Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/19/1999 03:23 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 0099 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business would be HB 110, "An Act relating to the sale, offer to sell, and labeling of fluid milk, meat, and meat products." The bill had been heard previously by the committee. [Acronyms for the hormones are those used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).] REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS noted, as sponsor of HB 110, that there was a proposed committee substitute (CS), Version H. Number 0142 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS made a motion to adopt Version H [1-LS0408\H, Bannister, 3/26/99] as the work draft. There being no objection, Version H was before the committee. Number 0168 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS informed members that much in the original bill was removed, including shelf life and other items that were fairly controversial for certain people. This bill provides dairy farmers the ability to label their milk, cream or other byproducts as being free from various hormones, and it provides for a penalty for falsely labeling products in that regard. He asked Mr. Fellman to give a more in-depth explanation. Number 0298 PETE FELLMAN, Researcher for Representative John Harris, Alaska State Legislature came forward. He indicated that in preparing Version H, they looked at the 26 states with statutes dealing with rbST [recombinant bovine somatotropin] and rBGH [recombinant bovine growth hormone]. Noting that there are discussions of those synthetic hormones in the packets, Mr. Fellman explained that BGH is a naturally occurring hormone. The "r" in rBGH or rbST indicates manufacture in a laboratory to inject into cattle. MR. FELLMAN explained that Minnesota's and Wisconsin's laws accomplished what the sponsor was trying to do in the original bill. Therefore, HB 110 is patterned after Wisconsin's law for the affidavit, which can be filled out to cover any concerns of the milk processor, and after Minnesota's law for labeling that meets the interim federal guideline. Mr. Fellman indicated that although no federal law discusses labeling for bST or rbST, there is a federal guideline, used by those 26 states to set forth regulations for labeling a product as being free from rBGH or rbST, and used by the sponsor for the clarifying changes to the bill. Number 0538 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to page 4, which sets out the affidavit itself. She noted that subparagraph (A) of the affidavit says "that no animals on the above farm are currently being treated" and that no animals have received the treatments within the past 30 days. She asked why it doesn't specify cows, and whether other animals possibly would be treated with the hormone. MR. FELLMAN replied that the BGH is bovine growth hormone, and "bovine" are just cattle. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked for confirmation that the hormone couldn't be used in a goat to produce more milk, for example. MR. FELLMAN confirmed that, saying it is species-specific and therefore needs no further definition. Number 0625 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to the federal interim guidelines for labeling. He pointed out that "interim" suggests there are other guidelines or regulations that have not yet been adopted. MR. FELLMAN said he had checked with the federal government, and that is not so in this case. They had set up the guidelines in 1992, to his belief, and have just decided to let them stand as they are. Number 0670 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked about enforcement. MR. FELLMAN replied that the reason for the affidavit is so people can be held accountable, to ensure honesty in labeling. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS referred to the zero fiscal notes from the Department of Natural Resources' Division of Agriculture, and from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). He asked whether there is no charge for the enforcement. MR. FELLMAN noted that it is a misdemeanor. He suggested perhaps enforcement for other labeling laws such as the "organic labeling law" and the "Alaska-grown label" might also apply. Number 0763 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said the Division of Agriculture doesn't anticipate any fiscal impact, but the Department of Law, if they have to, would receive some fiscal impact in enforcing this through its normal enforcement of misdemeanor violations. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS indicated the bill may have to go to the House Finance Standing Committee if there is a fiscal note. Number 0825 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Mr. Fellman to explain what objections might come from large dairies outside of Alaska, where the majority of Alaska's milk comes from. MR. FELLMAN answered, "We haven't had any objections to the CS. Originally, the objections we were getting from out of state were because of the 18-day labeling period and the high-temperature pasteurization issue, which we removed. We haven't had any calls that have objected to the labeling, as laid out by the interim guidelines. The impact on the state will be such that we can create niche markets, because we can go in with our milk and say, ... 'We don't have hormones,' and that will increase the return to the state, through the lending programs and things that we already have invested in, in Alaskan agriculture." Mr. Fellman said this really is a consumer bill. It gives the consumer a choice, and it also creates a niche market for the small farmer. He believed that Alaska is the last stronghold of the family farm and needs the state's backing in order to have these niche markets. Number 0825 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if that will affect Matanuska Maid. MR. FELLMAN said yes, it probably will. As known from the audit and information that the legislature has obtained from Matanuska Maid, the dairy imports about 60 percent of its milk. If it so choses, however, it could separate the milk from any dairyman who decided to sign the affidavit, and label that particular milk as being rbGH-free. Number 0975 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if any affidavit process is required to label meat or meat products as hormone-free. MR. FELLMAN answered, "We do not have an affidavit process. We got very little response from the industry on that. It wasn't an issue that was taken up by the federal government, either." He noted that the federal government is going to adopt some regulations on organic meat, however. Number 1025 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked why they are making such a fuss over milk as a great niche product because it is hormone-free, yet there is no similar standard for meat. MR. FELLMAN answered that it is a consumer issue. The federal government felt there was a need for the interim guideline because of consumer interest in whether there are synthetic hormones in their milk. In contrast, he is not aware of any guidelines revolving around meat. He added, "I know that there is an organic meat market there, and that they're working on regulations on a federal standpoint, which we anticipate will be coming down pretty soon." Number 1122 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI expressed concern that anybody who artificially injects a hormone, whether for milk or a meat product, will be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if he or she doesn't comply with these regulations. However, the same accountability process isn't set up for meat as for milk, and the reasons for the inconsistencies aren't entirely clear. She said perhaps she is missing something, or perhaps the meat needs to be addressed in a separate bill. MR. FELLMAN responded that he understands the concern. He himself is not a beef-producer, and they had received no input on it. It may be appropriate to pull meat out of the bill, he added. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI suggested the alternative of having meat subject to the same form of written affidavit as required for milk. MR. FELLMAN said that is a good point. Number 1210 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked why it is a Class A misdemeanor, rather than a fine or violation. MR. FELLMAN indicated that was a suggestion from legislative counsel. He hadn't investigated Minnesota's laws to see what they do, although he could find out, he added. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated his understanding that a Class A misdemeanor can be pretty stiff. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested it puts this on the same plane as the enforcement for occupational licensing. Number 1265 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked how many other states have laws similar to, or identical to, this. MR. FELLMAN replied that 26 other states have laws similar to this. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked whether research shows the penalties to be misdemeanors. MR. FELLMAN said he hadn't checked. Number 1289 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that testimony by Catherine Reardon of the Division of Occupational Licensing had been that she couldn't recall, in her career, ever having been in an occupational licensing enforcement procedure where there were criminal charges brought forward. Number 1321 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether the states with similar laws combine the meat and the milk. MR. FELLMAN said no. Number 1329 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what the "milk versus meat state count" is. MR. FELLMAN said he doesn't know, and that he hadn't done much research about meat. One producer in Delta Junction, who also raises elk, was interested in the [meat] label. But as far as any real response otherwise, Mr. Fellman said he hadn't had any. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether Mr. Fellman had communicated with the state-owned "McKinley Meat Packing Plant" in Palmer. MR. FELLMAN said he had talked to the director of the Division of Agriculture, but had no response or anything to point him in that direction. "Everything really focused on milk," he added. Number 1377 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed her understanding that no group is pushing for labeling of meat products. MR. FELLMAN replied that a man in Kodiak who has beef cattle had called, as had a man in Delta Junction; both thought it was a good issue. However, Mr. Fellman could find no model legislation or guidelines by other states where meat was targeted as being hormone-free. He suggested this may be new ground. Number 1413 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked why meat is included in the bill, then. MR. FELLMAN indicated the response was that it is reasonable that, if there is a concern about hormones in milk, perhaps a niche market can be created for hormone-free meat. Number 1457 JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation, came forward. She informed members that it is her agency that would enforce this labeling law. She expressed appreciation for the changes that were made. The only thing she would want to check out with the FDA is on page 3, she said, starting at the end of line 2, where it states that milk products offered for wholesale or retail sale in the state may not be required to contain any further label information. MS. ADAIR pointed out that the federal guideline actually gives other information that the FDA believes should be on the label, although she isn't sure how tightly they hold to that. The inference is that the label shouldn't be misleading, she told members, and that it should be in proper context to avoid any misleading implication. Proper context could be achieved in a number of ways. For example, the statement, "From cows not treated with rbST," could be accompanied by the statement, "No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows." Ms. Adair noted, "If FDA requires a qualifying statement like that, and we're not allowed to put that on there, then we could preclude our two dairies from selling their milk to the federal government and to schools who use federal funds to buy milk, and I don't think we'd want to do that. So, I would just want to run this by FDA, to make sure that the label - ... because all you'll get on the label is what's in this bill - is going to be satisfactory to them." MS. ADAIR said she has the same concerns mentioned by Representative Murkowski regarding the meat. She explained, "Since we can't test the meat to determine whether or not it's been treated, and we don't have the benefit of the affidavit, I don't know how we would ever enforce or allow someone to -- you know, you want them to be in best stead to protect themselves from a claim that they have treated their meat, if they haven't. So, we would recommend either something similar to the milk or that the meat be deleted from the bill. I suspect that meat that hasn't been treated gets sold as "organic" instead of "hormone-free" or "not from rbST-treated cows" and would be handled under the organic rules that USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] has been working on for quite some time." Number 1598 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to what the difference is to the consumer in the labels "organic" and "non-synthetic-hormone." MS. ADAIR replied that the USDA has been working on organic regulations for quite some time, grappling with that exact issue of at what point something becomes non-organic. She pointed out that synthetic hormones typically are considered outside the realm of organic, and she would be surprised if they were included. However, irradiation will be considered organic, as of their last proposal, which has caused a lot of angst; that is one reason why the USDA hasn't yet finalized those rules. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked whether there is no charge for enforcement. MS. ADAIR explained, "We did put a zero fiscal note on the prior bill, because we couldn't figure out how to do any enforcement. And in the testimony on the bill last time, Representative Rokeberg did point out that we probably should have indicated that, when in fact we didn't. I don't know how many farmers might be interested in this, how many records we might find ourselves reviewing. And I probably will talk with our state vet when he gets back in the office tomorrow, to see if he's got some clue. I wouldn't imagine it would be a huge amount, but certainly there'd be something associated ... with doing some kind of record review, to ensure that the labeling was accurate." Number 1688 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked how the other 26 states enforce it. MS. ADAIR said she isn't certain, although she is sure that they do it through some type of inspection and review of records. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS suggested the need to find out how the other states do that. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG proposed that it should be done after the bill is passed. Number 1711 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE returned attention to labeling and asked whether Ms. Adair recommends deleting the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 3, lines 2 through 4. MS. ADAIR clarified that she simply wants to check with the FDA. She has no problem with it unless the FDA has a problem with it, in which case she believes the consequences are too severe. Number 1747 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if the DEC prefers to see Sec. 17.20.015, in Section 2, deleted from the bill, as well as subparagraphs (2)(B) and (C) under Sec. 17.20.305, in Section 3, regarding penalties relating to meat. MS. ADAIR indicated either they need some way to verify that the meat has not been subjected to the synthetic hormone or they would want it deleted. All they are looking for is verification, but there is no way for the DEC to verify that it is true now. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked whether, if that happened, this bill would be much easier for the DEC to defend. MS. ADAIR affirmed that. Number 1796 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how the state presently grades or inspects meat. MS. ADAIR explained that grading of meat is a voluntary program done by the Division of Agriculture, whereas safety inspections of meat are done by the DEC, through the Division of Environmental Health. "We do operate under the USDA rules for meat slaughter and inspection," she added. "We have to do ... pre-slaughter inspections, post-slaughter inspections of the carcass, to make sure that there's no diseases on the carcass. An inspector is required to be on-site at all times during the processing of the carcass to the meat product. We've essentially just adopted the federal rules by reference and follow those. We do send inspectors to Texas A&M to get meat training, and we have three meat inspectors in the state." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether those inspectors are in Palmer. MS. ADAIR answered that two are in Anchorage at Anchorage Cold Storage (ANCO), noting that federal rules require a meat house to provide office space because the inspectors are to be on-site at all times. There is a part-time inspector in Fairbanks, as well as the state veterinarian in Palmer, who goes out in the field to do inspections, as several inspections are required to be done by a veterinarian. Number 1880 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG expressed his understanding that the only major slaughterhouse is in Palmer. MS. ADAIR replied, "Slaughter, but there is meat processing that takes place elsewhere. Sausage is meat processing, and that's ... Indian Valley Meats, Alaska Sausage; the meat packer that was mentioned in Kodiak, he does meat processing. So, there's a variety of things that take place that are meat processing that don't involve slaughter." Number 1899 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG inquired whether there are USDA inspectors in Alaska. MS. ADAIR answered, "We have an 'equal to' program, and so, we stand in for USDA." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if most of the beef grown in Alaska would qualify for the USDA's future "organic" designation and, therefore, for the label under this bill. Number 2004 BERT GORE, DVM, State Veterinarian, Animal Industries, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation, answered via teleconference from the Matanuska-Susitna Legislative Information Office (Mat-Su LIO). He explained that there is a federal slaughterhouse on Umnak Island in the Aleutians, plus state slaughterhouses at Kodiak, Palmer and Delta Junction, as well as a state-operated slaughterhouse at Nunivak. Meat from Umnak Island would certainly be labeled as organic, Dr. Gore stated, which was the goal behind that organization, to get Aleutian beef that has no synthetic hormones, antibiotics or feed additives. He added, "Most of the animals that are beef animals up here, to my knowledge, we're not using synthetic hormones on." Dr. Gore pointed out that for dairy animals, in contrast, some non-rbST synthetic hormones are still used. He referred to Sec. 17.20.015 of the legislation and said, "Most of our dairy cattle that go to slaughter would not qualify for that, because of the other synthetic hormones that are used in those animals." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Adair check with the FDA, indicating the bill would be held until her response was received. MS. ADAIR agreed to that. Number 2093 DON LINTELMAN, Northern Lights Dairy, testified next via teleconference from Delta Junction in support of HB 110. He told members he is in favor of the bill because he runs a milk-processing plant and would like to be able to label his milk as "no hormones being used." He believes that might provide him 5 percent more of the market. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Lintelman whether he periodically sells some stock for meat use and consumption. MR. LINTELMAN replied, "Just the bull calves." He indicated most customers for those are individuals from North Pole or youths who are taking on beef projects, for example. Most of the milkers they themselves use, selling very few to Palmer. "But they're not injected with any hormones at all," he added. Number 2169 ART GRISWOLD, Sleepy Hollow Farm, testified next via teleconference from Delta Junction in support of HB 110. Mr. Griswold would like to see a similar affidavit regarding beef, he told members. Noting that the additives aren't allowed for kosher beef, he said it is difficult to obtain beef that meets those requirements. He is raising a small herd of cattle for that reason, and would like to be able to send those animals to the slaughterhouse and have the beef labeled accordingly. Mr. Griswold indicated the Canadian government doesn't want these hormones used at all. He requested that restrictions on beef be retained. In addition, he wants to see the 18-day dating provision regarding milk put back into the bill; he believes that will help Alaskan farmers because much milk being shipped into Alaska is older than that. Number 2240 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether Mr. Griswold looks at his small beef herd for organic meats as a growing area of business, provided that there is proper labeling. MR. GRISWOLD answered that he definitely believes it is a growing area of business. Whereas Mr. Lintelman is looking at a 5 percent increase in the market for his milk, he himself is looking at an opening in the beef market, if there is labeling, that has not been touched. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Griswold if he is also a dairy farmer. MR. GRISWOLD indicated he has dairy goats, but no dairy cows. Number 2286 MARLA McPHERSON, Cook Inlet Keeper, testified next via teleconference from Homer in support of HB 110. Ms. McPherson noted that Cook Inlet Keeper is a nonprofit citizen organization composed of over 500 members from Homer, Anchorage, Talkeetna and throughout the Cook Inlet watershed who are working to protect the environment and human health in Cook Inlet. She stated that Cook Inlet Keeper supports HB 110 because the bill is in the best interest of human health and the economic health of Alaska's meat and dairy farmers. Ms. McPherson explained that the public has an increased awareness and concern for human health because in the past four years people have witnessed a sharp increase in human health problems that may be directly linked to increased exposure to harmful synthetics such as rBGH. Cancer has risen 49.3 percent in the last four years and, today, 40 percent of Americans will contract cancer sometime during their lifespan. In fact, cancer is the leading cause of death among Americans between 36 to 64 years old. MS. McPHERSON said, although synthetic bovine growth hormone [rBGH] hasn't been proven to cause cancer, it's just one more thing that people are being exposed to that can contribute to human health concerns. She indicated that, although the FDA claims that rBGH is safe for human consumption, there still isn't conclusive evidence, which causes concern. Studies on the synthetic hormone show that the immune system detects and responds to the hormone, and, in fact, cysts have reportedly developed on the thyroids of male rats exposed to rBGH, and some of the rats suffered increased infiltration of the prostate gland. She said these studies are incomplete. Long-term toxicology studies have not been done to determine the ultimate effects of the hormone on human health. Number 2355 MS. McPHERSON believes they can't wait until there's substantial proof. She feels some people who might oppose this bill may claim that there's no proof that it causes cancer or human health concerns, therefore, it doesn't matter whether these things are labeled or not, but "we" can't wait until there's proof. She thinks that the surgeon general set a really good example when he said that smoking could cause cancer 30 years before there was conclusive scientific proof that, in fact, chemicals of cigarette smoke did cause cancer. She feels a precedent needs to be set by putting labels that say that the milk products are hormone-free so that people can be provided with the information they need to make a choice whether to consume the product or not. MS. McPHERSON believed the public has a right to know what chemicals and hormones are put into the food they consume, regardless if there's conclusive evidence those chemicals cause cancer or other health defects. Some studies of rBGH have already produced results of concern. She stated that it should ensure that humans have the timely and accurate information on the products they consume to make the choice on whether they want to consume it or not. Ms. Mcpherson thinks many people are concerned about their health and the health of their friends and family and children. She feels passing HB 110 will give people the information they need to make choices to protect their health. She agrees with the things that have already been said that HB 110 will create niche markets for meat and dairy farmers. These are the niche markets that need to compete with the large corporate farms from outside. Ms. Mcpherson urged the support of Alaskan farmers and human health in Alaska by passing HB 110. Number 2417 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. McPherson to please fax her testimony to the committee for the record. He also asked if she could explain to the committee what Cook Inlet Keeper is and how it is funded. MS. McPHERSON stated that Cook Inlet Keeper was started three years ago by a settlement against the oil industry for over 4,000 violations of the Clean Water Act on the offshore oil platforms in the upper Cook Inlet. She explained that, instead of putting the money into the general reserves, the industry, the courts, the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and citizen organizations agreed that the money should go to establishing a non-profit organization that would essentially monitor environmental health in the Cook Inlet watershed. She indicated that, since the court decree has been fulfilled, the organization is now funded by citizen and foundation support. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. McPherson if she is either a volunteer or a staff member of Cook Inlet Keeper. MS. McPHERSON replied that she is a staff member. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no further witnesses on HB 110. He asked if Mr. Fellman wished to comment in follow-up. Number 2471 MR. FELLMAN began, "I just wanted to take a second and point out that the concerns with the language..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY AUTOMATIC TAPE CHANGE] [From tape log notes: 'concerns w/ pg. 2-3' 'Minnesota state law' '(language came directly from Minnesota law)'] TAPE 99-41, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. FELLMAN continued, "...it's been accepted I should say by the FDA, that is the exact language - there was a court case ... where it was challenged, and that particular language did stand up in that court case." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Fellman to please work with the department on that issue. The chairman mentioned he has a concern with Section 3 of the bill pertaining to the exclusion of persons from penalty for violation unless the person owns ten percent or more of the business. MR. FELLMAN indicated that some lines had to be drawn between how much of the interest the person may have in any given business to determine if they were going to be involved in the decision-making. He explained that 10 percent was established as the starting point with the hopes that it would cover the mean, again at the recommendation of Legal Services [Legal Services, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency]. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG feels that this puts the focus on the small operator and excludes all the competition from being penalized. He suspects all major corporate dairies would not be included. Number 0067 MR. FELLMAN indicated he would check with legislative counsel and get more detail on that issue. He stated that in a lot of cases, such as with a corporation like Darigold, all the dairymen hold a small percentage of that corporation. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered if it is similar to stocks. MR. FELLMAN replied yes. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that it appears to him that any corporate entity gets a stake here unless one goes directly to the chairman of the board and "try to apply a misdemeanor offense (indisc.), out-of-state foreign chairman of the board if you will, which may be very difficult to enforce." He asked Mr. Fellman to examine those concerns and provide a report to the committee. The chairman indicated HB 110 would be held for further work. Number 0137 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 4:15 p.m. The committee came back to order at 4:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|