HJR 28-OPPOSING GM SALMON    10:32:53 AM CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 28, Opposing the United States Food and Drug Administration's approval of AquaBounty AquAdvantage genetically engineered salmon; urging the United States Congress to enact legislation that requires prominently labeling genetically engineered products with the words "Genetically Modified" on the product's packaging; and encouraging the restoration of wild, native populations of salmon in areas where development has negatively affected salmon. 10:34:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, said an effort was mounted, in 2013, to oppose the federal government's approval of genetically modified (GM) salmon. However, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) ruling, dated 11/19/15, announcing its decision for approval of GM salmon products, created the impetus for introducing HJR 28. The monumental decision marks the first time a genetically modified animal has received FDA approval for human consumption. The fish is modified by utilizing combined genetics from the Atlantic Chinook salmon and the ocean pout. The chinook lends size and type, while the pout provides a continuous growth hormone for rapid maturity. She provided a series of slides to illustrate the physical differences between the GM Atlantic salmon and other farmed salmon. The sole motivation for GM enhancement is economic gain for those involved, she opined, which casts a shadow of extreme contrast on Alaska's focus for sustainable wild salmon harvests. She paraphrased a statement from the AquaBounty website, which states [original punctuation provided]: The AquaBounty founding idea - modern genetics + land- based aquaculture. In 1993, AquaBounty's CEO had the idea of pairing the two revolutionary technologies. The innovative faster growing AquAdvantage Salmon, which would shorten production cycles by half and drastically reduce feed costs, could finally make land-based fish farming economically viable. REPRESENTATIVE TARR said Alaska is a leader in resource management and represents a model for healthy, sustainable fisheries. Concerns continue to exist about GM salmon, which include: threats to wild salmon, risks to human health, and a risk to Alaska's economy. She pointed out that these are the same concerns that initially arose, when the discussion began, and which the FDA has still not addressed. Despite safeguards, she said escapement does occur from holding pens. The escapement factor was a noted concern by both the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), during risk assessment studies. 10:39:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that the genetically modified eggs would be produced in a facility on Prince Edward Island (PEI), shipped to Panama for rearing, harvested, and imported for sale in the United States; fully involving three countries. In 2013, her visit to Prince Edward Island, provided a firsthand look at, and understanding of, the project. The PEI facility is close to a large bay, Bay Fortune, which provides a direct outlet to the Atlantic Ocean. She reported meeting with the Premier of Prince Edward Island, as well as speaking with residents, many of whom objected to the facilities GM project. The primary industry on PEI is tourism, which is being supplanted by its identification with the "frankenfish" facility, a direct result of the budding industry. 10:40:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR said GM salmon pose additional threats to wild salmon, which include: spread of disease, similar to what occurs with hatchery fish; food chain competition, due to the aggressive behavior of the GM salmon; and cross breeding. Multiple scientific journals and papers, have been published, regarding the ability to cross breed, she reported, and provided headline illustrations for a number of articles regarding GM salmon hybridizing with trout. Further, the studies confirmed that the GM fish could out-compete both the trout and the Atlantic salmon for food, also a major concern. Expanding on the risk to human health, she said the approval was handled under FDA veterinary rules and standards, bringing into question the appropriateness of the ruling. The AquaAdvantage salmon represent a trademarked product and, as such, AquaBounty is able to restrict, and is legally protected against, unfettered research conducted by outside agencies. Although motivated by economic gain, the company can be selective in choosing to share its information. 10:42:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled the depressive effect on Alaska's economy when farmed salmon were introduced on the world market. Due to major efforts, undertaken by Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI), the Wild Alaska Salmon brand is widely recognized as an industry standard. However, there could be confusion among consumers, if GM salmon products enter the market without appropriate labeling. 10:43:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR said Alaska's congressional delegation supports pushback on the GM salmon ruling. She reported that U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski has been holding up the confirmation of an FDA official in an effort to leverage control for labeling requirements and marketing standards on GM salmon products. Additionally, another 40 members of congress also oppose the FDA's actions. Over 2 million public comments have been submitted to the FDA and 65 retailers have stated their intent to refuse to shelve the product when it becomes available in the market place. Furthermore, international opposition is strong. The local PEI protest efforts have resulted in restrictions being placed on egg production and isolating the activity to one facility. Finally she said that the AquaBounty efforts are not isolated to salmon. Information regarding its interest in applying GM technology to other seafood/shellfish products, and establishing facilities in other locales, has been outlined and available on its website; some information has recently been removed. 10:46:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 28, Version 29-LS1213\W, Nauman, 2/3/16. CHAIR STUTES objected for discussion. 10:47:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated support for HJR 28, and lauded the well drafted resolution. 10:47:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON noted the sponsor's comment regarding the blocked congressional confirmation of the FDA official who authorized the GM salmon. He asked about amending the resolution to including another whereas to support U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski's efforts to holdup the confirmation. 10:49:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR said an amendment would be welcomed, and forwarded her understanding that the senator would appreciate the support. 10:49:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON opined that innovation for profit is not inherently a bad motivator; however, in this specific instance it creates an issue regarding the profitability of Alaskans. He asked whether state statutes exist that apply to identification of genetically modified fish. REPRESENTATIVE TARR said that Alaska's labeling statute was passed in 2006; however, it's now out of step with the federal requirements and it remains unclear whether state law could be enforced given the federal overrides in place. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired about modification requirements for state law. REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated her understanding and assurance received from legislative legal services that the laws can be synchronized. 10:52:00 AM CHAIR STUTES removed her objection. There being no further objection, Version W was before the committee. CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony. 10:52:25 AM LOUIE FLORA, Alaska Center for the Environment (ACE) and Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV), testified in support of HJR 28, speaking as follows: I'm working here in Juneau ... speaking today on behalf of Alaska Center for the Environment (ACE) and Alaska Conservation Voters ACV), and also on behalf of myself as a Bristol Bay drift fisherman. Alaska Center for the Environment and Conservation Voters are working to protect Alaska wild salmon and Alaska wild salmon habitat. And they work to promote positive, clean energy, [and] job creating, solutions to the climate change issue. And they also are supporting a reinvigoration of local and public comment in Alaska on resource permitting issues. Alaska Center for the Environment supports HJR 28. Their concerns with GMO [genetically modified organism (GMO)] salmon are justifiably based on the unknown risks to our wild ocean stocks. The impact of GMO cross pollination, unintentional or not, and [weakening] of wild genetics is well documented in American agriculture. Alaska wild salmon is unique as a thriving and genetically varied population. Wild stock, genetic variance, and diversity is one of the hallmarks of the survival of the different salmon species. The potential that genetic diversity could be compromised by the introduction of GMO fish is not some farfetched notion. If this GMO fish takes off in the market, anything is possible. That was my testimony on behalf of [ACE], but I wanted to speak directly as a gillnet fishermen who has ... seen what the market changes have been since 1983. And my fear with genetically modified salmon on the market is that there would be a problem of market perception, which could drive the price down. And a problem of market saturation of new species, which could drive the price down. We saw the problem of market perception in 1989-90, following the [oil tanker] Exxon Valdez spill. ... Fishermen have a lot of opinions on why markets are changing, so this may be apocryphal. ... One of the opinions out there was that the market perception that all Alaska salmon were tainted, had the ability to leverage a decrease in our Bristol Bay price ..., which was at $2.35 per pound at that point; [the price] has fallen ever since. ... That a genetically modified salmon could ... instill fear in the global salmon markets, I think could be a real potential and ... have long term economic implications for all of Alaska. As far as market saturation: We got $.50 per pound this year for our price. ... One of the [price] factors is the increased resurgence of the Chilean farmed, and other farmed, salmon populations. I think that there's a potential that if this genetically modified salmon can be produced cheaply, can flood the market ... that in combination with the global farmed salmon populations could have a further compounding effect on our price. ... For the reasons of perception and market saturation, as a drift fisherman, I would really, really encourage our congressional delegation, and congress as a whole, to enact whatever labeling, and whatever market mechanisms they can apply, to differentiate wild ... Alaska salmon from the rest of the world markets. ... I know a lot of good work has gone into the differentiating process by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI), and other marketers, but I think labeling on a national scale is paramount for the health of our fisheries. 10:57:38 AM ARNI THOMPSON, Representative, Alaska Salmon Alliance (ASA), stated support for HJR 28 and said ASA adds its name to all who support HJR 28 and who oppose the development of genetically modified salmon products. Additionally, ASA supports the congressional mandates for labeling of genetically modified food products, including salmon. 10:59:10 AM MATT ALWARD, Representative, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), testified in support of HJR 28 citing the UFA's long standing position to oppose genetically modified salmon production. The organization also supports the requirement to have any genetically modified seafood to be clearly labeled for the market place. CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony after ascertain no one further wished to testify. 11:00:15 AM The committee took an at-ease from 11:00 a.m. to 11:02 a.m. 11:02:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, provided to the committee in handwritten form, which read as follows: Page 3, Line 5, Insert: FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature fully supports our Congressional delegation in their efforts to hold up the confirmation of a new [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] Commissioner until the agency agrees to require labeling for [genetically engineered] salmon. CHAIR STUTES objected for discussion. 11:02:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated support for the amendment and said a thorough understanding of how the confirmation process is handled by congress would be good knowledge to have when making this type of request. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON acknowledged the member's concern and commented that the action of approving the GE salmon carries a huge potential for harming Alaska. 11:04:56 AM CHAIR STUTES removed her objection. With no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 11:05:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report the proposed CS for HJR 28, Version 29-LS1213\W, Nauman, 2/3/16, as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Without objection, CSHJR 28(FSH) was reported from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.