Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
03/10/2008 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB367 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 367 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 2008
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Co-Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Bob Roses
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 367
"An Act relating to the sale of raw milk and raw milk products."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 367
SHORT TITLE: SALE OF RAW MILK PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NEUMAN
02/13/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/08 (H) RES, FIN
02/29/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/29/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to Mon
03/03/08>
03/03/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/03/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/08 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/10/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
GAUKHAR YERZHANOVA, Exchange Student
Eagle River High School
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 367, testified about
the sale of raw cow milk in her home country of Kazakhstan and
supported Americans having the option to choose between
purchasing raw or pasteurized milk.
MEERIM BAKGYBEKOVNA, Exchange Student
South Anchorage High School
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 367, testified about
the sale of raw cow milk in her home country of Kyrgyzstan and
supported Americans having the option to choose between
purchasing raw or pasteurized milk.
MOHAMMAD ALSHAALAN, Exchange Student
West High School
Anchorage, Alaska
from country of Saudi Arabia
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 367, testified about
the sale of cow and goat milk in his country of Saudi Arabia.
PETER FELLMAN, Staff
to Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 367, answered
questions regarding milk.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 367.
REX SHATTUCK, Staff
to Representative Mark Neuman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 367.
TINA OTTO, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 367.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 367.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07:48 PM. Representatives
Kawasaki, Fairclough, Seaton, Roses, Edgmon, Gatto, and Johnson
were present at the call to order. Representative Wilson
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 367-SALE OF RAW MILK PRODUCTS
1:08:00 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 367, "An Act relating to the sale of raw milk
and raw milk products."
1:09:23 PM
GAUKHAR YERZHANOVA, Exchange Student, Eagle River High School,
stated that raw milk must be available and affordable to
American citizens because it is a natural product that is good
for them and the economy. She said raw milk is always available
in her country of Kazakhstan [in Central Asia]. It is more
expensive sometimes because it is healthy. Americans must have
options.
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether raw milk in Kyrgyzstan is
purchased from a store or from a farmer.
MS. YERZHANOVA responded from a farmer. In further response,
she noted the milk comes in a container, but there is no testing
and certification like in America.
1:12:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked Ms. Yerzhanova to describe the
process her mother goes through after buying raw milk.
MS. YERZHANOVA replied her mother goes to the farmers at the
bazaar. She also orders for other people in the village. Like
buying raw meat and cooking it, raw milk should be boiled before
drinking. Raw milk has natural bacteria in it and is very
healthy. She said the many artificial products in America were
very difficult for her. In response to Co-Chair Gatto, Ms.
Yerzhanova noted that having organic and non-organic vegetables
is weird to her.
1:14:41 PM
MS. YERZHANOVA, in response to Representative Seaton, confirmed
that her mother boils the raw milk before she consumes it. In
further response, she said she does sometimes drink it without
boiling, but her mother does not like that because it is
supposed to be boiled. But boiling at home is different than
pasteurizing and sterilizing, she said.
MS. YERZHANOVA, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, confirmed that
the milk is heated to bubbling when it is boiled. In response
to additional questions from Co-Chair Gatto, she said she did
not know the temperature of the milk when it was bubbling.
There is not a high rate of deaths from drinking raw milk.
Babies are fed milk only after boiling because some bacteria
have to be killed, but not all of them.
1:17:05 PM
MEERIM BAKGYBEKOVNA, Exchange Student, South Anchorage High
School, supported Ms. Yerzhanova's statements and explained that
raw milk does not go through factories in her country of
Kyrgyzstan [in Central Asia]. People in rural areas live with
their cows and take the milk to the cities and sell it. Buying
milk from factories is too expensive, so people buy raw milk and
boil it to drink it. Everybody drinks it, including the
children, because it is healthy. People do not get sick.
MS. YERZHANOVA, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, said the milk is
purchased at a grocery bazaar, not a market like Fred Meyer's.
MS. BAKGYBEKOVNA added that people bring bowls for the milk and
the bazaar is outside in both winter and summer. The people
boil and drink, and the babies drink it, too.
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether any of the milk is boiled prior to
purchase.
MS. YERZHANOVA shook her head no.
MS. BAKGYBEKOVNA answered the milk is not boiled. [The buyer]
is supposed to boil it for six to ten minutes and the bacteria
will be gone. Raw milk is really important. The United States
is a developed country and can give opportunity to farmers to
give the people raw milk.
1:21:30 PM
MS. YERZHANOVA, in response to Representative Wilson, said the
milk keeps for about seven days.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether the milk is warmed until
it gets a film on top or brought to a rolling boil for a period
of time.
MS. YERZHANOVA said it has to be a rolling boil.
MS. BAKGYBEKOVNA stated her mother boils the milk for six to
eight minutes, but some people boil it for three minutes.
MS. YERZHANOVA reiterated that it has to really boil.
MS. BAKGYBEKOVNA noted that when she came to the U.S. the food
and everything was all different and it took a long time to
adapt. She said that when she drank the milk, it was just
water, no taste, very different, but she likes the food here.
In response to Co-Chair Gatto, she said she likes Mexican food
the best.
1:23:49 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO explained that fat free milk will taste watery.
MS. YERZHANOVA agreed.
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether the milk comes in a container or
must people bring their own.
MS. BAKGYBEKOVNA responded that people in Kyrgyzstan use a
special jar that is about one liter. Each jar costs a certain
amount of money
1:26:05 PM
MS. YERZHANOVA, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, said the jar is
made of glass.
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether the milk is boiled immediately
after being brought home.
MS. BAKGYBEKOVNA replied the milk is brought home in glass jars
and can be kept one or two days in the refrigerator without
boiling, but it is best to boil the milk right away.
1:27:41 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised there is worry about the raw milk and
people would not drink it without boiling it.
MS. BAKGYBEKOVNA agreed. Many people have no baking machines or
toasters, they bake outside. The milk is a daily thing.
1:28:37 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO explained that milk in the U.S. is pasteurized by
heating it to about 80 degrees Centigrade, which is not boiling,
and then it is put on the shelf to sell. Boiling it for six to
eight minutes is more than what is done in the U.S. for
pasteurization. The pasteurization kills much of the bacteria,
but not all, and the bacteria that is left is okay. The
question before the committee is whether raw milk is safe to
drink without being heated first.
MS. YERZHANOVA answered she has many experiences of drinking
cold raw milk and she is okay. Raw milk can be available just
as raw meat is available. It can go through some tests and just
not be recommended for children. In response to further
questions from Co-Chair Gatto, Ms. Yerzhanova shook her head no
that she does not eat raw fish purchased from the bazaar. She
said she cooks raw meat, but she knows some people who eat raw
meat because it does not have carcinogens. She reiterated that
she thinks raw milk should be available.
MS. BAKGYBEKOVNA stated that raw milk is not safe for children
or old people without heating. The container has instructions
to boil the milk, so people have the choice of whether to do
that or not. It would be much better for the [American]
economy.
1:33:08 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether the container that the milk is
brought home in has a label that says to boil it.
MS. YERZHANOVA said no.
MS. BAKGYBEKOVNA stated no, her people were nomads for thousands
of centuries and everyone knows as a culture.
1:33:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH thanked Ms. Yerzhanova and Ms.
Bakgybekovna for coming to Alaska and coming to Juneau to
testify. She informed the committee that she had previously
told Ms. Yerzhanova that her opinion was contrary to Ms.
Yerzhanova's, but as a state representative she is required to
listen to all opinions.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she grew up on a farm in Iowa and
drank raw milk for her first 20 years of life. When it was in a
bottle for a baby, the [raw] milk was heated to just a skim on
the top, but as soon as the baby could drink out of a cup it was
no longer heated.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES commented that as a child he drank many
gallons of milk when he visited his grandparents' farm. He
thanked Ms. Yerzhanova and Ms. Bakgybekovna for testifying and
that they speak highly for the student exchange program.
MS. BAKGYBEKOVNA thanked the committee for the nice experience.
MS. YERZHANOVA thanked the committee for the opportunity to
express herself.
1:38:25 PM
MOHAMMAD ALSHAALAN, Exchange Student, West High School,
Anchorage, Alaska, stated he wants to be a doctor of medicine.
In response to questions from Co-Chair Gatto, Mr. Alshaalan said
that in his country of Saudi Arabia cow milk goes to a factory
like in the U.S., but goat milk does not.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES inquired whether people in Saudi Arabia
raise their own goats and use the milk themselves or buy the
goat milk at a farmers market.
MR. ALSHAALAN responded it depends. There are local stores that
sell goat milk and goat yogurt, and it tastes good.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked whether the goat milk that is brought
home is boiled or processed before drinking.
MR. ALSHAALAN answered he has never seen anyone boil it, so
maybe it is boiled before. In response to Co-Chair Gatto, he
confirmed that the goat milk is bought in a sealed container.
1:41:23 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO closed public testimony after ascertaining that
no one else wished to testify. He announced the bill was now
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH noted that she spent summers on her
aunt's farm milking cows. However, as heard in the testimony,
there is a health issue if the milk is not processed in some
manner for purification, especially for small babies. She said
she is hesitant to support mass sales without some sort of
labeling requirements or warning. When there are rules and
people become sick, they can come back and sue, she cautioned.
She said she is willing to listen to how the sponsor would
ensure the safety of the general public and how there could be a
label warning. She agreed that the argument for having options
is compelling, but she is wondering how the state can provide
that option while securing the health and welfare of both
newborns and the community.
1:45:35 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO stated he is okay with a willing buyer and a
willing seller, as long as the buyer does not come back and say
he or she got hurt by it and is going to sue the state because
the legislature okayed it. He said he thinks it is incumbent on
the committee to see that there is a warning label regarding the
possibility of harmful bacteria, along with a statement that
drinking the milk raw without boiling is done so at the person's
own risk. He is also troubled by the fiscal note because he
does not want the state to take responsibilities and money for
something between a willing buyer and a willing seller. He
related that in discussion with Representative Neuman some
amendments have come forward to address the aforementioned
questions.
1:48:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH requested that someone address
Representative Wilson's question regarding the definitions of
homogenized and pasteurized.
CO-CHAIR GATTO understood that homogenized is when the milk is
beaten so the droplets of cream remain in suspension and no
longer separate out. Without homogenization, the cream will
come to the top. Homogenizing does not affect the quality. In
response to Representative Wilson, Co-Chair Gatto confirmed that
homogenization is done without any heat. Pasteurization is when
the milk is heated to a certain temperature for a brief period
of time to kill most, but not all, of the bacteria, which is why
it spoils even in a sealed container. He noted that sterile
milk is sold in Europe and that sterile milk does not spoil.
The milk is heated to a lesser temperature in pasteurization
than for sterilization.
1:50:30 PM
PETER FELLMAN, Staff to Representative John Harris, Alaska State
Legislature, stated he is a lifelong dairy farmer who grew up on
fresh raw milk. He explained that batch pasteurization is when
the [raw] milk is put into a container, stirred, has culinary
steam on top, and is kept at 145 degrees [Fahrenheit] for 30
minutes. High temperature pasteurization is when the [raw] milk
goes through a quick process at a higher temperature - he said
he believes it is about 183 degrees [Fahrenheit] for 10 seconds.
MR. FELLMAN said it really is all about choice. Choosing to
drink raw milk is a personal choice. Milk purchased from the
shelf has a very good chance of having bovine somatotropin
(bST), a growth hormone that is injected into commercial dairy
cows. There is no choice for the consumer in this regard
because the hormone is legal. The bST is used to increase a
cow's milk production and is hard on the cow and shortens her
life. Eighteen countries, including Canada, have outlawed the
use of bST to encourage milk production.
MR. FELLMAN explained that milk is homogenized by pressurizing
it in a machine to break down the fat into small globules and
attach them to the protein so the fat will not separate out.
The problem with all these fat globules now being attached to
the protein is that the human body absorbs them all. Raw milk
gives options because it can be skimmed and the fat can be used
to make butter or sour cream, or it can be drunk whole. When
milk is drunk whole, a percentage of that fat passes through the
body because the fat globules are so large they cannot all be
absorbed.
MR. FELLMAN pointed out that pasteurization does not kill all
bacteria. For instance, certain strains of cheese bacteria,
mesophilic bacteria, survive at 180 degrees. There are also
cold bacteria that can be introduced after pasteurization and go
into the containers and then grow in the milk. It is not true
that sour milk is bad for you. Cottage cheese, kefir, and
yogurt are all a form of sour milk. The natural bacteria
curdles the milk and creates lactic acid which kills all the bad
bacteria, and this is why cottage cheese can be eaten. A lot of
the people in Delta Junction are Ukrainian and they do not
refrigerate their milk; they put it on the shelf for a week
until it clabbers [curdles]. This is about choice, he
reiterated. A person can choose which farmer to buy from and
whether to boil the raw milk.
1:56:46 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO said the key point is whether there should be a
warning and should the warning be required.
MR. FELLMAN said disclosure is important in this process. There
should be disclosure on a label or by some other means that the
milk is unpasteurized and may cause health concerns. A
disclosure makes it obvious that there is an agreement between
two parties that made choices; disclosure protects both parties.
1:57:59 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether Mr. Fellman believes the state
should regulate the sale of raw milk to an individual buyer.
MR. FELLMAN replied he does not believe so because he does not
think it is possible to do. There are so many single cow and
single goat situations around the state that he does not know
how it could be regulated. The budget for DEC is just not big
enough to go around and find and contact all the people who
choose to have one cow and who have a neighbor that they sell
the milk to.
1:58:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 367, testified he met with Kristin Ryan, Director, Division
of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) regarding what is needed in HB 367 to satisfy
the division. She conferred with her legal people and came up
with the amendment labeled [25-LS1429\A.4, Bannister, 3/10/08].
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 25-LS1429\A.4, Bannister, 3/10/08, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "raw milk and raw milk products"
Insert "milk, milk products, raw milk, and raw
milk products"
Page 2, line 9, following "selling"
Insert "pasteurized"
Page 2, line 29:
Delete "or to a restaurant, grocery store, or
similar establishment,"
Page 3, line 1:
Delete "the state's"
Insert "any"
Page 3, line 1, following "sale of":
Insert "raw"
CO-CHAIR GATTO objected.
2:00:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN explained that the amending language for
page 1, line 1, is a clarification in the title so that it talks
to all of the sections in the bill. The amending language for
page 2, line 9, clarifies that there are two different issues -
pasteurized milk and unpasteurized milk. The amending language
for page 2, line 29, is in response to the committee's concern
that there might not be a direct connection between the customer
and the person selling the milk. This gives the customer the
ability to go look at the farms so there is not a middle man and
the customer has firsthand experience to see what is going on.
This way, if there are any liability issues, there is no
question on where to go. The amending language for page 3, line
1, will provide oversight by DEC, and ensure correct labeling by
allowing DEC to approve the label that goes on any raw milk
product.
2:05:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked about the reason for changing
the title language.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN answered this amendment was upon the
recommendation and legal advice of DEC.
REX SHATTUCK, Staff to Representative Mark Neuman, Alaska State
Legislature, added that Legislative Legal and Research Services
suggested the title change because Amendment 1 would make
changes in existing statute for pasteurized milk and this would
be a way to identify that.
2:06:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES called attention to the portion of the
amendment on page 3, line 1, that would delete "the state's" and
insert "any". Would it be better to insert "all" instead of
"any", he inquired, because "any" could mean that if there are
several requirements only one would need to be met, but "all"
would mean all of the requirements must be met.
MR. SHATTUCK responded the discussion centered around the word
"any", but he suspects that Legislative Legal and Research
Services would not have a problem with "all". In response to
Co-Chair Gatto, Mr. Shattuck said this is specifically talking
about the state.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said Ms. Ryan just indicated to him that
she is agreeable to using the word "all".
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated he is unsure about deleting "the
state's" because there could be a situation where a raw milk
society is established that has requirements farmers must
follow.
2:09:35 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO suggested the five separate parts of Amendment 1
be treated as five separate amendments so an objection to one
part will not stop all parts.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES offered to withdraw Amendment 1. There
being no objection, Amendment 1 was withdrawn.
2:10:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2 as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "raw milk and raw milk products"
Insert "milk, milk products, raw milk, and raw
milk products"
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:11:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved that the committee adopt Amendment 3
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 9, following "selling"
Insert "pasteurized"
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH objected for clarification purposes.
She said she is looking at the statute referred to on page 2,
line 7, [AS 17.20.013], which addresses hormone labeling on milk
and milk products.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:12 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.
2:16:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH directed attention to AS 17.20.005
regarding the powers and duties of the commissioner, and asked
whether insertion of the word "pasteurized" on page 2, line 9,
as proposed by Amendment 3, would negatively affect importers of
milk or in-state producers.
TINA OTTO, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), said she spoke with the
lead attorney on HB 367 and this attorney recommended inserting
"pasteurized" because it clarifies that paragraph (4) is talking
about pasteurized milk.
2:17:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH understood that under current law all
milk in Alaska requires pasteurization, and inserting the word
"pasteurization" on page 2, line 9, would provide the exclusion
in the new chapter that allows the sale of raw milk.
MS. OTTO said correct. It is saying [paragraph] 4 applies to
pasteurized milk. So, in essence, it creates an exception for
raw milk, and that was the intention. She said she believes
that is what is accomplished by Amendment 3.
2:18:57 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether [paragraph] 4 is essential.
MS. OTTO requested time to think about the question.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), explained that
[the division] uses that section in the statute to regulate
pasteurized milk, that is basically the adoption of the federal
Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PM&O). [The division's] milk
regulations are about five pages long because the [the division]
inherently adopts the federal regulations, which are much more
in-depth. She said she would like to make the pitch that [the
division] continue to have the ability to do that so it does not
have to be done in regulation.
2:20:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether Amendment 3 would impinge
on the labeling or allowance of the 60-day cheese ordinance or
of the sale of milk to a dairy.
MS. RYAN responded that the adoption of the Pasteurized Milk
Ordinance allows for those variances. She said she does not
believe it would limit [the division] as long as it references
the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance which considers the sixty-day
aging of cheese to be an alternative to pasteurization.
However, she will double check this.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH withdrew her objection to Amendment 3.
2:21:55 PM
MS. OTTO, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, said she believes it
would be important and worth keeping [paragraph] (4) and with
the amendment of "pasteurized". It does make the most sense to
insert pasteurized milk to make it clear that the exception is
that raw milk would not fall under that. It is not duplicated
effort.
CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised that, as a Department of Law
representative, Ms. Otto is saying to leave [paragraph] (4) and
the word "pasteurized" [as proposed by Amendment 3].
MS. OTTO answered yes.
There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:23:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved that the committee adopt Amendment 4
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 29:
Delete "or to a restaurant, grocery store, or
similar establishment,"
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected. He asked whether "final
consumer" is a term of art or a legal definition.
MS. OTTO responded she does not know whether ["final consumer"]
is in DEC's statutes. However, regardless of whether the term
is defined, there is enough of an understanding of what would be
intended there - meaning being sold to whoever it is who is
going to consume the product. It is enough of a commonly
understood term that it can stand on its own.
2:24:31 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO construed this to mean that the [raw] milk can
travel through various agencies without any labeling until the
final agency sells it to the final consumer, at which point
labeling is required.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI also replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated it is the opposite.
MS. OTTO said she works with the dairy industry and she does not
believe this would put a restriction on a dairy producer selling
raw milk to a processor because the processor is not the final
consumer. That transaction always has occurred and will
continue to occur. It is only if [the raw milk] is getting sold
to somebody who is actually going to consume it as a raw milk
product.
2:25:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired how DEC would be able to
regulate "final consumer".
MS. RYAN responded DEC's fiscal note speaks to its guess on how
it would do this. [The department] looked at other states that
have raw milk programs and those states are requiring testing
before the product is sold. While [the department] has not seen
those programs to be entirely successful, it feels that this is
a minimum that it could do. It is similar to what [the
department] does with other risky products like shellfish for
which testing is required beforehand. Current regulations have
a labeling mandate for raw milk that say raw milk cannot be sold
off the farm unless it is labeled "unfit for human consumption"
and has been denatured. Denatured means discolored so the raw
milk looks different and cannot be confused with pasteurized
milk.
2:26:33 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO recalled the term denatured as meaning unfit for
consumption and not something related to color.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether denatured means the raw milk
is dyed.
MS. RYAN replied the regulations specifically outline what dyes
and what colors can be used. Technically, it does not change
the quality of the milk because when the regulations were
drafted the assumption was that the milk was being consumed by
animals and the goal was not to make the milk inconsumable.
CO-CHAIR GATTO remarked that animals would not care about the
color, but a consumer would not buy green or red milk.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that people in Alaska do
currently have the opportunity to buy raw milk and do with it
what they want, it is just that under current regulation the
milk is a color other than white.
2:29:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired about the color and what kind of
dye because there are dyes that are not good for humans or have
unknown affects.
MS. RYAN stated [raw milk] must be labeled unfit for human
consumption because it is not intended for human consumption.
[The raw milk] must also be decharacterized with an approved
denaturant and the approved denaturants are: finely powdered
charcoal, FD&C blue no. 1, blue no. 2, ultra-marine blue, FD&C
green, and two varieties of red. None of those are harmful for
humans.
2:31:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she wants to make sure that this will
not be done to the raw milk that people will be drinking.
MS. RYAN answered she was just explaining what the current
regulations require. Under HB 367 the sale of raw milk would be
allowed without those stipulations and those stipulations would
have to be changed in the current regulation. The raw milk
would be subject to the same testing program as for pasteurized
milk. The DEC fiscal note is based on the required testing and
certification of the farm.
2:32:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether determination of who the
final user is would be incumbent upon the seller. For instance,
someone could purchase 1,000 gallons of raw milk.
MS. RYAN responded she is not sure how this would be done
through the existing regulations. She guessed it could be done
by putting into regulation a restriction on the quantity that
can be purchased.
2:33:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH spoke in favor of Amendment 4 because
it reduces the breadth of who the raw milk can be sold to and
because, as stated by the sponsor and today's witnesses, it is
between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said his only objection is not knowing
what "final consumer" actually means. If it is an actual
person, or a parent and a kid, or a family that is going to use
the milk, then he would agree.
CO-CHAIR GATTO replied a "final consumer" could be a farmer that
decides to throw [the raw milk] on the ground or a child of a
mother - the mother would not be the "final consumer", it goes
back to the child. The consumer of the product is the "final
consumer".
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON supported Amendment 4 and noted that HB
367 would require the principal display panel to "prominently"
[state "that the raw milk product is not pasteurized and may
cause health concerns"].
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI withdrew his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
2:35:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved that the committee adopt Amendment 5
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, line 1:
Delete "the state's"
Insert "any"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected. He said he believes the intent
here is to replace only the word "the" with the word "any" so it
would read "any state". He offered this as a friendly
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected to the friendly amendment to
Amendment 5. She said the word "any" is the same as "any and
all", so Amendment 5 is all right as-is because someone would
have to do "any" of the requirements.
CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that the state cannot get out of federal
requirements so this will be met regardless.
2:36:43 PM
MS. RYAN interjected she would need a legal opinion, but she
thinks that "by removing the word 'state', federal requirements
require pasteurization ...." [indiscernible due to paper
rustling in microphone]
MS. OTTO added it is correct that federal requirements do
require pasteurization. The federal requirements do not apply
to intra-state commerce, meaning as long as it is done solely
within the state of Alaska then the federal regulations do not
apply. She said she has no opinion on the difference between
"any" or "all", it is whatever the committee would like to do.
If the intention in removing "the state's" is to mandate
compliance with all federal and state requirements that would
apply to raw milk, then Ms. Ryan is correct that [the sale of
raw milk] is not allowed under federal law.
2:37:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES accepted the friendly amendment pending no
objection.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON removed her objection to the friendly
amendment to Amendment 5. She offered her opinion that deleting
"the state's" is fine because [subsection] (b) [page 3, line 3,]
states, "This section does not apply to a sale that is governed
by federal law."
2:38:31 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether there are any federal statutes
that would apply to this.
MS. RYAN stated that adoption of [Amendment 3] clarifies that
the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance only applies to pasteurized milk.
She said she thinks the committee has now separated the two:
there is pasteurized milk that will be sold in the state that
will have to comply with the federal Pasteurized Milk Ordinance
and there is raw milk that will be sold in the state for which
federal laws do not apply.
CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that Amendment 5 has not yet been
officially amended.
2:39:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether an unintended hole has been
created by separating out pasteurized milk that is regulated by
federal requirements and raw milk that is regulated by the
state. For instance, could a preschool be considered a "final
consumer"?
MS. RYAN responded she has some concern with "A person" on page
2, line 28, because it does not restrict who the initial seller
is and could therefore be anybody. It only restricts the final
consumer. If that is the committee's intent, then both of these
ends need to be closed.
2:40:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether [the bill as amended]
creates a situation in which the "final consumer" could be a
daycare provider instead of the legal guardian of a child or the
person consuming the milk themselves.
MS. RYAN replied she thinks that without "final consumer"
defined there is wiggle room.
MS. OTTO answered she cannot say that that scenario would be
precluded under the language on page 2, lines 28-29. The
department can further define "final consumer" when it passes
its regulations and further place some limitations through the
regulatory process on how this program is going to operate.
2:42:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she looks at "A person" on page 2,
line 28, as being the seller. It is the seller that is being
restricted, and to sell raw milk to someone that seller must
prominently state that it is raw milk and follow any other
requirements. The restriction is only on the seller, not the
"final consumer".
CO-CHAIR GATTO responded correct. "When we say 'A person', we
want to make sure we are not saying the producer and the final
consumer because there might be 18 layers in between. We just
want to say ... the person giving it to the end user has the
responsibility." He said he thinks that is what is said by the
term "A person".
2:44:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES returned to discussion of whether to adopt
Representative Seaton's friendly amendment to Amendment 5. He
reminded the committee he had said that, without objection, he
would accept it. The term "any state requirements" makes it
clear that it is state requirements, not any municipal
requirements, because the legislature only has the right to deal
with state requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON restated his amendment to Amendment 5:
"Where it says delete, take out the word 'the' and [take out]
the ''s'." Thus, page 3, line 1, would read, "complies with any
state requirements".
2:45:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON argued that the term "any" is wider than
"any state" because "any" would apply to both state and local
should a municipality come up with something in the future.
CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised that Representative Edgmon is saying to
delete "the state's" so page 3, line 1, would read, "complies
with requirements for the sale of ...."
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said yes, as Amendment 5 suggests.
2:46:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he does not want to get into the local
aspect because there could be a situation where the seller lives
in one jurisdiction and the buyer lives in another jurisdiction
that has different requirements. The committee is dealing with
state law and should stick to state law and let someone else
deal with local law.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed with Representative Roses. He said
that if "state" is taken out, the resulting term, "any
requirements", could be interpreted to apply to requirements
established by a milk cooperative and this would put the state
in the position of having to enforce those.
There being no objection, the amendment to Amendment 5 was
adopted.
There being no objection, Amendment 5, as amended, was adopted.
2:48:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved that the committee adopt Amendment 6
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, line 1, following "sale of":
Insert "raw"
There being no objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
2:49:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment
7, labeled 25-LS1429\A.1, Bannister, 3/6/08, as follows
[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.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected. A lot of the feed automatically
has antibiotics in it these days, she said. She requested Mr.
Fellman's opinion.
2:50:46 PM
MR. FELLMAN stated this is a big issue. There are antibiotic-
resistant strains of bacteria all around, not only potentially
in milk, but in meat, spinach, salad, and just about everything.
Any antibiotics that lactating cows are treated with are
specifically labeled for lactating cows and a prescription must
be gotten from a veterinarian. All antibiotics labeled for
lactating cows have a withdraw time, so the label specifically
states how long the milk must be discarded before the antibiotic
will be out of the milk. Generally, there are no antibiotics in
lactating cattle feed.
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked what is meant by "before the antibiotic
will be out of the milk".
MR. FELLMAN said there are several ways to treat a cow. An
injection of penicillin has the potential of going through the
cow's system and into her milk. There are also inter-mammary
treatments such as infusions.
MR. FELLMAN return to the topic of feed. He said calf milk
replacer can be purchased with or without antibiotics in it.
However, he repeated, there are no antibiotics in the feed for
lactating cattle.
2:53:05 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO commented that whether trace amounts or any
amounts, it cannot be escaped.
MR. FELLMAN replied correct. There is a test that any farmer
can purchase to check milk samples for the tolerable limit. The
FDA has regulations for how many parts per million are
acceptable for each particular antibiotic. Every antibiotic is
labeled with a withhold time - some are six milkings, some are
twelve or more milkings.
2:53:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is offering Amendment 7 because of
the testimony from the medical community on 3/3/08. The purpose
of pasteurization is to kill human pathogens and the
pasteurization will kill them whether they are or are not
antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Whether the raw milk is boiled
at home or commercially pasteurized, it is the same thing. The
problem with antibiotic treatment is that antibiotic-resistant
bacteria are created that will remain in the cow or other animal
that is treated. It is not the question of getting the
antibiotic out of the cow's system, it is the question of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria that will be in the milk and
passed along to the final consumer. Most of the milk consumed
in Alaska is consumed by kids. As a public health matter, the
passing of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to kids cannot be
allowed, and that is what Amendment 7 is trying to do.
2:57:17 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether Representative Seaton wants to
follow Amendment 7 exactly as written or does he feel this
should be part of the labeling such that the label must state
whether the product may or may not contain antibiotics.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered he is not concerned about the
antibiotics; the dairy industry has a fine system in this
regard. The problem is the antibiotic-resistant flora that is
left in the animal that will be in the [raw] milk from that time
on according to testimony from either the state veterinarian or
epidemiologist, and this will be passed on to kids.
2:58:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Ms. Ryan to address whether there
are any unforeseen consequences in relation to Amendment 7 that
the committee is not realizing.
MS. RYAN said the committee has heard from dairy farmers and
antibiotics are used. She said she is still reviewing Amendment
7 since today is the first she has seen it, but she thinks it is
pretty clear that it would restrict all milk.
CO-CHAIR GATTO commented that the word "ever" in Amendment 7 is
a pretty far reaching word.
2:59:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES inquired what DEC's current practice is
when antibiotics are found in milk.
MS. RYAN explained that the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance under
which the state is operating requires that milk from a treated
cow [not be sold] within a certain range depending on the
antibiotic. [The division] tests randomly for that at its lab
and occasionally does find that and [the division] requires a
recall of the product if it has been sold before the test
results come back.
3:00:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked what happens to the farmer who
knowingly and willingly sells milk that he or she was not
supposed to.
MS. RYAN responded [the division] has a variety of tools to
penalize individuals for breaking the laws, and it varies
depending on the severity. [The division] can fine and revoke
permits. If [the division] feels the intent was criminal, it
can take that route as well. In further response to
Representative Roses, she affirmed that a seller would be
penalized if the milk was supposed to be dumped and it was not.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES inquired whether that same statute would
apply to the raw milk product if Amendment 7 does not pass.
Would the anticipation still be the same when [the division]
writes the regulations that the [raw] milk from any antibiotic-
treated animals could not be passed on to the consumer [for the
required time period for the antibiotic], he asked.
MS. RYAN replied she would have to look it up, but she assumes
[the division] would try to model its existing program for
pasteurized milk. So, yes, there would be a requirement that
antibiotic-treated [raw] milk not be sold, and that would
require testing and monitoring on [the division's] part.
3:01:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES commented that whether or not Amendment 7
passes, the raw milk would still have to be tested for
antibiotic in order to ensure that the seller is complying. So,
the amendment does not change the requirement for DEC to do
random testing, nor does it require a change on the part of the
person who is selling the raw milk product.
MS. RYAN said the problem she sees is how [the division] would
know whether an animal had been treated with antibiotic two
years prior.
CO-CHAIR GATTO directed the committee to the fact sheet from the
state veterinarian which addresses this question. He announced
that HB 367 will be held over.
3:03:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked whether Representative Neuman's
intent is to allow dairies to sell raw milk wholesale, retail,
or both.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN responded it is his intent to allow a
dairy farmer, being the person, to sell raw milk, unprocessed
milk to somebody who wants to buy it - that consumer. That
consumer could simply be somebody who comes to visit and buys it
for their family. Amendment 7 would gut HB 367. Whether an
animal had "ever" been given antibiotic could never be proven.
3:04:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH inquired whether "the person" [page 2,
line 31] could be substituted for either the word "dairies" or
"producers". That is why she asked the wholesale/retail
question, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN replied yes.
[HB 367 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|