HB 315-CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL & CROP RECORDS  2:10:16 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 315, "An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain records on animals and crops; and providing for an effective date." 2:10:44 PM CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), turned to the PowerPoint presentation titled, "HB 315: Confidentiality of Animal and Crop Records," slide 1, and advised that the Division of Environmental Health worked with Governor Bill Walker's office to introduce HB 315 because for at least the last 10- years, the division has heard from the agricultural producers that they would like the same level of protection provided to other commercial industries. This protection would be by keeping the animal importation and animal testing results confidential. This legislation, she explained, would afford those producers the same protection currently offered to commercial fishermen, for example, the Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) has a similar statute. This bill amends AS 03.05 and adds new sections authorizing the records held by Office of the State Veterinarian (OSV) to be confidential, she reiterated. This has been a coordinated effort with the Departments of Environmental Conservation and Natural Resources, and she advised that this presentation will reference the records contained in the Division of Environmental Health, but this would also give similar protection to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Agriculture, who often holds crop testing records. 2:12:54 PM MS. CARPENTER turned to slide 3, titled "HB 315: Need Overview" and explained that farmers requested this legislation because if they work with her division on disease issues, that that information may be subject to a public records release. The division views this as an agricultural Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and would provide those testing records and animal health records held in the division as confidential. Therefore, this legislation would be more protective of public health because it would allow producers to engage with the division early on if there was a disease outbreak or a morbidity event in which the division could respond. MS. CARPENTER then turned the presentation over to Dr. Bob Gerlach, Alaska State Veterinarian regarding the role of his office and the records the division is often responsible. 2:14:23 PM DR. BOB GERLACH, State Veterinarian, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), turned to slide 4, titled "Office of the State Veterinarian" and advised that his office is to responsible for the following: prevention, control, and eradication of diseases in animals, including livestock and pets; safeguard the health and food production in the state; and prevent public health issues. Many of these functions rely on his office to gather information necessary to investigate an outbreak of a disease and know where the risks are that are involved with the disease. This would include: where animals are housed; animal movements; animal imports; animal test records; and provide disease surveillance records to show proof of concept, or proof of the state's freedom from disease. 2:15:34 PM DR. GERLACH turned to slide 5, titled "Program Functions and Record Examples," and advised that the Office of the State Veterinarian (OVR) maintains reportable disease records containing reference data from slaughter plants, laboratories, farms, and veterinarians. He explained that this slide depicts some of its program functions, and basically these are different functions available to collect the data it needs to understand the risks involved with diseases in the state. Many functions related to the animal input records that OSV has gathered data from a health certificate, as well as input records from animals coming into the state which provides animal inventories, disease test records for these animals, origin, and destination of the animals, he explained. Therefore, he offered, in the event or an outbreak, the OSV could determine the location of that outbreak and where those animals traveled to and from the state. It also involves reporting of morbidity and mortality investigations that the OSV may be involved in with other state agencies. Many of these programs are certification programs such as, the dairy program and the produce food safety program, wherein if a producer wants to enter a market they must meet federal requirements and provide his office with this information and provide testing information to qualify and sell their products. He explained that the Chronic Waste and Disease Program or the National Poultry Improvement Plan provides certification for these producers to show that the products they are producing are free of disease, have a high standard of quality, or validate the quality. For example, he offered, Grade A milk to be sold within the state requires proof of animal health and proof and verification of food safety being produced. 2:17:55 PM DR. GERLACH turned to slide 6, titled "Alaska Animal Imports: OSV Records," and advised that the slide depicts some of the import records OSV collects, and verification of the number of imports associated with the number of animals coming into the state. The slide illustrates the increase in the amount of information gathered and records that OSV maintains as the farmers and backyard operators begin to import animals or own animals in the state. The Produce Food Safety Program was recently created, due to an FDA requirement, wherein OSV collects data and information on many agricultural farms that requires the farmers to provide some personal data, business data, and proprietary data. He noted that many other states are gathering this same information and requiring that state to address this issue and provide protections for personal, proprietary, and business data to protect these individual farms and businesses. Except, he said, also allowing release of that data, when necessary, to follow-up on an investigation if there is an outbreak, determine the source of the outbreak, and perform the functions of which the OSV is required. For example, he explained, provide animal health, ensure animal health, protect public health, and make sure food safety is of primary concern. In that regard, he advised, in the event of an outbreak, "we do share that information" with the OSV's collaborative partners to perform these investigations and determine what could be done to mitigate this threat and correct an outbreak. 2:19:48 PM DR. GERLACH turned to slide 7, titled "Disease Outbreaks in Alaska," and noted that the slide depicts an example of some of the disease outbreaks that have occurred in Alaska, and offers an appreciation for the number of diseases. He pointed out that the slide shows some of the diseases that may solely affect animals, and in those cases it works with the following: veterinarians in the state; the Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) because the state does not want a domestic outbreak to move into the wildlife; the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); and if the situation involved public health issues it would work with the Division of Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). [Slide 8 was described at timestamp 2:21:30.] 2:20:35 PM DR. GERLACH turned to slide 9, titled "HB 315: Benefits," and advised that the intent of this legislation is to protect personal, proprietary, and business information, yet share that data when necessary to protect animal health resources in the state, public health, and food safety. He explained that it is not that the OSV would collect it and not share it, because it does share that data in a general format when there is an outbreak to let veterinarians and farmers know there is an issue, and that they should increase their biosecurity or their preparedness in order to prevent the infection from entering their farm or affecting their animals. 2:21:30 PM MS. CARPENTER turned to slide 8, titled "HB 315: Sectional Analysis," and advised that Section 1 amends AS 03.05 to make certain animal and crop records, maintained by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), exempt from the Alaska Public Records Act if they contain personal, business, or proprietary information. This legislation does allow the Office of the State Veterinarian (OSV) to disclose that information if the department determines there is a threat to the health or safety of an animal, crop, or the public. Section 2 allows DEC and DNR to adopt regulations to implement the Act, and at this time DEC does not foresee a need to adopt regulations. Section 3 provides for an immediate effective date, she said. 2:22:39 PM MS. CARPENTER turned to slide 9, titled "HB 316: Benefits" and added to Dr. Gerlach's testimony by noting that HB 315 has a number of benefits specific to the agricultural industry growth. It is the hope of OSV that by engaging with the OSV more often, that there will be more routine surveillance testing of crops and animals which would results in a higher quality product for sale with increased production efficiency. There would also be early identification and testing of sick or dead animals and in the event of a disease outbreak, it would be contained, and the OSV would keep that proprietary data confidential from potential competitors. 2:23:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Dr. Gerlach's testimony that a reason for the bill was to prevent public health hazards and not end up with the public health hazard of a sick animal. In the event the sickness is a public health hazard, she asked why the testing is voluntary. DR. GERLACH answered that some of the testing is voluntary and other testing is required based on state and federal regulations for access to markets in the sale and movement of animals. 2:24:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested an example of what disease tests are voluntary and what tests are not voluntary. DR. GERLACH responded that there is no required salmonella testing in poultry, such as a backyard chicken house or a large- scale producer selling eggs. Salmonella is a public health disease that can cause illness in people and those people performing voluntary testing use the results to show the quality of their product and use that information as a sales marketing tool, in comparison to other producers. Required disease testing, for example, would be brucellosis testing for those animals producing milk to be sold for consumption in the state, the Grade A milk and cows must be tested. He offered that brucellosis is very transmissible through animals and can make them sick, but also can be transmitted to people and cause severe illness, he explained. 2:25:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that brucellosis testing is mandatory, and salmonella is voluntary, and asked whether brucellosis is lethal and salmonella is not lethal. DR. GERLACH explained that brucellosis was identified in the early 1900s as a widespread disease within the animal industry with current continuing pockets of brucellosis within the wildlife in Alaska and the Greater Yellowstone area. Due to the wide distribution of dairy products throughout that early time period for brucellosis, and with the advent of pasteurization, the testing is still required because it is a venereal disease that can spread silently through a herd causing severe problems and put the farmer at risk. Salmonella, he explained, can cause severe illness but it is such a widespread disease that is routinely found in the environment throughout the state. The intention here is to try to decrease the risk for a transmission of disease to people. In the event a person ate a raw egg, their chance of ingesting salmonella could be upwards of about 10 percent of the commercial eggs having salmonella, he said, and cooked eggs may be lower. He said that it is not based on the OSV's determination but what federal or other laws have already been required. 2:28:28 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether that was a long-hand way of saying there was a risk benefit analysis, and based on that analysis, "they are choosing" what is and is not mandatory. DR. GERLACH answered in the affirmative. 2:28:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented the brucellosis risk benefit analysis happened 100 years ago. DR. GERLACH agreed, and he advised that if brucellosis disease moves from state to state, there are strong regulations to prevent that spread between any cattle or elk in the Greater Yellowstone area, and the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. The implications of a disease spreading causes a great impact on the general commercial industry, and in the event that disease spread within the commercial industry within the United States, that could impact global trade issues with respect to the movement of animals and animal products out of the country, he explained. 2:29:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that the testing is for the industry and trade as opposed to public health. DR. GERLACH answered that the testing performs both purposes, it protects the industry and commerce on a local, state, and global commercial level; as well as protects public health. 2:30:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that the Matanuska-Susitna Valley is proud of its agriculture, particularly the "Alaska Grown" program piece. He referred to the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee wherein Ms. Carpenter had mentioned partnering with the Division of Agriculture to investigate abuses of the "Alaska Grown" program, and he asked her to speak to that issue. MS. CARPENTER advised that, under current state law, if DNR is looking into an abuse of the "Alaska Grown" program, the OSV could provide that information to DNR. Under this legislation, the OSV would no longer be allowed to provide that information to DNR unless there was a public health risk. Although, she said, because the "Alaska Grown" program is voluntary, it would be possible for DNR to require those animal importation records as part of its verification process and remove DEC from the middle of the process. 2:32:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered concern that when addressing confidentiality, some of the information regarding which animals are [imported into] Alaska will be harder to access for the public. There may not be a robust and aggressive investigation into the prosecution of abuses regarding the "Alaska Grown" program, and he asked the last time someone was prosecuted for abuse of this program. MS. CARPENTER advised that the "Alaska Grown" program is under DNR and she could not speak to that issue. 2:33:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked Dr. Gerach whether he was part of the family from Glennallen. DR. GERLACH advised that his family was originally from Pennsylvania and not from Glennallen. 2:33:47 PM CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that the gist of this bill is to try to put farm and ranch producers on equal footing with seafood producers and the manner in which information is handled. This would be with regard to disease and the confidentiality of those records, and when the department can make public those records, and be treated in the same manner as the seafood industry, he offered. DR. GERLACH added that this would also provide protection of personal and business data, not just from any proprietary business data. He explained that for anyone running a business, it would be protection of their business and marketing plan, it is not solely related to food safety issues. 2:34:48 PM CHAIR CLAMAN offered a scenario of one particular producer having a diseased product and asked whether this bill would allow the public identification of that producer or would this prevent the identification of that one specific producer. DR. GERLACH answered that the information would be released to other collaborative partners in the event of a public health threat, or in order to investigate, contain, and remove that threat. Thereby, allowing the continuation of business throughout the state so that other producers are not involved and impacted by that disease outbreak or contamination, or a public health threat associated with their products, he explained. 2:36:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to slide 6, noting that the state has imported more than 95,000 animals during this last year and asked whether that is a trend he expects to continue. DR. GERLACH answered that that trend is expected to continue because there are a large number of small backyard operations importing poultry for meat and egg productions and sales. He also noted an increase in swine and cattle to meet the needs for local market demand in restaurants and stores. 2:36:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that 401 horses were imported in 2017, and he asked Dr. Gerlach to speak to what is driving those imports. DR. GERLACH referred to the chart for 2016 and noted there was not "too much of a variation," but there had been an increase in pleasure horses and pack/work horses entering the state used for guides and trail rides. The number of pleasure horses increased drastically and the movement throughout the lower '48 has increased much more than is being seen here, he advised. 2:37:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Dr. Gerlach to address the concern that this confidentiality makes it harder for the public to know whether an animal entered the state from Canada or was actually Alaska grown. In the event the animal was not Alaska grown but yet someone puts that label onto it, he asked how this bill is serving, through confidentiality, to sweep that fact under the rug. MS. CARPENTER reiterated that the "Alaska Grown" program is held under DNR and it is up to DNR to make sure the producers qualifying for that program meet DNR's requirements. She deferred to DNR to address the concerns from producers that other producers may not meet those requirements. 2:39:25 PM CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that it was clear the DEC could not answer any questions about the "Alaska Grown" program. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there was a DNR person online to address those issues. CHAIR CLAMAN said the committee would move to public testimony because someone online is from DNR. 2:40:02 PM CHAIR CLAMAN opened the public hearing on HB 315. 2:41:04 PM BRYCE WRIGLEY, Alaska Farm Bureau, advised that the Alaska Farm Bureau is deeply committed to strengthening security in Alaska by growing more of its own food. This, he commented, requires commitment from farmers and statutes/regulations encouraging local food production and processing. He pointed out that this legislation is important because it will encourage farmers and ranchers to communicate their concerns about their crops or animals to the state agencies without fear that information will become public. For example, he offered, a competitor could leverage information about a neighbor's problem in order to increase their own market share. Also, he offered, the voluntary testing of animals or agricultural products allows for early detection of a disease and allows treatment to be taken, thereby, decreasing the potential for more serious outbreaks. In spite of the benefits, he related that many farmers are reluctant to subject their animals or products to this voluntary testing because the results of those tests are not confidential. He said that the Alaska Farm Bureau believes the state agencies should function as a resource to help its members be successful, and that cultivating that partnership is vital to developing a strong local food system in Alaska. He then encouraged the committee to pass this bill as it does no harm and it will build trust between the state's food producers and the government. In working together, they can transform the state's food (indisc.). 2:42:43 PM CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 315. CHAIR CLAMAN advised Mr. Keys, Division of Agriculture, that a member has questions regarding the "Alaska Grown" program, how it intersects with HB 315, and the position of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on this legislation. 2:43:35 PM ARTHUR KEYES, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), related that it is important the farmers' trust the government when they have a problem. Certainly, Dr. Gerlach was professionally speaking on the livestock side of things, and on the plant side, he advised that the Division of Agriculture provides testing for the farmers as needed. As Mr. Wrigley had advised, he stated that it is important the farmers trust that when they go to DNR with a problem, that DNR is able to help them address their problem without fear a neighbor may be able to use the legal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process to use that information against the farmer on the marketing side of things. He expressed that the importance of trust could not be understated, including the importance of the relationship between DNR and its farmers. 2:44:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the last time someone had been prosecuted for an abuse of the "Alaska Grown" program. MR. KEYES answered that he could not say there had been a prosecution, but there was a 2016 lawsuit wherein the State of Alaska sued the Mat-Su Chapter of the Alaska Farm Bureau over the use of the logo. 2:45:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the fact that cattle or a horse had been imported from out-of-state is proprietary information or should that information be available to the public. MR. KEYES opined, after listening to Dr. Gerlach's testimony today, that an animal being imported into the State of Alaska would not be protected information, and the proprietary business information attached to that would be confidential. 2:46:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether "becoming confidential" would make it more difficult for the public to determine whether an animal had been Alaska grown. CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out to Representative Eastman that Mr. Keyes' answer was that the information that the animal originated in Canada was not confidential. MR. KEYES answered that Chair Claman was correct. CHAIR CLAMAN verified that the confidential information has to do more with disease issues, such as brucellosis and salmonella, but in terms of the fact where the animal originated (audio difficulties). 2:46:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether this bill would make that type of information more difficult for the public to obtain or would it stay the same as it is currently. CHAIR CLAMAN asked which information Representative Eastman was referencing. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered, specifically regarding the origin of an animal. MR. KEYES responded that finding out the number of animals that came in from Canada is fine, but the information of the origin of his neighbor animals is proprietary information because that is not in the public's interest, he opined. 2:47:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that the effect of this bill would be to include that information with other proprietary information. MR. KEYES said he was not sure he understood the question. He opined that wherever the farmer gets the cattle he puts on his farm, it is not the neighbor's business where that cattle originated. CHAIR CLAMAN related that he was confused because he had asked Mr. Keyes whether obtaining a permit to import an animal from Canada was public information and if so, how can it be private that the animal in his backyard is from Canada. MR. KEYES deferred to Dr. Gerlach because he is the better person to answer this specific livestock question. He opined that there is information on the import tags where the animal originated and the farm. As Mr. Wrigley had noted, it would be detrimental to a business to have it out there for public consumption. Although, he said, that does not mean a person cannot know an animal came from Canada, but there is information that should be protected. 2:49:31 PM DR. GERLACH explained that every animal coming into the state is required to have an ear tag listing the source of origin for that animal. In the event they are specifically arriving from Canada, they must have a Canadian specific ear tag, as well as a tattoo or a brand. Those animals are identified from their source, which is extremely important to trace if there is a disease outbreak or an issue with the health and safety of that product, he explained. 2:50:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he understands it is important for the department to have that information but offered concern that the public may not readily have that information. He asked whether the tag is required to stay with the animal for the life of the animal or only when they come into the state. DR. GERLACH advised that the tag, through federal requirements, is forbidden to be taken out of that animal until it is slaughtered or processed for food. 2:50:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Dr. Gerlach whether this legislation will make the information regarding the animal's origin more difficult to obtain, or not have any effect. DR. GERLACH answered that if the question is whether this animal is Alaska grown, that would be directed toward the Division of Agriculture to evaluate the circumstances, where that animal was raised, and how long it was raised in Alaska, to determine whether it met that label requirement. With respect to the number of animals coming into Alaska, OSV publishes a yearly chart to let people know how many animals have been imported into the state, which is part of annual information OSV distributes to veterinarians, farmers, and the Alaska Farm Bureau. 2:51:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN re-asked his question in a different manner, as a member of the public, will this bill make it more difficult from him to determine whether a particular animal was imported. DR. GERLACH advised that if Representative Eastman was asking him whether he could tell advise if Chair Claman's cattle were Canadian cattle, he would say, "I will not tell you that because that's proprietary business where he has his cattle." In the event Representative Claman is marketing the cattle and selling them to Representative Eastman through the "Alaskan Grown" program, then Representative Eastman would go through the Division of Agriculture to determine whether those cattle met the requirements of the "Alaskan Grown" program. 2:52:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she was thoroughly confused, and surmised that the public can find out, due to this permit, tattoo, or whatever, what animals have arrived from Canada. In the event her neighbor imported an animal from Canada, it is public information as to "where that animal is, correct?" DR. GERLACH said that that information can be obtained, but through this regulation and proprietary information, how Representative Claman is building his cattle herd to enter different markets is his business plan, and it is protected as proprietary information, personal information. 2:53:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that under this bill, the public will not be able to know where these cattle originated, it will only be allowed to know that 100 head of cattle came into Alaska from Canada. She further surmised that, in whose backyard those cattle have landed, the public will be not allowed to know. DR. GERLACH answered that Representative LeDoux was correct because these cattle came in through Canada and met all of the USDA health requirements to come into the country and have met all of the Alaska requirements that they are healthy and free from infectious/contagious disease. CHAIR CLAMAN commented that if a person was worried about where their neighbor's cattle originated, they could walk to the fence and wave the cow over and read its tag. 2:55:22 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether any member has a potential amendment for HB 315. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he does have an amendment because the witnesses have not been able to answer the state of the enforcement of the "Alaska Grown" program, and this legislation will limit the ability of public to oversee and identify what is "Alaska Grown." He related that it puts all of the onerous on the department "to do so," and he has heard concerns that the department is not aggressively pursuing those investigations even when credible information was offered. He said he would like to receive information from the department as to the last time it prosecuted someone for that type of abuse, and how robust is its investigation process. CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Jennifer Currie, Department of Law (DOL) whether there are any provisions in the criminal code or other code that would allow for criminal prosecution related to misuse of the "Alaska Grown" program. 2:57:18 PM JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section, Department of Law (DOL), advised that she is unaware of any criminal provisions that would go to prosecution for improper use of the "Alaska Grown" program. 2:57:40 PM CHAIR CLAMAN (audio difficulties) asked whether there has been any practice in the Department of Law (DOL) to bring civil actions relating to misuse of the "Alaska Grown" program. MS. CURRIE replied that, unfortunately, she represents the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and it does not have that program, and she was unaware whether there had been prosecutions. CHAIR CLAMAN commented, or at least civil cases if not criminal prosecutions. In order to get Representative Eastman's questions answered they would need a different section in the DOL. 2:58:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether any of the cannabis operations adopted the "Alaska Grown" program for their operations. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP advised that "we don't have the testing down" even for the facilities the state does have to teach [laughter through comment - indisc.] much less "Alaska Grown." CHAIR CLAMAN commented that as a legal matter, it must be grown in Alaska because it is illegal to cross state lines. 2:59:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that marijuana producers can use the label "Alaska Grown." MR. KEYES responded that currently, no marijuana producers are allowed to use the "Alaska Grown" logo with their crop because that program is run through the Division of Agriculture and it is not accepting marijuana producers' applications. The primary reason being that it uses a lot of federal dollars for that program and it is still an illegal crop on the federal level, which would jeopardize the division's funding for that program. Also, he said, to Representative Eastman's question, if the division saw or heard of a violator possibly using "Alaska Grown" improperly, it would contact that person and potentially remove them from the "Alaska Grown" program. 3:01:04 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Keyes, as Director of the Division of Agriculture, whether he was familiar with any civil lawsuits filed against anyone in connection with the misuse of the "Alaska Grown" program. MR. KEYES reiterated that in 2016, a civil lawsuit was filed, and pointed out that during the two years of his tenure as director, the division has contacted various retail outlets when the "Alaska Grown" program was used in a questionable manner. He related that on every occasion that the division contacted the vendor, the problem was rectified with minimal issues.