Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/23/2019 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB14 | |
| HB16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 23, 2019
1:30 p.m.
1:30:18 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative John Lincoln, Sponsor; Rose Foley, Staff,
Representative John Lincoln; Carmen Lowrey, Executive
Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault; Representative Geran Tarr, Sponsor.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
John Skidmore, Director, Criminal Division, Department of
Law; Elizabeth Williams, No More Free Passes, Anchorage;
Janell Manchester, 49th Rising, Fairbanks; Lynnette Clark,
Self, Fox; Suzy Crosby, Cottonwood Farm; Christina
Carpenter, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation; Robert Gerlach,
State Veterinarian, Department of Environmental
Conservation; Eric Havner, Mat-Su Goat Share Group,
Fairbanks; Louisa Castrodale, Veterinary Epidemiologist,
Division of Public Health; Donna Celia, Self, Anchorage;
Kelli Krause, Self, Wasilla; Cece Mendosa, Self, Girdwoord;
Art Griswold, Golden Heart Dairy, Delta Junction; Louisa
Castrodale, Veterinary Epidemiologist, Division of Public
Health, Department of Health and Social Services.
SUMMARY
HB 14 ASSAULT; SEX OFFENSES; SENT. AGGRAVATOR
HB 14 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 16 LOCAL FOOD PROCUREMENT; LABELING
HB 16 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 14
"An Act relating to assault in the first degree;
relating to sex offenses; relating to the definition
of 'dangerous instrument'; and providing for an
aggravating factor at sentencing for strangulation
that results in unconsciousness."
1:30:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LINCOLN, SPONSOR, introduced himself
and thanked the committee for hearing the legislation
intended to fix issues that had come to light the previous
year. He referenced the situation where a man had strangled
a woman and ejaculated on her while she was unconscious -
the man had not received any jail time. The bill would
change the law resulting in jail time for specific crimes.
He delineated that HB 14 made strangulation to the point of
unconsciousness a first degree assault and included the act
on the list of aggravating factors for other crimes. In
addition, the bill enhanced sexual assault statutes by
adding unwanted contact with ejaculate to the definition of
sexual contact and provided for victim notification to all
sex crime victims, rather than just felony victims. He
thanked all the people associated with drafting the bill.
1:32:38 PM
Representative Josephson supported the legislation. He had
been told that due to the amount of case law there was a
preference to keep verbiage the same regarding the word
semen. He asked if the issue had been discussed.
ROSE FOLEY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LINCOLN, replied
that at the advice of Legislative Legal Services they had
been advised to use the word ejaculate that was specific to
both genders. She explained that semen referred only to
males and there could be equal protection issues. Semen may
or may not encompass all types of male ejaculate.
Representative Josephson pointed to the language on page 2,
lines 4 through 6, of the bill that made strangulation an
assault and noted that the same language established it as
an aggravator on page 7. He asked for detail on the
decision to include the language twice. Ms. Foley answered
that the decision had been made to keep both provisions
intact and give the prosecuting attorney and judge as much
discretion as possible. She added that in some cases using
the aggravator versus the assault might result in a
stiffer sentence.
1:35:26 PM
Representative Carpenter asked what happened if a person
was strangled but not to the point of unconsciousness. Ms.
Foley answered that the bill applied to a strangulation to
the point of unconsciousness. She elaborated that if a
person was conscious the crime would be assault in the
second degree.
Ms. Foley reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1: Amends AS 11.41.200(a), classifying
strangulation to the point of unconsciousness as
assault in the first degree.
Section 2: Amends AS 11.81.900(b)(15), clarifying that
"dangerous instrument" with relation to strangulation
includes hands or "other body parts".
Section 3: Amends AS 11.81.900(b)(60), to include in
the definition of sexual contact "knowingly
ejaculating on the victim".
Section 4: Amends AS 12.55.155(c), adding
strangulation to the point of unconsciousness to the
list of aggravating factors to be considered at
sentencing.
Section 5: Amends AS 12.61.015(a), adding all victims
of sex crimes to the notification requirements of this
statute. This section also adds language to existing
subsection (a)(4), directing the prosecuting attorney
to record the victim's (or victim's legal guardian's)
response to a proposed plea agreement before entering
into such an agreement.
Section 6: Amends AS 12.61.015, adding a new
subsection (d) and (e). Subsection (d) provides the
court may reschedule a plea agreement to allow
additional time for the prosecutor to comply with the
victim notification requirements. Subsection (e)
clarifies that a victim is in no way required to
provide a response regarding a plea agreement, nor
would the victim's response bind the prosecutor to
accept or reject the plea agreement.
Section 7: Establishes that the provisions are
applicable only to crimes committed on or after the
effective date of the legislation.
Co-Chair Wilson asked about the word "knowingly" in Section
3. She asked how to know if a person knowingly committed an
act. Ms. Foley replied that it depended on the intent of
the act.
Co-Chair Wilson directed the question to the Department of
Law (DOL)
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW (via teleconference), responded that to answer the
question he would explain the element of mens rea that was
the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing. He stated that in
HB 14 the standard was knowingly. He defined knowingly as
aware that the conduct is of that circumstance. The state
would need to demonstrate that the defendant recognized
that he was engaged in activity that resulted in ejaculate
landing on the victim and would use the facts of the case
to establish knowingly. The circumstantial evidence would
have to be applied since it was impossible to know what was
in the persons thought process.
1:40:07 PM
Representative Knopp looked at Section 1 and asked why
strangulation to the point of unconsciousness was not
considered attempted murder. Mr. Skidmore answered that
attempted murder had a very specific element that the
person acted with the mens rea of intent; the conscious
objective to cause the result. He exemplified that if a
person strangled another person to the point of cutting off
blood or air to the brain, they may have had a different
conscious objective other than attempted murder. The
provision in HB 14 did not require a prosecutor to prove
attempted murder but there was nothing impacting the
statute from also charging attempted murder if additional
evidence warranted the charge.
Co-Chair Wilson OPENED public testimony.
ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, NO MORE FREE PASSES, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), vocalized strong support for the
legislation. She believed that the bill sent a cultural
message that strangulation was taken seriously in the
state. She noted that she was a social worker and had
personally worked with many clients that had been strangled
and the act was often diminished in the courts. Her
organization was in favor of amending the bill to include
strangulation not to the point of unconsciousness. She
cited SB 12-Assault; Sex Offenses; Sentencing Credit that
increased the act of strangulation to Assault in the third
and second degree without proof the victim lost
consciousness. In addition, they did not want to see time
on electronic monitoring to count towards the offender's
sentence.
1:44:15 PM
Co-Chair Wilson recognized Senator Lora Reinbold and
Representative Geran Tarr in the audience.
CARMEN LOWREY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, testified in support
of the legislation. She explained that the network
constituted 25 member programs across the state providing
victim based services that included shelter. She thanked
the bill sponsor for introducing the bill. She remarked
that the bill elevated the issue of the lethality of
strangulation. She reminded members that strangulation
involved cutting off oxygen to the brain and only took 10
seconds before unconsciousness occurred. Multiple
strangulations could bring about long-term health impacts
such as a stroke. She indicated that strangulation was
difficult to verify; often marks were not left on an
individual. Second, she pointed to the value of Section 5
related to victim engagement in plea agreements. She
emphasized the importance of the provision. She explained
that the provision helped others to learn what the
circumstances for strangulation were and about what justice
meant for victims. In addition, society learned how and why
victims were involved in order to adapt procedures that
addressed the issue. She discussed that the bill created a
victim survivor centered process that gave victims a
voice. She reiterated her full support of the bill.
1:48:14 PM
JANELL MANCHESTER, 49TH RISING, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She
underscored that the legislation would help create a safer
Alaska and helped address the epidemic of sexual and
domestic violence in the state. She offered that survivors
were encouraged to report but noted that the legal system
was notoriously unfriendly to survivors. She shared
information about a case where a woman had declined to
press charges because the police informed her that the
defense attorney would tear her down in court. She did
not want survivors to ever have to endure that type of
conversation again. She stated the bill would ensure the
legal system was more survivor friendly and kept victims
safe. The bill included a victim notification system for
all sex offenses and stipulated that a court could
reschedule a plea agreement if notification did not occur.
She favored the bills elevation of the crime of
strangulation. She stressed that strangulation was a
serious and deadly form of abuse. Victims of strangulation
were seven times more likely to be killed by their
partners. The legislation provided another tool for
victims advocats that helped ensure survivors safety.
Finally, the bill would close the Schneider loophole and
make nonconsensual contact with ejaculation a form of
sexual violence.
1:50:23 PM
LYNNETTE CLARK, SELF, FOX (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation. She shared that she had been a
victim of domestic violence and had been choked almost to
the point of unconsciousness. She detailed the horrific
nature of the experience. She believed that the bill
addressed the perpetrators. She favored that the bill
granted the judge more discretion and allowed for
mitigating factors. She thought that men and women were not
safe in present times.
Co-Chair Wilson CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Josephson noted there had been a person who
had asked questions about SB 12, which had similarities and
differences compared to HB 14.
Co-Chair Wilson interjected that SB 12 was not before the
committee. She offered that he could ask about a specific
concept.
Representative Josephson asked how HB 14 treated
strangulation not to the point of unconsciousness. Mr.
Skidmore answered that neither HB 14 nor SB 12 drew a
distinction for attempt. He cited AS 11.31 that defined
attempt as when a person took a substantial step towards
the results defined in the elements of a crime. In the case
where someone took substantial steps towards strangulation
to the point of unconsciousness the charge resulted in an
attempted assault. The impact of attempted assault was a
lower charge by one level. He exemplified that
strangulation not to the point of unconsciousness resulted
in charging a Class B felony versus a Class A felony and an
attempt was treated as an Assault II, a Class C felony.
1:54:32 PM
Representative Josephson understood that the statutory
definition of AS 11.31 brought down the classification by
one level. He indicated that the only thing added in the
bill was the express inclusion of unconscious." He asked
if strangulation would still be charged as Class A, B, or C
felony with passage of the bill. Mr. Skidmore was
unfamiliar with the concept that strangulation would be
charged as an A, B, or C felony. He explained that the
current statute defined strangulation as causing injury by
means of a dangerous instrument. A dangerous instrument was
defined as using hands or other objects to impede normal
breathing or circulation of blood and when combined with
physical injury the charge was Assault II and if the injury
was severe the charge could be an Assault I. The bill added
the term unconsciousness to clearly articulate when the
legislature believed strangulation reached the point of
serious injury. The bill did not change the definition of
serious physical injury and he reiterated that he was
uncertain what Representative Josephson was referring to.
He noted that there was a theory under Assault III that
considered a threat of violent conduct placing the person
in fear could be a Class C felony and was like the attempt
concept. Representative Josephson cited that Assault III
referred to a dangerous instrument in a subsection that
lead to the hands in strangulation. He surmised that the
assumption in HB 14 was if a victim passed out the
strangulation was charged as a Class A felony and if the
person did not pass out, but physical injury was proven the
charge resulted in a Class B felony. He asked for
concurrence. Mr. Skidmore agreed with the conclusion.
Co-Chair Wilson asked about the provision that allowed
electronic monitoring counting as time served. She wondered
whether the court was required to offer credit or if the
judge had discretion. Mr. Skidmore answered that the case
law that supported the statute made it highly unlikely that
credit for time served would not be awarded.
1:58:25 PM
Co-Chair Wilson remembered that the statute stated "may,"
but she wanted Mr. Skidmore to clarify the statute and
place it on the record.
1:58:50 PM
AT EASE
1:59:48 PM
RECONVENED
Mr. Skidmore was currently looking at the documents and
needed a couple of additional minutes. He offered to
provide the answer via email.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Skidmore to provide the
information the following morning.
Mr. Skidmore noted he would be on a plane at that time, but
he would provide the information to a colleague.
HB 14 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 16
"An Act relating to the Alaska Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act; and relating to the sale of milk, milk
products, raw milk, and raw milk products."
2:01:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, SPONSOR, she provided background
on the bill. She indicated that she had been looking into
efforts and initiatives to grow the states agriculture
industry. Improving food security was a goal because around
95 percent of food consumed in Alaska originated outside of
Alaska. She noted that 67 percent of Alaskan farmers would
produce more if more market options were available. She
shared that if Alaskans spent $5 each week on Alaska
agriculture products it would generate $188 million into
the states economy. She informed the committee that
currently there was only one dairy operating in the state.
However, at statehood Alaska had over 525 farms that
provided half the agriculture products consumed in the
state. She listed various places in the state that had
dairies including Juneau, where the last dairy closed in
1965. She indicated that herd share programs were a
continuation of the last efforts to provide dairy in the
state on a small scale. She detailed that the herd share
program allowed individuals to become part owner of the
herd and the milk produced by the herd. She pointed to the
Herd Share Agreement included in the members bill packets[
to allow owners to receive raw milk products in addition to
Raw Milk Cow, Goat, Sheep "Shares document (copy on
file)] and stated that the agreement was very detailed. She
communicated that the share was a closed-loop system that
built in a safety component through co-ownership.
Currently, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
regulatory language permitted farmers to sell shares of
their dairy animals to the public. She shared information
about work done in the past year with farmers to develop
the bill. The bill would turn some of the regulatory
language into statute, which strengthened the program. In
addition, the bill allowed value added products because
consumers valued convenience. The value added products
would include cheese, butter, ice cream, kefir, and other
dairy products. House Bill 16 would guarantee that farmers
would thrive in the Alaskan marketplace.
2:07:06 PM
Representative Tarr continued to address the bill. She took
a cautious approach to the bill with consumer and food
safety in mind. She desired a system that offered informed
consumer choice and allowed individuals to purchase the
products they want.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard thanked the sponsor for
presenting the bill. She looked at the State of Alaska
Epidemiology Bulletin handout in members' packets
[Foodborne Illness and Complaint Reports Summary Alaska,
2015-2017 (copy on file)] and did not see anything about
illnesses caused by raw milk. Representative Tarr responded
that traditionally, Alaskans had health issues with some
subsistence foods they enjoyed eating and the bulletin was
a more general discussion. She pointed to the fiscal note
that included two incidents in 2011 and 2013. She
delineated that she researched the historical circumstances
that led to the pasteurization and homogenization of milk.
She explained that food had been produced locally, and
illnesses began to erupt when the distance between farms
and populations became significant and required multiday
travel to reach the consumer. She offered that most of the
herd share operators were small and knew their animals
well. Cleanliness was important and safety was paramount.
Herd share operators were very committed to safety.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard referenced farmers markets
in Alaska that sold cheeses and other goat or cow products.
She asked whether farmers were using raw milk and if the
industry regulated farmers markets. Representative Tarr
replied that currently no raw milk products were sold at
farmers markets. She pointed to the National Conference
of State Legislatures report [State Milk Laws]( copy on
file) that included an overview of states rules and
regulations governing milk sales. She noted the variety of
laws from restrictive to the far end of the spectrum that
permitted the sale of raw milk in retail stores. Most
western states allowed for the sale of raw milk including
Washington. She hoped the bill represented a small step
forward and would prove the safety of raw milk. She
provided an example of a farmer in Delta Junction that was
working to open his Grade A dairy; once he was operational,
he hoped to do both raw and Grade A milk. She was hopeful
they could build a successful system that could expand to
farmers markets and eventually retail outlets.
2:13:09 PM
Co-Chair Wilson asked if an individual could currently sell
cheese at a farmer's market. Representative Tarr replied in
the affirmative, but not a raw milk cheese.
SUZY CROSBY, COTTONWOOD FARM (via teleconference), provided
a PowerPoint presentation titled "Managing a Goat Herd
Share Operation in Alaska" (copy on file). She reviewed
slide 2 titled Why Herd Share:
Legal in Alaska
Let your goats help "pay their way"
Connecting consumers with producers
"Loca-vores"
Ms. Crosby explained that locavores was a growing movement
that represented people who wanted as much of their food
produced locally. She moved to slide 3 titled Why Goats?:
"Missing link"
"Poor man's cow"
Sentient beings
Minimal infrastructure
Housing
Fencing
Cleanup
Ms. Crosby turned to slide 4 titled What Herd Share is::
Legal in Alaska
http://dec.alaska.gov/eh/do
cs/vet/Dairy/RawMilkSharesAKFactsheet.pdf
Fluid milk only
Sustainable CSA
Scheduled
Commitment
Tailored to the individual
2:16:10 PM
Ms. Crosby examined slide 6 titled Safety & Sanitation:
Part 1:
Milking location
Pre-milking spray
Wash your hands!
Hand or machine?
Final strip
Post-milking dip
Strategic feeding
Ms. Crosby discussed safety and sanitation. She reported
that milking was not done in the barn due to its unsanitary
nature. The goats were milked by machine and finished by
hand called the final strip. Chlorhexaphine gluconate was
applied to the goats utters after milking and the goats
were fed a hay ration immediately after milking which kept
goats standing and prevented bacteria from entering. She
turned to slide 8 titled "Safety & Sanitation: Part 2
Wash hands!
A "sharp dividing line"
Filtering milk
Rapid chilling
Cold storage
Ms. Crosby stressed the importance of washing hands. The
freshly milked milk was filtered through a single use paper
filter and transferred into jars. She moved to slide 9
titled Safety & Sanitation: Part 3:
Record keeping Which goat's milk?
Jar care
Who cleans?
Educating the share owners
Ms. Crosby indicated that she kept a meticulous record of
who received milk from which goat in case problems were
reported. She educated the share owners on clean and cold
principles; keep the milk clean and cold.
2:19:01 PM
Ms. Crosby continued that HB 16 would be very beneficial to
both producers and consumers. She noted that many of her
share owners wanted finished products like yogurt and
cheese as well. She related that the goats produced less in
the winter and more in the summer. The excess summer milk
could be turned into cheese that froze well and could
supply cheese in the winter. She reiterated that HB 16
legalized value added products. She thanked the sponsor of
the bill.
Representative LeBon deduced that if he purchased a piece
of ownership in a herd it allowed him to acquire the
product. Ms. Crosby answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if her answer applied to both the
milk and not the cheese. Ms. Crosby answered it was either
way.
Representative Tilton asked about the chilling process and
keeping the milk cold. Ms. Crosby explained the process.
She explained that the natural temperature of goats was 102
degrees. She chilled the milk to 40 degrees within 40
minutes or less, which was the Grade A standard. The half-
gallon jars were placed in the freezer and after
filtration, the milk was poured into the frozen jars and
placed into ice water. The refrigerator was kept at 32
degrees, which kept the milk very cold until pick-up time.
She encouraged herd share participants to come with a
cooler and place the milk into the fridge immediately upon
returning home. She furthered that raw milk turned into
clabbered milk if left in a warm environment unlike
pasteurized milk that soured and molded. Clabbered milk was
a cultured milk.
2:23:23 PM
Representative Knopp asked how much time there was prior to
the milk starting to culture. Ms. Crosby answered it would
take about 24 to 36 hours for the milk to culture. Goat
milk tended to produce an off flavor if it was left out
at room temperature. She indicated that leaving the milk in
a warm environment gave it an off flavor but did not make
it dangerous to drink.
Representative Carpenter asked what would make the milk
dangerous if it was not the actual spoiling of the product.
Ms. Crosby answered that if left out long enough, the
product would eventually probably mold. She stated that the
most dangerous disease outbreaks were attributed to
pasteurized milk. She remarked that raw milk had never made
it onto the CDC top 10 list in terms of danger, but
pasteurized milk had. Pasteurization destroyed beneficial
bacteria that was retained in raw milk, through the heat in
the pasteurization process. The beneficial bacteria
safeguarded the raw product and made the pasteurized
product subject to spoilage. She furthered that disease
organisms were a different story and were typically present
in the processing facility where listeria or E.coli
infected the milk. She reiterated that raw milk was not
listed in the top ten outbreaks since recorded records were
kept.
2:25:56 PM
Co-Chair Wilson asked about the last time there was a raw
milk problem in the state.
ROBERT GERLACH, STATE VETERINARIAN, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (via teleconference), answered
that the most recent disease outbreak from raw milk was in
2013 and prior to that in 2011. He noted that incidences of
recall due to contamination had occurred. He delineated
that raw milk cheese was recalled due to listeria and food
borne pathogens.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if he referred to raw milk cheese.
Mr. Gerlach replied in the affirmative. He indicated that
raw milk could be used to make cheese. Co-Chair Wilson
asked if there had been an outbreak of just raw milk
itself. r. Gerlach answered that there had been an outbreak
in 2011 from a milk share operation in the Mat-Su Valley
and again in 2013 from a milk share operation in the Kenai.
He reported that both outbreaks involved campylobacter and
listeria. Co-Chair Wilson noted that there were two
instances in eight years.
2:28:55 PM
Representative Carpenter asked what the genesis of the
contaminants were. Mr. Gerlach replied that the sources
were found in a number of places on the farm and animals.
He explained that campylobacter was a normal bacterium
found in association with cattle and other livestock
species and was common to find in animal manure.
Representative Carpenter asked about cheese that had been
removed from the market. He thought that the state had been
allowed to sell raw milk cheese. Mr. Gerlach answered that
regulations allowed the production of raw milk cheese if it
contained grade A milk and was subject to a 60-day
maturation process. He indicated that a goat dairy in the
Mat-Su was making cheese and at times DEC had to recall a
product prior to its sale due to contamination. In
addition, raw cheese from a commercial dairy was recalled
due to listeria. Representative Carpenter inquired if the
milk involved in the cheese outbreaks was pasteurized. Mr.
Gerlach answered it had all been raw milk cheese. Raw milk
for cheese making was subject to the Grade A standards,
aged for 60 days and tested for food safety standards.
2:31:49 PM
Co-Chair Wilson asked whether cheese had ever been recalled
in a manufacturing setting. Mr. Gerlach responded that
cheese had been recalled in the U.S. due to pathogens, that
did not meet food safety standards, contaminated with a
chemical, or due to the presence of an antibiotic or other
adulterated processing equipment contamination.
Representative Carpenter asked about the process for
sterilizing containers. Ms. Crosby answered that they were
sanitized, not sterilized in 212 degree water. She
explained that the jars were sanitized in a dishwasher.
Representative Carpenter assumed that sanitizing was
acceptable. Ms. Crosby answered that it was her
understanding and it had been their process for years.
Representative Carpenter asked to hear from the department.
Mr. Gerlach replied that a temperature and pressure were
both employed to ensure safety. He added that surgical
instruments were sterilized to ensure they were pathogen
free. Sanitation was the process to reduce the number of
bacteria but not completely remove it.
2:35:12 PM
Ms. Crosby clarified that the discussion had been apples
to oranges. She noted that the she referenced raw milk not
included on the CDC top ten list of outbreaks but in no way
wished to contradict the small outbreaks that happened in
the state.
Co-Chair Wilson replied that she did not take the testimony
wrong. She wanted to point out to the Department of
Environmental Conservation that people did occasionally get
sick from all products. She hoped that raw milk products
would eventually be available at farmers market or direct
retail sales from the farm.
Co-Chair Wilson OPENED public testimony.
2:36:42 PM
ERIC HAVNER, MAT-SU GOAT SHARE GROUP, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation.
He enjoyed the opportunity to have fresh goat milk. He
encouraged the state to do everything possible to maintain
the current goat shares and further legalize herd shares
and value added products in statute. He suggested making
ice cream, which was a great way to market the product
locally. He supported sustainable, local agriculture.
2:38:58 PM
LOUISA CASTRODALE, VETERINARY EPIDEMIOLOGIST, DIVISION OF
PUBLIC HEALTH (via teleconference), was available for
questions related to the fiscal note.
2:39:29 PM
DONNA CELIA, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. She had been participating in the
Cottonwood Farm goat herd share for the past several years.
She relayed that her family invested in the local food
economy whenever possible through harvesting and processing
all the local food sources and gardening. She valued
keeping Alaska food traditions alive. She believed that
herd sharing opened the door for another asset of local
food sources. She shared that three years ago she was not
producing enough breast milk for her baby and she had
turned to Cottonwood Farm for a substitution. The farm had
blessed her family by teaching her how to make kefir and
yogurt from the goat milk. She felt that passage of the
bill would encourage the growth and viability of small
family farms throughout rural Alaska. She was proud to
support the farms and build community through food.
2:42:05 PM
KELLI KRAUSE, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), testified
in support of the bill. She owned a small family farm that
offered both cow and goat milk shares. She believed that
the shareholders appreciated fresh products and had weighed
the risks of raw milk to conclude that it was worth the
time and money to serve the product to their family. The
individuals participating were interested in the origin of
their food. She indicated that summer was the high
production time and the ability make value added products
meant a consistent flow of income in the leaner months.
Currently, she put the share agreements on hold when the
winter production did not keep up with demand that
translated to less income for the farm. The value added
products would be a substantial benefit for the customers
and the farm. She wanted Alaska to take a forward step in
creating food security.
2:44:14 PM
CECE MENDOSA, SELF, GIRDWOORD (via teleconference),
supported the legislation. She belonged to a herd share
program. She spoke to the health benefits of raw goats
milk. The milk could be consumed by individuals with
lactose intolerance or allergy to cows milk. She supported
the value added provisions. She supported the herd share
program as a key element in obtaining locally produced
food.
2:45:17 PM
ART GRISWOLD, GOLDEN HEART DAIRY, DELTA JUNCTION (via
teleconference), spoke in favor of the legislation. He
shared that his dairy had approximately 50 to 60 customers
in the Fairbanks area and he ran a serious food share
operation. He wanted to become a Grade A dairy and offer
both raw and pasteurized milk to the market. He
characterized the market for local food as fantastic, but
the cost of building a creamery and the required facilities
was over $1 million, which made the process slow. He voiced
that most people did not realize the issues with operating
a serious dairy. His animals were all in quite good
condition and he delivered a half ton of milk to Fairbanks
every Thursday. He thanked the sponsor for the bill. He
wanted Alaskan dairies to be profitable again.
Co-Chair Wilson asked how long he had been operating his
dairy. Mr. Griswold answered the dairy operated for six
years and began with two cows. Co-Chair Wilson asked if
they had ever had any health problems. Mr. Griswold
answered in the negative. He elaborated that the operation
was very thorough; the milk was contained in glass, filters
were changed regularly, and the only difference was that
the milk was not pasteurized.
Vice-Chair Johnston was fascinated to hear that the dairy
was using jersey cows and noted that the breed was not
regularly used anymore.
Co-Chair Wilson CLOSED public testimony.
2:49:00 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (via
teleconference), reviewed the DEC zero fiscal note [OMB
Component Number 3202]. She pointed to the fiscal note
analysis that noted the bill formalized a current legal
loophole by allowing multiple people to enter into a legal
agreement to co-own milk producing animals by explicitly
allowing shared ownership of milk-producing animals and the
sharing of raw milk. She furthered that there would be no
regulatory oversight, testing, or inspections required of
the department under this proposed legislation. Food borne
illness outbreaks related to raw milk distributed through
herd share agreements were an existing risk.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the bill would result in numerous
individuals going into the goat/cow sharing operation. Ms.
Carpenter was unsure because it had not been part of the
department's analysis.
Co-Chair Wilson emphasized that the bill was not increasing
regulations.
LOUISA CASTRODALE, VETERINARY EPIDEMIOLOGIST, DIVISION OF
PUBLIC HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
(via teleconference), spoke to the indeterminate fiscal
note [OMB Component Number 296]. She reported that the
addition of raw milk products made it difficult to
determine how the distribution of raw milk would change and
whether or what type or number of outbreaks that might
occur. Therefore, the fiscal note was indeterminate.
Co-Chair Wilson asked about the number of outbreaks that
the department anticipated. She noted that there were only
two outbreaks in the past. Ms. Castrodale answered that the
fiscal note was indeterminate because they did not know the
number of people drinking raw milk, the number of people in
share programs, or how to anticipate the distribution in
the future.
2:53:04 PM
Co-Chair Wilson asked how much the two outbreaks cost in
2011 and 2013. Ms. Castrodale replied there were personnel,
travel costs, and lab costs. The investigatory costs
depended on the number of people involved and what kind of
record keeping had been done at the farms. In the 2013, the
outbreak went on for several weeks, which increased costs.
Co-Chair Wilson asked for the costs incurred in the 2011
and 2013 outbreaks. Ms. Castrodale asked if Co-Chair Wilson
was asking for the dollar figures. Co-Chair Wilson
affirmed. Ms. Castrodale answered that the fiscal note
intended to answer how the addition of raw milk products
changed the status quo.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if Representative Tarr thought that
with passage of the bill illnesses would increase to the
point that the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) would not be able to determine the cost of an
outbreak. Representative Tarr replied that safety was of
critical importance. She shared that she worked on a more
expanded bill the prior sessions and discovered that
potential outbreaks were harder to quantify. She reiterated
that one of the elements that brought safety to the bill
was the closed loop system for the herd share. She did not
anticipate any change in the very low incidence of illness.
She referenced a prior national romaine lettuce outbreak
and deduced that the closed loop system was a much smaller
scale of distribution and farmers had multiple ways to
contact share owners. There was a motivation to do
everything right and not infect herd share owners. She
deemed that if the bill was expanded to farmers markets or
retail outlets, there may be additional safety features to
build in.
2:56:42 PM
HB 16 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson noted an amendment deadline for both bills
of April 25, 2019.
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the schedule
ADJOURNMENT
2:57:20 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m.