HB 110 - SALE/LABELING OF MEAT/MILK PRODUCTS Number 1923 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business is HB 110, "An Act relating to the sale, offer to sell, and labeling of fluid milk, meat, and meat products." Number 1929 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, as the bill sponsor, said he has been asked to introduce this legislation by Alaskan dairy farmers. The bill does two things: 1) it institutes a pull date on milk for shelf life in Alaska; 2) it gives a niche market for milk produced without hormones in Alaska. He commented he thinks all milk produced in the state is produced without the use of synthetic hormones, unlike a lot of milk produced outside Alaska and sold in the state. The bill provides a penalty if milk is labeled as produced without hormones but does contain them; it would be false advertising. He understands that there is a market for non-hormone-induced milk and this provides a penalty if producers, especially Alaskan producers, label their milk falsely in this respect. Representative Harris indicated Pete Fellman would provide the committee with more detail. He commented Mr. Fellman has been working with the dairy farmers and is a dairy farmer himself. Number 2016 PETE FELLMAN, Researcher for Representative John Harris, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to explain HB 110. He commented Representative Harris had said everything he had intended to say. Mr. Fellman noted a March 15, 1999, Monsanto Company letter in the bill packet indicates voluntary labeling of milk as non-hormone-induced is legal and is happening in the Lower 48. The letter further indicates Monsanto supports the labeling as long as it meets the guidelines set forth. Mr. Fellman said there is milk labeled non-hormone-induced for sale in Alaska, in Juneau. The authority to regulate this comes from the state where the milk is produced. He believes the milk sold in Juneau comes from Minnesota, therefore Minnesota sets the standard for the regulations and enforcement. Alaska has no such law. Mr. Fellman indicated the intent is to support Alaskan agriculture which is small and 40 years behind the Lower 48. The hope is to put this legislation through as a consumer-choice bill. Whether bST [bovine somatotropin, also called bovine growth hormone] is harmful or not is not the issue, the issue is the choice to not drink milk produced by a synthetic hormone. Consumers currently have that choice from milk produced outside the state; the intent is to allow the same choice with milk produced in the state. This will create niche markets. Mr. Fellman stated he personally is attempting to build a cheese plant and would like to be able to label his cheese non-hormone-induced. He commented they cannot compete with Lower 48 thousand-cow dairy farms, and noted he believes about 72 percent [of these farms] use bST to increase milk production. By creating markets for milk and meat producers, HB 110 will help protect Alaska's already substantial investment in agriculture. Mr. Fellman said they are looking for ways to secure agriculture and the state's investment. Number 2168 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked where Mr. Fellman's dairy farm is located. MR. FELLMAN replied Delta Junction. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Mr. Fellman if he has read the letter from Monsanto and has any answers to their questions. [The March 15, 1999, letter from Michael J. Diamond, Associate Director, Monsanto State Government Affairs, to Chairman Rokeberg reads: On behalf of Monsanto, I am pleased to provide you with some additional information concerning the voluntary labeling of milk, dairy and other meat products as proposed by HB 110. While Monsanto does not oppose voluntary labeling, we do express our concerns over the way in which labeling is addressed. Attached, please find some information which I think you will find helpful in discussing the issue of milk/dairy safety. I would, however, like to point out the following points, which I believe merit serious consideration: 1. The federal Food and Drug Administration determined there is no significant difference between dairy products produced by cows administered with rBGH and cows not administered with rBGH. The products are essentially the same, and in fact, no differentiation can be made. 2. In a 1997 court ruling in Illinois, Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc. was prohibited from placing a "no rBGH" label on their product because it was deemed misleading to consumers. 3. The FDA has reaffirmed its 1993 finding that rBGH is safe for human consumption. A letter from Health Secretary Donna Shalala to House Minority Leader Gephardt stated that "the lack of oral activity of rBST/rBGH and insulin [-like] growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and the low level and non-toxic nature of the residues of these compounds, even at exaggerated doses, results in an extremely large margin of safety for humans consuming dairy produced from rBST-treated cows.["?] In 1998, the Joint Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) reaffirmed the safety of milk and meat from treated cows. 4. Current law already permits producers to engage in voluntary labeling, provided their claims are truthful and not misleading, nor do they make a claim they cannot support. Additional concerns, which should be considered, include: 1. Are the state's Agricultural Department or Health agencies capable of testing milk, meat, or dairy products for the presence of rBGH? Unlikely, since the products are essentially identical and BST is a naturally occurring protein found in cows - hence, it would be impossible to support a claim that any product is, in effect, "BST-Free." 2. What kind of affidavit would be needed to guarantee compliance by dairy producers? 3. Finally, who is liable in a situation where a producer sells a milk/dairy product from a treated cow, despite claiming that his product is rBGH free? The producer? The packager? Or the State? Monsanto does not oppose voluntary labeling, since it is already legally permissible - however, we do maintain that any voluntary labeling must follow FDA guidelines, and be entirely truthful and verifiable.] Number 2178 MR. FELLMAN replied he received this information about an hour before the hearing and commented he has spoken with Mr. Diamond. Monsanto is not against this labeling, the company is concerned the bill itself meets the criteria. Mr. Fellman indicated he believes it might be possible to address this language in the Alaska Administrative Code if such legislation is enacted. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to a letter in opposition to HB 110 in the bill packet from the National Food Processors Association (NFPA). He noted part of the letter says that HB 110 is unnecessary because voluntary disclosure is already permitted under FDA [Food and Drug Administration] rules. He asked if Mr. Fellman is aware of this. MR. FELLMAN answered in the affirmative, but his research shows that individual states have the right to regulate milk and milk labeling. There is a federal milk quality guideline that must be met for bacteria, pasteurization, et cetera, but the state sets certain limits and can set certain guidelines. Number 2255 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO pointed out that criminal sanctions are being proposed when bST is a naturally-occurring hormone and it might be in any given cow. He asked if Mr. Fellman could address this. MR. FELLMAN replied he has talked to Monsanto's veterinarians at length and has entertained the idea himself over the years of injecting his cows because it is profitable. The bST in the milk cannot be distinguished from naturally-occurring bST, although the levels are higher. However, a veterinarian can examine the known injection sites: at the tail-head or in the shoulders. Mr. Fellman indicted the cows develop a small cyst because the product is oil-based and is slowly released into the bloodstream. If there was a consumer complaint, the state veterinarian could exhume that cyst and, if all or many of a farmer's cows had these cysts, make a reasonable determination or correlation that the cattle were being given bST. Number 2328 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he believes the question is: If it is naturally occurring, how do you differentiate and why make it criminal? MR. FELLMAN referred to information in the bill packet on the milk-cancer connection ["Milk and the Cancer Connection," Hans R. Larsen, MSc ChE, International Health News, Editor/Publisher: Hans R. Larsen]. Mr. Fellman stated there is evidence the higher levels change some of the components in milk. He said when that happens, "IGF" [IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor 1] changes. Mr. Fellman indicated there may be possible connections to breast cancer. All they are speaking of is giving people the right to choose. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned whether Alaska has a state veterinarian that would actually go out and enforce this. MR. FELLMAN indicated the farms are inspected on a regular basis by the state veterinarian. He confirmed for Representative Halcro that there is an enforcement mechanism in place; the state vet could be called in if there would be a complaint. Number 2384 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if Mr. Fellman markets his milk through Matanuska Maid [Matanuska Maid, Incorporated]. MR. FELLMAN replied they market their milk through Northern Lights Dairy in Delta Junction; their milk goes to Fairbanks. He confirmed for Representative Sanders that the labeling would be on the carton and would be voluntary. Mr. Fellman mentioned that a small producer in the "Valley" [Trytten Farms, Wasilla, Matanuska Valley, letter of support in bill packet] would like to start its own processing plant. Since the owner milks his own cows and is there for all aspects of the process, he would be able to purchase a carton stating he does not use hormones in his milk. However, "Mat-Maid" [Matanuska Maid, Incorporated] could not use the label because 70 percent of its milk comes from out-of-state. This milk is pooled with Alaskan-produced milk. There is no way to tell if that 70 percent has been produced with bST; therefore Mat-Maid would not be able to use the label. Mr. Fellman noted it is essentially a voluntary label for small family farmers. Number 2433 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if North Star Dairy imported milk. MR. FELLMAN stated all of their milk is produced in Delta from five dairy farms. Everything they have goes into fluid milk right into the market. Mr. Fellman noted the decision to use the label would be up to Don Lintelman, the owner of Northern Lights Dairy. If so, Mr. Lintelman and all the farmers would have to sign a statement guaranteeing they are not using the hormone. Mr. Fellman noted he doesn't think Mr. Lintelman is interested in using the label, but he himself and others in the state are interested in attacking the small niche markets. Number 2479 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI returned to the enforcement aspect and the associated criminal negligence penalties. She asked, "If you have a small dairy, say you only have five cows, and you inject four of them, and you get caught, all you..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE] TAPE 99-23, SIDE B Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI continued, "... hang over somebody's head without the enforcement aspect being clear. So if you can help me out with that I'd appreciate it." MR. FELLMAN commented there is going to be an element of honesty here. He doesn't know anyone milking five cows who is selling their milk legally. Normally, anybody who is milking five cows is not pasteurizing or homogenizing their milk, and does not have a "Grade A" permit to start with. Number 0024 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) personnel were available via teleconference for questions. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said they might want to move from a Class A misdemeanor to a violation, to possibly address Representative Murkowski's concern and for Representative Harris's consideration. With a violation, a ticket could be written and the farmer could be penalized economically. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would go to teleconference testimony. Number 0076 JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She noted Bert Gore is the state veterinarian and Belinda Clifton is the division's dairy specialist. Both are present for technical questions. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that HB 110 includes meat and products as well as milk. The chairman asked Mr. Fellman why this had been expanded to meat products. MR. FELLMAN replied that rBGH [synthetic bovine growth hormone] is being used to induce growth in beef cattle. Instead of an injection, the hormone is most commonly introduced through an implant in the steer's ear for sustained release, enhancing the cow's growth. Number 0129 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if Mr. Fellman could show him where cheese would be included in the legislation regarding the labeling. He noted it appeared to speak to fluid milk. MR. FELLMAN said he thought it covered cheese, and with Representative Halcro's assistance noted page 2, line 6. [This subsection reads: * Section 1. AS 17.20.005 is amended to read: Sec. 17.20.005. Powers and duties of commissioner. To carry out the requirements of this chapter, the commissioner may issue orders, regulations, permits, quarantines, and embargoes relating to ... (4) labeling, subject to AS 17.20.013 and 17.20.015, and grading of milk and milk products and standards of sanitation for dairies offering to the public or selling milk or milk products to at least he minimum of current recommendations of the United States Public Health Service pasteurized milk ordinance as it may be periodically revised;] Number 0167 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Adair or her support staff wished to comment on the legislation. Number 0171 MS. ADAIR answered in the affirmative and began her formal testimony as director of the Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation. Food safety issues fall within this division. She said the legislation essentially has two aspects: 1) the pull date for milk, 2) the bST labeling. The division finds the milk pull date problematic: there are new pasteurization techniques that can give milk a 65 to 70 day shelf life. There are also pasteurization techniques that give shelf-stable product not requiring refrigeration. A scenario could be set up where a lot of good milk would be thrown away because it would not be bad after 18 days. The division also wonders how this would affect shipment into rural Alaska, where the milk products could be arriving in villages around the pull date. Number 0212 MS. ADAIR noted there is guidance from the FDA regarding synthetic hormone labeling. This is something which has been the subject of many court suits and has generated a lot of consumer interest. The FDA does not oppose labeling of milk or meat products as not being produced using bST. It does oppose the labeling "bST-free" but that is not being proposed here, to Ms. Adair's understanding. However, the FDA says labeling must be truthful and not misleading in any way. Ms. Adair stated there is no health effect from bST; the milk from bST-supplemented cows is the same in every way - safety, composition, (indisc.) nutrition - as milk from other cows. She indicated very low levels of bST occur naturally in milk. The division would have no way to test a milk product and determine whether or not it was obtained from a bST-induced cow. Bovine somatotropin (bST) has no effect on people; it is destroyed during digestion just like any other protein. Ms. Adair noted, therefore, no safety reason has been found to label products as not being from bST-induced cows. Number 0275 MS. ADAIR confirmed it would be possible for Dr. Gore to determine whether or not a living cow had been induced with bST. Because the injection location is part of the animal discarded during slaughtering, according to Ms. Adair's understanding, it is unlikely Dr. Gore could make this determination for a nonliving animal. Ms. Adair stated, therefore, the division is unsure it could fairly enforce this. Because of these problems, the FDA recommends that states require firms using such claims to establish a plan, maintain records to substantiate the claim, and make those records available for inspection. Ms. Adair said she would hate to see them establish a large recordkeeping requirement for a voluntary label but she is not sure they would be able to ensure the label was accurately used any other way. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that concluded Ms. Adair's testimony. He asked about the zero fiscal note and its relation to her last statement. Number 0327 MS. ADAIR indicated the fiscal note is zero because she is not really sure how the division could deal with the legislation. She confirmed to the chairman that an indeterminate [fiscal note] might be a better characterization. Ms. Adair added that the Department of Law had been considering submitting a fiscal note because of potential legal challenges based on some issues with interstate commerce. She was not sure what that department had decided, if it had decided. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the problems regarding the issue of meat and meat products. MS. ADAIR replied that, as she understands it, they would not be able to tell if the meat was from cattle "injected with bST." She stated, "The injection site on the animal is not saved, and, as was testified previously, that is one of the things the state vet would need to look for in order to tell if a cow had been injected, and that wouldn't be available to him." Number 0385 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if it is correct that in other states with these voluntary labeling requirements, it is basically up to the individual farmer or cattle raiser to keep records that would be audited if there is a question. MS. ADAIR replied she understands that is what the FDA recommends but the division has not checked into other states' practices. To Representative Halcro's further question, Ms. Adair answered that she is not aware of any other states with criminal penalties for false labeling on this issue, but she has not checked with all 49 other states. Number 0441 MR. FELLMAN said he wanted to address the pasteurization issue. He noted there are two types of pasteurization: ultrapasteurization and high-temperature pasteurization. Ultrapasteurization is fairly new technology. Regarding the issue of interstate commerce, he brought up Florida's 12-day milk pull date and Georgia's 18-day pull date. The only problem occurs if Georgia wants to send milk to Florida; in this situation Georgia must label its milk accordingly. Most of the milk Alaska imports comes from Washington State; Washington is presently at 18 days. Mr. Fellman indicated the 18-day labeling requirement in the legislation is set because of Washington's date. Mr. Fellman noted, "But we did include high-temperature pasteurization [ultrapasteurization?]. Like I stated before, we are 40 years behind here in Alaska and it will be a long time before any producers can afford the technology for high-temperature pasteurization [ultrapasteurization?]. So, if we don't support the small farmer now, ... if the small farmer cannot compete with longer shelf life, then the state of Alaska has lost everything that it has invested in agriculture." REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated that almost completely answered her question regarding ultrapasteurization, the technology improvements, et cetera. However, the language in Section 2 of the bill speaks about 18 days after the date of ultrapasteurization or high-temperature pasteurization. She thought Mr. Fellman had said because it was 40 years behind Alaska was not to that ultrapasteurization point. Number 0538 MR. FELLMAN replied this is correct but some of the milk coming from Washington State has been ultrapasteurized. The largest percentage is still high-temperature pasteurization and has an 18-day shelf life. Mr. Fellman cited that he has been given anywhere from 25 to 90 days for ultrapasteurization shelf life. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned whether it is reasonable to pull ultrapasteurized milk off the shelf when it still has another 25 or 50 good days left. She asked if there couldn't be two different categories, one for regular pasteurized and one for ultrapasteurized. MR. FELLMAN said there are two categories, but the problem is that as ultrapasteurization becomes more and more prevalent, the Alaskan farmer is going to be pushed out of the market. Alaskan milk will only have an 18-day shelf life, but out-of-state ultrapasterized milk will have a much longer shelf life. Mr. Fellman commented it is a tough position but said the state has the right to set the standard although the technology may be different. Number 0619 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated there are a number of people who wish to testify. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if any portion of the bill has problems with interstate commerce provisions. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the question was good. He emphasized there were witnesses waiting to testify for both this and the following bill. MR. FELLMAN said, regarding interstate commerce, there isn't a problem as long as Alaska's standard for imported milk is the same as wherever the milk is being imported from. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Gore and Ms. Clifton wished to add anything before the committee proceeded to local testimony. Number 0673 BERT GORE, DVM, State Veterinarian, Animal Industries, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. He is located in Palmer and gets out to the farms probably two to four times a year. Dr. Gore said he does not understand the controversy with bST regarding called a synthetic hormone. It is usual and customary practice for the farmers to use the following synthetic hormones in their cows on a regular basis. These hormones are exempt drugs that do not require a veterinary prescription and have no withholding period for the milk or the meat. Oxytocin - the most commonly used one; it is used to let the milk down and can cause increased uterine contractions during labor. Lutalyse - the second most prevalent hormone used. It is used for estrus synchronization in heifers, induces ovulation in cows, causes uterine contractions to expel the afterbirth and fluids associated with endometritis. It is an abortifacient in cattle and can cause abortion if handled by pregnant women. Cystorelin - used to lyse cysts in cows that have nymphomaniac ovaries [used to lyse ovarian follicles which cause nymphomania in dairy cattle]. ECP [estradiol cypionate] - a synthetic estrogen used to tone the uterus. Dexamethasone - a synthetic steroid used quite frequently. It is for use in horses and dogs but also given to cattle. Dr. Gore noted these are few of the synthetic hormones and steroids used in our milk cows. He does not understand what makes bST different, and he guesses the big problem is that bST is manufactured in a biochemistry lab not the chemistry lab. He commented bST is a naturally occurring protein secreted in the pituitary, it has no residue in the milk or meat. Like its naturally-occurring counterpart, rbST [bST produced using fermentation technology] has the same characteristics. Dr. Gore indicated it is not detectable. Its purpose is to allow the cow to produce more milk. Dr. Gore further indicated it seems this would be desirable if the state is supposed to become more self-sufficient in agriculture. Number 0787 BELINDA CLIFTON, Environmental Health Officer II, Animal Industries, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. Ms. Clifton stated there are four pasteurization processes used in the Lower 48 allowed by the "pasteurized milk ordinance" which Alaska has adopted. 1) High-temperature short-time pasteurization which usually starts at 161 degrees for 15 seconds. 2) High-heat short-time pasteurization which allows milk to be pasteurized at a minimum of 191 degrees for 1 second. 3) Ultrapasteurization short-time which requires temperatures of 290 degrees for 2 seconds. 4) Ultrapasteurized short-time temperature with an aseptic process filler; this is a packaging process where the product goes into a hermetically-sealed container that keeps the milk sterile and shelf-stable for non-refrigerated conditions. Ms. Clifton mentioned this last product is used quite a bit by the United States Army and also probably goes out to Bush Alaska. Ms. Clifton said these pasteurization processes used in the Lower 48 are highly technical and she agreed with Mr. Fellman that Alaska is about 40 or more years behind in these processes. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if state regulations currently determine the pull date of milk. MS. CLIFTON answered in the negative. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what determines the pull date in Alaska. Number 0871 MS. CLIFTON replied that in Alaska it is left up to the processing facility. This is pretty much how it is handled throughout the entire United States. The facility determines what type of quality it wants at the end of its pull date. For the majority of the facilities, the pull date will usually be about a week before the milk will spoil. Ms. Clifton said a lot of the Texas processing plants have a 14-day pull date; that is simply because they want their milk to be good a full week after. The pull date depends on the quality the plant wants to give to the consumer. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the plant dictates where the milk is shipped. MS. CLIFTON answered in the positive. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, then, there is a lack of state regulation and statute in regard to pull dates. MS. CLIFTON replied, "I'm not aware of any that actually require certain states to have mandated pull dates, especially with the higher pasteurization process, like the ultrapasteurization process and the aseptic processing." Number 0938 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would take testimony in Juneau on HB 110. Number 0961 JULIE KOEHLER came forward to testify in Juneau in support of HB 110. Ms. Koehler stated she lives in Juneau and is testifying on her own behalf. She believes this bill is an important step in the public's right to know about what ingredients are, or are not, in our food products. This labeling gives her the information necessary to make purchasing decisions as an individual about foods, products, and brands. Ms. Koehler mentioned known carcinogens in today's world. She is concerned because she has heard differing information about whether or not this hormone is a carcinogen. She buys organic as much as possible to protect herself and her family, reading labels to find out whether or not things are added and specifically checking for that hormone. Ms. Koehler noted the government never addresses the cumulative amounts of all these small amounts of carcinogens, so she, as an individual, can address the cumulative effects of all of those things in her foods by reading the labels and making purchasing decisions. She asked the committee to amend the bill to make the punishment to the farmer for false labeling a fine large enough to hurt. She commented a small fine, a misdemeanor of $1,000 or whatever, could just be considered a cost of business. All the organic products are sold at a higher price; this is why the farmers want to be able to say it is free of the hormone. Ms. Koehler indicated a higher fine that couldn't be considered a cost of doing business would protect the individual. She mentioned that the enforcement is a matter of honesty. Ms. Koehler stated she is willing to pay that higher price and she hoped the committee would pass the legislation. Number 1102 DONALD LINTELMAN, Northern Lights Dairy, testified next via teleconference from Delta Junction in support of HB 110. He stated they pick up milk from five farms and, at this point, do not use these hormones in the milk and would like to be able to label the milk that way because he thinks they could end up with more sales. Mr. Lintelman indicated at some time the Fairbanks newspaper had mentioned bST was coming up and there were some legal problems with the state of Minnesota. He indicated people had called his dairy saying they wouldn't buy the milk because it contained bST. Mr. Lintelman said he needs every customer he has, so he assures these people it is not in there. He reiterated his support for the legislation. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what restricts him from labeling that now. MR. LINTELMAN replied that he did not know. He indicated there aren't any laws in Alaska regarding this and he would be worried about being sued. He added, " And I would like to see this hormones (indisc.) for this area, at least for this present time." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he understands and appreciates Mr. Lintelman's point, noting some people think we have too many laws. Number 1187 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO confirmed Mr. Lintelman buys milk from five independent farms. He further confirmed Mr. Lintelman had heard the state veterinarian's testimony about the enforcement problems with the legislation and the veterinarian's own disagreement with the concern over bST. Representative Halcro then asked Mr. Lintelman if he wouldn't have some liability, some exposure, if, giving an example, one of his farmers is caught misrepresenting his milk. MR. LINTELMAN agreed. He said it would probably put him out of business. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he has been following the Matanuska Valley dairy industry for a long time. He asked how many dairy farmers are left in the "Mat Valley." MR. LINTELMAN guessed five, noting he has no idea at this point. Number 1263 MARGARET CARR came forward to testify in Juneau in support of HB 110. Ms. Carr noted she lives in Anchorage and is testifying on her own behalf. She thinks this bill is a step in the right direction for both the consumers and the farmers in Alaska. First, it supports her right to know and choose as a consumer. There are too many instances where we do not know what is going into the products we eat and drink. Encouraging the labeling of milk that does not contain bovine growth hormone, for example, allows us to make decisions regarding which products we would like to purchase. In addition, Ms. Carr thinks those Alaskan farms not using the bovine growth hormone can create a positive niche and attract a greater consumer base. She indicated she personally would like to support the business of these farmers. Ms. Carr echoed Ms. Koehler's request for an amendment providing a more severe penalty to those mislabelling their products. She urged the committee to support the legislation. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Ms. Carr is a natural foods consumer, not a marketer. Number 1360 MICHELLE WILSON, Alaska Conservation Voice, came forward to testify next in Juneau in support of HB 110. Ms. Wilson stated she was representing both the Alaska Conservation Voice and herself as a new mother. She is part of that market niche being discussed today. Ms. Wilson emotionally expressed her concern that it had not been that long ago that committees discussed "DDT" and said there were no long-term health problems with "DDT" and other chemicals. Ms. Wilson is learning that there are many studies showing that this hormone is affecting cows. Cows are having more heart attacks. It worries her that all these people are being exposed to this hormone, the long-term effects are not known, and there are all these cancers currently in our society linked to the food we are eating. Ms. Wilson said Alaskans have to celebrate that small Alaskan family farmers are not using this hormone yet. She indicated small Alaskan family farmers need the kind of support the legislature can give so that they can keep their farms healthy, allowing Alaskans to buy Alaskan-grown food and healthy food. Ms. Wilson indicated she saw some contradictions in the DEC's Ms. Adair first saying there are no known health effects of bST and Ms. Adair's later statement that her knowledge is not necessarily complete. Ms. Wilson emphasized that the long-term effects [of bST] are not known. Number 1547 BOB SHAVELSON came forward to testify next in Juneau in support of HB 110. Mr. Shavelson stated he is representing himself and he is from Homer. He said some of the earlier testimony made him think he was listening to a Monsanto commercial. He thinks it is accurate to depict the debates going on here as a raging debate going on throughout the country as to whether rbGH, or bovine growth hormone, is safe to use. Mr. Shavelson commented he thinks it is safe to say a lot of the Monsanto-supported research shows this. Recently there has been a very serious debate in the Vermont legislature and elsewhere in that state, and evidence is coming out that it is not safe. Mr. Shavelson noted Ms. Wilson's testimony that the cows get sicker; as a result of that, increases in antibiotic use are seen. Mr. Shavelson said there are also problems in our society with the influx of those chemicals in the environment, and in our bodies. He perceives a dichotomy between the zero fiscal note and "then all of a sudden it becomes ... this great burden." He does not know what transpired at DEC to cause this great shift in the administrative burden. One possible solution is that anyone distributing rbGH in the state be required to report who it is being sold to. Mr. Shavelson does not think that would create a great administrative burden for anyone to handle. He indicated the legislation supports the consumer's right to know and right to choose between his or her food products. He added, "Just because some large, multinational chemical corporation is telling us it's safe based on their studies, I don't think Alaskans need to bow to that pressure. I think we should have the right to choose and support our local farmers." Number 1656 MR. SHAVELSON commented on a couple of items not mentioned, but that he considers relevant. Monsanto is moving forward with a "terminator" seed: genetically-altered products meant to be sterile after one or two seasons. There is great concern there that this will affect wild seed stocks across the world. Monsanto is also developing a special chemically-resistant strain of cotton and other products to be marketed with its pesticide Roundup. Mr. Shavelson concluded that Monsanto has a vested interest in making a profit and selling these items to consumers; the company will not want to reveal there may be some problems with this. Monsanto vigorously litigates anybody that opposes them. There was extended litigation in the situation with Ben and Jerry's mentioned earlier [3/15/99 Monsanto letter]. Mr. Shavelson indicated the issues of the terminator seed and the Roundup-dependent crops comes back to the rbGH labeling. He stated, "This is just common-sense stuff. We have a right to know what's in our food and we have a right to choose, and I would encourage you to pass this bill out of the committee." Number 1738 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented Mr. Shavelson had raised a good question as far as disclosure, but there is the state veterinarian's testimony that several "synthetics" [hormones] can be purchased without a veterinarian's assistance. Representative Halcro asked how disclosure could be mandated when any farmer could just buy these things over the counter. MR. SHAVELSON replied he does not pretend to know all the mechanisms of the distribution of these hormones. He imagines it is a fairly discrete market and the distribution within the state could be tracked. Mr. Shavelson continued, "The other idea where typically in a policy matter where we have a difficulty enforcing something, we do tend to elevate the penalty for it ... The disincentive increases as the monetary penalty increases ...." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no further questions for Mr. Shavelson. The chairman stated the public testimony on HB 110 is concluded for this hearing but would be kept open. He indicated he is concerned about the pull date requirement because of the new technology, and is wondering if, since the private sector has been doing this, why it can't be left to them. The chairman indicated the committee might want to hear from Matanuska Maid and some of the others involved in the Alaska dairy business. Number 1868 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented she sees a variety of Alaskan markets, some wanting to know there are no artificial hormones, et cetera, preferring an Alaskan product and something that is not ultrapasterized; others, especially in more remote areas of the state, seeking a product with as long a shelf life as possible. She indicated she thinks it is important they ensure that Alaskan consumers have a variety of choices and that is her problem with the legislation's pull date requirement. Number 1927 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted for Representative Harris that the labeling statutes in Section 1 are subject to AS 17.20.013 and AS 17.20.015 which refer specifically to fluid milk. This would not allow for the labeling of cheese products or other milk products. Representative Brice commented there has been conflicting testimony, asking the sponsor to check into this because he (Representative Brice) thinks there is a niche market for these products. He indicated he would like to make sure the legislation includes these products. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commended the bill to the sponsor for further work, noting the committee would hear the legislation again when the sponsor is ready. The chairman said he is supportive of anything that can help the state's small businesses and farmers. He indicated the labeling issue has certain merit, but said there are a lot of problems that need to be worked out with the DEC, the dairy industry, et cetera. The chairman commented the meat aspects of the legislation had not been addressed except by Mr. Fellman.