Asm. Karines Reyes

The bill requires point-of-decision sodium labeling on all menus to help consumers make informed choices, aligning with NYC's 2016 law which has shown evidence of improving consumer decisions.

The bill is a transparency measure enabling consumers to make informed choices. NYC's similar law since 2016 has shown positive results including decreased hypertension and restaurant reformulation with less sodium. High sodium intake is linked to cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, osteoporosis, and stomach cancer, with 90 percent of Americans consuming excess sodium.

The bill requires sodium warnings on chain restaurant menus to help consumers make informed decisions, aligning with NYC's 2016 law which has shown evidence of improving consumer choices and protecting public health.

The bill applies to chain restaurants but excludes retail food stores and other establishments, requires labeling on all menus and visual displays, and aligns with NYC's successful 2016 sodium labeling law which has shown evidence of changing consumer behavior.

The bill is a transparency measure enabling consumers to make informed choices. New York City's similar law since 2016 has shown positive results: decreased hypertension rates and restaurants reducing sodium content. About 90 percent of Americans consume excess sodium; reducing average intake by 400 milligrams daily could prevent 32,000 deaths nationally. The bill has support from 150 groups including the American Heart Association.

Debate focused on the cumulative burden of health insurance mandates on small and medium-sized businesses. Sponsor Kim emphasized the life-changing benefits of early diabetes screening, noting that early intervention can prevent up to 60 percent of Type II diabetes cases. Opponent Gandolfo argued that while the goal is laudable, New York's accumulation of insurance mandates drives up costs for small businesses and consumers, and called for fiscal analysis of mandates before enactment, as 29 other states require.

Assemblymember Glick clarified that the bill is limited to traveling acts and prohibits only large cats, bears, non-human primates, kangaroos and wallabies. She emphasized the bill does not limit domesticated farm animals at county fairs or other events, and is targeted at protecting the public from dangerous incidents. Glick noted that 4-H activities and county fair displays of safe animals remain unaffected.

The bill would require law enforcement agencies using encrypted radio communications to provide realtime access to nonsensitive communications to emergency services organizations and credentialed journalists. Supporters argued the measure ensures public transparency and allows journalists to warn citizens during emergencies, citing examples like the 2022 Buffalo mass shooting where encrypted radios prevented real-time reporting. Opponents raised concerns that realtime access could compromise officer safety by alerting criminals to police movements, create public panic from unconfirmed information, and place emergency responders in danger when crowds gather at incident scenes. Questions were raised about implementation mechanisms, equipment costs for municipalities, and how sensitive information would be defined and enforced.

Sponsor emphasized transparency and noted that emergency services in rural counties rely on real-time radio access. Argued that law enforcement is competent to determine what constitutes sensitive information and that the bill provides appropriate discretion to officers while maintaining public access.

Assemblywoman Walsh expressed support for the bill, noting her experience co-chairing the Assembly Republican Task Force on Human Trafficking. She stated that adding the DOT and DMV commissioners to the task force made sense given how trafficking occurs and the role these agencies play.

Assemblywoman Peoples-Stokes explained that the bill addresses a critical issue for transplant patients, particularly those on Medicaid who are currently restricted to applying to only one transplant program. She noted that approximately 8,000 New Yorkers are on transplant wait lists, with roughly 400 expected to die before receiving a transplant. The bill allows patients to apply to multiple programs, improving access and quality of life by reducing dependence on dialysis.

Sponsor argued the amendment clarifies the original bill by allowing providers whose names match their practice names to use the practice address instead, and adds patient notification requirements. Emphasized that prescriber information is always available on record for five years and accessible to healthcare providers in clinical emergencies, and that patients have a right to privacy in their medical decisions.

Sponsor argued the bill protects prescribers and patients from harassment and legal weaponization in states restricting abortion access. She stated that prescriber names are not clinically necessary for emergency care and that patient history can be obtained via telehealth visits.

Assemblywoman Walsh praised the bill as a chapter amendment that narrowly defined eligible individuals for mental injury workers' compensation claims, noting it reflected debate from the original legislation and represented a more reasonable approach.

Assemblywoman Giglio acknowledged the bill was improved from the prior year but expressed concerns about minors being trained to deescalate irate customers, noting the training policy does not yet exist and worrying that minors could be forced to engage with dangerous situations. She called for the Department of Labor to ensure the policy protects minors by instructing them to retreat to safety rather than engage with threatening customers.

Sponsor explained the bill allows practitioners to request that practice names replace individual names on labels for these medications due to fear of retribution. Emphasized that patients can still identify their prescriber through practice records and that the actual prescription document retains all identifying information including license numbers.

Sponsor argued the bill addresses workers experiencing extraordinary stress not captured under current law, citing examples of nurses during COVID, correction officers, and supermarket workers after the Buffalo Tops shooting. Emphasized that claims must still meet a burden of proof and be evaluated by the Workers' Compensation Board and physicians.

Sponsor argued the expansion is necessary because many workers experience extraordinary stress that rises to PTSD levels but aren't captured under current law. Cited examples including Tops supermarket shooting survivors, nurses during COVID surge, and correction officers. Emphasized that claims must still be evaluated by the Workers' Compensation Board and a physician.

Sponsor explained the bill requires DOL to create a model workplace violence prevention program covering de-escalation and violence prevention that employers can customize. Noted panic buttons required only for 500+ employee retailers with cell phone alternatives allowed. Emphasized the bill does not mandate security guards and addresses rising retail violence, which she attributed partly to customer frustration with merchandise security measures.

Debate centered on whether the bill appropriately addresses retail worker safety or imposes undue burdens on businesses. Supporters argued the bill provides essential de-escalation training and emergency preparedness for retail workers facing increased violence. Opponents contended the bill conflates retail worker safety with retail theft, imposes compliance costs on small businesses and farms without addressing the root cause of retail theft, and that law enforcement and prosecution should be the focus instead. The bill requires retail establishments with 10+ employees to develop workplace violence prevention plans and provide de-escalation training to all employees at hire and annually.

The bill provides a model policy that employers can tailor to their needs, includes de-escalation training using language and communication techniques, and addresses rising workplace violence in retail settings. Active shooter drills are becoming standard given recent mass shootings, and panic buttons can be cell phone-based or wearable depending on facility needs.

Debate centered on whether the bill appropriately addresses retail worker safety or imposes undue burdens on businesses. Supporters argued the bill provides essential de-escalation training and emergency preparedness for retail workers facing increased violence. Opponents contended the bill conflates retail worker safety with retail theft, imposes compliance costs on small businesses and farms without addressing the root cause of retail theft, and that enforcement of existing laws against shoplifters would be more effective. The bill requires retail establishments with 10 or more employees to develop and implement workplace violence prevention plans including de-escalation training, emergency procedures, and active shooter drills.

The bill, a Chapter Amendment to prior legislation restricting New York's cooperation with other states on reproductive health investigations, would allow the Department of Health to share deidentified information during public health emergencies and identified information with federal and other state entities when strictly necessary and with patient consent. Assemblyman Goodell questioned whether the amendment addressed concerns raised in last year's extensive debate, which resulted in a 98-47 vote. He expressed concern that the Legislature is passing laws making it illegal for state employees to cooperate with other states on law enforcement matters, comparing it to prior restrictions on federal immigration cooperation.

Sponsor argued the bill protects New York physicians performing legally-protected health activities within their scope of practice, and does not shield physicians committing actual crimes or negligence. Emphasized the New York Academy of Family Physicians requested the protection.

Clarified the bill does not prevent other states from prosecuting negligent physicians, only protects New York physicians providing legal health services. Noted support from New York Academy of Family Physicians and advocacy groups.