Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Start a little earlier in the morning. I don't know that we're gonna need to do that necessarily. We do have a 04:00 item scheduled today, but it's committee discussion, I don't think it needs to take very long. But keep an eye on the agenda, keep an eye on your tablet just in case we make any changes. And Patricia, I'll ask you to send out a text to the committee if there's any reason that we need to assemble on short notice. And recognizing that people will need to, if they're not nearby, if they're not in the building, if they're still at home, that we won't be able to get together all that quickly in some cases. But I don't think we'll be meetings any earlier than normal in the morning. That's the plan. So we have, in case anybody's keeping track, we have not passed a bill out of this committee this session. And we've got nine bills possibly that we could move before the end of the week, which seems like a herculean task, but we've done most of the work on most of them. We're still taking testimony, obviously, this afternoon on several and then even tomorrow. But we've gotten practically to the point, I think, where we could vote out two of them. These are the the wood products manufacturers bill with that language that we looked at from the lurb and a and r last week. Ellen's coming in this afternoon to just show us that language in bill form. We're not gonna vote on it today partly because we won't have everybody here and because the bill is in at the House Environment Committee this week for a flyby. And since it's in their section of title, we need to give them that. Likewise, the municipal regulation of agriculture, we will look at revised language there today that really just cleans up what we looked at last week. And again, that's in the section entitled that belongs to House Environment. So we need to give them the opportunity to look at it. They are taking testimony today from the agency, ag agency, and then later in the week from the L. E. B. I'm sorry, from the league. So we'll keep our fingers crossed that that moves forward, and we'll be voting those out before the end of the week. Along with everything else, any other bill that you wonder we talked about this. You're taking testimony. Are we gonna be able to do it? I'm hopeful that we can, probably with some changes in some cases. And we'll have a chance to discuss all those before we move forward.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: What title is the municipal regulator? That's Title 24. That's a house environment one, if not municipal?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, government also has that bill. Don't know if they've got it, if they're scheduled, but they've been looking forward to seeing it too.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Did they figure out the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: right to grow food side of things? I think so, yeah. I hope so. That seemed to be the easier part. And we're taking testimony from homeowners associations on the right to grow vegetables bill. Also, That's tomorrow morning.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Richard? On the municipal regulation of ag. Is that did we or can we change the language? I know the the lead cities and towns said as long as, you know, a farmer's there, a farmer's grandfathered, and just make sure his grandfather would change of use. Yep. So if it goes from a dairy farm to a beef farm or dairy farm should multiple smaller vegetable farms or something, know,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: diversified agriculture farms, I should be allowed as well. Farm wise, farm loan. So today, have Ledge Council coming in with that at 03:20. I think that the language we have now does what you're suggesting. But let's ask that question, make sure that it's clarified.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Along those lines, did we

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I can't remember what happened

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: to the bill that had to do with John McCain's vineyard and muck. It a current use bill, but it was the same kind of thing because it was continually agriculture, but he was getting dinged just for change of ownership. Yeah. I think we saw that for him last year. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I've seen him a couple of times and he hasn't brought it up for him. That might be, yeah.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Sort of a parallel example though, as long as it remains accurate. Yeah.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: There's a current

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: use I testified on today downstairs in Senate AG, and there's something that we'll see how it goes. And if it gets out of there, it gets stuck on our committee bill or we do something to stick it on their committee bill. If that hasn't been taken care of for him.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: That's my deal.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It was the same type of thing. Aga, aga, aga. Right. Quit jamming this up.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. So addition to those, so those are two bills that we're not we're gonna see the markup today. And then in addition to that today, just today, this afternoon, we're gonna take testimony next on $4.00 3. That's the minimum wage. Then we're gonna hear testimony from the infant nutrition council on the baby food bill. $5.36. Then after a break, we're going to hear testimony on the rodenticide bill from Cabot Creamery. Then we will have ledge counsel in. And then as time allows, we'll have some committee conversation about the Paraquat bill and how we might move forward on that. So I think without further ado, let's invite Maddie up to the table from NOFA to share thoughts on H403. This is an act relating to fair labor standards and housing standards for agricultural workers. We've had testimony, you'll recall from migrant justice and from the farm bureau. We had asked other farm organizations, NOFA, the Dairy Producers Alliance, which sent us a written testimony. Maddie, thank you for coming in person.

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: Thank you so much for having me. Thank you, committee members, for taking the time to hear from you on this bill today. For the record, Maddie Kempenner, Policy and Organizing Director at NOFA Vermont. I don't have any slides to share also. I'll just start with that. So there's no need for technical assistance of any kind, thankfully. We are grateful for the committee's attention to this legislation that takes important steps toward repairing longstanding injustices in farm labor law whose history is based in and whose present day application too often reinforces structural racism. As an organization working for an economically viable, ecologically sound, and socially just Vermont agricultural system, we see the well-being and livelihoods just livelihoods of farm workers as inextricably linked to the health and vitality of our communities, farm businesses, and the land on which we all depend. Our steering committee made up of seven Vermont farmers across a variety of farm types, scales, and geography guides our policy work as an organization. They have considered the provisions in H four zero three and provided input that is directly informing my testimony today. First, on the question of removing the exemption for minimum wage for farm employees, input from the committee signaled clear support and NOFO Vermont would like to formally support this provision of H four zero three as an organization. Normalizing agricultural wages and aligning them with modern labor expectations is a bare minimum step, and the alternative is to continue to devalue the labor of our farmers and farm workers. Some quotes from our steering committee members on the topic of minimum wage. As far as I can tell from our experience, this is what farms need to offer to be competitive enough to find folks to work for them. Almost everyone I know is paying considerably higher than minimum wage already to compete with other jobs. Like others have said, to have the capacity to actually find people to hire, we've been paying substantially above that for a while. And finally, even the high school kids expect at least 15. Regarding eligibility for overtime pay, our committee's feelings are slightly more nuanced. In general, the farmers we spoke to want to be able to pay overtime and believe that this standard should also be updated to align with labor laws outside of farming. At the same time, there was broad acknowledgment that the realities of profitability, especially for small scale farms, make overtime pay challenging or impossible to afford for many farm business owners. As one farmer put it, We are often trying to fix one aspect in isolation when really the entire food system needs to be overhauled to elevate farmers, farm workers, eaters, and the earth. Our committee members also expressed concern about the creation of a two tier system wherein H2A workers are treated differently and recommended that the legislature be savvy about the H2A program in order to avoid negatively impacting seasonal workers who also deserve fair treatment and who are critical to so many Vermont farms, including organic farms, I should say. While there are concerns about farm employers' ability to pay overtime, several farmers on our steering committee expressed that sixty hours also feels like too high a threshold for overtime to kick in. As one farmer put it, finding a number of hours is fair to folks who are asked to work extra when things get crazy and is doable to a farmer who has a slim margin is a hard one. The fact that lots of farming involves doing all the work at certain times also makes it hard. Part of the challenge farmers have expressed and many are already working around voluntarily regarding overtime pay is the dynamic that farm employers may choose to hire more employees at fewer hours each if overtime pay were required, at least at certain thresholds, as a way to keep their labor costs down, thereby potentially reducing an individual employee's take home pay. Our committee members also looked at overtime rules for firm employees in a number of other states and came across a couple of examples I wanted to share with you all today. I just want to express my gratitude for these brilliant farmers that, in this conversation, stumbled naturally upon two laws, one in Colorado and one in New York, that reflected specific ideas that they had raised in ruminating on how could we make overtime pay work. So I just want to lift up appreciation for all these folks. Wondering whether it made sense to advocate for seasonal exceptions to overtime pay during peak harvest season or a higher hour threshold during peak season and a lower threshold for the rest of the year, we came across a Colorado law that puts specific overtime rules in place for what they define as highly seasonal agricultural employers. And I am probably gonna stumble over my words as I read the second part, so bear with me. In Colorado, as of 2024, highly seasonal agricultural employers, meaning employers with at least twice as many employees in an up to twenty two week peak season compared to the rest of the year, are required to be overtime after fifty six hours worked per workweek during any up to twenty two workweek period or multiple periods totaling up to twenty two weeks that the employer designates as its peak labor periods and otherwise after forty eight hours worked per week. So this system in Colorado at least attempts to account for the seasonally higher workloads on certain farms while ensuring workers are paid overtime if they're regularly working more than forty eight hours outside of non highly seasonal situations. Another farmer was imagining a system where the cost of paying overtime during peak periods was spread out across broader society to reflect the essential nature of the work and the ways in which we currently undervalue farm labor. This led us to look at New York's farm employer overtime credit, which requires overtime pay for farm employees at thresholds starting at fifty six hours. That was for 2024 and 2025, decreasing to fifty two hours in 2026 and gradually phasing down to forty hours in 2032. Eligible farmers paying overtime receive credits for that overtime that they submit for when filing tax returns, and an advanced payment can be requested in some circumstances, which our committee found really helpful, that it's not always just after the fact that you might be able to actually get that money ahead of time. Also to note, one of our committee members really directly expressed gratitude that in New York, this is really a credit where the farmers essentially paid back that overtime money from the state as opposed to a loan or a tax credit or some other means that they felt would be less helpful. Both of these examples struck us as meeting particular needs or addressing particular challenges that were surfaced by the committee in our conversation. And as such, we wanted to make sure that you were aware of them in considering the overtime issue. Lastly, on the question of farm workers being surveyed about the safety and adequacy of their housing during regular farm inspections, our committee expressed support. There was also a desire for some type of financial support or other incentives for farmers who need to make upgrades to employee housing in addition to and including continued funding of the worker housing loan and grant program that currently exists. Beyond the scope of this bill, but worth mentioning was also a desire for support from non regulatory agency of agriculture staff who could support farms and answer questions related to things like HR, payroll, and OSHA standards, including tackling Schedule F questions and basics like earned paid time off for full time employees. And I'll just name that. I think those issues that I just mentioned are ones that often our smaller scale farms struggle to feel like they have the capacity to understand or get support around, but that they would really like to get more support around in order to make sure that they're supporting their employees as best they can. And then lastly, I'll just say these issues are ones that farmers in our membership and community are thinking about all the time. And I appreciate your committee's attention to this and your time hearing my testimony. You. Happy answer questions.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Just quickly, how many member farmer members does North Vermont have? It

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: is I'm going have to give you an estimate. We have about just over 2,500 members total. And I would say of those, about 1,000 are farmer members. Yeah, but anyone who's not a farmer,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I could become a member at a different category,

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: Exactly, yeah. We have about just under 800 certified organic producers in the state, all of whom members of NOFA.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And are there other organic farmers who are not members?

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: Not substantial numbers, anyway. Not many, if any, who are certified by VOF. I should say there are organic operations in Vermont who are certified by other certifiers, a smaller number than are certified by VOF, but there are some.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Representative Nelson. Thank you. Addison, New York, you talked about they get that investment credit on their overtime. They also get an investment credit for any investments they make on their firm. So in other words, over New York, if you build a $2,000,000 firm, it's now 25% That's not credit back, not a tax credit,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: a check. Mhmm.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So that's $500,000 on a barn, and then you go buy a thousand heifers to fill it, at four thousand dollars a piece, you get 25% back. Don't enjoy those same the same thing here in Vermont. I doubt we'd even get a 20 an investment credit back on our overtime here in Vermont. The problem I have with this bill, and and we pay 90 not not counting high school kids, 96, 8% of our employees get paid substantially more than minimum wage. And then if you work a house and then do it, they are way above minimum wage. As you know, housing is at a robust cost even if you figured it's section eight value. So I I'm not entirely sure of a problem we're trying to fix with this, but unlike a store, unlike a restaurant, unlike a business where your wages go up, you can charge more for your product at the other end. In my world, we can't charge more for our product. Anyone in the milk world can't charge more for their product. And you know, your your organic dairy farmers unfortunately right now, are caught between a rock and a hard place because of last year's drought. That's terrible devastated farm by that feed, had it trucked in from Iowa and Colorado, and I'm aware of that, and I I worry about them. And I don't know about the vegetable world much. If their costs go up, if they can charge more for their vegetables on the other end, perhaps they can't. I don't know. But I know in a dairy world, and and in in the meat world or anything else, there's just, it's like logging. You get paid the price that they offer you, and you pay for the trucking on the way in, and the trucking on the way out, and diesel fuel just went up over a buck a gallon, and they're gonna hit us for that, and fertilizer, which your world doesn't know about. Well, they do have some fertilizer, you've got that Chilean nitrate, which is a great product. But, and I don't know if that went up, but I'll tell you my fertilizer went up 40% last week. So it's a it's a harsh reality out there right now. It's a it's hard it's a hard pill to swallow. Anyways, that's my rant. And I just I didn't know if you're aware of the other benefits New York has to their primers.

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: No, I wasn't. And that's really interesting to hear. I appreciate you filling me in. I'm certainly not an expert on any these programs. These were just two that we found that specifically directly responded to suggestions that our committee members had and just thinking creatively about how to get around this problem. And actually, when it comes to the overtime issue, one of our farmers specifically said, as an example, can I pay one and onetwo times the amount I would normally charge for this bunch of bok choy knowing that it was harvested during my employees' forty second or forty first hour of their work week? No, I cannot. So it's not the same as shipping dairies by any stretch in terms of the constraints around the pay price that you're offered. I do absolutely understand the point you're making there. But I think especially when it comes to the overtime issue, our committee felt really similarly constrained by the extent to which they can pass on those added costs to people who also for whom we want food to be affordable and we need food to be affordable.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Questions?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Representative O'Brien? Just to comment on this too, it's like dairy farmers are if you were a restaurant and you were selling it for $10 your hamburger for $10 somebody else next week is telling you to sell it for $8 So you don't even get to stay even. But maybe I was wondering, that law passed in New York, do you know?

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: Yeah, it's on the books.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: And it's now being followed?

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: It's being followed. It's being phased down over time. So Ray kicked it in 01/01/2024. And so it was at that 56 hour threshold for the first two years. And now it's at fifty two as of January 1.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: It's When you hit the overtime?

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: As far as when the threshold kicks in. So they've set a specific and a lot of states, I think, have done that gradually decreasing threshold for overtime, where it kicked in at fifty six hours for the first two years. And then for the second two years of implementation of the law, it's now set at 52. So if farm workers on one of these qualifying farms are working more than fifty two hours at this point, the farmer is eligible for a credit for those overtime hours. And I can't tell you all the minutiae of who's eligible and not and all those details. No,

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I just wondered if you'd see budget figures.

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: How much it's costing New York?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Yeah, if New York is finding the money.

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: That's a great question. And also, understand different state, different tax base, a lot of different considerations there.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: How are dairy farmers? And to

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: be honest, our steering committee member who proposed something very much like the New York law was suggesting that it be done at a federal level. But I think it's hopeful still to our committee to see states that are taking creative approaches to this. And I think we would encourage Vermont to look at creative approaches too that really address the hardship that that can be for farmers, but also our desire to really compensate farm workers as a professional labor force that they are. I think that's really important to us as an organization because we see that our farmers are really being expected to hold that standard. And they want to be able to hold that standard. And I don't actually think we do ourselves favors by allowing a loophole that doesn't really value farm workers fairly like everyone else.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I was thinking also about how much Richard, you might know just fair market is controlling farm worker labor. Because on the way here, there's a sign that the South Rilton up at 141 Crossroads that says hiring carpenters, starting wage $35

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: to $45 an hour. So dairy farms,

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: who are very aware of losing, you know, employees.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: That's why, that's why. Part of our workforce is also very aware of what they're paying in New York. So, you get that, hey boss, we we need to have a chat, so and and and you have a chat, and if you value your workforce, you

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: pay them.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Absolutely. Absolutely. Also in New York, they are though, when they bought up against that overtime and it was sixty hours last two years. It was sixty hours. That's not what I read in New York State.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Originally, it was sixty when so maybe two years ago.

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: Oh, maybe in 2022. Yeah.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: First year. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And they're backing it down, but they're also adding on more staff so they can and some of their workers are now being upset because they were working more hours making more money, and then they got back down in hours and back down in hours so they don't have to pay the overtime.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We had quite a bit of discussions on this in the agriculture labor task force, which Sophie Sedotany, ledge counsel, staffed. She had just joined ledge counsel. She was pretty up to speed on it at the time, and she's coming in tomorrow. We could ask her to dig it up again. But I think that part of the problem was that it was a threshold that was coming down so that for a while, at least to start out with, it wasn't so onerous. But then it came down to 56, eventually heading to 40, and that's gonna be You're just sort of delaying. You're gradually moving into a new system that's gonna be either more money coming from the state or four farmers saying, I don't want you to work more than forty hours because I can't afford that. So that was, yeah, it seemed like an innovative approach, but not necessarily like, oh, this is the ticket to solving the problem. You mentioned H2A workers. I just wanted to be sure I understood the concern that you were raising there. This was also on two tiers. We didn't want to create two tiers.

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: Well, I think part of the concern also, and I'll just say this was voiced by our committee, none of whom I think directly themselves hire H2A workers, but they have farmers that they know who do hire H2A workers. So I want to be clear. This isn't coming directly from that experience. But there was expressed a concern specifically around overtime actually about how that could negatively impact, H2A workers in that seasonal workers come here and they leave their families for some period of time. And they really want to be able to make as much as they can during that period. And so the committees, part of their concern that was expressed around H-2A workers was setting up a system that would end up reducing their overall take home pay If we put rules in place that would make it so that farm employers, in lieu of paying overtime that they couldn't afford, reduced everyone's hours, that would be, in some cases, particularly devastating, I think, to H-2A workers who are here with the express purpose to make money on farms and then bring that money back. So that was one of the specific points that was raised. Then I think also just making sure that the other concern was just making sure that the legislature really understands the interplay between any rules that we set and the federal rules that govern H2A workers in that program so that we just aren't setting up a system where H2A workers are negatively impacted or where we have rules that are tougher for domestic workers in either direction. We just want to make sure that those unintended consequences are not happening.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Representative O'Brien? Just a clarifying thing, Maddie. How could anything we pass here affect H2A as far as because they're as far as I understand, they're totally following federal guidelines and we don't preempt federal guidelines.

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: I guess that's true. And maybe there are not things that we could do that would negatively impact them. I think it was just a concern that the committee expressed to make sure that we really understand if there are interplays. I mean, housing is a part of the H-2A rules, as I understand it. And there might be situations where there is housing being provided both for H2A workers and domestic workers. And are there situations where some consequence of passing overtime, for example, would make a farmer able to pay overtime but then not able to provide housing? And then would there be impacts that way? It was just more of a thought experiment that we should really look into those rules and think it through carefully.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: My one comment, Richard, in your dairy farmer world is that if everybody's paying pretty much over minimum wage right now, would it make any difference? I know we could do it as a show of support in some ways, for what Maddie and

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: her stakeholders are about to And have minimum so what problem are we trying to solve if the majority of farmers are paying over? And do we put a farmer out of business that is just holding on? And I don't wanna put a friend out of business. And I don't know what everyone pays for wages. The big farm area, I know. But I suspect I have a lot of colleagues in my business that don't pay themselves minimum wage. I do support the housing piece if we can work with the what was that group that was mocked? Farm labor housing group or DHCV or whatever.

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: Housing conservation group?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And, you know, and help better the farm worker housing. And we've, farmers have used that program and it's a great program. We got to find funding for it again.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Dave, are farmers considered farm workers if there was a minimum wage law for farm labor And or the statute exempts, well, so currently state statute exempts agriculture workers from minimum wage. The draft that we looked at exempts farm worker families as well. So a spouse. It's broader than that to include parents even. I'm not remembering. And students, so students would still be exempted from paying overtime. That's the case across all industries. So that would not be a carve out for agriculture. That's existing law. Representative Basil.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah, so I was just looking back to the testimony we got from when migrant justice was here. And now the data is a little bit old because it came from a 2024 survey. But what they had said at the time was that only 13% of the people that they surveyed were getting minimum wage. The median salary at that time was $11.67 And certainly the impression we had, I got from the testimony that they gave was that that was continuing, that a majority of the people that were being served by migrant justice as farm workers are not getting minimum wage.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We heard, again, I'm gonna go back, and sorry for it's almost his hearsay, but I was there, I was chairing the ag labor study group, and we heard the same testimony. And there was a considerable amount of discussion, for what it's worth, about the validity may not be the right word, but whether it was representative, whether their survey had, in fact, whether that was a reliable number. There was a lot of discussion about it. Not to say that it was or wasn't, but just that there was a lot of discussion. And then the other, I think, thing that we heard in testimony a couple of weeks ago from the Farm Bureau was they had done a survey and they had a number, a percentage also that was different. I think from both of those two pieces of testimony that we can conclude that it seems like there are some farms, some employers in agriculture who are not paying the minimum wage at the moment, just based on those two surveys that we've heard about. I'm sorry, Berkeley's Lipsky was next, I think.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. It's marginally relevant, but I was fueling up at about 05:10 last night for diesel, and there was a truck, pickup truck fueling a portable heater. And I got chatting with him because they were on a different pump. He was a bead, an organic bead producer from Vermont, and he had two h one a employees standing there. H two h two a. H two a. Both from South Africa, taller than any of us. Two young ladies. And he said, said, what are you feeling up there? He said, we're on our way. We're leaving for Florida from the gas pump to pick up bees, and the company was named Sutter Bees Honey Mhmm.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: From a town called Morrisville Vermont.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And he's and he's I taught these workers and they were both they come every year. They're Afrikaner. They're Caucasian, or they had German first names. Very love coming back here, and this farmer was saying how important he depends on them. That's perfectly. That's all I'm saying. And they were about to drive 1,500 miles to and fuel just gone up a dollar for the diesel. So I I only put in 31 gallons, cost me $200. And I just shut the pump off. I'm going to fill up, but this guy's doing a 3,000.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: They're following pollination north? They're picking up

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: hives and bringing them back. Their hive. Okay. Colonies.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: They spent the winter in San Juan.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And I talked about our committee, and we take a lot of testimony about this. But So he sent me a message and I have a contact. You don't know if he's a no front?

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: Sotheby sounds familiar. I don't know them personally.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: It's not like Sotheby's though.

[Maddie Kempenner (NOFA Vermont, Policy & Organizing Director)]: Yeah, yeah. Sotheby's.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: U y. Yes.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: It's his name, but his company is

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: called Son of Bees, z e e s.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Mhmm. I mean Sounds like it. So Anyway, just

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: it was a medicine that you run into, you know, this relevant sort of thing.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Representative Gregory.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: That's all I I'm kinda new here, but, you know, all this stuff like what Richard was talking about, housing you provide for these employees, that doesn't even figure into the wage business.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There is a so, Ben, you can answer that if you want. Don't know the details. Maybe we can ask the Legis Council tomorrow to clarify that. But there is a dollar amount that I think with the Labor Department testified on this last week that a farmer can deduct from the wages using a Vermont specific amount and it is arguably not equivalent to fair market value of the typical housing unit.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: That was just my clarifying question. In your study committee, was there ever a figure that came up, median wage plus housing?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, I think that we heard from the Department of Labor last week, 96 a week. And so that over the course of a forty hour week, I think that's how they came up with that number, but I'm not certain. It might have been some other number. So just H-2A or That was specific to H-2A, yeah. But I think that the law is written in a way that it would also apply to any farmer who is providing housing, that they can deduct that from wages.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: A state or neighbor? Is that State. So if that figure was raised somewhere near market values, that would have been quite a difference.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, and then, know, presumably how do you arrive at that value, but that would be, yeah, that would be a question we can ask tomorrow to the Ledge Council. Maggie, thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Alright. He's got testimony. Now if the committee is prepared to switch gears to H536, this is what we are calling the baby food bill. Greg is joining us. And Patricia. Hi. Is our next witness joining us in person or via Zoom?

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: In person. Is he in the room? No. Yeah. He confirmed that this morning, actually. Okay. He was coming in person.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: He just I'll just just check email in case.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Well, we'll just take a quick look and make sure he's not outside the rooms. Oh, okay. Good. We're all set.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Got your last cell there, Jed. So maybe we're early. Under clerk Jed that's received. Great. Also adorable.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Welcome.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Thank you so much for having me today.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We're glad to have you, and we're gonna we'll let Representative Lipsky come back to his seat and then

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I apologize.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And Greg, I don't know whether you have you been in this committee before? Are you a regular visitor to the State House? I'm not. You're not? Okay. So welcome, and thank you for joining us in person. We're the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry. As I think you know, we've got a bill, an act relating to toxic heavy metals and baby food products that we've been considering. And we're good for the next half hour or so to hear your testimony and probably ask you some questions. That'd be great. Is there anything that you'd like to put up on the screen, a presentation or slides or anything? I provided,

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Patricia, kind of a longer written statement and a little bit of a sort of international landscape. So I think that was in the folder, so I don't have anything to share.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That makes things easier. Well, if you would like to introduce yourself for the record, and then you can jump right in.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Yeah, thanks so much. Okay. My name is Craig Felner. I am the director of government affairs for the Infant Nutrition Council of America, for the record. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I appreciate it. Inca represents several of the leading domestic manufacturers of infant formula. For more than fifty years, Inca has advocated for optimal infant health and the critical role of infant nutrition supported by families in their feeding decisions. Enfit Formula is the most highly regulated food in The U. S. Food supply, and income members take the commitment to deliver safe formulas to the most vulnerable population very seriously. Quality assurance activities are implemented throughout all of our production steps to ensure full compliance with applicable national and international regulations to maintain the highest standards of safety and quality. The comprehensive quality testing that infant formula goes through before it's released is the most extensive of any food category. Our industry already tests for heavy metals as part of the long standing commitment to provide safe, high quality infant formula products. Our products comply with heavy metal standards established by the European Commission, a joint WHO expert committee on food additives, and CODACs. In addition to our testing under international standards, there are current FDA regulations that help guard against high levels of heavy metals infant formula. The FDA's infant formula good manufacturing practices and regulations established under the Food Safety Modernization Act require that manufacturers conduct a hazard analysis and establish risk based preventive controls, including of raw hazard materials such as potential for heavy metals contamination. As part of these obligations, infant formula manufacturers identify potential risks for heavy metals and monitor heavy metals across raw materials and finished product batches. Heavy metals in trace amounts have always been a part of our diet. They exist in the environment and may be absorbed or ingested by plants, animals from which ingredients, including infant formula, are sourced. Heavy metals are found in fruits, meats, seafood, and, yes, even human breast milk. This is why infant formula manufacturers have protocols in place to reduce the presence of of these substances and ingredients to ensure that any trace levels and finished infant formula remains safe for consumption and satisfy all the relevant regulatory requirements. While INCA appreciates the intent of HB five thirty six as currently drafted, we think it overlooks important differences between infant formula and the baby foods covered in the heavy metals legislation in this and in other states. Infant formula is already highly regulated under the federal law in a in a way that no other baby food is. According to the FDA and industry testing, heavy metals are present in infant formula at trace levels that are far lower than those that have been reported in many non formula baby foods. Indeed, the FDA stated in March 2025 that its recent testing quote did not indicate that heavy metals are present in infant formula at levels that would trigger a public health concern, unquote. Moreover, the FDA is still in the process of determining action levels for heavy metals and infant formulas, unlike non formula baby foods. The FDA announced its intent to set formula specific action levels in March 2025 as part of their Operation Stork Speed, an effort that we support. And just recently, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it will publish a report in April 2026 addressing cadmium, mercury, and lead in IFRIC formula, a precursor to setting federal action limits. Today, all the states that have adopted similar statutes for baby foods have chosen to exclude infant formula from the requirements, at least until FDA issues action levels. California, for example, amended its bill to exclude infant formula finding, quote, merit to the concern, unquote, that posting quantitative test results were, quote, where, quote, the FDA has not yet adopted guidance, unquote, could, quote, cause confusion among consumers on how to process information that is presented, unquote. This in turn could conceivably lead parents and caregivers to report, excuse me, to resort to alternative feeding options, such as homemade formulas but do not meet FDA safety and quality standards for complete nutrition in infants and lacks the nutrients necessary for infant growth and development. We are also concerned that including infant formula in HB five thirty six would require infant formula to bear a statement about, quote, toxic element testing, unquote. This word toxic is not only inaccurate as it relates to trace levels of heavy metals and infant formula, but potentially alarming to parents. Again, the FDA has stated that heavy metals and infant formula do not quote indicate a public health concern unquote. Absent such a demonstrated concern requiring formulas to bear the word toxic might mislead parents and caregivers into thinking that these products are unsafe and or jeopardizing infants with alternatives that truly are unsafe. We do not recommend any accidents that might unjustly erode confidence in US infant formula products, inadvertently threatening infants' health and further straining the availability of safe infant formula products that meet FDA regulatory requirements. Further, it is worth noting that any product label changes required to comply with Vermont law would functionally require nationwide as retailer partners determine product distributions, not infant formula manufacturers. This too councils in favor of keeping the original text of HB five thirty six, which mirrors the approach taken by California, Maryland, Virginia, and Illinois. Thank you again for letting me, drop by and testify. I, honored to answer any questions that you all may have at this time.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. Representative Nelson. Thank you, chair.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Right. Maryland is ready to come forward with a I believe in January '28. So we've heard in the formula reporting requirement. And what we're looking to do is not supersede the the FDA in any stretch. We just thought maybe it'd be nice and baby foods are already there. You scan the QR code Sure. And up it comes and then parents can make informed decisions. And appreciate that input formula is, you know, follows the FDA and they're below the the levels deemed toxic or hazardous or or whatever word you wanna use. But some of us feel that it would be nice that parents could scan it, you know, because they have choices and they could scan and look and and just like you could with Gerber, Beech Nut, or the other products out there, you could see what their levels were in that batch. And we realized it would take them time to to put their model into place. Of course, they all called up Gerber, they'd get a pretty good model to follow. When I went to the store and scanned Gerber, I found it very easy to use. And it's just just reporting what's in there, so, you know, mothers and fathers can make firm choices. Is that a big issue for the industry?

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Yeah. If I could react just briefly. I am familiar with Maryland. They had a hearing, I guess, about six weeks ago. Bill hasn't progressed. We've been talking to the sponsor, but it hasn't progressed to date. I would say this, the decision I'm trying to make is when your analogy is great when you're in the store and you're hitting QR codes and you're making informed decisions for baby food. Okay? And so you could pick up a patch of applesauce, and you could be like, you know, here's what's in it. And you may there may be other things too. I don't even know. Dyes or whatever. And you're like, well, I'm gonna put that down. I'm gonna go buy either another type of baby food or other fruits or whatever. Infant formula is a sole source of nutrition for an infant if you're not able to breastfeed. And so our concern is moms and dads have come to a point where they're buying infant formula. Most of them don't come to that easily. And so fast forward to a mom or a dad standing in a store with a canister of infant formula, and they see the word toxic on it, and they hit the QR code, and they can't rationalize really what Most of them are just at that point finding out there's heavy metals in their infant formula, okay? And so what we wanna try to avoid is that mom or dad, where they're trying to buy the sole source of nutrition for their baby or for their infant, if they're unable to breastfeed for whatever reason. And we know that most moms try to, and that's God's nourishment for babies. But for whatever reason, millions of Americans can't. And so we want to avoid a mom or dad in a grocery store puts down that canister of infant formula because they're anxious about it now and then they go buy almond milk or they go home and they Google a recipe for some sort of infant formula, which we know doesn't have near the risk because FDA tells us what we need to put in infant formula for all the fat content and for the carbohydrates and the vitamins and everything. So that's given to us, given to the industry by FDA. And so when we create a situation where a mom or a dad gets really anxious and gets scared and goes and puts that canister down, they don't have another choice, unlike the beach knot or the Gerber or baby food, or maybe food for an 18 old or toddler.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So if I may, curious. Do you have a chance to finish responding?

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Yeah. Thanks so much. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So, you know, here's the label, you know, QR code of a Gerber, and it says peace of mind you deserve and check meets our rigorous standards. And it just shows lead less than one part per billion, mercury less than one, arsenic, cadmium, all less than one part per billion. And that's all that's all it says. And I realized that ingredients change, and this field of carrots may be real low. And this field of carrots on the other end of town may be higher, But they they test for that. And I'm sure the infant formula people do as well. They test their raw ingredients as they're coming in. As long as they're not manufacturing in Flint, Michigan, that it should be relatively safe all the time. So I I don't see the the harm in just having something clean and simple that people can QR code and look at and said it meets our rigorous standards. Or they can even I mean, if they're all below the standards, they could put a label right on the packaging where they list the nutritional values and then below that have a label that says, you know, our rigorous testing for heavy metals and we're below these threshold amounts.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Greg, if you're welcome to respond.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Yeah. Briefly, that's a good question. I would say what you showed, thought I really couldn't see it. I don't think it's what is in the bill, because in the bill, you take batches, you put the actual specific batch results online. I think what you may have been describing is like a check mark that you're good or whatever. And so I would say, you know, when we're the biggest thing, I just can't stress enough, the difference between baby food and infant formula and the choices that moms and dads have. If you and also, my kids are a little older now, but, you know, when a mom or dad finds formula that a baby or an infant likes and eats, that's golden, and it lets him sleep through the night or whatever. Like, we find it in our research, and we find it hard in our daily lives too. You can't be moving back and forth between different formulas if one may be a different testing one day. And to your point about ingredients, absolutely, we're mandated to do that under FDA, and mostly it's dairy. You know, our biggest component is dairy. So that's mostly what we're worried about. But we test throughout the whole cycle. A lot of folks obviously don't know that that product will sit at our facility for up to three weeks, and we'll keep testing, and we'll keep testing, We'll test for other contaminants as well, not just heavy metals. But the packaging itself, like you were talking a little bit about like putting stuff on packaging, the packaging is mandated and overseen by FDA as well on the federal level. And so when we change the packaging at all for any of our products, we have to resubmit to FDA because the contents of it are so important to keep the integrity of it. But that's what we want. We want moms and dads to feel comfortable and to be comfortable taking formula off the shelf and using it. Because like I said, a lot of times they don't arrive at that decision lightly, And we wanna be a partner obviously with them and make it as easy as possible.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Bos- Yeah,

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I was just gonna say, I mean, the way you were describing just now how a parent might take the formula off the shelf, see this as unacceptable levels and then have no other choices. That just seems really unlikely in the current consumer market, where if you look at infant formulas, there are many, many types of infant formula. And the purpose of our bill is that you can know which of those types of infant formula, if you're a parent who is using formula for your child, have different levels of heavy metals. So if you find one that has a high level, you're not gonna want that one. You try another one and it's gonna be an acceptable level. And we actually had our colleague, who's a sponsor for this bill, she's primarily a breastfeeding mom, but she supplements when she isn't breastfeeding. And so she actually went and checked the level of her formula that she had bought and realized the one she was using as a supplement was unacceptable levels of heavy metals. And

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: she

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: switched. So we would like all Vermont moms to have the option of knowing that information because many people don't know that. And I don't think it's that simplistic that it's gonna be like, Oh, one formula is high, therefore all formula is bad. The purpose is to tell them that there are many choices. This one has an unacceptable level. You might wanna go look at a different one.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Well, I could say, first of all, unequivocally, our members would not put something on the shelf that is above international limits that they test under. So part of the thing is like, when you talk about unacceptable levels, like what does that mean? We all live under very stringent European Union standards that we test under. So we don't put a product on the shelf that's not under those standards, or depends on Canada has some, New Zealand and Australia, but the European Union is the most stringent. So what I'm saying is infant formula, the choices are like baby food, which is what's regulated now in Illinois and Virginia and California and Maryland, it's just a total different animal than infant formula. We are regulated somewhat like a medicine. If you wanted to start a baby food company and you wanted to go convince the local supermarket that your product will sell, you can go put it on the shelf and do it. But infant formula, the recipe is scripted, the oversight is heavy, the testing for heavy metals when it comes into the plant with mainly our dairy ingredients and others is mandated and immediate and through the whole chain. And so one of the reasons why I came here was just to sort of make the stark difference between making a decision with infant formula and making a decision with baby food.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Greg, for those of us who haven't had a baby in the household or in our lives for a while, typically how, I'm thinking six months age is that I remember a long time ago introducing more solid food. And I see somebody suggesting maybe that's too young, but again, I don't. So what's the typical age range for consuming formula?

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Well, typically I think we say infant formula is up to one year old, but it probably depends on your decision with your pediatrician and where the milestones are, like where that particular baby's weight is and the head circumference is at a certain amount of time and whether between you and your pediatrician, whether that you're ready to move to something more so.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, all right. So for a year, roughly. As far as the I want to just be sure that we're all clear on who you're speaking on behalf of today, and we understand it's the industry. How many how many members are there in the organization, and what market share do they have? Maybe a way to ask.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Yeah, so our Inca consists of Abbott Nutrition, Mead Johnson, which has been making formally in The United States since the late 1800s. Johnson part of Mead Johnson. It's one of the Johnson and Johnson brothers. And then the third member is Perrigo, and they make Perrigo. Perrigo. And they make all the store brands. Target, Walmart. If it's a store, a private store brand, they're gonna make that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So typically, if I were a consumer for infant formula, I would probably be buying from one of those manufacturers, Abbott or Perrigo or Meacham's.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Yeah, well, I mean, they're a large market share. I would have to get back to you on the amount of other formula companies, but I would say maybe a dozen or so more that are smaller maybe they might be more organic or something like that. Although most of our members have organic lines as well. And then our members provide the specialty formulas. We haven't talked about that, which is important formulas, medical foods, basically, for premature babies, is what they provide.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Bartholomew, thank you.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: No problem.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Why do these companies use standards established by the European Union for sale here? Yeah, The US doesn't have a heavy metal standard for infant formula.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: That's kind

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: of profound, I guess, because many companies take advantage of that as an opportunity rather than I can only speak to our companies. Our companies take this very seriously, and they have for years tested under the strictest of international limits, which is set by the EU. In my testimony, I just mentioned that the FDA for several years now have been planning to set infant formula standards for heavy metals. During the previous administration, they introduced a program called Closer to Zero, and it is what it sounds like. It's an effort to get heavy metals closer to zero because you're not gonna have zero. It's gonna be trace amounts. And so they started setting limits. They triaged it. They started setting limits for children and then, you know, younger children. And then we think they're going to get set a US standard. Well, in my testimony, there's this report coming out next month So we think it's inaccurate, to your point, to call it toxic. We haven't really thought about that. You know, would just caution just with using the word toxic, obviously, because it just goes sort of the narrative that I was talking about earlier. I've talked to many people over the last six months. When I've talked to them, that's literally the first time they found out there was heavy metals in infant formula or breast milk. They shocked. And so, as you can imagine, a mom is in a store, she's got a canister, she figures out heavy metals are in it. She's like, What do I do? Heavy metal sounds really bad. I'm gonna put that can down. I'm gonna go grab some almond milk or something like that, which we know

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Could be worse.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Could be worse, could be worse. Not only with heavy metals, but we know it doesn't have near the nutrition value that an FDA mandated and approved infant formula does.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think we did hear in testimony that toxic heavy metals and FDA expression, again, related to baby food. Representative Lipsky.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. Thank you. This paragraph talks about the April 2026 addressing cadmium, admin, mercury, and lead, but it doesn't include the produce of metalloid arsenic is not.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: You mean in the anticipated HHS report?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Correct.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: I'm just kind of reporting that. I don't know what the justification was for which heavy metals that they looked at. It could be just another kind of they picked the most important ones, the infant formula. But I don't really need I really can't speak to

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: it yet. Historically, on the baby food test line, there were four. The added vocabulary word, category, it's our snake. It's Right. So Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Representative O'Brien.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I just wondered

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: that you don't represent Gerber, for example. Gerber is

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: not part

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: of your organization.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Correct, correct. Or First Best Organic. I'm sorry? Best Organic. So I'm just trying to figure out, since you only represent three but a big market share, and you already test at very stringent European standards, why would you not want to position this the other way and say, we do a better job than all our competitors testing If there's a way to label it so you don't have your sort of scare problem there.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: But

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: it would be a chance for you in some ways to say, look, moms and dad, we do a better job than all the other competitors, were in a place to shop.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Yeah, no, I understand that. And obviously that's not the intent or sort of the scope of the bill. The bill is very prescriptive. It says you batch test, you put the broad numbers on a website, and then at some point you put a code on there. I think what you're talking about is more like, I'm old, like a good housekeeping seal of approval or whatever, some sort of indication on there. There are those that are available. Some baby food companies do it for marketing purposes, but I just can't speak to our companies may be looking at something like that, but that obviously is different than the very prescriptive language that's in the bill.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: So it sounds to me like there's no way you're not gonna get stuff in no. There's no zero. Right. For you know, and some mothers that are breastfeeding, I mean, they're drinking tap water, all the stuff that ends. And those some of those city water systems are wells really loaded with I mean, that those babies could be getting a heck of a dose compared to some of these women.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Yeah. I mean, obviously, a mother's diet, and I really don't need to go off speaking about, you know, mom's diets, but, like, a mom's diet does, determine I am a dad, I remember that. A mom's diet does determine the nutrition that is fed through breast milk to the baby. I'd say that delicately.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think that I should just say for anybody who's listening in or wondering that we've had a discussion about including infant formula, but the language that we've looked at most recently and that the public might be looking at the webpage excludes infant formula. So just wanted to be clear on that. I think understanding and appreciating the concerns that you've raised so far, I did want to ask you about the testing requirement that is in the bill for baby food, and then would be if we remove the exemption for formula. That's testing that you're already doing typically, or would this mean additional testing?

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: You mean under the description and the prescription that's in the bill? I don't know, to be honest with you. It's got a definition of what is an acceptable laboratory and stuff like that. We haven't been subject to this yet in the four other states. So I really can't speak to that other than I do know that because I hear from our members that the granular nature of the amount of heavy metals that are in infant formula, there has to be some very specialized labs that do that work, because it's, we're talking like a grain 700, grain of sand versus I think one of my, I think I read somewhere like a grain of sand versus like 700 pounds of sand or something like that. So the ability for a lab, this is what I can speak to, to do that kind of work, it's not available all over. So it's very specialized lab work that has to be done. Once you get down to the granular level of the amount of heavy metals that are in infant formula, which is an interesting thing, but it's also a good thing because again, our whole effort is to get it close to zero as we can.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Again, to the extent that you have this information, if testing is currently being done from, say, batch to batch from time to time, how much variation might there be in, say, lead?

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: I don't know. I will have to get back to you on that, because I wouldn't even wanna hazard a guess, but I can get back to you on that.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Any other questions? Well, the one thing I remember, we're talking about testing baby formula before it's reconstituted. So, however it comes out of the human milk replacer factory is one thing, and how it's mixed at home is something totally different. You know, and we can't hold them to the standard of reconstituted. Are they all concentrates? I don't know if they are they all concentrates?

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: No, that's the thing is there are a variety of different ways that consumers consume it. They concentrate, they're sort of ready to feed, and then there's also, you know, you mix it with water. To tell you the truth, that's something that's really important too, that we try to educate moms and dads about, is the sanitation of your kitchen or your counter or something like that when you're obviously mixing it a big deal too.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right. While we have our witness, this is our chance to ask any other questions to better understand implications or the industry.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: So you mentioned earlier about babies in NICU are premature. Are the companies you represent the leaders in colostrum replacement or the really early infant formula? And does that need different testing than later on just because babies, I would assume, growing, they need nutrition at different points in their lives?

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Yeah, that's all pre approved by the FDA as well for the right nutrients and growth elements that have to go into infant formula for a preterm baby or a baby that needs, I mean, it's literally characterized as a medical food.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I'm glad you clarified that you asked about concentrate, because I was thinking, again, it's been a long time, I was thinking powder. So in these different ways that you might purchase it, what's the shelf life typically?

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: They vary a little bit, but I can't guess on that. I'll get back to you on that, because I wanna be accurate on that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm thinking because the bill as currently drafted anticipates some time for manufacturers to prepare, And obviously, we wouldn't want to say we would never do this, but we wouldn't want to say as of tomorrow, that wouldn't be realistic. But if product tends to turn over every three months, every six months, that would be helpful to them.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: And there might be some data on that with some other states that have just done baby food, but I'll have to find that out.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And not expecting you to answer any baby food questions, so. Right. All right, good. Well, I appreciate you coming in, I'm not sure where you came in from, but again, thank you for making the trip.

[Craig Felner (Infant Nutrition Council of America, Director of Government Affairs)]: Yeah, no, I'm happy to do it. This is an important issue for us. Nutrition for infants is a serious thing and something that a lot of folks just take for granted, you know, that it's going be there, and we are overjoyed that we're able to provide that to moms and dads who can't breastfeed or unable to breastfeed or adopt or whatever. Y'all are going about a lot of issues. So I appreciate the opportunity to come here and talk to y'all about it, because there's a lot of information out there, and I just wanted to make the stark difference between baby food and infant formula. So thank you so much for y'all's time. Appreciate it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Great. Appreciate your time too. All right, we will take a break, and we've got testimony scheduled again for, I think, for 02:30. Yes, so let's

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: all

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: try