Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Yes, sir.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: All right. Good. Glad you could join us. So we're I'm gonna say it's a strange position, but I'll just sort of outline the position, the situation that we're in. The committee passed a bill last week that is now going to the full house for consideration. And there is an amendment that's been proposed. We don't have a draft of it yet, but it would do a couple of things. One of which is to remove the exemption that's in the language in the bill, remove the exemption for formula if and when two other states or the state of California enact similar legislation. I understand, well, you've reached out indicating you're interested in testifying. We're glad you could join us and happy to hear in a few minutes whatever you might care to say.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Okay. Thanks so much. I appreciate y'all letting me join. And thank you for the update. I appreciate it. I would just say a couple things, and just to sort of reiterate, I know y'all have been dealing

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: with I'm to interrupt you. If you wouldn't mind just saying your name and your affiliation for the record.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Yeah, no problem, sorry about that. My name is Craig Felder, and I am the Director of Government Affairs for the Infant Nutrition Council of America. So just to follow-up, you know, I know y'all have dealt with a lot of bills given the deadline that y'all faced on Friday, and there's a lot of information kinda out there on this bill. First thing I would just wanna do is just remind everybody there's sort of the stark difference between infant formula and and baby food. Again, baby food is a food like any other food in the grocery store. If one of y'all wanted to brush up some apples and make baby food, you go tell Shaw's that you promise it'll sell, give me shelf space, that that that would be the case. As opposed to infant formula, it where has to be approved by the FDA. There's mandated nutrients and contents and ingredients that go into it. And for the purposes of our discussion today, we have regulations that we are living under from FDA to start testing for heavy metals when the ingredients enters our plant. So for our purposes, one of our biggest ingredients obviously is dairy. So we're testing that right away when it comes into our facility. We're testing the ingredients while it's being manufactured. We're testing the finished product, and we're also testing the finished product for up to three weeks at our facilities, not just for heavy metals, but for other bacteria and stuff like that. But I just wanted to give the breadth and depth of the programs that we have at infant formula that don't exist for baby food. So you have an FDA overseeing product. There's an office at FDA that all they do is work on infant formula related issues and approvals. Having sort of just gotten me up to speed on where we are with the bill, obviously we wanna still make the case that infant formula is unique, and we would counsel, I guess, Vermont to stay with Illinois, Maryland, and California, and just having this program affect baby food. But, so that would be my first point, and I'd be happy to take any questions or comments or thoughts, or I can move on to talking a little bit about what y'all are talking about today, which is triggering amendment.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Representative Bos-Londe.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah, just a quick comment. I mean, you used the words that it was unique, and I think we had testimony here before about that, how for some babies, infant formula is their only source of nutrition for four to six months. So in that case, it's extra critical that we make sure that we get it right in terms of not having these high levels of heavy metals, which in our state sometimes are still available for families, and we would like to work towards amending that in a thoughtful way.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Yeah, thank you for those comments. I would say, when it comes to infant formula, and certainly versus baby food, I can tell you as representing infant formula, that our levels of infant formula are tested under international EU limits, the most strict in the world. And so I can't speak to baby food because they're not regulated like infant formula, but you can be assured, our members of our association, we test under international standards. We don't put things on the shelf if not under those international standards, because we realize, and you know, I know that almost goes without saying, but our paramount driver is to make moms and dads comfortable. And I think from the research we have, and the pediatricians we work with, we feel like we've achieved that balance. But you can be assured that our products don't go on the shelf if they're not under the international EU strict standards for heavy metals.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Well, I guess I would just have one response to that, is that we have a colleague here in the house who had a baby in the fall, and she was sent home with a sample of infant formula. And she's primarily breastfeeding, but she had been using that sample from that company, that same brand, when she needed to supplement. And when she started researching around the heavy metal issue, she looked up the brand of formula that she was given by the hospital. And there's a flag system of green, yellow, red in the article she was reading. And the formula that was given to her by the hospital had a yellow flag. It wasn't a green flag. It had elevated levels of heavy metals to the point that it was advised that that was not a safe level for babies. So, even if we're meeting certain standards, we would like to meet the best standards that we can in terms of what is reasonable for Vermont kids. And right now, that is not happening because that product was on the shelf.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Yeah, I would say a couple things. First, I'm obviously not familiar with the actual specifics, obviously, of what you're citing. But, you know, with respect to I mean, this is one of the points I'm trying to make is, like, when people talk about heavy metals, and they certainly talk about it within infant formula, even baby food, it makes people anxious. And, you know, it's hard sometimes for moms and dads to put things in context, because it just sounds like, you know some people don't know that heavy metals are present in breast milk. They don't know that they're omnipresent in all the foods that folks eat. And in this case, with formula, I don't think that they know that, in some cases, that there are trace amounts of heavy metals in infant formula. I have seen, it depends on, again, I don't know what study or, you know, labs that formula was tested in. Some people like to promote results as elevated levels and concerning quote unquote. We've seen that in publications, but they're still testing well under the limits of EU. But you could see by just somebody saying that the levels are concerning or that they're elevated, it makes people anxious, and it makes people a little nervous. But all I can tell you is our members test under international levels, and that's where our levels are, which are trace, trace, trace amount. I talked about this earlier. I think I read where, you know, to put it in context, it's like a one grain of sand in a 700 pound pile of sand. And also, I will say, I think we talked about this a bit last week when I was there, the sophisticated nature of the labs that need to be involved in this are pretty elevated, given the granular nature, at least in infant formula. I know I can't really speak to baby food, but I'm quite confident their levels are higher than infant formula, because we test under international standards, as we have been for years.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Representative Lipsky. Yes, thank you,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Chairman of the Director Fehlner, my question has to do with what I perceive that the US FDA has not yet implemented or updated their standards for infant formula. With all due respect to the EU, I believe a lot of the states that are on pause for including infant formula is because the US FDA has not yet updated their standards. So, you could give our committee and myself some insight into this process, where it is and why is it taking so long on this critical session?

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. It's a great one, because we have indications that in April, NIH, at the direction of FDA and HHS, are going to introduce or complete a study on various heavy metals and infant formula to inform their decision making for setting a standard. And in addition to, or kind of, you know, in conjunction with that study, over the last year, we have been sharing our data, our heavy metals data, with FDA for them to have a robust data set to set a standard. So we think it is coming actually pretty soon. We've talked a little bit about what the prior administration started, which was called Closer to Zero, which is, it's what it sounds, it's an effort to get food and baby food and infant formula closest to zero. In other words, just trace, trace, trace amounts of heavy metal. And so we're under the impression, excuse me, that the FDA will set a standard very soon. We've given them all of our data in hopes that they will do that soon. We've asked for them to do it. We've called for them to do it. And so we have every reason to believe they are going to do that. They announced, over the middle of last year, this operation stork speed, which includes setting heavy metal limits for infant formula.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Representative Bartholomew.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: You've said that the manufacturers really operate under some really strict guidelines and there is extensive testing done. So I have to say, I'm finding it baffling that the industry does not seem to think that that information should be shared with consumers. Consumers are asking for more and more information. So, I I guess it's not surprising that the industry would be resistant, but we, obviously Vermont is a very small market. So we, at least in this committee, feel that we don't wanna be out in front of the other states with this. That's why we're we're looking at include making sure that other states enact this. But from where I'm sitting, it just like I said, it's really baffling that this information that that there's a reluctance to share the information with consumers. And I feel like this is coming. The industry ought to be prepared for it, and Vermont isn't gonna be first, but we're we're happy to be second. So that's pretty much what I had to say.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: All right. Representative O'Brien.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Yes. Craig, just following up on representative Bartholomew's line of thinking. I'm just trying to get past the irony here that we're trying to provide with this bill accurate information to consumers. So, this case, their moms and dads. And Vermont has a long tradition of this not starting, but at least including the GMO labeling in the country. So what I'm confused about is you represent the gold standard of testing for infant formula, your companies like Abbott and Mead Johnson. So why are you resistant to moms and dads looking at your products that you represent and say, wow, these products have far less toxic materials in them than perhaps the competitors do. Because this bill of anything seems like it will make clear to your consumers that you indeed follow the gold standard in this industry. So if anything, it would increase your market share. And I don't know why you're resistant to that.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: I would just say a couple of things. I don't want the impression to be there that our companies aren't looking at ways to better inform and communicate with moms and dads and caregivers. We have one member who has a very robust landing page that talks about heavy metals and infant formula, and talks a little bit about the controls that they undertake, and the things that they do at their facilities to account for it. But also, I guess my other quick answer is unlike baby food, as somebody noted earlier, our product is a sole source of nutrition for moms and dads that are unable or cannot breastfeed. And so we just try to not make parents anxious about this. Oftentimes, I think we talked about this a little earlier, last week, oftentimes parents, when they purchase infant formula, they do not arrive at that decision easily. Moms often go through some pretty traumatic steps in order to be standing there at that store with a can of infant formula in their hand. And so, we don't recommend that that y'all take any action that makes that situation more anxious for them, or more scary for them. And as the sole source of nutrition, other than breast milk, we feel like we want to make sure that it's a comfortable situation. And providing uncontext information, and particular with the language in the bill that says something like the, you know, for information on the toxic elements, or toxic heavy metals, or whatever it says in the bill that we have to put on a can, we're pretty confident that that's going to make parents very anxious. And we talked about this a little bit. We feel like the word toxic is inaccurate in itself, because the levels that are set for infant formula heavy metals, obviously, or any levels of heavy metals for antibody, are based on the length of exposure and the amount of exposure. And so, with just trace amounts of heavy metals potentially in a canister of infant formula, for example, we don't believe that the characterization is accurate to say it's toxic. And so, if a mom or dad is picking up a can of infant formula, and maybe they've, for whatever situation, they can't breastfeed anymore, and then they see the word toxic on there, The last thing we want them to do is go buy, you know, almond milk or Google homemade recipes for infant formula. And so that's the reservation we have there. You know, I take to heart all your comments, and I think our companies are figuring out the best way to communicate and provide transparency to our customers, but that's the reservation for us. Thank you for the question.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Committee wise, haven't looked at the exact language, but do we mandate that it says toxic on the label anywhere?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: We do not.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Oh, we do not. We're confused, Greg, because we do not see any of these products having toxic heavy metals on any labeling. It's only after you go to a URL or check-in with a QR.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Yeah, I believe that, so at least I think the last version that I saw, once a standard is set for heavy metals, in our case for infant formula, then the bill does move to a QR code, and near the QR code, it has to say, you know, something to the effect I'm sorry. I don't have the language in front of me, but something to the effect of, you know you know, clicking on the QR code, you'll find information on the toxic elements or toxic heavy metals with this product.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Think the the bill language I'm looking at, the last draft on page five, the requirement is a label stating in a clear manner that more information about toxic element testing on the product is available by scanning the QR code. It's not in quotes. I don't know that there's anything here that would be requiring anything other than to spell out what those elements actually are that's defined earlier in the bill. I'm not a lawyer. That's the way I'm interpreting it. But representative Burtt has joined us and has a hand up.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Thank you, chair. I just wanted to point out that the line of thinking that we're discussing right now, kind of comparing more information to the parent versus fear that more information might deter people from utilizing something that is a necessity for a number of reasons for for babies and for parents. I just want to point out it's the same exact line of thinking that I had for putting in my amendment on informed consent for vaccines. So I think it's important that parents be getting information directly from trusted sources versus googling for the information and potentially doing something that's more harmful, for their children. So I think the the discussion of making sure parents have information is one where we have to be very careful how we word things and how we present the information to make sure we're not deterring parents from utilizing something that's perfectly healthy for their babies, and at the same time, not be afraid to provide information just because there's a fear of how people will handle it because I don't I think good, honest information is always beneficial to everyone. So as long as we're careful about how we provide the information that we're not, I I think I do agree with our witness, that, you know, we wanna be careful with how we word whether it's toxic and and portray information if it's not toxic, to what to what we know right now. So I just wanna point that out. And so I see both sides, but I do air on the side of making sure that parents have information. So thank you.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Great. Thank you for that. We have another witness who's joined us and we wanna be respectful of his time as well. So maybe we'll move to move to that witness, but I do see another hand. Representative Lipsky.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Thank you, chairman. I I don't know director of phone, exactly who you represent. But Vermont has a a manufacturer, to my knowledge, maybe the only one in the state of Vermont. They go by the name of Perrigo. They have over four twenty employees in Vermont. And there was an article in a by Vermont public back in March, a year ago, that they were considering closing their plant in Vermont. And I think the biggest concern they had was the failure of the USDA not to have, you know, introduced specific standards for infant formula. And if you all recall, or most of us recall, maybe it was post pandemic twenty twenty two, or it was a huge shortage around North America and maybe worldwide of infant formula for some complex reasons. So this is of critically importance for obviously the health of infants in Vermont, but the availability in 2022, it spurred a real crisis for these ad hoc creation of formulas. So maybe if my question is, is Perrigo a client or part of your organization, or any insights into what it may impact the state of Vermont. We all agree that infants come first, but our the economic, you know, the impacts on Vermont could ripple in a negative way economic.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Yeah. Thank you for the question. Perrigo is a member of our organization. Just so everybody gets

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: on

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: the same page, Perrigo makes all store brands. So for infant formula that is sold in Walmart, Target, you know, Costco, makes it in a couple different locations. They did announce that they were phasing down their plant in Vermont, but it's currently up and running, and they're making formula there today and have been employing hundreds of people. I don't know if that decision is under review or not, but that's really the status of that. But they very much are contributing to the economy of Vermont, and I will say that, you know yeah. I don't know if you were alluding to this, representative, but, you know, particularly following the pandemic, you know, just the elected officials around the country that have are kinda calling for robust manufacturing of industries in The US for us to make stuff in The United States. So, you know, the health, obviously, of generally of some of the manufacturing plants for infant formula certainly is important. And, you know, I think that the chairman and y'all got like, a short email from somebody representing Perrigo late last week on this bill as well. But, you know, the ability to have robust production in The United States is important, and so that's what we're contributing to at Inca with our our members, Abbott and Mead Johnson and Perrigo.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Alright. Thank Another question.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Well, I I was just gonna add that there's nothing really here that says once the consumer scans a code and they go to a website to look at the results, there's nothing that says how that has to be reported. And based on what you've told me, if the levels are really remarkably low and there are international standards, FDA standards, all that information can be provided, including what the international standards are. And it seems like the customers would actually be impressed to see how far below the standards are when you provide your test information. So this could be a very positive aspect for the manufacturers.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: All right.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: You want

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: to respond to that Craig? Yeah, go ahead.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Well, would just say, know, again, like I said earlier, you know, I don't want to say that any of our members are precluding robust ways to communicate that type of information to our consumers. I will say that the bill simply does say that we need to provide raw data and raw batch testing numbers on there, which, you know, I I just think that the type of information requires context, which provides, you know, the risk assessment and, you know, meaningful getting meaningful information to the consumer, I think with infant formula, is I think just an important, it's important that we have a deliberative process with that, because infant formula, as we talked about, is the sole source of nutrition other than breast milk, And it's a stark contrast, you know, there are three other states that have enacted baby food programs, and I just can't stress enough the difference between the robust regulations that infant formula producers live under versus baby food. And if, you know, if I sort of leave you with anything, I would leave you with that. And also, just a quick comment again. You know, this doesn't preclude our you know, and I know our members are constantly deciding how they can provide more information and and communicate with their consumers, and and they're doing that. But this bill obviously is very prescriptive in how that's done.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Alright. Let's turn to thank you, Craig. Yeah.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Thank you.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Tom Neltner, who had testified earlier on the bill. Tom, thank you for joining us again. So just to bring you up to speed quickly, the committee passed a bill out last week that exempts formula from the requirements. There's an amendment that's been proposed that would we don't have it in writing yet, but the committee's listening to input this morning because it will be coming to our committee. The amendment would reinstate from a draft at one point that had it, would would remove sorry. Sorry. I'm gonna rephrase that. It would remove the exemption, but it would only do so once the state of California or any other two states in the country had already passed similar legislation. So this would not be Vermont going first according to the amendment. So, anyway, thank you for joining us. And if there's anything you'd like to say, happy to hear it.

[Tom Neltner, National Director, Unleaded Kids (formerly Environmental Defense Fund)]: Well, I appreciate the opportunity to come in back and talk to you and some of the follow-up discussions that have been had. And Craig, you and I have not had a chance to talk. In general, one of the things about framing that I like that you've done is you've not described the words that have to be used. FDA uses the word toxic element. That is the word that it has chosen for arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead. And they've said that the goal is to reduce those to zero. It's not because the food, whether it's baby food or infant formula or whatever, is unsafe, it's that we can make it safer by lowering the levels. There is no safe level of exposure to lead in the blood, and if you eat it, it's gonna get into the blood. So the goal is to try to give parents the option to reduce those levels down. So the words that were chosen, toxic element, you have not bound the language in that, so the companies could use whatever words they wanted. But more importantly, if somebody is scanning that and sees words, toxic element, and they scan the QR code, the company has all the latitude at once to provide all that context that Mr. Felder is talking about. It can explain all the efforts it's done to reduce those levels. We see that on baby food. Some of them just provide you with a certificate of analysis. Other ones provide extensive discussion. They explain all of their sourcing, the testing of the ingredients. They do explain the hazard analysis. One other point is FDA does not do a risk assessment on these. They know there's no safe level of lead in food. What you wanna do is have it as low as possible. What they do when they set an action level is they look at all the results and they basically set a limit that only removes the top five or maybe 10 for this kind of product from the market. So it's only aiming at the worst of the worst. It isn't incentivizing companies to do better. And what we've seen on baby food is that companies do better when there's this transparency. And we can see on infant formula that there are some companies that do much better than their competitors. Let's give them, the parents, the ability to choose those products. I don't think parents have gotten scared. I know there's the choice of breast milk and infant formula. And Mr. Fellner accurately captured those choices, those difficult choices they make. But parents make the same choices on baby food. Do I buy it at the store because I'm really busy, or do I try to make it myself? Well, the reality is if you make it yourself, the levels may be higher than a baby food, but that doesn't stop the fact that they can choose to have the lower levels now through those provisions that are in the bill. And I like the idea of waiting for two other states to do it so that Vermont takes the advantage, but takes advantage of when those other states move. And I know there are bills in other states. There are four states that have already adopted the baby food kind of provisions. There are other states, Wisconsin is considering infant formula and California have bills introduced on this. So other states will look at that and then Vermont is able to take advantage of those benefits when it comes. Are there any questions that I can answer? You're very innocent.

[Unidentified Representative]: Tom, thank you for coming back. And when you testified to us last time, I, that weekend went home and I went to our local supermarket and I went into the baby food aisle and I QR coded two different two different brands and Gerber had a wonderful explanation about what it was all about and should be very reassured to mothers and fathers or grandparents or whoever buying that food. And and the other company was good. I I felt Gerber was worded better as a consumer. Infant And formula companies could do the same thing. They could take a they could take a page for Gerber and say, we test to give you ease of mind of what we're what is in the formula. And yes, there, you know, there's going to be some things that are going to be higher to get the levels lower in, but perhaps, you know, through hard work, they will achieve it. I appreciate you that there's no safe level of lead in baby food. And as a owner of employee housing, we had to have the paint tested for lead and to make sure there was no lead in the houses. So appreciate you, appreciate your testimony and giving us a heads up to do some more work on our own.

[Tom Neltner, National Director, Unleaded Kids (formerly Environmental Defense Fund)]: And just for context, people know lead is all around us. It's in the soil, it's in our paint, it's in children's products, It's allowed at 90 parts per million in children's toys. It's not that people freak out when they get lead, when they see lead. They just know that if they have a choice, they want lower. And that's what you're giving people on infant formula, and we've seen it on baby food. I have not heard anyone complain about having too much information. If they're not interested in it, they just don't follow the QR code. As far as burden on the state, I was watching some of the other hearings, the state of California, the California AGs, has issued a warning to baby food companies that they make the information publicly available for the few that aren't complying, and that has been the extent of it. The state has also issued FAQs from the Department of Health, and that's been the extent of their effort. It's been very helpful to have the FAQ page up, but I don't think it's been that burdensome for either the AG's office or the health department. It's part of their standard consumer protection responsibilities. Any other questions?

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much, Tom. I appreciate your time.

[Tom Neltner, National Director, Unleaded Kids (formerly Environmental Defense Fund)]: And I really appreciate the deliberations that you've given this and your efforts. Thank you very much.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Bill, did you wanna, sure.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Remind me again what Tom's

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Yes, title Tom.

[Tom Neltner, National Director, Unleaded Kids (formerly Environmental Defense Fund)]: Am Tom Meldner, I've been working on lead poisoning prevention for forty years from Indiana and nationally. I am a chemical engineer and a lawyer. I've worked making drugs, pesticides, food additives. I've also worked in the advocacy side. I'm currently the national director of unleaded kids. And before that, I've been working on lead and food for about ten years, mostly with the Environmental Defense Fund.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Okay, great. Thanks. I just wanted to try and remember. I know we had heard some of that, but yeah,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I should

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: have done that. Thank you.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Okay, thank you. Bye.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: All

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: right, while we're all still seated here, why don't we, we can wrap up this section of testimony.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: Thank you, mister chairman. I'm in committee for record. Bill Driscoll with Associated Industries of Vermont. We represent the manufacturing sector, primarily in Vermont, but also, you know, try to address generic national issues as well. Perrigo has been a member of ours for many years. We also work very closely with national associations representing food manufacturers beyond the membership of INCA, who you've heard from. So, sort of reflecting feedback that we've gotten sort of broadly for the industry. I think just to stipulate from the outset, I think our primary recommendation for the committee is still to proceed with the bill as you passed it last week, and then come back as early as next year to revisit the issue to see what further action may be warranted for infant formula. We'll have the FDA recommendations by then. I think that's an important first step. Maybe we have some indication what other states are thinking about doing, and that would be a better context. That being said, I do want to offer some thoughts on, as you try to think about whether or not to do a trigger mechanism and what we would recommend you think about as you do that. The purpose of these sorts of triggers, and they certainly have been, have been doing this for twenty five years. They've been posed in the past. They're usually not actually ultimately adopted. I think it's pretty rare that these sort of triggers have been put into place, in part because they're kind of complicated. But I think it's important to sort of think through what their what their purpose is and therefore how they ought to be designed or or if you're actually gonna go forward, you know, what you gotta take into account. You know, the purpose of of them, obviously, is to ensure that whatever Vermont does, it's in the context of a market transformation so that from you know, Vermont's not doing any of that. Very small market. You know, it can either make it very complicated or possibly or maybe just not worth doing for a manufacturer to whether it's labeling or or product content or anything like that if it's just Vermont. It's not to say that, you know, it definitely wouldn't happen. I mean, we've we've seen problems for Vermont when they've had sort of state only requirements. You know, the GMO issue was was an interesting one. But that's the main purpose. It's supposed to make sure that if we're going to put a trigger in there, it reflects a situation where the market is transforming. It's going to be a viable proposal. And that's often dependent. It can be different from product to product or what the requirement is. We have to have a sort of a critical mass. And that's generally population determined, rather than, say, a given number of states. I would have to observe I would have to check, but maybe the Legis Council might be able to have some insight. I strongly suspect that if we have any any two other states without regard to population, that would probably be the lowest trigger Vermont has ever considered for this sort of thing. Because you've got a situation where, say, like, Wyoming, Alaska, or the Dakotas, where you're not really increasing the market presence of Vermont very much.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: That's not likely.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: But regardless, in other words, the important thing is to pair your target with a population mass. So beyond that, I think there's sort of three things to consider then. If you're going to have a trigger that makes sure that we are dealing in the context of a critical market mass and and consistency so that we're not having, like, Vermont only and those current complications. You know, there's there's the there's the threshold. Right? There's the sort of number. And again, what constitutes a sufficient number in any given market depends from product to product. I don't know what the magic number is for infant formula. I think a useful benchmark is probably the mass that has made the baby food requirements something that folks are comfortable signing on to. And that right now is 60 plus between, I think, 63,000,000 people, not including Vermont, in those states that have adopted baby food. It's roughly not quite almost 20% of the population. You know, I would be surprised if that isn't sufficient. I don't know, you know, if there's a number lower than that, that would be enough. But you need to you need to figure a target population that is going to have a critical market mass. You want to make sure that what you're asking that trigger to constitute, in other words, is it just people passing an infant formula bill? Or what is it that those states are actually requiring for that labeling for infant formula? How consistent does it have to be? Does it be word for word? Is it more generalized? Obviously, the more consistent, the better. And then the third element or the third question is, what is it that's actually going to be triggered? And there can be a range and have been arranged in these sort of discussions. On the one extreme, you know, a specific pre written statute goes into effect, you know, on whatever day that determination is made. On another on the other side, you have it triggers the legislature to make a decision. In other words, usually in the context of a responsible agency will tell you, Okay, this trigger has been met. These are the states that have done something. This is what they have done. You can throw in this is what we recommend the legislature do. That gives you the opportunity to then make an informed decision as to what to do. Now these three elements, particularly the level and the nature of the decision or result, are probably the two most important ones, and they can kind of interact with each other. You know, the higher the threshold, the more people that you need to have triggered the decision, the more likely the market is to be transformed. Hopefully, they'll be consistent within that group. And it makes the decision to go ahead with actual Vermont requirements easier. But if you have a relatively lower threshold or you're not especially if you're not sure, you can't really if you don't have an analysis as to what that number is that's appropriate for that market, that makes the what the actual result is all that more important to get right. And what we would recommend is at a minimum, you know, certainly we would recommend, you know, I guess I would I would speculate at least California, not just any random states. But I think it would be critically important to have the result of that trigger being reached, whether it's the AG or the Department of Health, whoever you want to make in charge, that they determine that that trigger has been reached, they assess what's been done, and then they come to you with telling you what's been done, and even they can throw in their own recommendation as to what you should do in terms of actually implementing that. Now, what would be the benefits of that? One, it gets back to one of our underlying concerns is, I the I don't know if it's the final or the initial, but the FDA is supposed to be reporting things. I think their target was this April. I don't know if they'll meet that target, who knows? But presumably this year, there'll be a lot more clarity about what the FDA is gonna be requiring or recommending. So you'll have that in the context of the report. You'll have, hopefully, an opportunity to determine whether this target is actually gonna be moving the market. You'll be able to see in detail what what states have done. There may be you know, how much consistency is there among states? Is that state action actually lining up with what Vermont has sort of preloaded or wanted to preload or not? And making those sort of transformation or, you know, making those adjustments so that when Vermont actually does enact something, you know it's in the right context and doing and doing everything that you wanna do and and really linking up with the other states appropriately. To folks who feel like they want to do something, and I'm not disparaging that, mean, to do something to at least signal or whatnot. I think if you put into law, we are looking for this kind of action nationally, we are going to have recommendations that threshold is met. I think that does make a formal signal of this is our intention, this is where we want things to go. And I think that can be encouraging to industry and to other states and to the feds even to kind of go in that direction. So again, I think leaving the bill as it is and simply coming back next year and thinking about all this then kind of accomplishes all that or allows that to proceed with maximum flexibility. But if you're going to put in a trigger, it would be our strong recommendation at a minimum to have the result of that be a reported recommendation, and then you act rather than having everything just more or less automatically on an on an agency check that x number of people have done something.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Great. Thank you, Bill. Any questions? Representative Lipsky.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah, and correct me and I'll save it for later, but this is more of a discussion, Martin, because there were different members here and I walked in and it seemed like people decided something. So it's a discussion issue. It's relevant to the triggering or the words bringing provision to the AG's office. Can I bring that up now,

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: or would you mind? Is it a question, or is it a committee discussion?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: It it could be either.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: I would say while we have the witness, if you want to

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: pause it or Wait for the committee to Okay.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Alright. Thank you. Sorry.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Representative O'Brien? No, Bill, this

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: doesn't specifically have to do with your suggestions, but assume you knew something about the Perrigo plant in Georgia and I was just looking at it's being phased out completely in 2027. I was just wondering if it was, was it cited there originally because of access to protein? Non fat dairy milk.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: Right. So I'm not speaking for that company. I not consulted with them to do that or anything like that. So I'm just as an outside observer, that plant has been there for years and years and years and years. I think it's gone through I wouldn't Well, I know at least definitely two ownerships, I think three, maybe four ownerships over the, I think, probably decades. I strongly suspect it was located for proximity to the dairy infrastructure. Would think I don't that would be my hopefully educated guess. As far as and again, I'm not privy to it's my understanding that the fate of that plant is not currently fully decided. So I don't know that they're not going to go. Don't know that they're gonna yeah, I don't know what they're gonna do. But I think it's an evolving question. And I'm very hopeful that obviously that they do not leave.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I was just thinking for our committee, and it's interesting how all the nexus of these things like infant formula, but this is related to dairy. Interested in a plant in Wisconsin. And so as far as agriculture goes, four fifty jobs. It seems like this might be an interesting follow-up discussion. If there's a way if there's something we

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: could do to have it stay here.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: That's okay. Are they a member of an organization that you represent, Bill? Well, they're a member of ours, and they're a member of INCA.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: I don't know what other organizations. Okay. Regardless of what happens, it might be interesting to get some testimony if they are interested down the road just in letting us know how that business and industry works and its nexus with Ag.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: I would certainly be happy to reach out to them and see if some sort of tour or some other thing. I don't know how much they want to get into the middle of all this right now. Well, I understood. Michelle?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah. Your job is representing industry and our job is representing Vermonters and at this point, baby Vermonters. And one of the things I just wanna point out is that pretty often Vermont has passed legislation around that cause restrictions and things. And it has yet to cause our ability to purchase products to reduce. So for example, starting in 2024, we've been passing policies, laws that restrict the ability of companies to put certain chemicals, like PFAS, for We've restricted the ability to put certain products in menstrual products. We've made all kinds of guidelines. And so far, we have been able to get those products. The market does adjust. And so your job is to make it so that the market adjusts more slowly. So it's easier for your constituents, if you want to call them that. Our job is to try and get this information, which we keep hearing that formula is so tested, it's so careful, it's so monitored. Great. All we want is to be able to have that information available to Vermonters and trying to make it less easy for Vermonters to get information about what might be even a tiny amount of poison for their baby that doesn't feel like it should be a complicated thing. So you're doing your job. We're doing our job, and personally, I feel like we're ready to move forward and go to the floor.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: And I appreciate, actually, I'd like to address, you've raised a number of good points, which I think would be good to address. First of it says move more slowly or whatnot. We often do care about the pace of change, but that's usually within the context of what's achievable. That often comes up in terms of chemical regulations and finding substitutes and things like that. I've been intimately involved with all the PFAS and all that chemical regulations, again, going back years and years and years. And I can say that overwhelmingly, I would say that every restriction that we have put in with regard to let's take PFAS, for example, what we have actually done very hard to do, and we have actually done very successfully, is to work with the proponents of that legislation and form it, adapt it, so that it is actually in line with market transformation. There's very little, I can't think off the top of my head, of maybe some of it. Like, for example, the things that we did most recently with regard to cosmetics and apparel, things like that, were all things that were done already in California and New York and other states. So in other words, that there has been a market transformation that we have conformed with, and that's been our usually, that's our primary effort when things like that come up. So okay, soon can the what is the industry doing? How soon can it do it? What's everybody else doing? And trying to blend that together, especially we can. And it's happened quite that's usually the way things turn out. I was not involved in the GMO thing, but I know that that was an example where Vermont went on its own, and there was a market interruption. Now the fact that there was federal changes that I think kind of subsumed everything, kind of saved us all, but it might it's there there can be consequences for Vermont doing something that either it alone does or or such a small group or an inconsistent group does that there can be problems. And actually, reminds you, I do want you guys haven't talked about it much yet, but let's come up with some discussions. The provision that you have in there for like the emergency authority to lift this requirement for infant formula, You know, we always like escape valves and, you know, and and variance options and things like that, if there's an emergency. I just would point out that I think the way it's worded right now is if there's a determination that there is a shortage, if that's the point that that decision is made, it's kind of almost too late. I mean, you don't want to be at a point where there is a shortage and then try to change things and hope that supply chains come in and address that. So I don't see that that provision is a panacea for the other concerns we have with what may be required, but you can certainly keep that there. But I would I would recommend if you do, it should be a little bit more robust and forward looking than simply responding to something once there is a crisis.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Are there any other questions for the witness? Did you wanna follow-up questions? I have two responses. And you have to go, yeah.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah, and I need to We

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: don't need to, generally speaking, like, speak at the witness if you

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: have questions. Something that he said, I find is not entirely accurate or at least there's exceptions to that. So, like, you just made a statement that with, like, with the PFAS issues, we were following along where other states had led. And there's actually two examples. One of them is S20, which was in 2021. It was we were the first to put PFAS ban on firefighting foam, food packaging, skin wedge carpets, etcetera. That was in 2021. And in 2024, as '25, we were the first. Again, it was PFAS issues. We were restricting cookware, clothing, children's products. So these are things that happened a while ago that that have already passed. And I actually and but I need to

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: go get my car And we can talk more about that, but that's it's not the case that we would did that alone. We were actually following other states. So I'm very happy to talk to you about that.

[Unidentified Representative]: My my only comment is, Michelle, you're not setting the standards, are you, for heavy metals and baby food with this amendment?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I am not. You're not. I am not, but I have

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: a strong feeling about the We're gonna let

[Unidentified Representative]: FDA set the standards and then we're just gonna look for them being available for consumers to look at.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Unidentified Representative]: That's what we're asking for, right?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: We're looking to work together to make Vermont the best it can be for babies. Yes, thank you, Michelle. Hi, sorry, my car is at the shot.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: All right, thank you. Representative Brian. One

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: quick comment, I mean, I'm just looking at Perrigo infant formula products. And the one thing you notice first when you look at them, they all are labeled non GMO right on the front. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: The in my this predict the GMO debate predates my time here too. Not mine. Yeah. My recollection is that we we saw labels on Campbell's soup, and we saw labels on M and M's that were a result of what Vermont did. And it was only after that was already happening that the federal government went in and changed the law that prevented Vermont's law from actually happening.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: So not having been personally involved and subject to a check, I believe that there were inventory interruptions, but because of the timing of the federal action.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Inventory into Like

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: empty shelves and things like that. But the time frame was relatively short because the feds acted. You're still Yeah. This is my again, I wasn't personally involved. I'm just going off of memory. Thank you, Bill.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Thank you for your testimony.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: Thanks, James. And I'll Anything comes up, certainly

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: we have. I appreciate it. Just to process check-in, when the committee has an amendment to look at and vote on, we will or take a straw poll on. That's all we're really charged with doing. We'll call the committee together. Greg's not here today. But, Greg, if you're available via iPhone, we can have you do that. And Michelle stepped out. So but we don't even have the amendment. So and I think Lynch Council is still drafting that as far as I know. And I should say the amendment is not a committee amendment. Individually, we can participate in that. But strictly speaking, it's not something that we're crafting as a group here. Reverend, if you will speak.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Thank you. I've given thought that I'm supportive of some kind of amendment. Like, one thing, hearing about one state, two states. I think we for me, it would be very important to include the state of California. Now, normally, I'm somewhat hostile with some of these things, but why I feel it's so important to have California included is because of their capacity in, you know, research, testing. They may be the fourth or fifth largest economy on the planet, and they have more data laboratories, scientists, testing availability than collectively half the other states combined. So I think they would be important. We know historically on environmental or consumer protection, they've been a leader. So like I say, in this case, I think them being part of that input would be very valuable to this subject. I think we should have been tied to them next year. That's for another discussion. Anyway, I'll end that

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Point. Yeah, thank you, Representative Bartholomew.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I'm trying to understand your point better. I don't know why where a laboratory is located makes any difference, because if there's certain states that have enacted this, but the laboratories aren't in those states, that doesn't mean those laboratories can't do the testing.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Okay. Think I'm missing your point. It's I don't know about the laboratories. I know we have great lab, you know, 20 miles down the road, but it has limitations. So maybe the laboratory isn't the key component of California. What they have is a long history of advocacy and economic capacity. We wanna ask a question of the Department of Health in Vermont, and they have to go through a process of possibly hiring another person just to field those questions for this one a year or something. So, I think California in this case would be would be important, and it may not be their laboratory of capacity, but their general GDP. Yeah,

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: I think having California participate just in terms of the sheer number of people and the impact it has on the market is to the extent that I understand that the amendment has included California, that's the reason.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: It's okay. Then I want to

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: understand that's important. The big population.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: You don't even need two, right? If California goes, we could

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Yeah, California on its own is bigger than, well, big Is it still a big state? I guess it's bigger than Texas still, yeah.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I just saw 40,000,000, 40, I forget, got a little. I did have a- Thank you, Nothing else to say, though. I agree with everything about California and its importance to world markets. So obviously that's why we are focusing on if California goes, we will agree with that. But I think we need to keep in mind that we're doing this because we think it's important. And the reason that we don't want to lead it is because so so we all feel it's important, but we don't want to be the leader because we recognize that our markets are small. So why would we rely on a single state that might not and we we have no idea what their legislature, what their work load is like, what they're gonna focus on. They might not pass it, whereas if other states do, I just hate to We think it's the right thing to do. Put all of our eggs into one basket just doesn't make sense to me. And I think a good compromise here is California or at least two other states.

[Unidentified Representative]: Yeah. And I agree with Michelle that North, South Dakota, or Wyoming are are based.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: They're not gonna be the leaders.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: It's all too high states.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I I don't think they're even considering.

[Unidentified Representative]: So I'm not worried about We're

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: looking at, you know, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware,

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Illinois. Maryland, Esme.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: And these are all states that have, you know, one to 5,000,000 people in them, all

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: of them larger than Vermont.

[Unidentified Representative]: Could be Indiana where Mr. Nelter is from.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: Yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: We don't know

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: considering it. There is a funny footnote to that GMO labeling. Michael Grady told me a story that Pirate's booty, butter cheesy pop was actually pulled from Vermont shelves. And his kids were really mad at him because they were dicks, and he works on the pops.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Because it wasn't labeled according to the Vermont So

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: they just pulled it. There were examples of it, but right. It contains GMO ingredients.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Ingredients engineered from

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: Exactly. California. They're 39 and a half million. Okay. Mhmm.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Fourth biggest economy. Bigger than Japan.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: So we're on the floor of one. When and if this amendment ever appears, we will gather to review it. Yesterday, we saw that happen in the well of the house during a recess, I think, so that's a possibility.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: It may have involved me, actually.

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: Okay. Otherwise, we're back here tomorrow at 09:30. And I do expect that we will see each other again in this other context, the amendment context. But if not, 09:30 tomorrow. And please prepare for a long floor of executive.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Like, will it be dark outside?

[Rep. James Masland (Chair)]: I don't think so, because we're in daylight savings now. Think it will be.