Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The bill version passed by the senate and also some marked up language that so whatever you wanted how do we want to see it here, Katie? Do have to?

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'll pull up the highlighted draft.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Okay. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: that's Senate amendment on our committee pages, Senate amendment version two. We passed this bill before it crossed over. I don't remember the timing exactly. Senate Health and Welfare Committee, the concession of it, not Senate AG. And remember, it started out here in one of the health committees. I don't remember which one, and we took it. So no surprise, really, that it went to health and welfare in the Senate. Ready anytime you're ready.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. I'll share my screen.

[Unidentified committee member]: I'm have a Tesla battery of these things. You never have

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: to charge.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay, here we go. Good afternoon. Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It's good

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to be back with you. So what you have in front of you is the report of the committee on health and welfare. And what I tried to do is retain their changes with highlighting as they went through the process. Sometimes I think it's really nice to see the actual language that was added or changed. That is what you have in front of you, and that's why we're not looking at the as passed by House and Senate version. I'll walk you through those changes. The first one is in this first subsection. Instead of limits, it now says regulatory limits to pick up the same language that's in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. This subsection D in section one, it's the same content, but the sentence itself was reorganized. So that comment is highlighted to remind me of the reorganization.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I believe it was just for clarity.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Can we just pause on that? Sure.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It reads, Without requiring the provision of a universal product code or proof of purchase for each baby food product sold, manufactured, delivered, held or offered for sale in the state, a manufacturer of baby food shall make publicly available on its website for the duration of the product shelf life a final baby food product plus one month. And then we have what is on that. But that first lead in is what was reorganized. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: same words, just

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: In order. Yeah, the clauses were swung. And then there's this new subsection H. A few minutes before Senate Health and Welfare was going to vote, there was an issue raised about allowing for time for federal labeling requirements. The other states who have passed this legislation don't have language like this in it. But to recognize the fact that federal law would take precedence over state law, this phrase was added, and nothing in this section shall be construed to conflict with federal law or regulation. So this is recognizing to the extent that there are federal requirements with regard to labeling and the timeframe for labeling that those take precedence over this statute.

[Unidentified committee member]: Representative Nelson. So this is in the baby food section or does this count for both sections?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: It'll be in both. So to start, the infant formula isn't part of the initial part

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: of the bill unless the trigger is met. So this is part of the baby food. And then when the trigger is meant that the infant formula is just integrated into this section.

[Unidentified committee member]: So, this is saying that, am I correct in this? I don't ever assume, so I'm going to ask that if the trigger is met on well, I can wait till we get the formula.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's okay.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay. So if the trigger is met on formula, two states are California.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Mhmm.

[Unidentified committee member]: They have to change their label. This gives them the up until the FDA approves their label. This gives them the opportunity to continue doing business until such requirement is met with the FDA.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This says that if there is a certain requirement or timeline that is in place because of FDA regulation, that timeline can continue to take its course.

[Unidentified committee member]: Thank you.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: In subsection two, this is where the infant formula is added. In subsection G, you had this section that talks about infant formula and that the AG could verify if there wasn't enough to meet the need, that they could suspend the application of this provision to infant formula. The AG's office testified downstairs that they would like to confer with somebody before making that decision. So Health and Welfare chose consultation with the Commissioner of Health. And also, the AGs testified that just the fact of it might be too late by the time there's evidence of insufficient formula, and instead at a time of declining supply might be the time to pull that trigger and pause. So that was added in too. So now, very inarticulately said that, what this new sentence says is, The Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner of Health, shall suspend the application of this section to infant formula if the AG verifies that there is insufficient infant formula in the state to meet the need or evidence of declining supply. So for either of those two reasons, there either is already insufficient or there's evidence of a declining supply of infant formula, then this provision as applicable to infant formula is on hold.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Represent us.

[Unidentified committee member]: So who would be responsible for the trigger? The mom going to the store or the stores realize that they're having a hard time meeting their suppliers are having a hard time meeting a requirement, or does commission, you know, the health commissioner have food cops that are out there making sure that things are up to snuff?

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Not completely sure I understand your question.

[Unidentified committee member]: So so how does the trigger

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: You said coops or cops? Cops. Cops.

[Unidentified committee member]: Cops. It's like the seat cops I talked

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: about the other day. I just wanted

[Unidentified committee member]: to Is there who how will the trigger of evidence of declining supply? What will be the who who's responsible for that trigger?

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The attorney general's office. And they issue the second sentence is if they have this evidence and feel that there's a declining supply of infant formula, then the attorney general's office posts on its office's website the specific dates to which this provision is suspended with regard to infant formula.

[Unidentified committee member]: But who notifies the AG's office of declining supply?

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I think they either proactively do it or they work with the commissioner of health to do it.

[Unidentified committee member]: And they would work with the supermarkets or You see what I'm saying? Yeah. You know, if I go into Shaw's, I'm 60 gonna be 63 years old. I don't go down the infant formula aisle at all. But I imagine if I was go down there and look and saw a bunch of blank spaces, I can make a phone call. Who who is gonna notify the attorney general? We're having a hard time meeting our demand. You know, our supply is dwindling. Is is that up to the the grocers association? Is it up to consumers? Is it all the above?

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There's no legal obligation in the bill for anybody to notify the attorney general's office. This puts the burden on the attorney general's office to identify when there is a shortage and to respond to it.

[Unidentified committee member]: So when they go shopping, they better check Shaw's infant formula aisle.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This is a policy decision.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. I understand. I just wanna make sure we have something that will trip that so that it happens and it doesn't. I wanna make sure that the mothers have product, safe product, you know, preferably with the product eventually. But just who how is it triggered? Is there something which So so I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: think that the the language doesn't answer the question. If everything I'm right, Katie, it doesn't really say

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It doesn't put a burden on consumers to report to the attorney general's office when there's a shortage. But that there are policy choices you could make if you would like entities to be reporting to the attorney general's. I think you probably have a May situation that consumers may report if they're observing this to the attorney general's office. Or you could put an obligation on the attorney general's office to consult with more individuals at a certain frequency of intervals if they see how the supply of infant formula is doing. I think you have different options of how you would like to see that carried out.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Burtt.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Is there a commission or someone within our government that they could consult alongside the Commissioner of Health who might have more of a knowledge of the supply of baby formula in the state of Tennessee?

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't have an answer to that. That is the policy choice that health and welfare, but if you have any thoughts, I'm happy to look into it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: When we put a flag here that a couple of questions, But right now, there's nothing in the language that says anybody has to tell anything or may tell anything to the AG. There is a section earlier where we say that a consumer can reach out to the AG. That's in the baby food section, I think.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Which will all be integrated into one section, list.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So then at that point, we do have language that the consumer may notify. The

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: consumer 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 report the baby food product. That is slightly different because it's about a violation versus a shortage. But you could put there as being sold in violation of this section or that there is a declining supply, the consumer may report that to the office. We could wordsmith that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right. Well, don't we keep moving on here just to see what we've got before we get to the end of the bill.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This is Heather Surprenant.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sorry Greg, I can

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: wait till the end. It's right in this section, that's what I asked. Shall I suspend the application of this section to infant formula? Could that be done at, not necessarily when we're trying to stand this new legislation up, but it could be done any time. Say it's been in place for ten years, but there looks like a decline in supply, does that mean that they can suspend it ten years from now on to say it's actually in effect? Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Lieutenant Lipsky chairman. You know, we

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: in recent history, we've this specific issue came up, and there was an audit during the pandemic. All of sudden, there were no there's no toilet paper on any shelf. You'd see a whole aisle, paper goods, napkins, paper towels, calling. And that led to the declarations by the governor to include forest products supply chain as essential work. Farmers relied on sawdust in order to bed to cows and that sort of thing. And the same thing happened, there was a and some of it had to do with floods or initiative in Mexico or some branch where we were no longer able to access my baby formula, and there was a shortage in that maybe three years ago, post pandemic. I remember. Yeah. So consumers notice immediately if there's a shortage or supply. And, I mean, I think the consumers wants to drive. You know, when there's a shortage of fuel, the world rules are not charging excessive prices. You know? I'm going back to the nineteen seventies when there was a gasoline shortage. So it seems that consumers drive the market, but if there's no supply, they're gonna be calling. There's also

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I thought, and I doubt this is where you were going with that, that not too long ago, there was an infant formula. That's that's true. And it wasn't a secret.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: No. And it was on

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: nightly news. I suspect if there's a shortage of infant formula that the attorney general is not going be left in the dark about it. Anyway, can come back to this question, but let's keep going.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This is only highlighted to update the subsection designation. This section three was added to have a parallel provision to the baby product provision in section one that says that the stock supply that grocers or whoever retailers have in possession at the time of the effect of the provision, they can still sell that. But we don't know what that date will be for infant formula. We know with regard to baby food because we have a date certain, but with infant formula, have this contingency. So this session law does the same thing, but it doesn't give us a date certain. The provisions in section two, that means infant formula, shall not restrict the continued sale of infant formula inventory in stock in Vermont prior to the effective date of Section two pursuant to Section 4B, which is the contingency. So what that is saying, again, is the infant formula that's in stock in Vermont, when Section two, the infant formula section takes effect, can still be sold. Same as baby food. But for baby food, again, we have the date certain that we know when that piece is going to take effect.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay, so in section four, the highlighted blue, and it says in section three, infant from no stock supply shall take effect on January 1. Is that prudent to have that there when we don't know when the other states if when or if the other states are gonna move forward?

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So yes. So all that's doing is making that section three take effect. But as you'll see Section

[Unidentified committee member]: three takes effect, which says there won't be anything prior to 4B, the law. Thank you for that.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, it's just the effect of the section. Yep, thank you. Yep. Section B, this language on line 11 is significant. So this is your contingency section. And this is saying when California and two other states have comparable requirements in law, then Vermont's infant formula section takes effect. The language that you sent over to the house-

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Thank It's

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: a Yeah, thank you.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: The other

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: body is always a safe fit

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: for me.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, I have done that. Said when they have passed a law. And just the point that you just brought up is that sometimes when you pass a law is a different date when the law takes effect. So there was a request that this be changed to when the laws are in effect in the other states, not just passed in the other states. So this is what this language does. That's it. That's it. We've made I think so. We've made it to the end.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right. So before we lose, Ledge Council, who I'm sure has another appointment at 01:30, do we have any other questions about the language, the impact, effect? I will say that while we often have maybe our impression of the work done in the other body is that maybe it doesn't rise to the level of the work that we do here, I think this is pretty good work.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. Well, I think you had

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: a pretty good coach.

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

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: And go ahead. Thank you, chair. So I know there's been talk about possibly extending the deadline for the labeling of infant formula so the industry has time to make an adjustment. Everybody's talked about that. It's not a great thing. But wondering if that we were I think I did hear that nothing in the section shall be construed with federal law regulation. Would that encompass that?

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. So if there is any type of federal regulation that is requiring a certain timeframe for labeling or if there is a future regulation that conflicts with what you've put in the statute, then the federal FDA would take precedence, that regulation would take precedence here. Sorry, what

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: does the turquoise indicate on here?

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That made that at a later That change made at a later point in time.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: But it's These are both The yellow and the blue are both changes from the Senate.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They're only The difference in colors is only significant to the Senate process. Alright. Got it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I just was good question. Wanted to be sure. So if we look at the version as passed by the senate, it's just it just doesn't have the color.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It doesn't have the colors.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Maybe some other format.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. I've been working really hard to try to retain colors in the other body's drafts when I come over, because I think it is helpful to see exactly where the language was changed and reconsidered.

[Unidentified committee member]: Helpful. Thank you. I'm gonna go over some sarcasm with you and I present this on the floor, just maybe tell me I can't do it or I can't Alright. Both consult

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: with that.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Maybe you'd like to counsel the

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: If it's your main

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: humor or

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Out of luck if you do.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: If you happen to run into senator Gulick on the way downstairs, if you're going downstairs, if she'd like to come in still, we'd be happy to hear.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. I think I'm not sure if they are still on the floor or

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They were wrapping up, and I know she had mentioned it to me today that she had planned to come up, so I'm not sure. But for Katie, lunch is only open for another twenty minutes or so, so that could

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: be two. Okay, thank you.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Let me know if you need anything.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So we have, thank you, Katie. We have Thank Bill Driftstle, who had asked to speak, if you want to come up, Bill.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: Thank you, mister chairman, had a chance to talk to some of the folks about our concerns here, but not everybody. You could catch up. Bill Driscoll for associate of Vermont. Did he did a good job of sort of pointing out that sort of at the last minute in the Senate Committee, when we try to, you know, in under crunch time, there were three issues of various ways of timing on things that we flagged that the committee then tried to address. There was the what do you do with the infant formula that's in stock in that transition period. There's being clear about the trigger being the effective date of the other states. And then there was accommodating the FDA review of labeling. And there were changes in the bill, as highlighted here, that sought to address all three of those things, which we certainly appreciated. With regard to the stock and the effective date, I think the language that they did certainly addressed that issue. However, the language which they intended to solve the FDA labeling issue, while we certainly appreciate the intent that they were trying to fix that, the actual language doesn't actually fix the issue. And unfortunately, there really wasn't time to try to address that in the Senate. So just to sort of walk through what the concern is and then, you know, proposed fix. So way the so first of all, you know, labels, any label for infant formula has to meet fairly strict FDA regulatory requirements. So if there's a new label, the industry will come up with a proposed label design or a new proposed label and submit that to FDA review. Now, the rub comes in sort of what happens next, because as written here, the bill says is nothing in this law shall conflict with FDA regulations and requirements. However, there's a difference between technically what's required in the law and what's actually practiced. Technically, if the FDA does not respond to that submitted new label, After ninety days, technically, legally, the companies could proceed with that label, regardless of the FDA confirming that it's okay. In practice, no company does that. Because nobody, no company wants to invest in a brand new label, print it, ship it, and then have the FDA eventually come back to them and say, well, actually, you know, this doesn't really comply here, there or there. So as a practical matter, they will not proceed until they get until the FDA says, we have no further questions, we have no objections to this label. And this gets very technical, but, you know, lawyers about technicalities in the legal departments of companies. As far as this language goes, it's in that's in the bill. Again, we appreciate the intent. But, technically, after that ninety day window, if the FDA has not yet signed off on the label, and therefore the companies are not gonna proceed, and this is putting aside the point that then they have to actually manufacture and distribute the lens, technically, there's no real conflict per se, because they are legally allowed to go ahead, even though in practice they won't. Therefore, you could still end up in a situation where Vermont could be requiring that there be the new labels, but the FDA has not signed off yet, even though technically the companies could, they're not gonna proceed until the FDA does. So there are different ways you could try to address that concern. Our primary recommendation would have been to just have the AEG come back to legislative recommendations when the trigger is met, and then whatever timing issues just be addressed then. I know a lot of people would prefer to have something that's just automatic off the shelf. So to try to accommodate that, what we would suggest is an additional provision in the effective dates. So you have everything that's in the bill now. So in other words, you have Section B, you have B in Section four, which says California or two other states, they have laws that are in effect. The AEG certifies that, then it's an affected Vermont. That can be the baseline of the default. In order to avoid a situation where that timing might come when the FDA has said that a label is okay yet, we would recommend having sort of a C, a separate provision that says, Notwithstanding the trigger in B. That infant formula will not be required to have the new label. This will not apply to an infant formula sooner than a year after the FDA has given an okay to the label. And what will that do? That will provide some time for once there is approval or sign off by the FDA, then you can have that to the actual production of the new label and goes into the Congress and whatnot. But that would at least provide it, and depending on what happens in the other states, that might be a moot issue, because say a state passes a law, and by the time this law is triggered in Vermont, companies have already submitted a new label to the FDA. It's been approved, but that other state and whatnot, because presumably there everybody should be looking for a national label. But because but if we're gonna have, like, an automatic trigger, we don't know what the other states are gonna require for timelines, we don't know whether or not the FDA will have said everything's okay with a new label today, we need to build in some sort of buffer or some sort of provision to accommodate that uncertainty. So that's what we would recommend is simply saying, notwithstanding the trigger that's in the bill now, if it hasn't been at least a year since the FDA approved a label, or provided notice that a label was acceptable, that it doesn't apply until then. So that's and I I have language I can send to the alleged counsel. I mean, mean, I'm sorry, to to Patty. I've sent I think I've sent some to to some folks, but I'll just send that right now anyway. But that's essentially it. It's basically just making sure that we don't run-in a situation where there's a conflict between this is required in Vermont, but the companies aren't prepared to move forward because they haven't heard back from the FDA.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, questions?

[Unidentified committee member]: Why one year? Excuse me.

[Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, go ahead.

[Unidentified committee member]: Why one year from when they get okay for their approval? Yeah, I'm just asking the question.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: Yeah, and I'll be very honest with you. We're trying to accommodate people's feedback and that's enough to be sure that we have enough time, because obviously they're not going to make these new labels until I'm just kidding. So taking a guess as to what would be enough time to make sure there's time to actually produce the labels, update the packaging and get it

[Unidentified committee member]: on the shelves. And roll out the stock that's on shelf.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: It may take longer, may take less time, but to the extent you want to put a hard requirement in the bill now, we had to pick a time. So that was our guess. And I mean, in the future, if we get a better refinement, happy to discuss changing that time. I mean, would be a good sort of default guess.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay. Yeah. And you're not you don't believe that up here where, you know, first of all, says, nothing in this section shall be construed to conflict with federal law and back up further. You know, it talks about we won't we won't run stuff out of stock. We're not gonna we're, know, you know, in consultation with the Commissioner of Health shall suspend the application as problem evidence of a decline in supply. Mhmm. You don't think that's suffice to discover that time gap?

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: Sure. So the declining supply thing, that's that's a little honestly, there can be just about wording a little bit better, but it's kind of like closing the barn door after the horse is gone. I mean, if you're dealing with a situation where there's a declining supply, you're already having a pretty serious problem that it's not a simple flip a switch and then the issue is solved. And the sell through language that kind of has the same problem as the conflicting language. In other words, say the two other states, we've reached their effect their rate effect. That means it's in effect that that means it's ineffective in Vermont. That means that's okay for stuff that's on

[Unidentified committee member]: the shelf then. But if the companies aren't going to provide the new stock until that label is approved, approved in the system. That gap is not covered by that sell through provision. But you don't suppose that if California or two other states are working on this same legislation

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

[Unidentified committee member]: They they're not gonna have language in there as well that says, you know, understanding the label and changes and whatnot. So they'll they may push their effective date out. To accommodate that. To accommodate that. So when Vermont takes effect The way one's already been effect.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: And one would certainly hope that they do. I would hope that they do, but we don't know. People you know, states pass that legislation all the time because this approach of this bill is to sort of fire and forget. In other words, you're setting up criteria, and this is going to go in effect regardless. Right? There's nothing else in this bill that requires that those other states take that stuff into consideration. So we don't know whether they will or not, If they do, then it's a moot because they will be taken care of. But if they don't, we need something in our law to protect us against that scenario. Representative Burtt?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: For clarification, when did you say you were the date of one year to start?

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: It's FDA when So the FDA will notify the companies, We have no more questions or concerns about your labels. They're sorry for concern. So that's the date where the companies would then, of course, proceed to actually print and manufacture the labels, put them So the one year is meant to accommodate sort of actually getting the new labels into the system.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Are we gonna have time for a committee discussion after this?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, and I think we'll still see if Senator Tillot can join us before we do that. Right, I think, thank you very much. No problem. And I think what we'll do is slide right into our next bill. And then we're scheduled, I think, have Bradley until two or 02:10, something like that. We probably won't have enough time to cover and answer all our questions on H nine forty one, the municipal regulation of agriculture bill. But as Bradley is coming up to the table, I will say there is a draft, a new draft amendment on our page that we'll have Bradley pull up. It's a strike call, and I gave Bradley some feedback based on or gave him some instructions based on the feedback that I heard in committee and just through conversations last week. This is the Senate bill. This is our bill, H941, with a Senate amendment. Now I've put in a couple of additional amendments. Is

[Unidentified committee member]: this draft number 3.1? Sounds about right, yep.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I, well, I'd say Bradley will tell us it's not been edited, and that's fine. I think the key things that are different here are the treatment of the poultry exemption and the study. Gosh, is there anything else, Bradley? Well, you can walk up And and show us

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Council. So, yeah, those are the primary pieces, and hemp is added to the exclusion of growing plants. And so well, I'll walk you through the changes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I do have to leave. I have to

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: be in house environments at two.

[Dr. Lois, Assistant Attorney General (Vermont AGO)]: Okay. And

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: so, I'll walk through the changes here. So first, we're changing a little bit in the purpose section to kind of reflect the changes. I won't go over that in detail, but you those are there and highlighted for you to consider. Section two. So you'll notice that the this is H nine forty one as amended by the Senate. It includes provisions of swine waste that we discussed not too long ago. But now we're going all the way down on page four subsection B. So this is the exception from municipal regulation of agriculture for growing plants. And so this exception is meant to broaden the exception from municipal regulation of agriculture to growing plants regardless of whether it's subject to the wraps. And, and so the senate version adds boo fiber Christmas trees and a list of things. And then this version, based on instruction, adds that cannabis and hemp are excluded from this exception. Cannabis is the only thing excluded from the exception on the senate side.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We've added hemp here to this.

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Know, hemp is an agricultural product. If it's farmed subject to the wraps, then, you know, it would be, subject to the wraps. And so protected from municipal zoning, and regulation by bylaw. Cannabis is not. And, but cannabis also has other protections in the law that kind of work on this, piece in the background that give it roughly the same exception that, agriculture products get for being subject to the reps.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I mean, they're not.

[Unidentified committee member]: In 03/23, s 03/23, extensive work we did on the hemp section.

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

[Unidentified committee member]: Is hemp still subject to the wraps if upon passage of that, if it passes?

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Hemp is still yes. Hemp is still

[Unidentified committee member]: Will it still be subject to the wraps? Will it then become under control of the cannabis control board?

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Growing hemp is still subject to the rats. Growing hemp. Okay. Thank you. And this did not change from the this just changed in versions that I was sharing with representative Durfee. So, the construction of farm structures is another exemption from the municipal regulation by bylaw. And so, the construction of farm structures is subject to the wraps. And we made sure to keep this addition here that says including as defined in the RAPs rule, because farm structures as defined in statute is slightly different than farm structures as defined in the RAPs rule. In statute here, it means a building enclosure fence for housing livestock, raising horticulture or agronomic crops, or carrying out other practices associated with accepted farming practices, including a silo. And the biggest difference between that and the RAPs is waste management structures. Arguably, waste management structures are included here. But adding the caveat that waste management structures are exempt from municipal regulation by bylaw, Add some clarity there. Then we took out the poultry section from this is the section that we're discussing right here. It's the prohibition on municipal regulation bylaw. So, the poultry exemption lived here in the Senate version, and it has now moved. And so, I highlighted this E to kind of reflect that we're renumbering sections. And now the poultry exception lives in 24 VSA 4,412. And so, required provisions of prohibited effects is the name of this section. And so, notwithstanding any existing bylaw, the following land development provisions shall apply in every municipality. No bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting or assessing a fee for raising, feeding, management of a poultry flock, excluding roosters, for personal use, donation, or sale. As used in this section, poultry has the same meaning as six BSA fourteen fifty nine four, which means any domesticated bird. And so this section would permit, some ordinances, to regulate, poultry flock. It could permit things like, setbacks, requiring to have a coop, requiring fencing, limiting the number of poultry, and things of that sort. So municipalities could regulate these things, but they can't have the effect of prohibiting, raising, feeding, management of a poultry fox. This is similar to what's the bill in Maine that's going on. They kind of left it to municipalities to suss out what that means. But in statutes, kind of like the backstop where you can't prohibit this activity, but you can regulate it. Section four, I made no changes, but in the senate version of this, they brought the wraps back in to amend the wraps to conform with the statute and changes to the statute. And we've gone over those previously, so I'm scrolling past them. And now we are on page 11, section five here on page 11 adds in back in the study as it was in h nine forty one that the house sent over to the senate. This doesn't make any changes, but this adds the study back in that you folks are familiar with, and I'm happy to go over quickly. But basically, the secretary of agriculture can be a stakeholder group, that, you know, examines conflicts between landowners and livestock. And at minimum, the stakeholder group includes membership based agriculture organizations, Vermont League, Farm to Play, and individuals with expertise in local and regional planning as well as zoning administration. And then it looks at options to address conflicts between municipalities and including looking to address conflicts, including establishing expanding the rats, regulating livestock, particularly addressing stocking densities on parcels of less than 10 acres, utilizing ordinances to address livestock, protecting the right to grow food, for personal consumption, including livestock, creating rules like the cannabis control board to enforce against an operation based on health, safety, or integrity of the broader industry. And then the report is due on 01/31/2027, so the relevant committees.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And that this language is picked up verbatim from what we heard.

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, verbatim. So it doesn't necessarily, you know, other studies might list out specifically who the members are, provide a per diem and things of that sort. This bill doesn't do that, but it kind of just gives some principles.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Really, and I'm sorry that I didn't have a chance to look this over earlier, we had talked about a section that would prohibit municipalities from charging a fee. Yep.

[Dr. Lois, Assistant Attorney General (Vermont AGO)]: And so

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: is part of, 15. So section three, respond back up to page six. It's about, the poultry flock. The pile ought to show the effect of prohibiting or assessing a fee for raising, feeding, managing livestock. So of poultry.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: No bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting.

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Or assessing a fee for

[Unidentified committee member]: So they can't they couldn't charge you $10 a chicken to have chickens.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Sorry. But

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: but they're not prohibiting it, but they can regulate it, so they could do setbacks. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And then sort of the next question, under this language, could a municipality say you can have chickens or other poultry, but you can only have x number.

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think that's right. I think flock assumes at least two. But other than that, there's not a number here that prevents a municipality from saying you can't have

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: more than two birds. Hypothetically,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: CAM could do that. All right. Other sort of legal questions for Legis Council that we have then. Then we're going to go back to our other bill. Good. Bradley, I think then we'll have some discussion. We'll get back to you. I know you have other things that you're working on today. Are you free at all later in the afternoon? Maybe I can just find you.

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, if you need me later in the afternoon and you could confer with Representative Kornheiser on ways and means to permit me to present my amendment in the morning, then we could do that. Otherwise, if I you'd like

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: think because I didn't do the favor she was asking of me, so I don't think she's gonna turn around

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: and do me The for wheeling

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: and dealing. We will make it work though.

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Thank you. Yes, okay, thank you very much.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So committee, thoughts thoughts before we leave this while this one is still fresh? Anything that folks wanna say? First blush, I like it. K. Representative.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Heard about the swine. Are we just regulating swine?

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Swine waste.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Waste. What about the other animals?

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It does not include the other animals. And so that would be swine waste on parcels greater than four acres. Right? So on less than one acre, a municipality may regulate by bylaw the raising, feeding, or management of livestock. On one to four acres, they can regulate it if the Agency of Agriculture does not regulate it. So Agency of Agriculture is only going to raise regulate the raising, feeding, or managing of livestock on one to four acres if there's a sufficient land base for appropriate nutrient and waste management. So it just depends on that middle piece. And then four and above, a municipality, it's subject to the wraps but cannot regulate it, with the exception of swine waste. So if you have a farm that's four and a half acres in a downtown or village center, so those important things to remember. But if you have a farm that's five, six acres in a downtown or village center, it's important caveats because that swine waste only applies to those caveats. A municipality may regulate the swine waste by setting performance standards for dealing with it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Boston, do you think?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Yeah. I mean, two birds seems really small to me. I mean, I just did a quick definition search and chicken flocks, the definition that comes up is three to six birds, which still actually six maybe seems okay as a minimum. But, I mean, if somebody's really trying to raise chickens to either bring in income or food for themselves, two chickens is not really an adequate number. So, I mean, if we're sending another version of this back to the Senate anyways, I wouldn't mind saying backyard chicken flocks of six or more. And then if the town wants to limit them to six, at least they can have six. But I think two is small, if that's what

[Unidentified committee member]: Two is a pair, so I'll flock. I agree.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I agree as well. I wanna be mindful that we're not just talking about chickens. Would, we would have to say, the six would apply to all turkeys as well. Okay. And maybe that's fine. But unless we started enumerating every poultry animal. I mean,

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: the town actually challenged this, who determines what a flock is? I mean, a quick

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I think that would be the court. And so it would be a court to determine what the common definition of flock is.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Okay, so if the common definition is three to six, they could say, okay, you can only have three.

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, that's exactly right.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: But that seems like if the idea is we're trying to protect the right for people to have access to this as a food source, then I don't know. I would like to have the number six in it, but if you think it's gonna put a cog in the wheel and No, I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: think it's a very good point. It really doesn't.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And I'm

[Unidentified committee member]: gonna go back to my, now they're gonna be the chicken police. I think most municipalities aren't gonna go out. You know, if someone's got six or 10 chickens that are properly taken care of, they're not gonna go out there and say, you only have three because or two. I just I agree, Michelle. It doesn't make sense. I don't I mean, Essex is one of the few municipalities I know that has a number, and they have six. So, I don't know if other what's St. Albans have, Jack? There's some number, but I think

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Let's see. A 100 pound doesn't have it.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: That's that's all. Representative Burke.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: It is probably worth mentioning that the reason why we're going to older this is because of the upholstery flock, so Because of what? Because of upholstery flock. Yeah. So it's worth trying to get it right.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I suppose we could say specific to chickens, no fewer than six, and then not address other birds, other things, which would give the town more flexibility in other cases than things. It's for allowed up

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: to eight. It feels like chickens are for chickens. Not not a mane, it's just chickens.

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, and as and poultry is emu too. And so, I mean, the birds can get pretty big. And so that is We shouldn't

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: just stay out of the chicken.

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. So that I mean, obviously, that's a policy choice. But I think when kind of trying to suss out what are the effects of this bill and things of that sort, it is important to consider what animals that we are talking about. Because even the difference between chicken and turkey, the size is is quite a bit. And so it's it's worth considering those those things as well.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm gonna suggest, Bradley, that we send you off and we'll let Yes.

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Sure. I need to go.

[Bill Driscoll, Associated Industries of Vermont]: Yeah. I wonder if we Just

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: a sec. I was gonna say, let's send you off with instructions, not for today, but to add some language that gives that says specifically for chickens, it needs to be no fewer than six. Yeah. Sort of a floor. And then not address other animals.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. I You could say raising, feeding, or management of a poultry flock, excluding or you could say the management of chickens to six and then poultry flock excluding roosters, personal use, blah blah blah. Somewhere put chickens in there then leave poultry flock so you can only have two turkeys or two guinea fowl. I think that's different.

[Bradley Shoman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. And and and another thing to point out too is a court might define a flock differently. Like, I just looked it up in Merriam Webster's, and there isn't a number. And a court will go to a dictionary as part of what is the colloquial definition of a flock. So some people might think it's two, some people might think it's three, some people might think it's larger. And so is up to a court to determine, but I am out of time. So thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You're welcome. Thank you. All right, Sanpagula. Thank you for joining us.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: I have a bad back, I'm sorry. I'm all hunched over. Thank you for having me.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. And if you'd rather stand, that would be wonderful.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: Oh, thank you. I would love to have a standing desk, but I don't. So I'm happy to sit. I'm happy to sit. Thank you. What can I do for you today?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So we just had a few minutes with Legis Council walking through the changes that the Senate made to H536. And I think that the Senate passed directly what came out of your committee. So I think we had a pretty good understanding of what that was. You didn't have the opportunity to hear her or hear her questions, but we wanted just to give you an opportunity to speak to the bill as you amended it. Should also say that we then heard from a representative of the industry with a request specific to the labeling timing, and I'm not going to try to characterize that. But first, we'll give you a chance to say whatever you'd like to say, and then maybe the committee will have questions.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: All I would say is I presented my floor report, and it was very well received. The bill passed unanimously out of the Senate. And there was just a lot of, I think, feeling of collaboration and thankful for the work we had done. So we didn't have any concerns. I can tell you that much. So I'm not exactly sure what the labeling issue is. We felt like there was a lot of There was that check back mechanism with the attorney general, and there was the ability to sell off supply. And there just seemed like there were a lot of belts and suspenders on the bill. So we felt at the end of the day, everyone felt really good about it. But if there's something specific

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

[Unidentified committee member]: you, chair. Senator, talking to, in in committee, you had two senators vote against it. And I asked them what their concern was, and their concern was on the effect of labeling and how you change a label, you have to go to the FDA to get approval for a label change. I too thought that you had a lot of belt and suspenders on this and with, you know, take effect date instead of passing, you know, was was great. And and nothing in this section shall be construed and put with federal law regulation. If and this is an if, we thought that we should put in something to the fact that upon, you know, submitting a a label change, there would be a certain amount of time before that would go effect to allow FDA to okay it, and then industry to make their labels, apply their labels, move their old stock out of inventory through the consumers, or do you feel that's not needed because we have all these other safeguards in there? I guess this is my question to you.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: I really appreciate you bringing that up. And I two of my wonderful colleagues did vote no in our committee. They and I don't necessarily wanna speak for them, but they did change their vote on the Senate floor, both of them. And without patting myself on the back, they did say that my floor report actually explained some things that they didn't understand and they weren't clear about because honestly, the Consumer Reports report was so helpful to me, and we hadn't really gone over it in committee. But over that weekend, when I was preparing my floor report, I read it. I read the Florida blurb from the governor of Florida. And I so I just came to the floor with more information than some of the folks in committee had. I think it was really helpful to them, and that's why we ended up with such a great vote. But to your point, I think at the end of the day, after they fully understood the big picture, they felt comfortable with the labeling and the timeline and all sort of the check backs and the inventory sell and all of that. So that's you know, they and they did they thanked me at the end. So again, I don't want to pat myself on the back, but I think it was helpful. So, yeah, that but that is a good question. They initially had some concerns.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. Operation short speed couldn't have come out at a better time.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: Right. Right. Exactly.

[Unidentified committee member]: That really that really made us feel good about what we had

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

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: I did a great job.

[Unidentified committee member]: Industry is doing the proper things. Yep. Now they just failed for them to allow people to know.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: Yeah. You you really it was you did an awesome job. And if I was asked a question about the the company that's up in, I think, St. Albans or and I mean, was really helpful for me to look at this the great this great list of all of the various formulas to see their safety levels. I was able to say Perrigo makes a lot of really safe formulas. So that's not the issue there. So that was helpful. But yeah, no, I appreciate that. Any other questions or concerns, sir?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative. Trying to

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: get parable of state.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: All the No. It's okay.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: It's jargon.

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

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: People aren't having this many babies anymore. It's true.

[Unidentified committee member]: Power supply is greater in Wisconsin.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Ah, okay.

[Unidentified committee member]: And but perhaps if we can find them $3,040,000,000 dollars help with the upgrades to that factory. That's likely.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I we we were actually commending the senate for for the work that it's done. But sometimes we grumble about changes. I think that that's not the case here. So thank you.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: Thank you. It seems like this is good work on both sides. So I appreciate all your Anything

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: else that you wanted to add or any other questions? I noticed that the attorney general's office have come into the room. So if there are questions that committee has for the attorney general's office, since the attorney general was mentioned in this bill, I'm guessing that it's not a coincidence that it came in. But if the committee would like, we could direct questions to the attorney general's staff, assistant attorney general. Thank you, senator.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: Take the Take the next seat. That's Good

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: afternoon. Good afternoon.

[Dr. Lois, Assistant Attorney General (Vermont AGO)]: I'm Doctor. Lois, assistant attorney general. Not just I I do love the ag committee, but not just random that I popped into the room. I'm more than happy to answer questions. I think we remain very, very supportive of where the bill was when it came out of this chamber and and likewise, the version that the senate has put together. I don't wanna restate the testimony I provided you all several months ago. I will just say in the role of consumer advocate and in our our work as providing increased consumer protection, this bill focuses on the most vulnerable consumers in Vermont. And we think it is an important bill. It does two very important things. It focuses on a danger potential danger to children in their most vulnerable stage. And it's really about consumer education. Right? It's about giving consumers clear knowledge when they purchase a product, what the product may contain, what the testing levels may be. It's not an outright ban across the board per se, though that is something in the offing. And I think it does the right balance of ensuring the product remains on the shelf and ensuring that folks understand what that product contains. Our role in it has shifted a little bit, but we're comfortable with where we sit now. I think there the main one, and I'm happy to answer questions on this is, I guess there are two. One is the triggering clause that if two states or the state of California pass anything regarding a similar restriction on infant formula, we inform this body and the chamber below downstairs meeting. And then that new provision springs into life following that notification. And then the second is working with the Department of Health around if there's a shortage or a potential future shortage of infant formula, the ability to pause the application of the law to that infant formula. In a previous position, I worked more closely with the Department of Health, and I'll just say there was a time when I this committee may be aware, I think it was 2023 or 2024, there was a recall of infant formula. And then the Women, Infant and Children Program, WIC, was aware of it very early on and working pretty closely. The administration was very responsive to ensure that we were protecting the supplies of infant formula. I would presume that if something came down the pike similar related to the availability of infant formula, that kind of conversation would occur with the AGO.

[Unidentified committee member]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that, counsel. That's one of the concerns I had was if the label went, you know, the labeling for a thoughtful FDA is gonna approve the label, they gotta have time to make the labels, fix the labels, soon they wanna run their old stock out, not relabel. And if, you know, according to operation, short speed, things are in great shape anyway. You know, and we don't wanna run short supply here in Vermont. So I asked who would how would that trigger be made? But as you said, when you know, WIC is a big watcher of all this stuff, and and that's great. And thank you for that information.

[Dr. Lois, Assistant Attorney General (Vermont AGO)]: Absolutely. I don't know. Do you want me to speak to any of those other

[Unidentified committee member]: pieces? Yeah.

[Dr. Lois, Assistant Attorney General (Vermont AGO)]: Know, I know there was a question around labeling is an interesting area of federal overlap. The FDA does tightly constrain sort of what appears on the nutrition label. I am not an expert in food labeling, and I am not an expert in FDA labeling of baby food or infant formula products. I will say I have worked based on the work of this body in the early teens when the Vermont legislature required labeling of genetically engineered foods. And that was a big topic of conversation around that bill, and I think it's Chapter 82. I just had to look it up. It is still Chapter 82 A in Title IX. That required the labeling. We did a lot of work around that to ensure that the labeling language in the bill didn't run afoul of the FDA. Ultimately, that law was only in effect for thirty days because the federal government preempted it with a subsequent piece of legislation. But we felt comfortable with the language of requiring labeling. And ultimately, those labels occurred on M and M's, Coca Cola, Frito Lay products, and of course, across lots of retail establishments.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Nothing natural in Coca Cola,

[Unidentified committee member]: so there wouldn't be any fuel

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: in the house. So

[Dr. Lois, Assistant Attorney General (Vermont AGO)]: I don't see anything in this language that causes concern on that front, but again, I have not dealt too deeply into.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right. Good. Well, thank you for for being attentive and Committee thoughts. So we are this bill was on for action this morning, as you probably heard Richard sit up and ask for a delay of the day so that we could see it and take some testimony. We will be on the floor again tomorrow afternoon at one, so that's when this will come up. Are we feeling like we're ready to make a decision now? And our our choices are always to concur. So this was this was, you know, our bill that came back from the senate. We can concur with the senate's proposal. We can concur with further amendment. You'll hear people sometimes concur with the proposal of further amendment. We can, after a conference committee, if it feels like we've gone back and forth enough and it's time to bring things together or we can do nothing. So hypothetically, one of our options. Deputy Lipsky.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I am in favor of a concurring question, when the body is ready, open up a full committee, Will we straw poll or

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: will we take a vote to concur? Yeah, we will take a Well, we'll take a vote, and I think technically it is a straw poll, But since we don't have the bill, and this is where things get a little bit confusing, when a bill comes back, it isn't assigned to a committee. And we are the committee of jurisdiction. It was our bill in the first place. So we will be asked when you make the report for the committee stronghold vote. Yeah. I think probably it's a good practice to write it down and not just have it be a show of hands, but it's not strictly speaking a vote the same way we voted it up the first time.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And is it still the desire to wait for a memo from John to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, yeah. Greg was Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. John is on the Road, and he said he thought he would be here between one and two. I haven't gotten any other communication from him.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: I would just say I agree with representative Lipsky. I think we should go ahead and concur and move it forward. I think this is one of our most important bills this year, and we don't wanna take a chance that it's not gonna pass or that we have some muddy conference committee. I think we should concur and move it forward.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Somebody else have a hand on that? Go.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Go. I personally would like to see, but I know that it takes a little more time for the labeling. Make sure that's not the end of the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So something to re in response to the testimony we've heard earlier? Yes.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I know it's got it's got a lot of belts and suspenders on it already, but it's an important issue I think to make sure we get it right. That's my sense.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I just say concur. Let's let's get this out and have no risk of it. I I

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I that would be devastating. Work hard on this group.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I might even make that motion, if I may. Well, I think we'll I did say we would wait and see if representative O'Brien was here, so let's let's do that.

[Unidentified committee member]: Chair, we also have time tomorrow morning?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: In theory.

[Unidentified committee member]: Because it's coming up on the floor tomorrow.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. However, we wanna also do the municipal regulation question tomorrow too. Yes.

[Unidentified committee member]: You know, if we're to to, you know, depends if we're moving to concur, moving to amend. I after reading the and hearing from the assistant attorney general, I feel confident in the current. I think I think safeguards are in place, and and they're not gonna they're not gonna run stuff off the shelves at all, 100% at all. I think I was

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: made somewhat more comfortable by the point that this won't happen until it happens in another state, at least one other state, and those states will have the opportunity of looking at what we did, and this will be a discussion that they're having too. John? We also have paraquat on notice, so we're gonna have to deal with that in the market as well. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's take a break. We've been sitting here for a bit now. We do have another witness who may be waiting. Here's our next witness. Okay. Good. Thank you for your patience. Let's take no more than ten minutes, and we'll return