This Rollinsford cow from Brookford Farm is headed for milking, not slaughter. (photo by Hilary Niles)

The issue has emerged in the past few years as a number of smaller meat and poultry farms have sprouted up throughout the state. Later today, the Senate will likely pass House Bill 339, which would establish a meat inspection services administrator.

The hunt for local food

According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture, 23 states have given up their meat and poultry protection program in the past four decades — as New Hampshire did in 1978. A Nashua Telegraph story by David Brooks from last August focused on the challenges of a state having only one federally certified slaughterhouse with inspection capability.

State veterinarian Stephen Crawford, whose office would oversee the state inspection service, said in the story that “the increase in interest for locally raised meat and poultry has created an enormous opportunity for New Hampshire farmers. The most significant limitation to filling the demand for meat other than poultry is a distinct lack of access to local slaughter facilities.”

Making it pay (for itself)

Establishing the program is one thing, but providing enough funding to get a viable service up and running may be an issue. House Bill 339, sponsored by Rep. Laurie Harding (D-Lebanon) establishes a meat inspection fund. But, it only appropriates $1 through June 30, 2012. Supporters believe the program will become more than self-sustaining through fees, fines and other grants and donations. The cost for inspection services will start at $50 for a cow, $10 for a turkey or rabbit and $5 for a chicken.

House Bill 339 had bipartisan sponsorship and passed the House by a voice vote in March. The bill already made it through one round of Senate vetting before being resubmitted (as all spending bills do) to the Senate Finance Committee, which gave it a unanimous recommendation for passage.

>> Wednesday, May 4, full Senate session vote on HB 339 and more than 60 other bills and amendments. Senate Chambers at the State House, beginning at 10:00 a.m.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Here we highlight three proposals that were put on the regular calendar, which will likely be moved to next Wednesday. The Senate will hold its session tomorrow (Feb. 3) at noon.

Rx Drug Return

House Bill 71, which would allow for establishment of pharmaceutical drug take-back programs, was the subject of a Front Door Politics dispatch last month. The measure had strong bipartisan support and was recommended for passage by the House Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs Committee with a unanimous 17-0 vote.

In the committee’s report to the full House, Rep. Evalyn Merrick (D-Lancaster) said the ability of New Hampshire communities and private entities to establish take-back programs for both uncontrolled and controlled drugs would build upon previous efforts with local law enforcement officials to remove “thousands of unused medications from homes and (the) streets of New Hampshire.”

Weeding Out Industrial Hemp

A Hopkinton lawmaker this year continues his quest to allow farmers to grow industrial hemp in New Hampshire. Rep. Derek Owen (D) has sponsored at least seven similar bills since 1998. This year’s measure, House Bill 101, would also set up a special state agricultural program to oversee the production. But there is a catch:

Federal law prohibits the growing of industrial hemp. Owen’s bill respects this by providing that the program would only be implemented once the federal government amends its laws.

By an 11-7 vote, the Environment and Agriculture sent the bill to the full House with an “Inexpedient to Legislate” recommendation, saying that if the federal law changes, then a New Hampshire law would be unnecessary. They also question the passage of creating a program to oversee the production, since costs are unknown at this time.

Critics of industrial hemp say it is closer to the drug marijuana than it is to a fiber. But advocates say there is a distinct difference in the chemical make up and the crop is grown and utilized in a wide range of products in Canada, China, Germany and a number of other countries.

Unrestricted Agents

By a 7-5 vote, the Executive Departments and Administration Committee recommended passage of a bill to repeal a 2007 law requiring sports agents to register with the state. House Bill 136 is sponsored by committee chair Carol McGuire (R-Epsom). In the majority report, Rep. Spec Bowers (R-Georges Mills) said only six agents have registered since the law was passed and there have been no enforcement actions.

“It is not needed because athletes, parents, and coaches are knowledgeable about the rules and are fully able to exercise individual responsibility,” Bowers said. “The statute is harmful in that it encourages reliance on the government to protect people from their own decisions.”

According the Secretary of State web site (the agency that oversees sports agent registrations), it costs $100 for a new sports agent application and $50 for renewal.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

The New England Cottontail Rabbit (Sylvilagus transitionalis) is one of New Hampshire's endangered species. Will Democrats be next? (photo credit Wikipedia)

Democratic Leaders

The shrunken Democratic caucus in the Legislature may require an endangered species designation, but on Friday and Saturday, they chose their leadership teams for the 2011-2012 legislative sessions. As expected, current Senate President Sylvia Larsen of Concord will become Senate minority leader on Dec. 1 when the next Legislature is sworn in. The other four returning Democratic senators also were given titles: Sen. Lou D’Allesandro of Manchester will serve as Deputy Democratic Leader while Molly Kelly of Keene will become Assistant Democratic Leader. Sen. Matthew Houde of Plainfield will be the Democratic whip and Sen. Amanda Merrill of Durham will be deputy whip.

On the House side, current House Speaker Terie Norelli of Portsmouth, who was reelected to an eighth term, will be House minority leader.

Keene has seven Democratic House members and the Keene Sentinel took a look at what the changeover to Republican control could mean for the city, the region and the influence of the lawmakers who went from majority to minority status.

Inspecting Proposition

We are keeping an eye on a recent House study committee recommendation to create a new, state-run meat inspection service. Since the 1970s, there has been only one federal meat inspection site in the state in Goffstown. In theory, the proposed addition to the state’s Department of Agriculture office would help New Hampshire farmers sell their meat on the commercial market. According to the legislative services office, the initial financial cost to the general fund budget would be around $80,000, which supporters say could be paid by fees.

Even if a measure is approved by lawmakers and some of the many questions regarding implementation are answered, farmers shouldn’t hold their breath. A pending re-write of federal rules to include state-sanctioned meat inspections could be 18 months or more the making.

Bottom (Tax) Line

The Commission to Study Business Taxes meets again on Thursday and will issue an interim report on Dec. 1 (see our earlier post on the commission here.) Shira Schoenberg of The Concord Monitor had an interesting Sunday story about the election of Republican business owners to the Senate and what they have in mind for the next legislative session. (The Commission to Study Business Taxes will meet at 1:30 p.m. at Room 100 in the State House on Nov. 18).

Political Cognitive Dissonance

current House Speaker Terie Norelli

We couldn’t help but notice the distinct post-electoral perspectives in a pair of dueling statements following Norelli’s election as House Minority leader:

State Republican Party Communications Director Ryan Williams said “Terie Norelli’s election as minority leader proves that Democrats will support the same failed leaders and reckless policies that have driven New Hampshire to the brink of fiscal ruin. Democrats learned nothing from last week’s election and will continue on the same path towards higher taxes and out of control spending.”

On the other hand, state Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley said “During the past several years, Terie Norelli has shown extraordinary leadership and our Democratic caucus in the House is united in support of her. She has a proven ability to work across party lines to without compromising the fundamental Democratic values our party stands for.”

Are they talking about the same person?

This Daily Update was written by Michael McCord.

The current use property tax status was designed to promote the preservation of open space. It may not be a deal-breaker for campaigns, but you can bet it’s a deal maker for property owners. Current Use literally refers to how different properties are valued for tax purposes, depending on their current use as open space, wetland, or active farming or timbering land. Tax rates vary depending on what the land is capable of producing, whether it’s maintained as open space, and whether it’s open to the public for recreational uses such as hiking or hunting.

Enacted first in 1973, Current Use is considered by conservation organizations like SPACE to be the cornerstone of the state’s land conservation efforts. According to the N.H. Dept. of Revenue Administration’s Current Use study, 2.9 million acres are now in current use. That’s almost 51 percent of all the private property in the state, including parts of every city and town, owned by almost 40,000 people.

The current use tax incentive helps land owners agree to keep land undeveloped, and it makes enterprises like farming more financially viable. If the land were taxed on the value it could fetch in commercial real estate, the logic goes, more property owners would cash in.

At the September meeting of the Current Use board, the decision was made to keep farmland assessments at their current rates, which can be $25-$425 per acre. New Hampshire’s Commissioner of Agriculture, Lorraine Merrill, made the case that farms—especially dairy farms, which she said make up about one-third of the state’s agriculture—are losing money. Some fruit growers lost up to 100 percent of their crops with a late freeze last May, and all ten counties have been declared eligible for disaster assistance for weather-related disruptions three years in a row.

“Banks are keeping farms in business in the hope that that values will increase and properties can then be foreclosed on,” read the meeting’s minutes. For these reasons, she urged the board to maintain current levels of farmland assessment. All present agreed.

The 14-member Current Use board will hold the last of a series of ten public forums in Concord on Nov. 8, with a regular meeting to follow. There is no agenda available yet, but the board is expected to review findings from three earlier meetings in September and October that discussed 2011 current use rates, potential guideline changes and legislative initiatives.

One proposal so far is to allow former land assessing officials to be members of the Current Use board, in addition to the three practicing assessing officials who are required to be on the board.

>> Current Use Board will hold a public forum at the Department of Revenue Administration, 109 Pleasant St., Concord, on Monday, Nov. 8 at 9:30 a.m., with a regular meeting to follow at 1 p.m.

>> For a very detailed picture of current use, the booklet outlining the program through March 31, 2011 is available online.

This Daily Update was written by Michael McCord, with contributions from Hilary Niles.

Banning smoking on public state beaches

House Bill 1194 would ban smoking on beaches at state parks. Sponsored by Rep. Judith Day (D-North Hampton), the bill was referred for study in March with a report due Nov. 1.

—> Public work session on HB 1194 at 7:00 p.m. tonight, Monday, Oct. 4, at Rye Public Library in Rye

Genetic modifications

Rep. Susan Wiley (D-Center Sandwich) sponsored two bills last year regarding genetically modified seeds: House Bill 1172 would require that all genetically modified (GM) seeds be labeled as such. This includes seeds for vegetables and flowers. House Bill 1388 would allow farmers or gardeners to sue for damages if their own non-GM crops are contaminated by another’s GM crops. Both bills also define what a genetically modified seed actually is. Study reports are due Nov. 1.

—> Public work session at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 5, in Room 307 of the Legislative Office Building in Concord

Beverage container deposit

House Bill 675 would establish a five-cent refundable deposit on beverage containers and is closely modeled after Maine’s deposit program. The study report on HB 675 is due Nov. 1. Sponsored by Rep. Derek Owen (D-Hopkinton), this is the bill’s second study since it was originally introduced in 2009.

—> Public work session at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 5, in Room 307 of the Legislative Office Building in Concord

About Study Committees

If the House or Senate decides that a bill is a good idea but needs more work, or if they think a bill might be a good idea but more research is needed, they can send the bill back to its committee to be studied further.

Sometimes, there are also political reasons for sending a bill to be studied: It can “buy time” for supporters to build up needed votes, or for a bill’s detractors to sway more colleagues into opposition.

Whatever the reason for going to a study committee, remember that the committee is not its final destination. Committee members simply recommend action for the rest of their chamber (the House or Senate) to take. It’s then up to individual legislators to cast their own votes when the bill comes before them in the next session.

This Daily Update was written by Michael McCord and Hilary Niles.

The House Environment & Agriculture Committee is set to make recommendations on Feb. 18 about genetically modified organisms. Specifically, they’re deciding if genetically modified seeds should be labeled as such, and what rights farmers have if genetically modified organisms from other fields accidentally drift into their crops.

mixing crops

The right of farmers to sue for damages if genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, mix with their own crops would only be fair play, according to Rep. Susan Wiley (D-Center Sandwich).

She was inspired to sponsor House Bill 1388, which would give farmers this legal “right of action,” by the case of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser. In the late 1990s, he was sued by the makers of a genetically modified canola seed when they discovered their patented genetic material in his crops.

Genetic material from one crop often “drifts” in pollen carried on the wind or in seeds carried by birds, for example. Wiley understands that GMO patent-holders might not want their genetic property showing up in the fields of a grower who didn’t buy rights to the patent.

But, she argues, the same grower may not want the genetically modified material that drifts into his fields. If the patent-holder has the right to sue, then so should the owner of the crops exposed to GMOs.

“What’s fair is fair,” Wiley says, pointing out that unwanted genetically modified material could put an organic grower out of business because GMOs are not permitted under USDA organic certification. If those growers were to lose certification or suffer financial damages, “they should have the right to fine someone,” she says.

But not all farmers who follow organic practices seek USDA “organic” certification, for reasons that include cost and just plain aversion to paperwork. Wiley is not clear if her bill, as written, would define “damages” beyond the loss of organic certification. She says she will research implications for non-organically certified growers before the bill’s public hearing on Feb. 11.

The Schmeiser case was decided in favor of Monsanto. Through appeals, Schmeiser’s obligation to pay $400,000 in damages to Monsanto was waived, but Monsanto’s claim of patent infringement was upheld.

“It’s a bigger issue in the Midwest, where farms are bigger and closer together,” Wiley admits. She says Monsanto has brought charges of patent violations against growers in North Dakota, South Dakota, Indiana and Louisiana. Several other companies also hold patents to genetically modified seeds, but she is not aware of any GMO patent violation cases in the Granite State.

That’s a major reason the state’s Commissioner of Agriculture, Lorraine Merrill, has publicly said she does not support HB 1388, according to Wiley. “She doesn’t feel the security of our fields is in danger. But as we have more and more backyard farmers, it could be more of an issue,” Wiley says.

labeling GM seeds

Genetically modified seeds will also get a second look with another bill sponsored by Wiley.

The New Hampshire Seed Law requires that all agricultural, vegetable and flower seed packages sold in the state must be labeled with a host of information, including germination rates and specifics on any chemicals used to treat the seeds. House Bill 1172 would add genetic modification to that list.

“We all need to know what we’re eating,” Wiley says. “But we should at least know what we’re planting, and labeling GMO seeds is not asking a whole lot of anyone.” She eventually wants to expand the GMO labeling requirement to packaged and processed foods.

more Granite: cider or milk?

As for the state beverage question, the cider and milk contingents made their cases at a well-attended public hearing on House Bill 1206 on Feb. 4.

On one side: the fourth grade class from Jaffrey that last year requested cider be named the official state beverage of New Hampshire. They were opposed by counterparts from Dover, who argued for milk.

Another side opposes the entire topic of discussion, arguing that the Legislature should not waste its time on such trivialities. And still another sees this engagement in the legislative process as a valuable learning opportunity for children.

Rep. Suzanne Smith (D-Hebron) sides with the valuable education camp. She says her knowledge of government at that age was limited to an explanation of the three branches—executive, legislative and judicial.

Smith seems less interested in the state beverage decision than in the kids who have initiated the debate.

Some of these schoolchildren may be future New Hampshire legislators, she says, and she’s glad they’re learning so young how government works.

“It’s really going to be interesting to see where they are in a few years,” she says.