CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 6(JUD) "An Act relating to the regulation and production of industrial hemp; relating to industrial hemp pilot programs; providing that industrial hemp is not included in the definition of 'marijuana'; and clarifying that adding industrial hemp to food does not create an adulterated food product." 3:55:00 PM SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES, SPONSOR, relayed that the preceding year, former Senator Johnny Ellis had introduced a bill about hemp. She recalled receiving a phone call from a farmer who had been very interested in the bill. The bill had been introduced at the tail end of the previous session; therefore, she had committed to introducing a bill in the current session. She noted that when she had initially introduced the bill it had been quite short - it had been simply to remove hemp from the marijuana definition section in statute and place it under the Division of Agriculture defined as an agricultural product. The current bill was slightly different in order to be in compliance with federal law. She was still confident that the Division of Agriculture and individuals interested in farming hemp were comfortable with the bill. Senator Hughes relayed that she had worked on a number of policies to help bring the state into the 21st century in terms of technology and other. She remarked that the state had basically gone silent on the topic for a number of years and it was now going back to catch up. She continued that in the 1600s, hemp had been a stable crop in the United States. She elaborated that the sails of European ships traveling to America had been made of hemp. Additionally, some early drafts of the Declaration of Independence had been drafted on hemp paper and covered wagon canvas had been made of hemp. In 1937 the product had been made illegal nationwide; therefore there had been little usage until the product had been redefined at the federal level by the 2014 Farm Bill [the Agricultural Act of 2014]. She elaborated that 30 states had passed legislation - there were 17 states that were conducting a pilot act. There were tens of thousands of products that could be made from hemp. Senator Hughes continued that a meat plant in Palmer was currently being privatized. She elaborated that hemp was a nutritional forage for livestock - in order to make the meat plant work, the farmers needed to grow their livestock herds. Hemp grew easily in Alaska, it was nutritious, and was good for the soils. She had heard from others throughout the state interested in using the product. She referred to a person interested in using hemp for building insulation and another person using hemp to make soaps and body products. She highlighted that the sponsor statement in members' packets was printed on hemp paper. Senator Hughes explained that SB 6 defined hemp as cannabis with a THC content of 0.3 percent. She shared that 1 percent was the threshold of intoxication. When growers were trying to produce marijuana they aimed for 20 to 30 percent THC. The bill would also define hemp as an agricultural product and would remove it from controlled substances statutes. She furthered that the bill would create a pilot program, which was part of the federal requirement, and would allow registrants to participate. The Division of Agriculture would have the regulatory authority and would create a fee structure to have the program be self-sustaining. The bill also removed CBD oils. She noted her staff and others were available to speak to the bill. She remarked that her office had been working with an attorney at Hemp Law LLC who had worked across states and helped her office understand legal requirements in terms of compliance with federal law. She thanked the committee for its time and noted the next day was Alaska Agriculture Day. She believed hemp was an economic opportunity the state should promote. 4:02:11 PM Representative Guttenberg was supportive of the bill, but he had concern with the conflict between hemp and pot in outdoor growing fields. He mentioned pollen as an issue. He thought there needed to be an understanding about the two crops. He wondered if the Division of Agriculture or the bill sponsor had been approached about the issue. Senator Hughes deferred to her staff for detail. BUDDY WHITT, STAFF, SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES, relayed that the sponsor's office had been approached with the concern. He directed attention to page 3, lines 4 through 7 of the bill and explained that the provision had been added to address the concern - it fell under the Division of Agriculture's responsibility to adopt regulations related to industrial hemp. The provision stated the division was required to establish isolation distances for the production of industrial hemp. The reason a specific distance had not been identified was to give the division the leniency to decide what the distance should be. The sponsor's office had determined it would be better for the division to establish the distance through regulation rather than the legislature including a distance in statute that may not be workable or ideal. He deferred to the department for further detail. 4:04:48 PM Representative Guttenberg stated it was his impression there were a limited number of outdoor facilities and farmers - most were located in controlled greenhouses. He shared that he had been asked to visit a garden that had a strain growing outside. He surmised the issue may not apply to greenhouses or inside commercial growers. ROB CARTER, AGRONOMIST, PLANT MATERIALS CENTER, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference), referred to isolation distances and relayed they were a minimum separation required between two or more varieties of the same species. The current discussion pertained to cannabis sativa industrial hemp and cannabis sativa recreational marijuana. The purpose of the isolation distance was to keep seeds pure in the production process. Additionally, in the case of recreational marijuana, the purpose was to keep female crops from being seed-free in order to have a viable product to sell. The isolation distances were set for a multitude of other crops (e.g. alfalfa, barley, oats, wheat, and other) that met the federal certified seed standards; the distances were set in accordance with documented global scientific research. He spoke specifically to the bill and relayed that the Division of Agriculture would conduct its due diligence to ensure it had explored other opportunity from Colorado, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Canada, and the European Union (that had been growing industrial hemp for a significant amount of time), to make sure the isolation distances were set in order to prevent a hemp crop from impeding the production of a recreational crop. 4:07:37 PM Representative Guttenberg understood that Colorado was considering 5 or 10 miles and he recognized the federal government had probably done no research on the specific topic. He asked about the parameters set by other jurisdictions. Mr. Carter answered that Colorado had started looking at the aforementioned ideals [5 to 10 miles between two similar species]. The Division of Agriculture looked at the issue from the purity standards of setting seed tolerance isolation distances. Colorado had established its recommendation for its isolation distances required for cannabis production. He detailed that it depended on the type, which was unique to this crop. There were dioecious and monoecious types and hybrids that were all female - each one had a different isolation distance. The recommended isolation distance in Colorado for the highest quality and most pure was called the foundation or registered seed, was 16,150 feet. He furthered that distances were set regionally based on wind patterns because cannabis sativa is highly wind pollinated and also pollinated by insect. Isolation distances in Canada were anywhere between 1 meter and 5,000 meters. He believed there would need to be regional isolation distances for Alaska and he believed there would need to be strong communication with registered and recognized commercial growers through the marijuana control board in order for the division to identify where the outdoor recreational cannabis was being produced in order to give everyone the right to produce crops. 4:10:05 PM Representative Grenn referred to fiscal note OMB Component 2204 that mentioned the division anticipated the registration of possibly 25 farms in the first year. He asked if regulations would prohibit someone from growing recreational marijuana and industrial hemp. Mr. Whitt answered there was no provision in the bill that would preclude someone from growing both; however, it would be highly risky for a person to do both in terms of ensuring the viability of the commercial marijuana. Representative Kawasaki asked when states started to legalize the manufacturing and growing of hemp. Senator Hughes answered that the law had been changed by the federal Farm Bill in 2014. She deferred to her staff for further detail. Mr. Whitt replied there were a few of states that started their process before federal law had allowed it. He could not speak about each state, but he relayed that when the cart was put before the horse, states were having to make some changes to fit federal guidelines. He referenced the 2014 Farm Bill and a 2016 omnibus bill, which had allowed transportation of industrial hemp across state lines. There was also the USDA Statement of Principles [on Industrial Hemp], which had been published in 2016 and specified how the USDA would treat the product. There were a number of states that had put the effort in prior to the release of federal guidelines. He offered to follow up with more detail on the timeline. Representative Kawasaki relayed there had been six states prior to 2006 that had passed laws including California. The Industrial Hemp Act had passed in 2009. He asked why it had taken Alaska so long to get to the point it was considering industrial hemp farming. He believed Alaska would be the 33rd or 34th state to take on the activity. Senator Hughes responded that although some states began early, there had been some colonies that started early - she relayed that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams had all grown hemp. She relayed that she would probably have worked on the issue earlier if it had been brought to her attention earlier. 4:14:27 PM Representative Kawasaki recalled that as a former councilperson, the council [Fairbanks City Council] had introduced a resolution supporting industrial hemp around 2006. He supported the bill and thought it would be a boon for the agricultural and scientific community in Alaska. Representative Thompson relayed that he had tried to get something similar to the bill going in 2011. He had spoken with the University of Alaska Fairbanks Agriculture Department. He provided further detail about the past effort to do an experimental grow with the community's 24- hours of sunlight to see how the product would do in Northern Alaska. The goal had also been to check the oil and fiber content. The effort had ceased because it had not been possible to obtain the seeds at that time. He was glad to see the bill and believed hemp was a possible cash crop that could be an economic boon for Alaska. CSSB 6(JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Foster addressed the agenda for the following day.