01/29/2018 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR4 | |
| HJR12 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 29, 2018
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator Natasha Von Imhof
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Kevin Meyer
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Click Bishop
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Urging the Alaska Congressional delegation to introduce bills to
provide for the exemption of legally acquired walrus, mammoth,
and mastodon ivory from laws that ban the sale, use, and
possession of ivory.
- MOVED CSSJR 4(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12(FSH)
Opposing the United States Food and Drug Administration's
approval of AquaBounty AquAdvantage genetically engineered
salmon; and urging the United States Congress to enact
legislation that requires prominently labeling genetically
engineered salmon and salmon products with the words
"Genetically Modified" on the product's packaging.
- MOVED CSHJR 12(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 4
SHORT TITLE: AK LEGALLY ACQUIRED IVORY USE EXEMPTION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) OLSON
02/01/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/17 (S) CRA, RES
03/28/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/28/17 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/17 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
04/04/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/04/17 (S) Moved SJR 4 Out of Committee
04/04/17 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
04/05/17 (S) CRA RPT 4DP
04/05/17 (S) DP: BISHOP, GARDNER, MACKINNON, STEDMAN
01/29/18 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HJR 12
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSING GEN. ENGINEERED SALMON
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
02/22/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/17 (H) FSH, RES
02/28/17 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/28/17 (H) Moved CSHJR 12(FSH) Out of Committee
02/28/17 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/01/17 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 5DP 1NR
03/01/17 (H) DP: FANSLER, TARR, CHENAULT, KREISS-
TOMKINS, STUTES
03/01/17 (H) NR: EASTMAN
03/13/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/13/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/14/17 (H) RES AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
03/14/17 (H) -- Continued from 3/13/17 Meeting at
1:00 PM --
03/20/17 (H) RES AT 7:00 PM BARNES 124
03/20/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/22/17 (H) RES AT 6:00 PM BARNES 124
03/22/17 (H) Moved CSHJR 12(FSH) Out of Committee
03/22/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/24/17 (H) RES RPT CS(FSH) NT 5DP
03/24/17 (H) DP: PARISH, WESTLAKE, DRUMMOND, TARR,
JOSEPHSON
04/05/17 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/05/17 (H) VERSION: CSHJR 12(FSH)
04/06/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/06/17 (S) RES
01/29/18 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
JACQUELYN BOYER, staff to Senator Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a brief overview of SJR 4 for the
sponsor.
VERA METCALF, Director
Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC)
Kawerak, Inc.
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 4.
CANDACE CAHILL, representing herself
Skagway, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 4.
AKIS GIOLOPSOS, staff to Senator Giessel and the Senate
Resources Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the five changes in the CS to SJR
4.
ALICE BIOFF, member
Alaska State Council on the Arts
Community Planning Development
Kawerak
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 4.
MELANIE BAHNKE, President & CEO
Kawerak, Inc.
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 4.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 12
VAL GIDDINGS, consultant
Biotechnology Innovation Organization
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 12.
FRANCES LEACH, Executive Director
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Strongly supported HJR 12.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:13 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Coghill, Wielechowski, Von Imhof, Meyer, and
Chair Giessel. Senator Bishop was excused.
SJR 4-AK LEGALLY ACQUIRED IVORY USE EXEMPTION
3:30:45 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of SJR 4, version 30-
LS0109\D, exempting Alaskan's legal ivory crafts, a staple of
the Alaska Native community, from the blanket ivory ban
targeting poaching operations in Africa and Asia. This
resolution is sponsored by Senator Olson.
JACQUELYN BOYER, staff to Senator Olson, sponsor of SJR 4,
Alaska State Legislature, briefed the committee that this issue
was brought to Senator Olson by various constituencies who face
serious negative impacts from some states that have banned
ivory.
Some bans vary from being very specific like listing the species
and sub-species of what they ban to just banning all ivory.
Constituents' concern is that more states will initiate bans and
imposing harsh consequences on legal artists in Alaska who
obtain ivory through the by-products of subsistence or
fossilized ivory product.
3:33:00 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN joined the committee.
MS. BOYER said the proposed committee substitute (CS) reflects
Skagway artists' concerns who are non-Native and use ivory
legally.
3:34:31 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened invited testimony.
VERA METCALF, Director, Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC), Kawerak,
Inc., Nome, Alaska, supported SJR 4. She said the commission
represents about 19 coastal communities in North Slope,
northwest Arctic, Bering Straits, Bethel, and Dillingham.
She stated that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) allows
harvest of Pacific walrus for Alaska Native coastal residents.
This exemption was included because it is a fundamental and
culturally important activity. Utilizing all the gifts from the
harvest of marine or other wildlife resources is also very
fundamental to the cultural values of Alaska Native people. If
the use and value of walrus ivory is generally outlawed, Alaska
Natives could stop retaining walrus ivory, which could be
considered wasteful take under the MMPA unless the take is for
subsistence purposes and if such take is done for the purposes
of creating and selling authentic Native handicrafts and
clothing. If there is no market for creating and selling Alaska
Native ivory art and handicrafts, Alaska Natives probably won't
continue to create them. The economic and cultural impacts of
walrus ivory remain critical to Alaskan communities.
3:37:17 PM
CANDACE CAHILL, representing herself, Skagway, Alaska, supported
SJR 4. She is a small business owner and artist and was asked to
speak on behalf of Skagway's larger artist population and non-
Native users of ivory. She urged the committee to consider how
this resolution and the laws impacts Alaskans who are non-
Native. Considerable efforts have been directed toward
protecting the rights of Alaska Natives, which is right, to be
able to harvest and utilize the walrus ivory as well as
protecting their rights to collect and use extinct ivories from
mammoths and mastodon, but the concerns of non-Native users of
fossil materials has been largely overlooked. Her artwork, her
husband's, and many of the people she represents use fossil
walrus, mastodon, and mammoth ivory, much of which is collected
by and bought from Alaska Natives. So, it's an income source for
them, as well. But as a non-Native, she can only use fossilized
ivory, because the animals have been dead for hundreds or
thousands of years. It is the only type of ivory that is legal,
because collecting it hasn't harmed any animals. Banning it
would essentially shut them down.
MS. CAHILL said much of the business they do is generated from
tourism, and over the past several years there has been an
increase in awareness of the protection of elephants and the
legality of ivory as a whole. As a result, she and other in the
industry spend a great deal of time trying to educate people
about fossil ivory and how it takes hundreds of years for the
ivory to show fossilization, the differences between fresh
walrus ivory versus fossil, and address the significant
differences between modern elephant ivory and ancient mammoth
and mastodon ivory.
MS. CAHILL said she also has an on-line business but is
currently prohibited from selling work that incorporates fossil
ivory in the four states that have outlawed it, and there is the
potential to lose many more states over the next couple of years
if Congress doesn't act. They need to be able to sell their work
or their business and many others like it around Alaska will
fail. Without the ability to work with fresh ivory, a lot of the
fossil ivory will simply disintegrate and be lost. Artists are
preserving the beauty and extraordinary qualities of these types
of fossilized ivory.
3:41:28 PM
MS. CAHILL said in preparing to talk today, she reviewed the
U.S. Senate Bill 1965, The Allow Alaska Ivory Act, that was
introduced in Congress last year by Senator Sullivan, but she
was concerned about the wording as it does nothing to take
concerns of non-Natives into consideration. She wants to do all
in her power to ensure that their concerns are addressed and to
be certain that it specifically includes language that protects
the use of fossil ivories by all, not just Alaska Natives.
3:42:37 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no questions, said that concluded invited
testimony.
SENATOR COGHILL moved to adopt CSSJR 4(RES), version 30-LS0109\O
as the working document.
CHAIR GIESSEL objected for purposes of discussion. She invited
committee staff to explain the changes in the committee
substitute.
3:43:45 PM
AKIS GIALOPSOS, staff to Senator Giessel and the Senate
Resources Committee, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
reviewed the five changes in the CS as follows:
Senate Resources Committee Substitute for Senate Joint
Resolution 4 Summary of Changes from Version D to Version O
1. Page 1, Lines 1-3: Deletes the title language from
the previous version (Page 1, Lines 1- 2), and inserts
a new title with the following language: "Urging the
United States Congress to pass legislation providing
for the exemption of legally acquired walrus, mammoth,
and mastodon ivory from laws that ban the sale, use,
and possession of ivory."
2. Page 1, Lines 11-12: Adds a new Whereas clause with
the following language: "WHEREAS, non-Native
individuals in the state use legally acquired mammoth
ivory to make handicrafts, jewelry, and artwork; and"
3. Page 2, lines 6 and 11: Deletes the word 'Native'
from the previous version (Page 2, Lines 4 and 9)
4. Page 2, Line 17: Add the words "legally acquired?"
5. Page 2, Lines 20-27: Deletes the language from the
previous version sending copies to various dignitaries
(Page 2, Lines 18-20). Adds new language listing the
dignitaries receiving copies of the resolution.
MS. BOYER said Senator Olson requested these changes consisting
of neutral language to cover all Alaskans.
CHAIR GIESSEL removed her objection. Finding no further
objection, she announced that version O was before the
committee. She opened public testimony.
3:46:29 PM
ALICE BIOFF, member, Alaska State Council on the Arts, Community
Planning Development, Kawerak, Nome, Alaska, supported SJR 4.
She is a tribal member of the Native Village of Koyuk and grew
up there and in Nome (for the last 18 years). Through her work
at Kawerak she is privileged to work with artist entrepreneurs
within the community, so they can sustain themselves, their
families, and their communities.
She said that walrus ivory harvested during subsistence hunting
is one of the main materials artists use to carve into unique
traditional artwork that has been recognized for its amazing
craftsmanship throughout the world. Most importantly, the arts
and crafts keep traditional practices alive and strong beautiful
work being passed down from one generation to the next. She
said: "Our art is weaved into who we are as indigenous people
and having access to the materials to continue that art is
vital."
3:49:48 PM
MELANIE BAHNKE, President & CEO, Kawerak, Inc., Nome, Alaska,
supported SJR 4. She is also the daughter of an Alaska Native
artist and her two brothers carve ivory to make a living. She
wanted to make it clear to Congress that the State of Alaska
supports it Alaska Native artists. But this isn't just about
Alaska Native artists; an entire community within the state
relies on ivory, bone, and mastodon one way or another to
support themselves and their families and contribute to the
Alaska economy.
She proposed amending the word "non-Native" in reference to
mammoth ivory to "Native and non-Native". Language in the
current proposed amendment sounds as though only non-Natives can
work with mammoth ivory. She also recommended adequate review by
legal staff where something is restricted to Alaska Natives, so
that the proposal isn't in conflict with the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA).
In conclusion, she asked the members to image what would happen
if Alaska salmon was being banned in the other states, or crab
and halibut. She said, "Ivory is a unique product that comes
from our state and we need to protect it and also promote it on
par with our salmon and our crab and fish."
3:52:11 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no further comments, closed public
testimony.
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 1, labeled 30-LS0109\O.1
30-LS0109\O.1
Laffen/Bannister
1/29/18
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR GIESSEL
TO: CSSJR 4( ), Draft Version "O" Page 1, line 11:
Delete "mammoth"
Insert "fossilized"
CHAIR GIESSEL objected for discussion purposes.
3:54:20 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL invited committee staff to come forward and
comment on the concern that both Native and non-Native needed to
be specified in terms of the fossilized ivory.
MS. BOYER responded the intent behind deleting "Native" was to
encompass all artists in Alaska, because some use legally
acquired ivory.
MR. GIALOPSOS explained at the behest of the bill's sponsor the
term "mammoth" was replaced with "fossilized," because of the
concern that simply putting in the word "mammoth" would be
prohibitive, because non-Natives artists are allowed to use
fossilized mammoth, walrus, and mastodon. This just clarifies
that non-Native artists have access only to all fossilized
ivory.
CHAIR GIESSEL removed her objection to Amendment 1, and finding
no further objection, announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if Congress could preempt this issue.
MR. BOYER answered yes, it can.
3:58:00 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the sale of these products is not
authorized under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
MS. BOYER replied that the MMPA is ambiguous and that is the
basis of this resolution.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if any of the ivory that is being
proposed to be sold meets any of the two requirements in the
Hawaii bill that read: 1. On appendix 1 or 2 of the Convention
of International Trade and Endangered Species or 2. As
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
MS. BOYER said she didn't know. In deference to the recent
Supreme Court decision not to take up the listing of the ringed
seal appeal, Alaska Natives can harvest seal whether they are
endangered or not, because of their subsistence rights.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if whale and walrus ivory is not an
endangered species.
MS. BOYER said she didn't know the answer to that.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked Ms. Boyer to find answers to Senator
Wielechowski's questions and forward them to her and she would
distribute them to the committee.
4:01:15 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report CSSJR 4, as amended, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note. There were no objections and so CSSJR 4(RES) moved
from committee.
4:01:53 PM
at ease
HJR 12-OPPOSING GEN. ENGINEERED SALMON
4:03:57 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of HJR 12 [CSHJR 12(FSH),
version 30-LS0276\D, was before the committee].
4:04:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HJR
12, thanked the committee for hearing the resolution.
THATCHER BROWER, staff to Representative Tarr, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced himself.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said HJR 12 is not a new topic for the
legislature. When she first started working on it in 2013, they
were still pushing the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to not
approve genetically modified salmon. That changed with the
November 2015 decision to allow genetically modified salmon. The
reason for her continued concern is that this is the first time
the FDA has approved a genetically modified animal for human
consumption. Genetically modified plants were approved for human
consumption in the early 90s.
She said AquaBounty Advantage Salmon uses Ocean pout DNA that
makes fish grow year-round and Chinook salmon DNA making fish
grow bigger faster for its genetic modifications.
4:06:22 PM
She showed pictures of a wild salmon compared to a GM salmon and
said Alaska is proud of its strong fisheries policies that
manage for sustainability, so this renewable resource will be
around for years to come. It is important for the state's
economy but also for its culture. Our relationship with salmon
is different than the company that is promoting the GM salmon. A
picture of the AquaBounty website revealed that the business is
not so much about sustainability as it is about growing a
product faster.
4:07:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said the fact that the salmon are grown in
an indoor facility is one of the reasons people say it may be
less risky, but that may not be the case. This highly mechanized
indoor operation does not say sustainable fishery management to
her. Besides risk to human health and the state's economy,
escapement still poses a threat to wild salmon. These GM salmon
are produced in three different countries. She has visited the
facility on Prince Edward Island [in the Bay of Fortune, Nova
Scotia] where the eggs are produced. The eggs are shipped to
Panama to grow into fish. Then they are sold for consumption in
the U.S. The regulatory oversight is "strange" because all these
jurisdictions are involved. In a broader sense, Alaska fisherman
have caught Atlantic farmed salmon and there are risks
associated with that.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said Prince Edward Island has a tourism-
based economy and when she first visited in 2013 some people
were concerned that "Frankenfish" came up first when Prince
Edward Island was googled, and they didn't want to be branded
that way given the controversy around it. They didn't know if
people would want to visit. That is what made them interested in
the work she was doing in Alaska; they have since filed a
lawsuit.
She said the AquaBounty facility was really concerning because
it was so closely situated to a water body where native Atlantic
salmon live. Farmed salmon can also spread more disease and a
scientific study found that when they cross-breed with wild fish
the new hybridized fish could out-compete and outgrow the wild
variety within several life cycles.
4:12:14 PM
The FDA approved genetically modified salmon under the
veterinary medicine component of the FDA rather than as a food
product, and people have questioned whether that is the
appropriate way to test if one is testing for human health
concerns. The lack of rigorous scientific examination of what
the human health risks are is a big part of the opposition to
this particular proposal even for folks that may be supportive
in the end.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained the price of wild salmon took a
huge dip when farmed salmon was introduced. The legislature's
response was creating the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
(ASMI) to market Alaska's wild salmon. It has been very
successful in doing that. It has been reported that wild Alaska
salmon is the second most recognized brand on restaurant menus.
But absent labelling, the introduction of this genetically
modified salmon will undermine people's confidence in our
product. The fishing industry is the largest private sector
employer in Alaska and we want to keep jobs rather than lose
jobs. Alaskans are not alone in opposing GM salmon. Major
retailers, like Fred Meyer and Costco, where Alaska buy a lot of
their food have said they will not sell the GM salmon, but its
approval is still a challenge and it can be sold almost
anywhere.
4:15:46 PM
She said there is also international opposition. When the
approval first was made, the Prince Edward Island filed a
lawsuit for the way the Canadian government approved the
production of the GM eggs. Panama is where the fish are actually
grown, and the company was fined by the Panamanian government
because of escapement issues. One can see the potential
jurisdictional problems, because this industry involves three
different countries. Some U.S. fishing, environmental, and
consumer safety groups filed a lawsuit on March 31, 2016
questioning how it was approved in the first place.
4:17:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR applauded the Alaska Congressional
delegation for their leadership as outspoken advocates for
Alaska wild salmon. On July 11, 2017, Senator Murkowski
introduced legislation to mandate the labeling of genetically
engineered (GE) salmon. The bill requires an independent third-
party scientific review of the FDA's environmental assessment
for all GE fish for human consumption. This would be additional
protection.
She said the AquaBounty website used to list a whole number of
species that they were interested in having genetically modified
from shrimp to crab to other fish. So, questions around the
regulatory framework used (rather than a focus on human
consumption) and concerns for the marine environment need to be
understood before the flood gates are opened to many more
applications. Senator Murkowski's bill, S1528, has been referred
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and
has not received a hearing, yet. It is co-sponsored by Senator
Dan Sullivan, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, and Senator
Jeff Merkley of Oregon.
4:19:40 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the resolution opposes just
AquaBounty or all GE salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied theirs is the only application that
has been approved at this time, and the application is specific
to this three-country scenario of eggs, growing the fish, and
the marketing of the fish.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the next resolve urges the same
legislature or the U.S. Congress to enact legislation that
requires prominently labeling GE salmon and asked if it would be
possible for Congress to outright ban the sale of GE salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that Congress could ban it, because
that decision would supersede the FDA decision. Alaska is
limited by the Interstate Commerce Clause to what it can say.
However, she has introduced a bill that would ban the sale of GE
salmon in Alaska. The way a company would have to show harm is
to say that it violates the Interstate Commerce Clause. So, they
would have to prove that barring this law they would stood to
make a lot of money in Alaska. But Alaska would have a strong
argument that Alaskans probably aren't going to buy this fish if
they know that it is genetically modified, probably for the same
reasons that a lot less farmed salmon is sold here. Alaskans
prefer to catch it themselves or get it from a friend. Her
thought was to poke at that a little bit at the state level.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said that 50 percent of restaurants say
their salmon is wild but it's not and asked if there is any way
to address that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that ASMI does a lot to educate
retailers and restaurant owners on where to buy their products
and to have a chain of custody to know that it is really wild
Alaska salmon, but it needs to be addressed more thoroughly. It
is a problem if people are using the brand that Alaska has
worked so hard to build to sell farmed salmon; if people get an
inferior product they won't buy it again.
4:24:06 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony.
4:24:11 PM
VAL GIDDINGS, consultant, Biotechnology Innovation Organization,
said he specializes in the regulation and policy related to
biotechnology and these were his views. He is an angler and
loves the wilderness. He shares their concerns for the safety
and sustainability of Alaska's salmon fisheries, "a crown jewel
in our national heritage of incalculable value, and they face a
number of threats."
Unfortunately, the AquaAdvantage salmon framed in this bill is
the opposite of one of these threats, he said. To the extent it
is successful, it will reduce the threat from farmed salmon to
Alaska's wild salmon. These salmon are intended to be grown in
terrestrial systems far from where they can escape. This is
exactly the method for growing Atlantic salmon that the Monterey
Seafood Watch Program has rated as "the best choice." The data
show that if these salmon did escape, their biology and behavior
would make it highly unlikely that any would survive. If they
survive, they are sterile and incapable of reproduction.
MR. GIDDINGS said if commercial sea pens of Atlantic salmon in
the Pacific Northwest were all replaced by these indoor
circulating tanks the concerns that the sea pens raised for wild
salmon will be completely negated. Even if the AquaAdvantage
salmon were capable of reproduction, eggs and fry require fresh
water and can't live in the ocean.
Another concern raised by the legislation is equally unfounded.
The FDA chose to do a more thorough review of this salmon under
the new animal drug provisions of the Veterinary Biologics law
before allowing it to be introduced into the food supply. All of
FDA's analyses were made available for multiple rounds of public
comment including an independent third-party review. He has read
all the comments and documents to this docket and followed the
process from the beginning and after this unprecedented
analysis, the FDA concluded that this salmon is
indistinguishable from other salmon. It is at least as safe to
eat as any other salmon and the way it will be grown gives it
the smallest environmental impact of any farmed salmon.
4:28:33 PM
FRANCES LEACH, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), Juneau, Alaska, strongly supported HJR 12. UFA strongly
opposes genetically modified salmon and requests that GM seafood
products be clearly labeled as such. According to a New York
Times poll, over 90 percent of Americans would prefer that their
food is labeled to reflect the content containing GM
ingredients; 37 percent of those surveyed expressed concern that
GMO in their food may cause cancer and allergies; 75 percent of
respondents said they would not eat genetically modified fish.
4:30:38 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no further comments, closed public
testimony.
SENATOR COGHILL asked the sponsor to respond to language on page
2, line 8, saying AquaAdvantage salmon "could devastate native
fish populations."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied that what she saw peer-reviewed
scientific papers showing that this interbreeding took place and
why it was such a concern. For example, in Panama, the company
was fined for escapement issues. Unpredictable things happen,
like an earthquake, that could result in a major release into an
adjacent water body.
SENATOR COGHILL commented it's an obvious area of dispute.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if she agreed that GE fish are
sterile.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied that it's not true 100 percent of
time, and that is why there is a concern.
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report [CSHJR 12(FSH)], version 30-
LS0276\D, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached zero fiscal note. There were no objections and it was
so ordered.
4:33:58 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no further business to come before the
committee adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 4:33 p.m.