Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So William Driscoll with Associated Industries of Vermont represent the manufacturing sector here, which has actually we have had a major employer, Perrigo, in the baby formula or infant formula sector. Unfortunately, they're winding down operations in Georgia, but we can certainly hope that that gap can be filled again with a new employer at some point soon. I really want to sort of echo primarily the concerns or points and recommendations made by INCA earlier in the week. I think it's always, you know, you always have to take a grain of salt and be cautious about moving targets in other states. But it does seem that things are moving in a direction where, you know, Maryland may not go down the road of including infant formula in their bill. And if that happens, Vermont could be the only state that could require labeling for that particular area, which is always concerning in terms of consistency across states. But in many ways, you know, I think we feel that this is a topic which can be addressed more prudently in the future. And so far as the FDA is in the middle of coming up with recommendations about how to address this issue in infant formula, and we may see recommendations from them, perhaps, you know, specific requirements, or at least certainly the context in which to put any labeling on this issue. And given the fact that if we were to go ahead with having a more expanded scope for labeling, there would certainly need to be more time than what's allowed currently in the bill in terms of July 2026. I think some initial thoughts would be hoping to at least have until January 2028. And to the extent that that's a more prudent way to go, That would really sort of give us the time really to see what the FDA recommends, what other states do in the intervening period, and therefore there should be time to not make this requirement now, but come back to this issue maybe next year and see where things are at. You know, we don't know exactly what the FDA is going to require. We don't know what states like California that really drive the market may or may not require for labeling if that's an issue down the road. So to lock something in in Vermont statute at this point, which has seemed to be premature, and there's certainly time to deal with this issue further down further next year. So that would be our recommendation. Thank you very much.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think you'll probably be in the building and we'll Oh yeah. If any members have questions, they can find you. Thank you. Thanks.

[Unidentified committee member]: Katie, do you want to come up? Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Good morning. Happy crossover day. Is it happy? It depends.

[Unidentified committee member]: Thank you, Chairman. Thank you.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Be happy around 5PM. Okay. Or not, don't say that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We will be done by 5PM, just so that's for the record.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So here is H536, draft 2.1. So we looked at an earlier amendment 1.1, and this makes a few additional changes that are highlighted in yellow. I know that you're not working specifically

[Unidentified committee member]: on

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: this every day, so I'll kind of do high level refreshing your memory as I go through the changes. So if you remember, we're adding a new subsection to this chapter in title 18. And first, we start with our definitions of baby food products. And initially, you'll notice that baby food product does not include infant formula because that addition happens at a later date. So I just wanted to flag that for you as I go through, Have our definition section. One of the concerns that was raised that was asked to address is to make sure that it's very clear that this requirement is specific to Vermont. Sort of implied because it's in Vermont statute, but it doesn't hurt to be crystal clear in the language. So I've added some language throughout that just specifies that we're talking about products sold in Vermont. So a person shall not sell, distribute, or offer for sale any baby food product in the state that contains a toxic heavy metal that exceeds the limits established by the US FDA. The provision oh, I'll just skip down to the c. A manufacturer of a baby food sold or distributed in the state shall test a representative sample. So again, linking to the state. The draft 1.1 that you saw, you had requested to move some of the oversight activities to the office of the attorney general. This version bring You've heard testimony in the interim. This brings it back to having the Commissioner of Health responsible for overseeing the program, but the enforcement still would be under the Office of the Attorney General. So going back to the bills introduced, upon the request of the commissioner of health, a manufacturer shall provide the results of a test conducted pursuant to this section. You added language in subdivision D1 that without requiring the provision of a universal product code, lot number or proof of purchase, a manufacturer of baby food sold or distributed in the state shall make publicly available on its website for the duration of the product shelf life of a final baby food product plus one month for each baby food product. So that addition is to specify that there's no special information that's needed to obtain the information on the website. You don't have to make a purchase to obtain the information on the website, but it should be available to anyone.

[Unidentified committee member]: The the foods I scanned, you had to put in something so they knew which one what lot you were looking at. Mhmm. Does this preclude that from being put in? Yes. Correct. I I I don't know how you look up this type of baby food or this brand without putting in there. One was one of them was about that's sold by date, you know, and you had to put that in to get the information. So they knew which lot you were looking at.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: This language specifically precludes them asking what lot number you're looking at. I would imagine it would allow for them to ask what the expiration date is of the products that you're looking at. That's not prohibited. But if that is a concern, that language is in

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the So this was addressing the issue where code was so many digits So this would still allow for an expiration date, which would be still some digits, but not 22 digits. But the UPC code can often be very long as well. So it was to try

[Unidentified committee member]: and get rid of the long numbers. Yeah, well the one that does it is some little baby gonna lose their favorite food because beach nuts says, well, the rest of the states don't require me to change. That's all. I'm just I I I'm not opposed to it. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. And proof of purchase is great because, you know, you should be able to look before you buy. Yeah. Representative Burtt.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Thank you, sir. So would this make it so that could in theory a company because they can't use a universal product code or proof

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: of purchase, could they in theory say, all right, here's all

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: of our results and you don't have to input a product code. You don't know whether or not your baby food tested at this level. Here's all of our data.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, hear it.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: You can try and

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: figure it out for

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: yourself. Think that

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: lead to that.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Actually. Yeah. I I don't think it precludes that from happening.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Would it almost be better to specify that would need to be based on the expiration date.

[Unidentified committee member]: Well, I would So that we could Gerber Gerber and the other one I checked were two different ways of checking. They were both easy except my old eyes couldn't read the, you know, the best sold by date.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It seems like we need a lot number or we need something to tie that information to the specific. I'm wondering if the language on line 21 there, Katie, the product shelf life of the final baby food product that's defined. That's an odd expression, right? Final baby food product. But we define it up above, which may address the concern.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know that it does. A final baby food product is just one that has been packaged and put on the shelf. Baby food product is used here as sort of for the product before it's been sort of packaged for the consumer.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. So the language that's yellow was not there earlier. So what we started with, and what's been used in other states and has worked, to the extent that it has worked, was that a manufacturer of baby food shall make available on his website, etcetera, etcetera, for each if we go to the next page. For each baby food product sold, manufactured, delivered, held or offered for sale in The States. I think that what we have there prior to the change was what has worked in other states. And they have made it work, if you put in 22 codes, made it tricky. So I guess I'm a little unclear about whether this causes the problem.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's policy option. You're making a policy choice. I think you could just omit the language that's highlighted in yellow. You could also do a hybrid. If it's the universal product code that is the long digit, you could get rid of that and say without or sorry, if that's the one that's a problem, you could retain that one and say without requiring a provision of a universal product code or proof of purchase and allow for the use of the lot number. And maybe that is something to tie it to.

[Unidentified committee member]: I'm of the mindset that if parents get sick of typing in 22 digits that and and don't buy the product, they're gonna change it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Shorten the code.

[Unidentified committee member]: They they will shorten it.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: You know, maybe to, like, the last six digits or the first eight or and and that the public will will help them come to their milk. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: do we like the idea of shortening this to without the providing the version of a universal product code or proof of purchase, but remove lot number? It gives the manufacturer the ability to Yeah, you gotta have some way We of doing

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: want it to be compatible with what other states are doing too. Shouldn't have to do a different kind of labeling for Vermont than

[Unidentified committee member]: 1,000 babies.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So you'll see that I added a one here. That's because we're adding a two below. So there's re lettering just to make the addition of a two work. So now this extra sentence is that a baby food product that is sold online to Vermont consumers by either a retailer or directly from a manufacturer shall contain on the product's web page a clearly labeled link to an information page containing the information required pursuant to subdivision one, meaning this list that you already have for in person purchases.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And so that addresses the concern that if you're not shopping at Shaw's, but if you go online, you don't have a UPC code to scan there. So instead, this would bring you to the same place that the UPC, or I'm sorry, the QR code.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I think they might make a swap on line 12 instead of Vermont consumers, consumers in Vermont. Because Vermont consumer, you could be a Vermont consumer in Missouri. But I think it would be easier for the retailer to know the purchase is being made in Vermont versus are you a Vermont resident purchasing something out of state?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Vermont and knowing where we're Would

[Unidentified committee member]: it then be required on Amazon or on Gerber website that they have the URL that links to this?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: This doesn't say a URL. This says it's a link to the product information page that sorry. On the product information page of either a retailer, so like Amazon, or directly from the manufacturer, so Gerber, that there would be a link on that product information page that would bring you to all the information that you're requiring for the URL scan.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Could be a QR code. Different. Just if you're online, you're probably not going to use a QR code. Something else, it'll link to This the library or linker button replaces, is in lieu of a QR code that you have on I mean, they could put a QR code, I suppose, on the web page too, but this makes more sense.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: In e, we have the same language tying it specifically to Vermont. Baby food products sold or distributed in the state is tested. Scrolling down. And f, a consumer if a consumer reason sorry, reasonably believes based on the information provided on the baby food product that the baby food product is being sold in the state in violation of this section, the consumer may, but that's a change from shall, report the baby food product to the Department of Health. We had changed it to the attorney general's office. Here, it's being changed back to the Department of Health. The conversation about the may to shall was that, are we gonna enforce that that consumer sees that there should be there's something to be reported, so this is that they may report it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Why didn't we switch back to Department of Health? The AG pointed out, I think correctly, that their involvement only begins when there's been something actionable. We still have there, so the next line you can see that if there is a violation or if somebody has decided it's a violation, but they don't want to be setting up the program, that's not what the AG's office is there for. That was their argument. And I found that persuasive. Thank you.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So under this, they'd still do the and more of the operational pieces. And then when it comes to enforcement, if there is a violation, the AG's office takes over. And then at the top of page six, we have this reader heading in there to help us why are we amending this section a second time. So we are amending the same section we just looked at again. Your first amendment would take effect, I wanna say 07/01/2026. This amendment takes effect 01/01/2028. So you're amending the statute you've put into place previously. And the first change here is how you're treating infant formula. So initially infant formula is carved out. And then as of 01/01/2028, infant formula would be treated like other baby food products addressed in section one of the bill.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So this addresses the concern that's been raised about the time needed for the formula manufacturers to make the adjustment. The baby food companies already are doing that in some states, we know, but nobody so far is doing it for formula. So it gives them that extra time by structuring it this way.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: And then there's a new paragraph that's being proposed here specific to infant formula and shortages of infant formula. That's why it's applying right here. Can speed up. So the consumer shall suspend the application of this section to infant formula if the commissioner verifies that there is insufficient infant formula in the state to meet the need. If the commissioner suspends application, the commissioner shall post notice on the department's website containing specific dates that this suspension is in effect. So this is here because there's no regulation of infant formula prior to this date. So that's why it's being handed here. And then you're just dropping down what had been subsection g to subsection h. Then in your effective dates, we've already sort of talked about how this is handled. Oh, I was wrong on the date. So this section, the effective date section and section one of the So setting up the program itself, 01/01/2027. A year later is infant formula, 01/01/2028.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I don't know if you saw that was the speaker's assistant giving me this. Thank you, Katie. Any questions right now, like quick ones for Katie about what's here? We can talk about policy decisions afterwards. I

[Unidentified committee member]: just wondered, with the other states adopting similar requirements, will the manufacturers have to change anything? Let's say, what California is done, will sail in the state as far as the first Section A, will anything have to really change to meet Vermont's statutory requirements?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Are you asking if this is different from what California is?

[Unidentified committee member]: Essentially saying that the industry's adapting to at least the four states that have passed this other way. They have to change anything specific in Vermont?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I think the infant formula piece, I'm not certain, but I don't think other states have. But the baby food language is pulled from what other states have enacted. To the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The pre B sequel.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, you're in the proof of purchase piece.

[Unidentified committee member]: Proof of purchase online.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: And the online piece is a new piece that you added. So those are new pieces.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You won't have to change anything on the label button.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So I'll make those two changes. I'll have it available to you. And if I am not personally in the room, you will have a draft that you can look at.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: I'll do that right now.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, thank you very much, Kate.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Thank you. We should come back if we finish before lunch, David.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, please, if we've done before noon, just come on up and take advantage of the time. Yeah. Short in the afternoon.

[Unidentified committee member]: How long is house floor predicted for? Almost until noon.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And since we're ten minutes late, everybody

[Unidentified committee member]: else probably is too.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Bill, any reaction to that?

[William "Bill" Driscoll (Associated Industries of Vermont)]: Yeah, well, mean, putting aside for a moment,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we still think should hold off. On

[William "Bill" Driscoll (Associated Industries of Vermont)]: the technical side,

[Speaker 0]: there the sell through date isn't isn't extended for, like, the formula. And, you know, now there's a big piece to sort

[Unidentified committee member]: of move in in tandem with the effective date.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. And then also the commissioner suspension thing, I'm not entirely sure how that would work. But I think at the very minimum, once there is a charter, it's too late in the way. It's hard

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: to stop there.

[Unidentified IT/AV staff]: Good morning, Sophie. Can you hear me?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Katie, are you talking to me?

[Unidentified IT/AV staff]: Oh, sorry, Katie. Why did I say Sophie? I'm so sorry. I wonder if you when you're leaving the room, would you mind hitting the mute button on the controller on the table? I think the chair forgot to mute it. We normally mute the room. Yeah, in between. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you so much.

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

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Hi, how are you? How are you? Good, I'm fine. Are you okay? Yeah, how are doing there? Yeah, I'm hiding. I don't blame you. I don't blame you.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: How's everything going? I saw the emails and

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: I was like, I'm just gonna wait for directions on

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: that one.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Yeah, have have some editorial changes I'll send The main crux of the, is the appropriations part. I'm good with, going with what Emilie is recommending as long as, because I just wanna confirm that that means that we can still put the specific dollar amounts in the bill. And if it does, then

[Unidentified person]: I'm fine with that. Okay,

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: so maybe I'll start working on Yeah, okay, we'll see. I'll have bits of time here and there throughout the morning and go down to Judy's room for a

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: couple of things. She

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: took a bill off the wall last about that.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: I'm taking 143 out of wall today. Hi, Rach.

[Unidentified committee member]: Your special days, Katie?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I've in service days. I've spent a lot of time doing the services, a little bit of mental health.