Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
04/26/2022 01:30 PM Senate HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB62 | |
| SB242 | |
| SB183 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 242 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 242-EXEMPTIONS FOR FOOD PRODUCTS
1:44:27 PM
CHAIR WILSON reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 242 "An Act relating to
exemptions for the purchase and sale of certain food products
for home consumption under the Alaska Food Freedom Act."
He asked whether the department had any comments before the
committee moved into the amendment process.
1:44:55 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage, Alaska,
stated that the department has no comments at this time.
1:45:12 PM
CHAIR WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 32-
GS2521\A.1.
32-GS2521\A.1
Bullard
4/25/22
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR WILSON
TO: SB 242
Page 2, lines 9 - 10:
Delete "non-potentially hazardous"
Insert "nonhazardous"
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "non-potentially hazardous"
Insert "nonhazardous"
Page 2, lines 27 - 29:
Delete "A retail space selling a homemade food
product under this section shall inform the end
consumer that the product has not been inspected and
shall display a sign indicating that the product has
not been inspected."
Page 3, line 9:
Delete "non-potentially hazardous"
Insert "nonhazardous"
Page 3, lines 10 - 12:
Delete "shall be clearly and prominently labeled
with the following language: "This food was made in a
home kitchen, is not regulated or inspected and may
contain allergens." The non-potentially hazardous food
for sale at the retail location or grocery store"
Page 3, line 17:
Delete "non-potentially hazardous"
Insert "nonhazardous"
Page 3, line 20:
Delete ";"
Insert "."
Page 3, lines 21 - 24:
Delete all material and insert:
"(g) A producer or other seller of eggs or a
nonhazardous food product under AS 17.20.331 -
17.20.339 shall include a clearly visible warning
stating "This food is not regulated or inspected,
and may contain allergens"
(1) on a label attached to the packaging of
the eggs or nonhazardous food product; or
(2) if the eggs or nonhazardous food product
do not have packaging or cannot be easily labeled,
on signage in the area where the eggs or
nonhazardous food product are sold.
(h) A producer of a potentially hazardous food
product, except for eggs, under AS 17.20.331 -
17.20.339 shall include a clearly visible warning
stating "This food is not regulated or inspected and
may contain allergens. It is not for resale"
(1) on a label attached to the packaging of
the potentially hazardous food product; or
(2) if the potentially hazardous food product
does not have packaging or cannot be easily labeled,
on signage in the area where the hazardous food
product is sold."
Page 6, line 29:
Delete "non-potentially hazardous"
Insert "nonhazardous"
Page 7, line 1:
Delete "non-potentially hazardous"
Insert "nonhazardous"
1:45:15 PM
SENATOR HUGHES objected for purposes of discussion.
1:45:19 PM
CHAIR WILSON provided the following explanation of Amendment 1:
This amendment requires labeling on food sold from a
producer to the end customer. That brings labeling and
food requirements for food sold through a third party
in line with food directly sold to the producer to
customer. It requires that hazardous food is sold by
the producer directly to the consumer to either be
clearly labeled, "This food is not regulated or
inspected and may contain allergens, and it's not for
resale, or the food does not have packaging label
that can be affixed to it like farmer market that they
have clear signage on the food letting folks know that
this food is not regulated or inspected or may contain
allergens and is not for resale type of purposes.
[The amendment] also requires nonhazardous foods to be
sold by the producer and a third party to be either
clearly labeled with the same thing "This food is
not regulated or inspected and may contain allergens,
and it's not for resale," or this food does not have
the packaging that can be easily affixed to and there
must be clear signage, again, where the food is sold.
And it also replaces the term "non-potentially
hazardous" with the term "nonhazardous."
1:46:33 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if he knew what it would cost for
somebody to comply with the labeling and signage requirements.
CHAIR WILSON said he didn't know, but producers he spoke with
said nobody had ever asked whether the product was made in a
safe and sanitary kitchen.
1:47:48 PM
SENATOR BEGICH he has done home labeling and it doesn't cost
very much and isn't difficult.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked why the term "non-potentially hazardous"
is replaced with the term "nonhazardous." She said it seems like
a very high standard and she was concerned about exposing people
to liability.
1:49:03 PM
JASMIN MARTIN, Staff, Senator David Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that Legislative Legal
Services decided to correct that term when it made drafting
changes to comply with legislative drafting standards.
SENATOR REINBOLD commented that she didn't know of any product
that was required to say on the label that it was nonhazardous.
MS. MARTIN said the amendment does not require that term to be
on the label; it's a term that is used throughout the
legislation and is in the definitions section.
SENATOR HUGHES recalled that an initial presentation talked
about classifying foods and that one category was nonhazardous.
1:50:49 PM
MS. MARTIN said that's correct and the department could speak to
that. She pointed out that the amendment only changes the
terminology; it does not change the definition of hazardous,
non-potentially hazardous, or nonhazardous.
1:51:09 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, stated that as
originally drafted, the bill defined potentially hazardous foods
as those that require time and temperature control to prevent
the risk of foodborne illness. Non-potentially hazardous foods
don't need that time and temperature control. The original bill
also had different labeling requirements for potentially
hazardous foods and non-potentially hazardous foods. She agreed
with Ms. Martin that Amendment 1 does not require the food to be
labeled to identify it as potentially hazardous, non-potentially
hazardous, or [nonhazardous].
SENATOR HUGHES said she didn't want to suggest anything on the
fly, but she was thinking about other points where consumers
should be informed.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if these foods needed to have signage
about their hazard level but it didn't need to be on the label.
1:54:46 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked if she was asking about the products that
would need a label versus those that would not.
SENATOR REINBOLD said that's part of it but she was trying to
understand the difference between the requirement for signage
versus labels.
CHAIR WILSON explained that a jar of jam would have to have a
label affixed, but a head of lettuce would have signage because
a label could not readily be affixed.
1:55:19 PM
SENATOR BEGICH said the only things that have to be signed or
labeled are those identified in the phrases: "This food was made
in a home kitchen, is not regulated or inspected, and may
contain allergens."; and "This food is not regulated or
inspected and may contain allergens." The language on page 2,
line 20 clarifies that the food is not for resale. The language
on page 2, lines 11-12 and lines 19-20 is part of that. He asked
Ms. Martin if she agreed.
MS. MARTIN said that is correct.
CHAIR WILSON asked if there was further debate on Amendment 1.
1:56:35 PM
EMMA POKON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), Juneau, Alaska, stated that DEC was
comfortable with the amendment.
1:56:50 PM
SENATOR HUGHES removed her objection.
1:556 PM
CHAIR WILSON found no further objection, and Amendment 1 was
adopted.
1:57:00 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to adopt Amendment 2, work order 32-GS2521\A.2.
32-GS2521\A.2
Bullard
4/25/22
AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
Page 7, line 12, following "property;":
Insert "and"
Page 7, lines 14 - 16:
Delete "and
(C) does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand
dollars in gross revenue annually from the food
products;"
1:57:02 PM
CHAIR WILSON objected for purposes of discussion.
1:57:05 PM
SENATOR HUGHES explained that Amendment 2 removes the annual
$250,000 sales cap. Feedback from the industry indicates that
this would be helpful for startup businesses. This will likely
stimulate more interest, which may help with food security.
1:58:04 PM
SENATOR BEGICH expressed concern that removing the cap would be
an open invitation for large producers to potentially avoid
inspection. He asked for the departments view.
MS POKON said the amendment is responsive to the concerns that
stakeholders expressed when the bill was first introduced. DEC
would retain the ability to address any concerns about foodborne
illnesses if they should arise.
SENATOR BEGICH pointed out that any follow up on illness would
be after the fact.
2:00:09 PM
MS. POKON confirmed that was correct.
SENATOR BEGICH said perhaps a higher cap is appropriate to
recognize startup costs, but he was not comfortable with the
department abrogating its responsibility for environmental
safety to ensure there are no foodborne illnesses. He said he
could support a higher cap but he could not support no cap.
2:01:21 PM
CHAIR WILSON said paragraph (14) still has the two items in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) that talk about what it means to be a
producer. The individual may not produce more than two hundred
fifty thousand individual food products each year and they must
grow, harvest, prepare, process, or make and package the food
product on land they own or lease. He opined that (A) and (B)
would eliminate commercial entities.
SENATOR HUGHES asked, should the amendment pass, would an
illness need to occur or could the department intervene if an
end consumer reported a problem.
2:02:42 PM
MS. POKON directed attention to the exceptions listed on page 4.
She read that nothing prevents the department from conducting an
inspection based on a report of foodborne illness, unsafe
sanitary practices, or misbranded or adulterated food. That
authorizes the department to respond to such complaints.
SENATOR HUGHES expressed satisfaction with the level of
protection to the end consumer.
SENATOR BEGICH said he was uncomfortable but he wouldn't object.
2:04:26 PM
CHAIR WILSON removed his objection. Finding no further
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:05:02 PM
At ease.
2:05:31 PM
CHAIR WILSON reconvened the meeting and noted that David Rhodes
was available to respond to questions that were asked earlier.
He asked Senator Hughes to restate her question.
2:05:53 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the signage and labeling called for
in Amendment 1 would relieve a producer of liability should an
end consumer get sick from that producer's product.
2:06:35 PM
DAVID RHODES, Chief Assistant Attorney General; Statewide
Section Supervisor, Special Litigation and Consumer Protection,
Civil Division Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that
the bill does not create or eliminate any new liability for
manufacturers.
2:07:07 PM
SENATOR HUGHES noted that no new liability assumes there already
is some liability. She asked if there were any protections that
could be put into the law so that producers or manufacturers
that are contributing to food security would be less subject to
debilitating lawsuits.
MR. RHODES said he'd defer the discussion to the agency, but he
believes there are options for the legislature to consider that
would reduce liability.
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the department could suggest ways
to reduce liability for producers.
2:08:30 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked Deputy Director Pokon to work with the
Department of Law on suggested options for the committee to
consider. The information could be forwarded to his office for
distribution to the members.
2:08:44 PM
MS. POKON stated that if it was the will of policymakers, DEC
would be happy to have those discussions. She agreed with Mr.
Rhodes that the bill, as written, does not affect the current
landscape regarding liability for producers.
2:09:13 PM
CHAIR WILSON stated that he would hold SB 242 in committee for
future consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 183, Version A – Supporting Document (Guardianship Overview).pdf |
SHSS 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 183 |
| SB 183, Version A – Supporting Document (One Pager).pdf |
SHSS 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 183 |
| SB 183, Version A - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SHSS 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 183 |
| SB 183, Version A – Supporting Document (Personal Care Services).pdf |
SHSS 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 183 |
| SB 183, version A.PDF |
SHSS 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 183 |
| Additional Letters of Support.pdf |
SHSS 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 183 |
| GCDSE Letter of Support 3.14.22.pdf |
SHSS 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 183 |
| SB 183, Version A - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SHSS 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 183 |
| SB 183 FN DOH MS 4.22.22.pdf |
SHSS 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 183 |
| SB 183 FN DOH SDSA 4.22.22.pdf |
SHSS 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 183 |
| SB 242 Ammendments 4.26.22.pdf |
SHSS 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 242 |
| SB 242 Letter- Delta 4.20.pdf |
SHSS 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 242 |
| SB 242 A1 Memo Wilson 4.25.pdf |
SHSS 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 242 |