Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
03/14/2008 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s):|| Big Game Commercial Services Board|| Board of Game|| Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission | |
| SB253 | |
| HB367 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 253 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 367 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 367-SALE OF RAW MILK PRODUCTS 1:39:00 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 367, "An Act relating to the sale of raw milk and raw milk products." CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that there is a work draft that incorporates Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 [adopted by the committee on 3/10/08]. Amendment 1 is not included because it was withdrawn. Amendment 7, which was before the committee when it adjourned [on 3/10/08], will be considered once the work draft is adopted. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved that the committee adopt as the work draft the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 367, labeled 25-LS1429\C, Bannister, 3/11/08. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH objected. She withdrew her objection after ascertaining which version of the work draft was before the committee. 1:40:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, stated that the committee's suggestions were incorporated into the work draft. CO-CHAIR GATTO requested a recap of Amendment 7. LOUIE FLORA, Staff to Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State Legislature, stated he provided the committee aide with a fact sheet on antibiotic resistance to go along with Amendment 7 proposed by Representative Seaton. The intent of Amendment 7 is to get away from the public health issue of antibiotic-resistant bacteria which can be prevalent in raw milk products and transmitted to the consuming public in unpasteurized milk. Amendment 7 would require that raw milk that is sold must come from an animal that has never received antibiotics. 1:43:00 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO read Amendment 7, labeled 25-LS1429\A.1, Bannister, 3/6/08, to the committee [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, line 28: Delete "A" Insert "Except as provided in (b) of this section, a" Page 3, following line 2: Insert a new subsection to read: "(b) A raw milk product may not be sold under (a) of this section if the animal that produced the raw milk for the raw milk product has ever been treated with antibiotics. In this subsection, "treated with antibiotics" includes being injected with antibiotics or being fed antibiotics." Reletter the following subsections accordingly. 1:44:23 PM KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), called attention to a fact sheet prepared by [the division] about antibiotic resistance that was distributed to the committee. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired how long antibiotics stay in an animal's system. MS. RYAN responded she cannot answer that and the state veterinarian is not available. Current federal regulations for pasteurized milk outline the required length of time that an animal cannot be milked, and the length of time is different for each antibiotic. 1:45:20 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether antibiotics stay in the meat. MS. RYAN replied she cannot answer that, but she does not believe so because it is pretty much the same rules that apply to the sale of meat. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said his point is that he believes an injected antibiotic stays in the meat, but would not stay there forever. Milk has to be dumped for a certain period of time after the animal receives an antibiotic. Is it the same for meat, he asked. MS. RYAN answered she does not know, the state returned the regulation of meat production to the federal government. She reiterated she thinks it is similar to milk - there is a time limit where the chemical is considered to exist in the body and after that time limit it is again safe to sell. 1:46:25 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether Ms. Ryan supports Amendment 7. MS. RYAN responded the information she just passed out sort of explains [the division's] position. She acknowledged that antibiotic resistance is a problem, but [the division] believes in the safe use of antibiotics on the farm; not treating an animal that is known to be sick could be considered a cruelty issue. [The division] does not support banning antibiotic use on farms. 1:46:55 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether cooking denatures a chemical like an antibiotic to a point where it becomes something different than the antibiotic itself. MS. RYAN replied she does not believe so, but she will have to get back to the committee on that. CO-CHAIR GATTO said the issue with raw milk is that the bacteria is not being killed by pasteurization, and milk is mostly fed to children who may be the most susceptible in the population. He related that Representative Seaton's point is, Do we want to give a resistant strain of bacteria to the most vulnerable section of the population? and, therefore, any cow receiving antibiotic should not be used for milk production. 1:48:26 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON drew attention to a handout from Cornell University which shows that even pasteurization does not kill all bacteria. The handout also states that raw milk - if produced properly - could have 20 times less bacteria than pasteurized milk. He said his concern with Amendment 7 is the word "ever" so that milk from a cow that has ever been treated with an antibiotic cannot be sold as raw milk. What is the penalty if someone sells milk that is in violation of the time period for an antibiotic, and is there any way to check that, he inquired. MS. RYAN explained that [the division] currently tests the pasteurized milk that is sold. Antibiotics are not allowed to be within the milk that is being processed for pasteurization. If antibiotics are detected, which happens occasionally, the entire tank of milk must be dumped at the cost of the dairy farmer. Because of that great expense, a farmer prefers to avoid that situation. 1:50:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether there is a certain minimum time period that would apply to all antibiotics. MS. RYAN said [the division] checks the milk and makes sure the standards are met. [The division's] ultimate goal is to ensure no milk is ever sold with an antibiotic residue in it. Antibiotics are used frequently on the farm and [the division] is aware of that. She said she does not believe raw milk would ever be able to be sold if Amendment 7 passes as written. 1:51:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether it would work to amend Amendment 7 by replacing "ever" with "been treated with antibiotics in the last 30 days", or would it need to be 60 days. MS. RYAN advised against getting that specific. She said she believes the current federal guidelines are very accurate and are followed closely and do the job sufficiently as-is. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised Ms. Ryan is saying Amendment 7 is really not needed. MS. RYAN responded she is not saying that, it is for the committee to decide. She is just saying that [the division] already monitors antibiotics pretty heavily because of concern about residues in the milk and [the division] does not want people to get that because people could have allergies or other things. However, if the committee is worried about resistant bacteria, that is a very different situation than residue. 1:52:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said her point on the antibiotic issue is that the committee has taken out all of the testing requirements. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether the division would go to the farms selling raw milk to test the milk should HB 367 become law. MS. RYAN replied yes, [the division's] intent would be to require testing to ensure there are no antibiotics in raw milk like [the division] does for pasteurized milk. JOSEPH MCLAUGHLIN, MD, Acting Chief, Section of Epidemiology, Division of Public Health, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, stated he had nothing to add in regard to Amendment 7. 1:54:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether the division has the ability to test for antibiotics under current regulations. MS. RYAN answered yes, [the division] has the authority in statute as indicated by Section 1 of HB 367. Current statute requires [the department] to regulate milk in compliance with the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, the federal regulations that allow the state to do all sorts of things for milk. The new section, Section 2, is being added for raw milk. Section 2 does not necessarily say how [the division] would regulate raw milk, it just says the state should allow the sale of raw milk. At this point the bill is silent on that issue and [the division] has continually testified that it would intend to build a program similar to how it regulates pasteurized milk and [the division's] fiscal note reflects that. However, even though [the division] would implement as stringent a program as it can, [the division] still does not believe that would be adequate. CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised it is within statute that [the division] has the privilege to move because milk is milk. MS. RYAN responded no. The statute is clearer on pasteurized milk, it is silent on raw milk. 1:56:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated it is his intent as a legislator that [the division] would build a set of regulations that would guarantee the testing procedure similar to what is currently done for [pasteurized] milk so the public has some relative assurance that testing is being done. CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that all committee members present are nodding their heads in agreement with Representative Roses. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she definitely supports some kind of quality assurance for consumers. 1:57:38 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether [the division] would be able to perform these tests without an additional position. MS. RYAN replied the fiscal note is requesting three additional positions; [the division] would not be able to do the testing within its current budget. CO-CHAIR GATTO stated HB 367 would go to the House Finance Committee because of the fiscal note. 1:58:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES requested Dr. McLaughlin's opinion on whether there is a relatively standard length of time that could be applied for antibiotics and therefore specified in the amendment or does he agree with not getting that specific. DR. MCLAUGHLIN answered each antibiotic has a different half- life - some are a matter of hours and some are several days. He said Ms. Ryan's testimony was very accurate and he supports what she said. 2:00:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES presumed that regardless of Dr. McLaughlin's position on raw milk, in regard to Amendment 7 the doctor would be comfortable that current regulations will prevent the selling of raw milk that contains antibiotics. DR. MCLAUGHLIN said he believes that DEC's current, elaborate testing process is sufficient to determine whether there is antibiotic in the milk. However, he added, cows can be colonized with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in ways other than from inadequate antibiotic therapy for a bacterial infection. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria can be spread from farm to farm and from cow to cow through socializing with other cows and through the feed. This is becoming a worldwide issue regardless of whether an individual cow has actually received an antibiotic in the past. 2:02:16 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised that every person has antibodies running through his or her system. DR. MCLAUGHLIN said correct. CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether antibodies introduced to an individual's body are different enough so that they should be treated differently than those antibodies naturally produced by the individual. He noted that a person takes antibodies to quickly raise titer levels rather than waiting for his or her body to produce its own immunity. DR. MCLAUGHLIN responded he thinks three different things are being talked about. Antibiotics are drugs or chemicals that are produced to kill bacteria. Antibodies are developed by a person's or animal's own body as the result of antigens being introduced into the body and those antibodies kill the offending pathogens. Some human pathogens or bacteria are more resistant to the body's immune system and some are less resistant. Antibiotics are developed to help fight those bacteria that the body is less resistant to. When those pathogens develop a resistance to antibiotics, that is when there is serious trouble. This is being seen in all sorts of different human pathogens, from Salmonella to tuberculosis to influenza. More and more antibiotic-resistant pathogens will continue to emerge as the use of antibiotics continues in the healthcare setting. 2:05:18 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired what the significance would be to pass HB 367 with Amendment 7 as opposed to without Amendment 7. DR. MCLAUGHLIN replied it would be better to have Ms. Ryan or the state veterinarian answer this question. He said his concern is much larger than just Amendment 7. His understanding is that DEC currently has a monitoring system in place that is able to determine whether there are antibiotics in milk that is being sold. The question is whether DEC can go to all of these small mom-and-pop farms that are selling raw milk to determine whether antibiotics are in that milk. He said it is apparent to him that DEC will not be able to do that. The department may be able to that with some of the farms or maybe with all of the farms some of the time, but DEC does not have the capacity to do it with all of the farms all of the time. 2:07:12 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether Dr. McLaughlin is saying that small farms have a failure rate in regard to the voluntary compliance of not selling milk from cows treated with antibiotics. DR. MCLAUGHLIN said he thinks that if Amendment 7 were to stand, the risk of raw milk being sold with antibiotics in it would certainly decrease. 2:07:48 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether milk could be tested to detect an antibiotic that had been administered to the cow six months or a year ago. DR. MCLAUGHLIN stated not to his knowledge. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked about 30 days ago. DR. MCLAUGHLIN answered he could research this to come up with a definitive number. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON deduced there is no way to tell whether a cow has ever had an antibiotic. DR. MCLAUGHLIN agreed. 2:08:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES objected to Amendment 7. [Representative Wilson had previously objected to Amendment 7 on 3/10/08.] CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said if Representative Roses had not objected he would have. 2:09:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN stated there is no way to tell whether a cow or animal has ever been treated. He related that in the opinion of Dr. Gerlach, the state veterinarian, it would be considered cruelty to not treat a sick animal with antibiotic. Keeping an animal healthy is natural animal husbandry. Selling milk from an unhealthy animal would be a problem. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON called the question. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN added one more statement: Should a mother be able to breastfeed if she has ever had an antibiotic? CO-CHAIR JOHNSON again called the question. A roll call vote was taken. No one voted in favor of Amendment 7. Representatives Edgmon, Fairclough, Wilson, Roses, Johnson, and Gatto voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 7 failed by a vote of 0-6. 2:11:35 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that HB 367, as amended, was now before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH moved to report CSHB 367, Version 25- LS1429\C, Bannister, 3/11/08 out of committee with individual recommendations, the accompanying fiscal notes [and the forthcoming fiscal note]. There being no objection, CSHB 367(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee. 2:12:18 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he thinks there may be an additional forthcoming fiscal note. He requested that the motion be restated to include the forthcoming fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH agreed.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|