Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/02/2004 01:55 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 378
An Act relating to the Alaska Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, including sales, advertising, certain devices,
food donors, and food banks; making certain violations
of organic food provisions and of the Alaska Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act unfair methods of competition
and unfair or deceptive acts or practices under certain
of the state's unfair trade practices and consumer
protection laws; and providing for an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS explained that the legislation
was introduced as a result of complaints his office had
received regarding food inspections throughout Alaska. Last
year, he noted that he had requested Department of
Environmental Conservation to determine a plan and through
collaborative effort between the Department and his office,
HB 378 was created.
GERALDINE MCINTOSH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS,
explained that HB 378 would amend provisions in Title 17
relating to the powers of the Commissioner of the Department
of Environmental Conservation relating to food offered or
sold to the public. The bill would make it possible for the
Department to require food-handling operators to become
trained, certified and assess fines. Both of those
capacities are needed as part of the new food safety
paradigm, Active Managerial Control. Also, the bill defines
labeling or advertising violations of the unfair trade and
consumer protection provisions.
Currently, AS 17.20.005 allows the Commissioner to issue
orders, regulations, permits, embargoes and quarantines.
That includes inspection, sanitation standards, food
handling methods and labeling. Under the proposed bill, the
Commissioner would have additional authority to ensure
knowledge of food safety and sanitation by individuals who
handle or prepare food for the public and persons who
supervise or employ those individuals. The bill authorizes
the Department to impose a civil fine for a violation of the
Alaska Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Ms. McIntosh added that HB 378 clarifies that a violation of
provision, AS 17.20, or a violation of the representation
requirement in AS 17.06, as unfair or deceptive trade
practices under Alaska Statutes. The legislation would
allow the Attorney General's office to investigate labeling
violations that are not food safety or sanitation concerns.
Representative Stoltze inquired if the legislation would
supercede programs that the municipalities could have in
place.
KRISTIN RYAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, responded that the
Food Safety and Sanitation program has the ability to
delegate the program to local municipalities and has done so
in Anchorage. The changes would not impact those
municipalities.
Representative Croft asked how "active managerial control"
would differ from the current system. Ms. Ryan explained
currently, the State relies on inspections by government
employees to insure food safety. The legislation proposes
to transfer some responsibility to the managers and owners
of the retail food establishments. That would mean, "more
control in their hands" to insure that food is safe by
requiring that food handlers and managers are trained and
certified. Active managerial control indicates that the
control is moving into the hands of the food handlers.
Inspections will continue, but the past rate was not
sufficient. In the highest facilities, the Department was
able to send one inspector a year, 60% of the time. She
added that there are approximately 5,000 establishments with
only eighteen inspectors.
Representative Croft questioned if "self inspection" would
really work when a company is violating food safety
regulations. Ms. Ryan stated that the Department's
inspections will not decrease, however, in addition, they
will be requiring self-inspections as well as placing
certified operators in each establishment.
Representative Croft was skeptical that it would be
"realistic to think that a business would report their own
violations". Ms. Ryan responded that this was a common
model in the environmental field and that companies are
responsible for insuring themselves. It is the government's
obligation to check to make sure that information is
accurate. It may seem that they would not want to report
their own violations, however, what it does is set up a
mechanism for them to check their establishment. When the
reports are submitted, if they are shown to be false or
wrong, that establishment would be charged with breaking the
law.
Representative Croft stated that it would be a "passive
model" on the part of the State. Ms. Ryan countered that
the Department's obligation would not be decreasing but it
would be shared responsibility with businesses. She noted
that this is a common problem throughout the United States
and that no state has enough resources to do all the
inspections. There are 5,000 establishments. Every state
is attempting to come up with a model to help address needs
and financial concerns. In the past, the only enforcing
authority was the inspector's authority to issue a "Notice
of Violation" or to close the facility.
Representative Croft inquired the history of the number of
inspections over the past decade. Ms. Ryan advised that
number has stayed steady. The average of what an inspector
is capable of has stayed the same; however, the number of
inspectors doing the work, over the years, has been reduced.
She pointed out that last year there was a reduction of six
inspectors. That current system does not work. Ms. Ryan
reiterated that the number does fluctuate and usually 40% -
60% of the establishments are inspected. The goal is 80%
and it has never been reached.
Representative Stoltze understood that the certification
program would establish guidelines. Ms. Ryan acknowledged
that was the intent of the legislation. It will guarantee
that a food safety worker, working in a remote community
will have the same training as someone in a community on a
road system.
Representative Croft referenced Sections 2 & 3, which adds
sub paragraph #5, the aquatic farms. Ms. Ryan advised that
there are changes in the bill that are corrections or
additions to enforcement statutory authority and labeling
violations. The reference referred to by Representative
Croft, outlines the relationship of who will be responsible
for each section statute.
Co-Chair Harris asked about the $210.0 thousand dollar
operating fiscal note submitted by the Department, noting
the decline in FY06. Ms. Ryan explained that relates
primarily to the purchase of the training and certification
on-line equipment needed. It would be a one-time cost of
approximately $70 thousand dollars for the database.
Co-Chair Harris inquired how the Division anticipates
receiving their receipt money. Ms. Ryan indicated that the
Department proposed charging a $10 dollar fee for the food
handler certification. The fee and certification would last
for three years. It is similar to a model used by other
states. She stressed that the fee was reasonable and would
help maintain that aspect of the program.
Co-Chair Harris pointed out two new employees. He noted the
$80 thousand dollars anticipated in new revenue for FY05 and
asked if it would come from receipt support services. Ms.
Ryan acknowledged that at this time in that component, the
Department does over collect.
Co-Chair Harris asked if the Department anticipates
collecting $290 thousand dollars. Ms. Ryan explained the
fluctuation in revenue sources resulting from changes in the
three-year cycle for the renewal of the permit and the slow
inception of the requirement. She noted the intent of
implanting the program slowly. The Department does not
anticipate a large number of people coming forward the first
year, as it will not be required until FY06. This would be
a tri-annual fee.
Co-Chair Williams asked if fees would be decreasing. Ms.
Ryan responded that the Department has proposed drafting a
regulation to decrease permit fees.
Representative Stoltze requested an example of violation to
the organic food provision. Ms. Ryan could not provide
that. She pointed out that would be the responsibility of
the Division of Agriculture. She understood that the impact
would address misbranding and labeling problems.
Representative Stoltze noted that he did have an interest in
the labeling for organic foods and asked that Ms. Ryan
follow-up on that concern.
ELISE HSIEH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, offered to
answer questions of the Committee.
Representative Foster asked if schools in the bush would be
exempt from the proposed regulation. Ms. Ryan stated that
they would not be exempt, however, the Department has been
working closely to determine ways to easily implement it in
those areas.
Co-Chair Harris asked if the proposed legislation would be a
"burden" to rural Alaska. Representative Foster suggested
that the costs could be absorbed by a school district,
however, he wondered how it would affect workers in
locations outside the big cities. Ms. Ryan acknowledged
that had been a concern for the Division and that it was not
the intent to create a program that would not work for rural
Alaska. That is why the Division is proposing the
interactive website, as a way for training and certification
to happen. In communities that are unable to take the tests
in that way, there will be proctor exams set up by the
inspectors in those locations. She reiterated that it is
the Department's intent to make the test as accessible as
possible.
Co-Chair Harris voiced concern with the unintended
consequences of passing the legislation. He noted that he
did support the bill but asked to hear about on-going
efforts in rural Alaska. He did not want to see violations
in those areas. Ms. Ryan acknowledged that was a priority
and that the Division wants the system to be effective no
matter where the person is located in the State.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 378 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HB 378 was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with zero note #1 by the Department of
Law and fiscal note #2 by the Department of Environmental
Conservation.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|