HB 197-COMMUNITY SEED LIBRARIES  2:27:56 PM CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 197, "An Act relating to the duties of the commissioner of natural resources; relating to agriculture; and relating to community seed libraries." 2:29:17 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 197, Version 30-LS0493\O, Wayne, 4/24/17, as the working document. CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes. 2:29:48 PM TERRANOVA TASKER, Staff, Representative Jennifer Johnston, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Johnston, sponsor, explained that Version O amends section 4 to address some of the issues brought up by the community and at the bill's last hearing. She said [on page 3, lines 17-19 add language] that would allow for personal noncommercial transfer of seeds. This is the issue where someone's grandmother could give seeds to her neighbors and it would not be in violation of any code or regulation, but that would exist outside of the seed library. On [page 4, lines 7-9 add language] that would allow for seeds from a plant that is grown outside Alaska to be used in a seed library as long as there is compliance with interstate transport of commercial seeds. On page 4, line 15, would increase the volume of seed sharing to one pound, which is in response to public comment that the previous amount was not enough for those seeds that are larger and heavier. On page 4, lines 27-30, add language that would not allow anyone to use marijuana seeds as it pertains to seed libraries because that is not the intent of the bill. 2:31:56 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON referenced a criticism by P.S. Holloway, who asked why the bill is necessary when it is a deregulated process now. Also, he continued, the current unregulated system is free. He inquired as to why the current system isn't working. MS. TASKER replied that this bill comes about because current statute says any seed in the state must be regulated. Then, going to code, there are two pages of regulation regarding germination percentages, weights, and everything that is needed for commercial operations. It seems to not be regulated based on the interpretation of the [Department of Natural Resources (DNR)], she said, so the bill carves out a section that seed libraries can exist and then they can have control over what goes on. She deferred to Mr. Rob Carter for further explanation. 2:33:52 PM ROB CARTER, manager, Plant Materials Center, Division of Agriculture, DNR, responded that it is an unfortunate misnomer from individuals who are not familiar with the current seed regulations in Title 11 of the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC), Chapter 34. He explained that multiple sections of this code say that any seed transported around the state of Alaska for use in planting, no matter the quantity, must meet the state's labeling requirements for rigorous germination purity and invasive weed testing. These requirements, he said, defeat the purpose of noncommercial seed sharing because these individuals have no intent to sell or generate revenue; they do it for rural food security and genetic diversity. It is regulated, he advised, but is not enforced by DNR upon Alaskans who are just trying to provide closer, better, fresher food, and keep genetic diversity among seeds within the state of Alaska. 2:35:47 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that Mr. Carter is saying that this is more regulated than people believe, pursuant to Title 11 of the Alaska Administrative Code. Therefore, this legislation springs out of that regulation in a sense. MR. CARTER answered correct; people don't understand that both the Federal Seed Act and the accessory code regulate seed in Alaska. But, he reiterated, it is not in the best interest of the division [to enforce] because there are "bigger fish to fry." Seed laws are passed with good intention, he said, and have been around for a long time. It is just in recent years that other states have been applying these laws to the noncommercial seed sharing and seed libraries that are more fit for consumer protection and protection of the farming community and the agriculture industry, and applying those laws without reason. 2:36:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether there is a difference between "community seed library" and just "seed library." MR. CARTER replied that there is no difference and that there is a multitude of common names. People in the seed regulatory side in the agricultural industry look at them as the noncommercial seed sharing activities that are normally located within a library, nonprofit, community organization, or a private organization that has space to allow one. 2:38:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH observed that on page 3, lines 24-27 set up a contrast between plants grown outside the state and inside the state by saying, "outside the state, and imported into the state in compliance with AS 03.05.010(a)(5); or [(2)] in the state, and untreated with a substance toxic to humans, animals, or pollinating insects." He inquired whether this statute allows plants that are treated with substances toxic to humans, animals, or pollinating insects. MR. CARTER offered his belief that it does. He advised that plants and seeds are very different critters when it comes to the regulatory process. Speaking only to seeds, any seed currently that is being made available for sale or offered for sale must have that specifically on its label within the package. In this case, it is not allowing that within community seed libraries. He offered his professional opinion that these labeling requirements be met, and that there be due diligence because individuals in a free, noncommercial seed library may have children there and sometimes the seed coatings that have been treated with a pesticide are in bright colors. To remove the possibility that an individual might get sick or very sick and die from ingestion of those, he advised that it is in the best interest of noncommercial use to not allow that within noncommercial seed libraries. 2:40:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH agreed that a seed library shouldn't have any seeds that have been treated with toxic substances. He said he is having trouble seeing why seeds treated with toxic substances should be allowed in community seed libraries if they are coming from out of state. He requested Mr. Carter to provide clarity in this regard. MR. CARTER suggested Representative Parish talk with the bill sponsor if he believes the language on page 3, lines 24-27, has a loophole for out-of-state seed to be treated and shared with community seed libraries. Mr. Carter said he thinks the language could be interpreted either way. 2:42:01 PM CO-CHAIR TARR surmised it would be difficult if a plant were being brought into the state to be able to certify what happened prior to it coming to Alaska. MR. CARTER agreed it would be very difficult to regulate all imported plants and said the Division of Agriculture does not currently do that. He advised that many of the chemicals in the systemic pesticides used to treat plants do not carry forth within the progeny of the seed and he therefore doesn't think that is a necessary step within this legislation. 2:42:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH said that if the provision that seeds from outside the state should be similarly untreated it would seem that a nationwide standard, such as organic, could be used to avoid having to regulate every other state. CO-CHAIR TARR advised there are imported vegetable starts that are organic, but said it would be very difficult to do this with flowers or other showy plants because she cannot think of any opportunity to purchase certified organic garden landscaping plants. She requested Mr. Carter's comment in this regard. MR. CARTER agreed with Co-Chair Tarr. He advised that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic standard is a USDA program and therefore putting that type of language within legislation could be very limiting. He said he thinks it is up to the individual seed person to do their due diligence to provide the seed that is best for the community. He cautioned that the organic label is something to be very "wise" about. 2:44:52 PM CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection to adopting Version O as the working document. There being no further objection, Version O was before the committee. 2:45:18 PM CO-CHAIR TARR reopened public testimony. 2:45:29 PM DEIRDRE HELFFREICH testified that there is a need for this bill simply to establish the legality of community seed libraries. There is a difference between a seed library and a seed bank, she pointed out. The seed vault in Norway holds germplasm for particular individuals or companies. They are required to share the first generation with other researchers, but otherwise the seeds are held in deep freeze like would be done in a living museum. A seed library is trying to establish living plants that have adapted to a certain area, and to increase biodiversity, educate the community, and help fellow gardeners. MS. HELFFREICH stated she has some concerns with Version O. She drew attention to the provision in [subsection] (c) that begins on page 3, line 30, and which states, "Seed given, exchanged, or offered for giving or exchange under (b) of this section must be packaged for sale and labeled with ...." She said the [five] labeling requirements that follow [on page 4, lines 1-6,] would put an undue burden on seed libraries and would result in yet another volunteer event that a seed library would have to do. She noted she is speaking for herself, but that she was the founder of the seed library in Ester. She also pointed out that the provision refers to sellers and packaging for sale and is contradicted by [paragraph] (5) on page 4, lines 5-6, which state, "the statement Not authorized for commercial use and not classified, graded, or inspected by the State of Alaska." She said there is an inherent contradiction and that part of the provision looks like it is created for sellers and part of it looks like it is created for individuals and organizations giving seeds. MS. HELFFREICH further pointed out that making organizations responsible for keeping track of how much a person receives in a year, or just receives, is problematic. She also stated that the labeling requirement on page 4, line 2, to include the seller's name and address, would result in fewer people participating in these organizations. MS. HELFFREICH said she has 14 years of professional experience working as the science editor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences. She noted she has submitted written testimony and reiterated her appreciation for the bill. 2:51:21 PM CO-CHAIR TARR advised that the committee intends to consider an amendment that would address in part Ms. Helffreich's concern about the seller's name and address. Regarding the tracking of weight, she noted that Version O raises the weight to one pound. She asked whether this would address Ms. Helffreich's concern or whether her concern is that tracking the cumulative amount would be challenging. MS. HELFFREICH replied that her concern is the idea of having to track [the weight]. 2:51:36 PM JAN FLORA testified she appreciates HB 197 and Version O because it would help with Alaska's food security concern and would build community resilience. She said that until she read the bill she had no idea that seed savers and seed swappers were outlawed. She noted Homer has over 200 high tunnels, the most in any zip code in the entire U.S. Small agriculture is booming in Homer, she continued, and people in Homer want to build a seed library, so the bill would help with this and would help the Homer community grow more food for its families. 2:53:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH referred to the concern that the packaging requirements would be a burden to seed libraries. He requested Ms. Flora's thoughts in this regard. MS. FLORA responded that she concurs with the witness expressing this concern. She said she doesn't want to put her name and address on the seeds. The seeds are swapped with friends and it is known where they go. She suggested that for purposes of a community seed library, perhaps a binder could be kept, and a code put on the packages for tracking where the seeds come from, so there is some capability of tracing seeds. She noted the bill states that DNR should publish where the seed libraries are; however, she continued, DNR already publishes a directory for Alaska Grown that lists all the farmers and stock growers that voluntarily want to be in the directory. She suggested that this directory would be a good place to publish seed library information. 2:55:17 PM CO-CHAIR TARR closed public testimony. 2:55:35 PM CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-LS0493\O.1, Shutts, 4/26/17, which read: Page 3, line 31: Delete "for sale" Page 4, line 2: Delete "seller's name and address" Insert "name and address of the person giving or offering the seed" Page 4, line 3: Delete "for sale" Page 4, lines 7 - 9: Delete all material. Page 4, lines 12 - 14: Delete "(1) that is harvested from a plant grown outside the state unless the seed is in the original packaging in which it was imported into the state; (2)" Page 4, lines 22 - 23: Delete "AS 03.20.110 - 03.20.160" Insert "AS 03.20.110 - 03.20.150" Page 5, lines 3 - 4: Delete all material. 2:55:46 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes. 2:55:50 PM CO-CHAIR TARR explained that Amendment 1 would, in part, address the issue of information that is required. She said the amendment would remove some of the confusion about "the sale element of it" by deleting the words "for sale" on page 3, line 31. Thus, line 31 would read, "section must be packaged and labeled with". She said Amendment 1 would also do the following: • delete from page 4, line 2, the words "seller's name and address" and insert "name and address of the person giving or offering the seed" • delete from page 4, line 3, the words "for sale" • delete all the language [of subsection (d)] on page 4, lines 7-9, to get at some of the issue about where seed was grown • delete all the language on page 4, lines 12-14 • change the statutory reference on page 4, lines 22-23 • delete all the language on page 5, lines 3-4 2:57:39 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked why the definition of "exchange" would not be needed. MS. TASKER answered that because the bill's language has been cleaned up with the removal of buy or sell, Legislative Legal Services has advised that "exchange" does not need to be defined. CO-CHAIR TARR stated that a conceptual amendment to Amendment 1 could be considered regarding the name and address of the person giving or offering the seed. She requested Mr. Carter's thoughts about the suggestion that this information could be held in a binder, so it would be available, but not physically on the package, in order to address the concerns of those people not wanting to give out their personal information [on the package]. MR. CARTER answered he thinks removal of that language would simplify that process. He offered his belief that, from a seed regulatory aspect, as long as there was a sign above the seed library itself with the name and address of the seed library above the seed sharing activities within that facility, it would meet the requirements of this legislation. 2:59:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH, in response to Mr. Carter's answer, offered his understanding that from the point of view of the department it would be sufficient to have the name and address of the seed library rather than the provider of the original seed. MR. CARTER replied that is correct. CO-CHAIR TARR clarified that the name and address would be specific to the seed library, not specific to the individual person. 3:00:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked who is responsible if the address of the seller is on the packet. CO-CHAIR TARR responded the name and address could be the seed library and location, rather than the name of the person who donated the seeds to that library. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked who would be responsible and who would be contacted in case of problems if it is the name and address of the seed library, not the [seed] producer. MS. TASKER replied that the purpose of creating a community seed library is that it gives the department a place to go if there is a problem, and allows some path for tracking if need be. In the smaller communities, regardless of whether someone's name and address were written down, the community members would likely know who is giving what seeds. She deferred to Mr. Carter to answer the question further. MR. CARTER responded that who is liable is a difficult question and he is not sure what [a seed library's] liability would be. If the issue was an invasive weed, or marijuana seed was being exchanged, or another item that this legislation made inapplicable [to current regulation], it would be the responsibility of the seed library to stop that activity. 3:02:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE stated the intent of the bill is to allow people to exchange seeds. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON thanked the bill sponsor for her hard work and response to people's opinions by rewriting the bill. She said that while the state must do due diligence when it comes to invasive species and so on, people will continue to share seeds. She expressed her support for the bill. 3:04:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, to change line 6 to read as follows: Insert "name of seed library giving or offering the seed" CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes. Drawing attention to page 3, line 20, Version O, she pointed out that Section 03.20.120 is the community seed library section. So, she said, while it says the name and address of the person giving or offering the seed, it is supposed to mean the community seed library because it is in that section. 3:05:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND addressed her proposed conceptual amendment to Amendment 1. She noted that the objection heard in testimony was that people didn't want the name and address of the giver of the seed. The suggestion heard in conversation was replace the giver's name and address with the name of the seed library that was the source of the seed. CO-CHAIR TARR explained that the way the language is currently written, it actually is the community seed library. She said Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 could be considered for points of clarity, but asked whether Representative Drummond would like to remove the word "address". REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether the seed library is being referred to as the person. CO-CHAIR TARR answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND further addressed her conceptual amendment to Amendment 1. She said it should only say the name of the seed library. If the community being talked about is Ester, for example, Mr. Carter will know it is the seed library in Ester. Also, as stated in testimony, it would take half a page in the [Alaska Grown directory] to list all the seed libraries. She stated she is trying to address the concerns of the testifiers and the concern she heard loud and clear is that they do not want their names and addresses distributed. The seed library should be tracking these things and if there is an issue with the seed and there is a need to find out from whom it came, the seed library can be responsible for tracking that. 3:07:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, offered her opinion that the language should be left as is because there are opportunities for individuals to act in an exchange where it might still be wanted to have the individual's name and address there versus just the seed library. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH spoke in support of Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. It would be adequate, he continued, to say that a community seed library should make reasonable accommodations for participants to know X, Y, and Z, to avoid having to individually label each package. CO-CHAIR TARR restated Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 as follows: On line 6, after "name" insert "of the community seed library" and delete "and address of the person". Thus, line 6 would read, "name of the community seed library giving or offering the seed." REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND confirmed the restatement as correct. 3:09:26 PM CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection. There being no other objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was adopted. 3:09:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH noted that Amendment 1 removes a couple of restrictions on seeds that originate out of state, one of those being that the seeds should be in their original packaging. Removal of these restrictions, he said, makes him less comfortable with the bill, particularly for setting a number of other requirements on it, in which the origin of the seed could be lost. He reiterated his earlier concern that if it is going to be made unclear which seeds are coming from instate and which seeds are not, it only makes it more important that they be held to the same standards with regard to toxins. With the amendment as offered, he posited, there is no reason why seeds treated with neonicotinoids, for example, couldn't be passed off in a community seed library. MS. TASKER said she and Mr. Carter talked about the removal of that specific language, "the original packaging", and this language would make this process more complicated for people trying to share seeds. She offered her understanding that a seed going out of any state must still comply with the Federal Seed Act and there still are safeguards to prevent harmful seeds from going one place to another without any control. So, she continued, [Amendment 1] would not remove any safeguards, rather it is an access issue. 3:12:11 PM CO-CHAIR TARR rescinded her motion to move Amendment 1. [HB 197 was held over.]