Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Avian Influenza topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances $3–4 million request for avian influenza prevention, monitoring and response
Summary
The House agriculture committee advanced HB 1427 to appropriate funds for avian influenza preparedness at the Department of Health and Department of Agriculture; supporters cited protecting egg and poultry producers, while some public commenters opposed use of funds for vaccines or pharmaceutical responses.
The House Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems voted Thursday to advance HB 1427, a bill appropriating funds to the Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture for avian influenza prevention, monitoring and response.
State public-health officials and agricultural industry witnesses testified in favor, describing a need for proactive biosecurity measures to protect egg, poultry and other animal industries. Sarah Kimball, state epidemiologist with the Department of Health, said the department stood on its written testimony and would be available for questions. Scott Enright of Waialua Eggs urged lawmakers to be proactive about biosecurity and animal-industry protections.
The Hawaii Farm Bureau testified in support, urging investment in local production and animal-health measures. “We need to make sure that this doesn't affect our few remaining egg producers,” Brian Miyamoto said.
Several public commenters opposed the appropriation and argued against government-funded pharmaceutical responses or vaccines as the primary response; speakers urged instead investment in nutrition and natural immunity. One speaker noted past stockpiles and questioned vaccine-driven approaches.
The committee advanced the bill “as is” and asked that appropriation requests from the Department of Health and Department of Agriculture be noted in the committee report. The vote moves the measure forward for further budget consideration.
The committee recorded support from state agencies and agricultural groups; public commenters were split with multiple organizations and producers backing the appropriation and several individuals opposing it on policy grounds.
