest
percentage is still high-temperature pasteurization and has an
18-day shelf life. Mr. Fellman cited that he has been given
anywhere from 25 to 90 days for ultrapasteurization shelf life.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned whether it is reasonable to
pull ultrapasteurized milk off the shelf when it still has another
25 or 50 good days left. She asked if there couldn't be two
different categories, one for regular pasteurized and one for
ultrapasteurized.
MR. FELLMAN said there are two categories, but the problem is that
as ultrapasteurization becomes more and more prevalent, the Alaskan
farmer is going to be pushed out of the market. Alaskan milk will
only have an 18-day shelf life, but out-of-state ultrapasterized
milk will have a much longer shelf life. Mr. Fellman commented it
is a tough position but said the state has the right to set the
standard although the technology may be different.
Number 0619
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated there are a number of people who wish
to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if any portion of the bill has problems
with interstate commerce provisions.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the question was good. He emphasized there
were witnesses waiting to testify for both this and the following
bill.
MR. FELLMAN said, regarding interstate commerce, there isn't a
problem as long as Alaska's standard for imported milk is the same
as wherever the milk is being imported from.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Gore and Ms. Clifton wished to add
anything before the committee proceeded to local testimony.
Number 0673
BERT GORE, DVM, State Veterinarian, Animal Industries, Division of
Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation,
testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. He is located in
Palmer and gets out to the farms probably two to four times a year.
Dr. Gore said he does not understand the controversy with bST
regarding called a synthetic hormone. It is usual and customary
practice for the farmers to use the following synthetic hormones in
their cows on a regular basis. These hormones are exempt drugs
that do not require a veterinary prescription and have no
withholding period for the milk or the meat. Oxytocin - the most
commonly used one; it is used to let the milk down and can cause
increased uterine contractions during labor. Lutalyse - the second
most prevalent hormone used. It is used for estrus synchronization
in heifers, induces ovulation in cows, causes uterine contractions
to expel the afterbirth and fluids associated with endometritis.
It is an abortifacient in cattle and can cause abortion if handled
by pregnant women. Cystorelin - used to lyse cysts in cows that
have nymphomaniac ovaries [used to lyse ovarian follicles which
cause nymphomania in dairy cattle]. ECP [estradiol cypionate] - a
synthetic estrogen used to tone the uterus. Dexamethasone - a
synthetic steroid used quite frequently. It is for use in horses
and dogs but also given to cattle. Dr. Gore noted these are few of
the synthetic hormones and steroids used in our milk cows. He does
not understand what makes bST different, and he guesses the big
problem is that bST is manufactured in a biochemistry lab not the
chemistry lab. He commented bST is a naturally occurring protein
secreted in the pituitary, it has no residue in the milk or meat.
Like its naturally-occurring counterpart, rbST [bST produced using
fermentation technology] has the same characteristics. Dr. Gore
indicated it is not detectable. Its purpose is to allow the cow to
produce more milk. Dr. Gore further indicated it seems this would
be desirable if the state is supposed to become more
self-sufficient in agriculture.
Number 0787
BELINDA CLIFTON, Environmental Health Officer II, Animal
Industries, Division of Environmental Health, Department of
Environmental Conservation, testified next via teleconference from
Anchorage. Ms. Clifton stated there are four pasteurization
processes used in the Lower 48 allowed by the "pasteurized milk
ordinance" which Alaska has adopted. 1) High-temperature
short-time pasteurization which usually starts at 161 degrees for
15 seconds. 2) High-heat short-time pasteurization which allows
milk to be pasteurized at a minimum of 191 degrees for 1 second.
3) Ultrapasteurization short-time which requires temperatures of
290 degrees for 2 seconds. 4) Ultrapasteurized short-time
temperature with an aseptic process filler; this is a packaging
process where the product goes into a hermetically-sealed container
that keeps the milk sterile and shelf-stable for non-refrigerated
conditions. Ms. Clifton mentioned this last product is used quite
a bit by the United States Army and also probably goes out to Bush
Alaska. Ms. Clifton said these pasteurization processes used in
the Lower 48 are highly technical and she agreed with Mr. Fellman
that Alaska is about 40 or more years behind in these processes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if state regulations currently determine
the pull date of milk.
MS. CLIFTON answered in the negative.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what determines the pull date in Alaska.
Number 0871
MS. CLIFTON replied that in Alaska it is left up to the processing
facility. This is pretty much how it is handled throughout the
entire United States. The facility determines what type of quality
it wants at the end of its pull date. For the majority of the
facilities, the pull date will usually be about a week before the
milk will spoil. Ms. Clifton said a lot of the Texas processing
plants have a 14-day pull date; that is simply because they want
their milk to be good a full week after. The pull date depends on
the quality the plant wants to give to the consumer.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the plant dictates where the milk is
shipped.
MS. CLIFTON answered in the positive.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, then, there is a lack of state
regulation and statute in regard to pull dates.
MS. CLIFTON replied, "I'm not aware of any that actually require
certain states to have mandated pull dates, especially with the
higher pasteurization process, like the ultrapasteurization process
and the aseptic processing."
Number 0938
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would take testimony in
Juneau on HB 110.
Number 0961
JULIE KOEHLER came forward to testify in Juneau in support of HB
110. Ms. Koehler stated she lives in Juneau and is testifying on
her own behalf. She believes this bill is an important step in the
public's right to know about what ingredients are, or are not, in
our food products. This labeling gives her the information
necessary to make purchasing decisions as an individual about
foods, products, and brands. Ms. Koehler mentioned known
carcinogens in today's world. She is concerned because she has
heard differing information about whether or not this hormone is a
carcinogen. She buys organic as much as possible to protect
herself and her family, reading labels to find out whether or not
things are added and specifically checking for that hormone. Ms.
Koehler noted the government never addresses the cumulative amounts
of all these small amounts of carcinogens, so she, as an
individual, can address the cumulative effects of all of those
things in her foods by reading the labels and making purchasing
decisions. She asked the committee to amend the bill to make the
punishment to the farmer for false labeling a fine large enough to
hurt. She commented a small fine, a misdemeanor of $1,000 or
whatever, could just be considered a cost of business. All the
organic products are sold at a higher price; this is why the
farmers want to be able to say it is free of the hormone. Ms.
Koehler indicated a higher fine that couldn't be considered a cost
of doing business would protect the individual. She mentioned that
the enforcement is a matter of honesty. Ms. Koehler stated she is
willing to pay that higher price and she hoped the committee would
pass the legislation.
Number 1102
DONALD LINTELMAN, Northern Lights Dairy, testified next via
teleconference from Delta Junction in support of HB 110. He stated
they pick up milk from five farms and, at this point, do not use
these hormones in the milk and would like to be able to label the
milk that way because he thinks they could end up with more sales.
Mr. Lintelman indicated at some time the Fairbanks newspaper had
mentioned bST was coming up and there were some legal problems with
the state of Minnesota. He indicated people had called his dairy
saying they wouldn't buy the milk because it contained bST. Mr.
Lintelman said he needs every customer he has, so he assures these
people it is not in there. He reiterated his support for the
legislation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what restricts him from labeling that now.
MR. LINTELMAN replied that he did not know. He indicated there
aren't any laws in Alaska regarding this and he would be worried
about being sued. He added, " And I would like to see this
hormones (indisc.) for this area, at least for this present time."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he understands and appreciates Mr.
Lintelman's point, noting some people think we have too many laws.
Number 1187
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO confirmed Mr. Lintelman buys milk from five
independent farms. He further confirmed Mr. Lintelman had heard
the state veterinarian's testimony about the enforcement problems
with the legislation and the veterinarian's own disagreement with
the concern over bST. Representative Halcro then asked Mr.
Lintelman if he wouldn't have some liability, some exposure, if,
giving an example, one of his farmers is caught misrepresenting his
milk.
MR. LINTELMAN agreed. He said it would probably put him out of
business.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he has been following the Matanuska
Valley dairy industry for a long time. He asked how many dairy
farmers are left in the "Mat Valley."
MR. LINTELMAN guessed five, noting he has no idea at this point.
Number 1263
MARGARET CARR came forward to testify in Juneau in support of HB
110. Ms. Carr noted she lives in Anchorage and is testifying on
her own behalf. She thinks this bill is a step in the right
direction for both the consumers and the farmers in Alaska. First,
it supports her right to know and choose as a consumer. There are
too many instances where we do not know what is going into the
products we eat and drink. Encouraging the labeling of milk that
does not contain bovine growth hormone, for example, allows us to
make decisions regarding which products we would like to purchase.
In addition, Ms. Carr thinks those Alaskan farms not using the
bovine growth hormone can create a positive niche and attract a
greater consumer base. She indicated she personally would like to
support the business of these farmers. Ms. Carr echoed Ms.
Koehler's request for an amendment providing a more severe penalty
to those mislabelling their products. She urged the committee to
support the legislation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Ms. Carr is a natural foods consumer,
not a marketer.
Number 1360
MICHELLE WILSON, Alaska Conservation Voice, came forward to testify
next in Juneau in support of HB 110. Ms. Wilson stated she was
representing both the Alaska Conservation Voice and herself as a
new mother. She is part of that market niche being discussed
today. Ms. Wilson emotionally expressed her concern that it had
not been that long ago that committees discussed "DDT" and said
there were no long-term health problems with "DDT" and other
chemicals. Ms. Wilson is learning that there are many studies
showing that this hormone is affecting cows. Cows are having more
heart attacks. It worries her that all these people are being
exposed to this hormone, the long-term effects are not known, and
there are all these cancers currently in our society linked to the
food we are eating. Ms. Wilson said Alaskans have to celebrate
that small Alaskan family farmers are not using this hormone yet.
She indicated small Alaskan family farmers need the kind of support
the legislature can give so that they can keep their farms healthy,
allowing Alaskans to buy Alaskan-grown food and healthy food. Ms.
Wilson indicated she saw some contradictions in the DEC's Ms. Adair
first saying there are no known health effects of bST and Ms.
Adair's later statement that her knowledge is not necessarily
complete. Ms. Wilson emphasized that the long-term effects [of
bST] are not known.
Number 1547
BOB SHAVELSON came forward to testify next in Juneau in support of
HB 110. Mr. Shavelson stated he is representing himself and he is
from Homer. He said some of the earlier testimony made him think
he was listening to a Monsanto commercial. He thinks it is
accurate to depict the debates going on here as a raging debate
going on throughout the country as to whether rbGH, or bovine
growth hormone, is safe to use. Mr. Shavelson commented he thinks
it is safe to say a lot of the Monsanto-supported research shows
this. Recently there has been a very serious debate in the Vermont
legislature and elsewhere in that state, and evidence is coming out
that it is not safe. Mr. Shavelson noted Ms. Wilson's testimony
that the cows get sicker; as a result of that, increases in
antibiotic use are seen. Mr. Shavelson said there are also
problems in our society with the influx of those chemicals in the
environment, and in our bodies. He perceives a dichotomy between
the zero fiscal note and "then all of a sudden it becomes ... this
great burden." He does not know what transpired at DEC to cause
this great shift in the administrative burden. One possible
solution is that anyone distributing rbGH in the state be required
to report who it is being sold to. Mr. Shavelson does not think
that would create a great administrative burden for anyone to
handle. He indicated the legislation supports the consumer's right
to know and right to choose between his or her food products. He
added, "Just because some large, multinational chemical corporation
is telling us it's safe based on their studies, I don't think
Alaskans need to bow to that pressure. I think we should have the
right to choose and support our local farmers."
Number 1656
MR. SHAVELSON commented on a couple of items not mentioned, but
that he considers relevant. Monsanto is moving forward with a
"terminator" seed: genetically-altered products meant to be
sterile after one or two seasons. There is great concern there
that this will affect wild seed stocks across the world. Monsanto
is also developing a special chemically-resistant strain of cotton
and other products to be marketed with its pesticide Roundup. Mr.
Shavelson concluded that Monsanto has a vested interest in making
a profit and selling these items to consumers; the company will not
want to reveal there may be some problems with this. Monsanto
vigorously litigates anybody that opposes them. There was extended
litigation in the situation with Ben and Jerry's mentioned earlier
[3/15/99 Monsanto letter]. Mr. Shavelson indicated the issues of
the terminator seed and the Roundup-dependent crops comes back to
the rbGH labeling. He stated, "This is just common-sense stuff.
We have a right to know what's in our food and we have a right to
choose, and I would encourage you to pass this bill out of the
committee."
Number 1738
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented Mr. Shavelson had raised a good
question as far as disclosure, but there is the state
veterinarian's testimony that several "synthetics" [hormones] can
be purchased without a veterinarian's assistance. Representative
Halcro asked how disclosure could be mandated when any farmer could
just buy these things over the counter.
MR. SHAVELSON replied he does not pretend to know all the
mechanisms of the distribution of these hormones. He imagines it
is a fairly discrete market and the distribution within the state
could be tracked. Mr. Shavelson continued, "The other idea where
typically in a policy matter where we have a difficulty enforcing
something, we do tend to elevate the penalty for it ... The
disincentive increases as the monetary penalty increases ...."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no further questions for Mr.
Shavelson. The chairman stated the public testimony on HB 110 is
concluded for this hearing but would be kept open. He indicated he
is concerned about the pull date requirement because of the new
technology, and is wondering if, since the private sector has been
doing this, why it can't be left to them. The chairman indicated
the committee might want to hear from Matanuska Maid and some of
the others involved in the Alaska dairy business.
Number 1868
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented she sees a variety of Alaskan
markets, some wanting to know there are no artificial hormones, et
cetera, preferring an Alaskan product and something that is not
ultrapasterized; others, especially in more remote areas of the
state, seeking a product with as long a shelf life as possible.
She indicated she thinks it is important they ensure that Alaskan
consumers have a variety of choices and that is her problem with
the legislation's pull date requirement.
Number 1927
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted for Representative Harris that the
labeling statutes in Section 1 are subject to AS 17.20.013 and AS
17.20.015 which refer specifically to fluid milk. This would not
allow for the labeling of cheese products or other milk products.
Representative Brice commented there has been conflicting
testimony, asking the sponsor to check into this because he
(Representative Brice) thinks there is a niche market for these
products. He indicated he would like to make sure the legislation
includes these products.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commended the bill to the sponsor for further
work, noting the committee would hear the legislation again when
the sponsor is ready. The chairman said he is supportive of
anything that can help the state's small businesses and farmers.
He indicated the labeling issue has certain merit, but said there
are a lot of problems that need to be worked out with the DEC, the
dairy industry, et cetera. The chairman commented the meat aspects
of the legislation had not been addressed except by Mr. Fellman.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|