Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
03/27/2015 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission | |
| Big Game Commercial Services Board | |
| HB92 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 92-LABEL GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD
1:37:05 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the final order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 92, "An Act relating to the labeling of food;
relating to the misbranding of food; requiring labeling of food
produced with genetic engineering; and providing for an
effective date."
1:37:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, as sponsor, introduced HB 92 and offered a
PowerPoint presentation. Referring to slide 1, "What is a GMO,"
she advised that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are
plants or animals created using the genetic material from two
unrelated species. She pointed out that people have long been
doing what is classified as "traditional breeding" which is from
organisms of related species and it can be through mutation,
insertion, or deletion of genes. Addressing slide 2, she
advised that the FDA is reviewing an Aqua Bounty's genetically
modified salmon application. The company would like to
genetically modify an Atlantic Chinook Salmon (King) with the
genetic material from an Ocean Pout (an eel-like fish), thereby
causing a growth cycle for an extended period of time and
causing the salmon to grow to approximately four times its
normal size. A facility on Prince Edward Island would raise the
eggs and then ship them to South America where they would be
grown and then sold for consumption in the United States,
thereby calling into question the process necessary to produce
this, along with economic issues. She said people are concerned
because this would be the first time the federal government
allowed a genetically modified animal to be eaten for human
consumption. During a previous legislative session a resolution
opposing the application of Aqua Bounty was co-sponsored by
almost every member of the legislature.
1:40:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to slide 3, advising that a GMO in
the plant world is in two categories as a pesticide producer and
the Bacillus thurengiensis (Bt) example on slide 3, which is a
naturally occurring organism. She explained that by inserting
it into the plant that will be genetically engineered, it
actually functions to produce its own pesticide. "Roundup" is a
commonly used herbicide and a "Roundup-Ready" plant has been
genetically engineered resistant to that herbicide application.
She pointed out that a person sprays Roundup cautiously around
their plants, but Roundup-Ready plants are genetically
engineered in a manner that the herbicide will no longer kill
the plant. Moving to slide 4, she addressed the commonplace of
GMOs and the concerns of people. In 1994 GMOs were approved by
the federal government and Monsanto recruited botanists from the
university where she was a botany student to work in its labs.
She noted the general surprise of people that these products
were approved and have quickly overtaken the food system. She
stressed that it is a "right to know" issue and people are being
completely left out of the process.
1:43:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR discussed slide 5, pointing out that many
food products contain some of the most widely used GMO crops,
such as, canola, corn, cotton, soy, alfalfa, papaya, sugar
beets, zucchini and yellow summer squash, and apples. She
informed the committee that canola, corn, soy, and sugar beets
are almost exclusively GMOs, and are contained in familiar
packaged food products. On February 13, 2015, apples were
approved, and noted that during her student days was advised
this will address the food shortage problem, and the products
will be genetically modified for nutritional content.
Unfortunately, she remarked, over the last 20 years they have
been genetically engineered with the Roundup-Ready feature, but
with apples, there is a non-browning apple feature that is
completely cosmetic with no nutritional content or flavor. The
concern is that the focus has not been on whether these food
products are healthy.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to slide 6 regarding examples of
Roundup-Ready GMOs and second-generation crops and noted there
is now a second generation of crops genetically engineered to
have more than one trait of being Roundup-Ready, such as also
being resistant to another pest or herbicide. Drawing attention
to slide 7, she advised that efforts are taking place around the
world and the United States is not alone in calling for a ban of
these products or call for labeling. She explained that the
United States and Canada are quite behind the curve relative to
other countries and, therefore, doing this in the United States
doesn't have to be such a big issue as many of the companies are
producing the same products and selling them in markets
requiring labelling. Japan, Italy, and Hungary banned these
products and, unfortunately, wheat products from the United
States were shown to have some genetic modification. She said
that even though it was not approved for use in the United
States, it caused the Japanese market to suspend its imports of
United States crops. Therefore, not only are there the public's
right to know issues, but also international export issues, she
remarked.
1:46:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to slide 8 and indicated laws were
passed in Vermont, Maine and Connecticut requiring labeling.
Interestingly, she commented, Connecticut's law goes into effect
when four other states have passed laws. She pointed to the
issue that food manufacturers may decide they will not sell
products in Alaska in that Alaska is a small state, with a small
population, that grows very little of its own food, and has high
numbers in purchasing outside. She suggested that Alaska may
consider Connecticut's actions with the idea to get to critical
mass in that a small state doesn't carry the burden. She
pointed out that narrowly defeated citizen initiatives were
tried in California, Washington and Oregon, and in California
the opposition companies spent approximately $46 million, and in
Washington spent approximately $20 million. This legislation
offers people the right to know, and choices in food products,
she related. She pointed to approximately 11 other states
considering right to know bills, and that over the last few
years approximately 30 states have considered some measure
related to labeling genetically modified food products.
1:48:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR brought attention to slide 9, which depicts
the ingredient labels that already appear on products. She said
a genetically modified food products labeling initiative would
require an asterisk or a word. Fish processors have expressed
it could be costly for them as the companies order all of their
cans a year in advance, so when they place their next order they
could have the product label updated.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to slide 10, and advised that under
the USDA standard for organic foods, organic products cannot
contain GMOs. She pointed out that organic foods are costly and
out-of-reach for some individuals and, therefore, it is
appropriate to call for an affordable and available standard for
everyone. She provided that companies voluntarily participate
in the non-GMO project, which is a third party verification
program, and in that manner the public is advised the company
offers non-GMO products. She referred to slide 11, and noted
that the food availability issue is clearly economics as, in
this world, a person will not go hungry if they have the means
to purchase food, she remarked.
1:51:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR drew attention to HB 92 and provided a
sectional analysis. She noted that labeling under AS 17, Alaska
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and specifically AS 17.20.040
relates to misbranded foods. Section 1, of the bill provides
labeling of foods wholly or partially produced with genetic
engineering, with certain exemptions. She noted that
Legislative Legal and Research Services looked at other states
thereby offering drafting uniformity in this process. She
pointed out that meat raised on genetically modified corn feed
would not require GMO labeling and described it as a compromise
position for Alaska in that it is difficult to buy organic feed.
She reiterated that the economic impact and food purchasing of
organic products has skyrocketed over the last decades. People
have a growing interest in this issue and HB 92 will allow the
development of new markets, she opined.
1:53:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that Section 2, adds a section to
the manner in which food is considered misbranded, stating that
failure to comply with GMO labeling would be considered
misbranding. Section 3, exempts retail sellers from compliance
with labeling requirements unless the retailer produces or
manufactures the food or markets the food under its own brand.
For example, she said, Fred Meyer has its own product line and
would be required to label [GMOs]. She remarked that there is
no penalty imposed on a retailer unknowingly selling a product
with genetically modified ingredients, and noted there are no
civil or criminal penalties in this statute. She pointed out
that in 2005, former Senator Kim Elton passed a bill regarding
mislabeling of genetically modified fish so it was not included
in HB 92. Interestingly, she stated, no civil or criminal
penalties are associated with failure to [label], but it does
exist in the Alaska Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in the case of
food pantries, food banks, and liability regarding resultant
sickness from food.
1:55:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to Section 4, and advised it adds
definitions for genetically modified fish and fish products, as
well as definitions for processed food and raw agricultural
commodities. Section 5, repeals previous provisions of the food
misbranding statute, and Section 6, provides for an effective
date of January 1, 2016, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR advised her presentation addressed questions
from Representative Hawker regarding civil and criminal penalty
issues, and fish issues addressed in Senator Elton's
legislation, and the effective date. She suggested the
committee act with caution on these products and pointed to a
recent New York Times editorial on the issue of GMO food
products including whether GMOs are safe or not. She admitted
she cannot say whether GMOs are unsafe as not enough information
is available, and more studies are called for. Many studies
were short term and the research was provided by the companies
themselves, and not a third party or verified. She related that
the scientific world does the best it can with what it knows,
and is learning new things every day.
1:57:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed to a March 20, [2015], International
Agency for Research on Cancer re-evaluated research on
glyphosate, and reclassified it as a [probable] human
carcinogen. Glyphosate is the main chemical in Roundup and the
Roundup-Ready plants grown, which the New York Times editorial
speaks to. She explained that glyphosate currently has the
highest global production volume of all herbicides with millions
and millions of pounds of this herbicide used annually,
including Roundup-Ready plants. She again referred to the
editorial and noted it speaks to the idea of "precautionary
principle" which is why other countries, in addition to
requiring labeling, have banned some of the GMO crops.
Representative Tarr reiterated that people have the right to
know, and labeling should be required of companies in that
consumers have a choice in selecting whether they want to eat
that product, or not.
1:59:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON offered that the correct scientific term
is transgenic and asked whether it is in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied that it is not as people commonly
refer to genetically modified organisms as GMOs. She offered to
speak with Legislative Legal and Research Services to determine
whether they think it would be an issue.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON offered that he is concerned about these
products, and quiered whether the legislation could include an
example of genetically modified corn that is engineered to
produce pesticides in its own tissue. Genetically modified corn
is regulated by the EPA as an insecticide, but is sold
unlabeled. He related that the issue is disconcerting and
agrees with the labeling aspect. He referred to non-GMO third
party labeling in that, he cautioned, it happened at the Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) with the Marine Stewardship
Council (MSC) labeling as when a company did not receive its
approval, the company received an "unfortunate" label. He
described it as blackmailing everyone, "give us a fee and then
we'll give you the stamps."
2:01:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR conveyed that a food product being eaten is
actually classified by the federal government as an insecticide
because it produces its own pesticide and many believe a step
should be taken back when considering health problems. She
related that testing is not performed on humans as it is
considered unethical and, therefore, cannot be said it is
causation. She suggested that studies considering long-term
impacts on health problems should be tracked over a long period
of time, including evaluating life styles, and different
circumstances to determine the correlations. She offered that
in reviewing incidences of colon cancers and other digestive
disorders, they track with the introduction of GMOs over the
last 20 years, thereby claiming a correlation of increasing
rates of some of those problems.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that Representative Herron's point
underscores the need for a standard applied to everyone in that
a third party was able to change the rules and exclude people.
She advised that the push with this legislation is to create a
standard applied evenly to everyone and causing a higher level
of confidence. She indicated that to date approximately 2000
Alaskans from all over the state have contacted her office,
participated in events, and expressed support mostly from the
consumer right to know standpoint.
2:04:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked where in the legislation the
enforcement provisions are located.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that enforcement staff is not
envisioned, and there are no specific enforcement [provisions].
She related that yearly food safety inspections are performed by
a limited staff on a few facilities so it moved to a voluntary
online reporting system. Until the time the state could take it
on, she suggested standards, as it is an evolving process.
2:05:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON quiered whether there are studies
showing correlations between food allergies or sensitivities and
consumption of GMO foods.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that currently there are ongoing
human health impact studies and the difficulty is that science
requires an extended period of time. She noted that the best
evidence is with regard to farm workers in the substantial
agricultural area of Central California where individuals are
exposed and isolated in a manner others are not. The Human
Genome Project, she explained, was completed not long ago and is
the reference library to genetic material. It is [an
international scientific research project] researching different
genetic markers and identifying genes that can be impacted,
turned on, or turn off. She advised that the World Health
Organization Report on Glyphosate read that glyphosate also
caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, although the
negative results is in tests using bacteria. One study on
community residents reported increases in blood markers of
chromosomal damage, the macronuclei, after glyphosate
formulations were sprayed nearby. She presumes that correlation
research is generally the best as tests are not performed on
humans.
2:07:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER referred to slide 11, "We Do Not Need
Monsanto," and asked whether this bill is an attack on Monsanto.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR advised that some could characterize
Monsanto as one of a handful of main companies producing these
products and, in that sense, Monsanto has been identified. She
pointed out that Monsanto has been the most outspoken and is
probably the main target for folks opposed to the products
altogether.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER surmised that this is an attack on
Monsanto.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR characterized the slide as concern relating
to Monsanto's food production and whether the products are safe
and healthy for human consumption and the environment.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER referred to the politicized material in
Representative Tarr's handouts and, he noted, with no valid
scientific research documentation regarding a proven health
concern to the degree Representative Tarr insinuates.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that the legislation is the
beginning of a conversation and that many people share
Representative Hawker's position. She pointed out that she is
not stating with certainty that GMOs are unsafe products, but
supports the position that consumers have a right to know
allowing them to make choices. She reminded the committee of
the issue regarding growth hormones used in milk, and under AS
17.20.013 hormone labeling is required for milk products. She
remarked that the issues are four decades old in federal
agencies regulating these products. Historically, the Cuyahoga
River spontaneously catching on fire due to chemicals prompted
the creation of those agencies, including the idea that dilution
is the solution to pollution. She noted that part of Ohio is
referred to as a "cancer belt," due to high incidences of
cancer. A law passed in 1996, "The Food Quality Protection Act"
(FQPA), read that the EPA had to retest a large number of
chemicals and used children as the benchmark for safety. During
retesting a chemical called chloripyrifos was discovered and
banned as it was found to be a neuro-toxin that caused
neurological problems in children. Interestingly, the prior
year it was widely used chemical of 11,000,000 pounds, she
stated.
2:11:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he was reminded of Gregor Johann
Mendel and the melding of colors of tulips to form new types of
tulips. He asked how GMOs go beyond anything Dr. Mendel did
that causes concern.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR informed Representative Josephson that GMOs
are the unrelated species causing concern, and not the
traditional breeding where varieties are chosen due to the
colors, size, or flavor.
2:12:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that HB 92 is not saying Monsanto
cannot make products, but is saying GMOs must be labeled thereby
allowing people opposed to genetically modified products the
ability to know and purchase products they desire.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, regarding the issue of no enforcement,
asked whether misbranding/mislabeling is someone knowingly
labeling something falsely, and it would be the same kind of
state enforcement of fraud for any other mislabeling. For
example, selling a Ford as a BMW would be the same type of
action required if a person knowingly changing something.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded yes, and noted a person could
pursue legal action on that same matter. She advised the
immunity portion applies to retail sales and something
unknowingly happening.
2:13:38 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK expressed more concern regarding Franken-fish
than GMOs, and that the discussion of Franken-fish morphed into
GMOs in general. He opined that people should not worry about
other things and instead continue its concerns with Franken-
fish. He indicated it is the federal government's purview
regarding labeling foods that are either bad for a person or
changed in some manner.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reminded the committee that a resolution was
passed expressing the legislature's opposition to that
application, and she recently followed up with the FDA on that
issue. Senator Lisa Murkowski is a continuing leader on the
Franken-fish issue and is offering bipartisan legislation
requiring labeling on Franken-fish. She related that the hope
is that state action will inspire federal action when it sees
enough states considering this issue, but there is a concern of
a delay of several years.
2:16:57 PM
MS. ELAINE BUSSE FLOYD, Director, Division of Environmental
Health, Department of Environmental Conservation, said the
questions regarding enforcement would require regulation
revisions by the division and add a new universe of work
incorporating the bill. She stated there is no reliable manner
to determine the number of operations currently exempt from the
regulations that would need to meet the GM labeling
requirements. She explained that processors and permits subject
to this include: 175 food processors not including bottled
beverages, water, or ice, and 470 seafood processing permits,
and approximately 520 permits coded as retail food
establishments, and 13 food banks. Her concern is that the
scope of this would be very large as most of the food sold at
retail is outside of the department's regulated community, so
the scope of its regulated community would expand.
2:19:04 PM
MS. FLOYD advised Representative Hawker she is the Director of
the Division of Environmental Health, Department of
Environmental Conservation.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER requested Ms. Floyd's personal opinion, in
her capacity at the Division of Environmental Health, as to
whether there is a real and material risk to the health and
safety of Alaskans if HB 92 fails to pass.
MS. FLOYD responded that she "absolutely" does not find that
genetically modified foods ... that labeling is required for
public health. She reiterated that if people want foods they
know are not genetically modified, the organic label already
exists. Beyond that, she said, the FDA has only required
labeling of genetically modified foods if the food is
significantly different than what consumers would expect of that
food.
2:21:08 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK pointed to the concern years ago, regarding
sugar, and noted that artificial sweeteners were substituted,
and then artificial sweeteners were found to be bad, and
currently labeling of the artificial sweeteners is required. He
opined that the people do not know what to trust or expect from
artificial ingredients as they later discover those ingredients
cause problems.
2:22:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed with Co-Chair Nageak that
artificial sweeteners are bad and if there is no labeling, a
person will not know whether the artificial sweeteners are
present. He opined that the purpose of HB 92, is to list
products genetically modified and the consumer will know what
ingredients are in a product. The legislature looked at the
problems with Franken-fish as there could be an economic impact
for Alaska. He said the legislature does not know what happens
when inserting genes from one fish into another fish that is
growing and reproducing at different rates and sizes, and it
does not know the effect it will have on children eating that
fish. He agrees consumers should know what they are buying in
order to decide whether the government told the people a good
story, or decide that [consuming GMOs] is not the thing to do.
2:24:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON brought up the history of putting
cocaine in coca cola, and smoking packs of cigarettes that are
benign and harmless. He remarked that with the history of the
twentieth century, people come to this issue with that
background and it is an important factor to consider.
2:24:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON surmised that the proposed legislation is
requiring labeling of genetically manufactured crops. He asked
whether there are safe GMOs, and whether all have a danger in
them.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that the GMO crops in question
underwent short term studies for approval, and the studies have
shown adverse health impacts on test animals, laboratory rats.
She pointed out that people advocate precaution due to the
number of health problems experienced and whether it is due to
the food they eat. She emphasized this is a continuing
conversation as not all of the answers are available today. She
remarked that the most recent announcement underscores the point
that science does the best it can with what it knows while
continuing research. She indicated a reason for concern is that
products, such as glyphosate with million and millions of pounds
used annually, was re-evaluated to reveal it is a probable
carcinogen based on science.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON observed the title of the bill, "...
requiring labeling of food produced with genetic engineering
..." asked whether all genetically engineering is harmful as the
federal government has approved food technologies that are
substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts in
terms of safety. He questioned whether genetically engineered
has to be under this requirement, or should the legislature
identify genetically engineered products known to contain
pesticides. He asked whether genetic engineering is inherently
bad.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied she would not make that
characterization as there are examples such as insulin therapy
for diabetic individuals, but in this case there is a right to
know as people do not know whether the products are safe. She
conveyed that she has never seen such an overwhelming response
to a topic in that many individuals are calling for the
fundamental right to know, and many people are convinced GMOs
are absolutely unsafe. She pointed to the discussion regarding
organics and reiterated that it is not a financial reality for
everyone.
2:28:53 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO opened public testimony on HB 92.
2:29:30 PM
MINDY JULIAN said she performed extensive research on GMOs, and
after two years of hard work this legislation is before the
legislature. She opined that Alaskans have a right to know that
there are dangers to GMOs. Although, she noted, generic
engineering is not inherently bad as there are good elements,
but streamlining things into the marketplace for food
consumption without adequate testing is. She advised that GMOs
were entered into the food supply with minimal testing performed
and no outside research on that testing. She indicated that it
is known almost every food product at some level of testing has
undergone genetic modification. She said a person can research
carrots being tested for something, which is inherently
dangerous in modifying and through DNA change the public's food
supply. Under the USDA rules, organic is only required to be 95
percent GMO free. She expressed that labeling allows the public
to have a choice and described Alaskans as inherently
independent, extreme, and living on the edge because it is an
extreme environment. She conveyed that several states have
passed labeling laws and Alaska would be proud to follow suit.
2:33:04 PM
DONNA FAULKNER said she and her husband operate Oceanside Farms
and grow food organically, but are not able to write organic
food on their products as becoming a certified organic farm is
very costly in Alaska. She pointed out that in terms of
labeling, it doesn't help organic farmers in Alaska and people
should know their farmers, farm, and eat locally. She remarked
that GMO foods potentially pose bad health risks for everyone,
and would like the right to know what is in her food at the cash
register. She said as a farmer and former biology teacher, GMOs
are not good. People are entitled to a safe food supply and the
right to make good choices. She asked for support in labeling
and a person's right to know.
2:35:42 PM
ROSS MULLINS said he supports HB 92, and addressed
Representative Hawker's attitude toward Monsanto and described
it as defensive about big business. He referred to a Monsanto
product, "Agent Orange" used during the Vietnam War was thought
to be safe, but is known to cause cancer in many Vietnam
veterans. He addressed Co-Chair Nageak's comments about
"Franken-fish" which is a GMO product. When that issue is
converted to food crops it's the same issue in that Mother
Nature has had her bag of tools in place for millions of years
to provide a healthy eco system for human beings. He objects to
big business dominating the food business through manufacturing
products unknown in nature, which is a long term debate moving
into the future. He offered that Monsanto is attempting to
capture the market on seed production in that it provided free
GMO seeds to African countries with the assurance of greater
productivity. He pointed out that countries have finally
rejected the seed as it deprived them of the ability to collect
seeds from their mature crops to replant the next year. There
are thousands of lawsuits in America with small farmers and
fields adjacent to planted Monsanto GMO corn who are not allowed
to use their own seed corn for harvesting seeds to replant the
next year. He stated those farmers are forced by Monsanto and
these lawsuits to buy seeds from Monsanto. He described this as
extremely objectionable and an imposition on the freedom of
choice American consumers have always had. He characterized the
modest step of GMO labeling as an issue of freedom of choice,
and Alaska should get on board with states awaiting support
nationwide.
2:39:56 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK clarified that the GMO Franken-fish hasn't
arrived in Alaska and said Alaska doesn't want it here.
MR. MULLINS stated that currently the wild fish reputation is
intact and agrees with the depiction that Franken-fish would be
a disastrous harm to Alaska salmon. He pointed out that farmed
fish are bad enough.
2:41:18 PM
DAVID OTTESON, Business Owner, Rainbow Foods, began by
explaining that HB 92 would be bad for his business as he sells
organic food. He advised his personal stake in this is because
genetically modified foods are fundamentally different than
anything produced prior. The discussion is not only about
different species, but actually genetic boundaries between
different kingdoms such as, inserting the gene of a scorpion
into a tomato. He defined these actions as objectionable on an
ethical and moral level as the consumer has a right to know, and
labeling food products offers the consumer the ability to
determine whether it will, or will not, be consumed. He
emphasized the consumer's right to know, and summed it up as
transparency in food products. Monsanto has millions and
millions of dollars it could use in advertising the benefits of
GMOs, so what is it afraid of, he queried. He pointed out that
HB 92 is talking about labeling GMOs, not banning them.
2:43:15 PM
JAMES BARRETT said he supports labeling genetically modified
foods. He offered that if an apple is modified to be
neonicotinoid insecticide resistant, when ingested the
neonicotinoid kills good bacteria assisting in digesting
nutrients necessary in a person's body. He related his desire
that his daughter and other [young] Alaskans grow up with the
ability to know what they are buying. In order to be informed
and educated, Alaskans can lead on this issue and start labeling
these products now, he expressed.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that Mr. Barrett's letter was
received just prior the committee hearing and it was given to
the committee aide.
2:45:42 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO closed public testimony.
2:45:48 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK referred to his ongoing health problems,
including food allergies, and he stated it is his responsibility
to evaluate each ingredient in every food product he buys, and
the same with each person.
2:47:49 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO referred to Representative Tarr's notation
that Alaska's population of 735,000 is a large driver for the
State of Alaska and, he noted, possibly putting Western states
together. He said he appreciates that Alaska is "nobody's main
sales hub" in the West and, therefore, the companies may decide
it would be easier to just drop Alaska from the supply chain and
surmised Representative Tarr would work on the issues.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that her desire is to strike a
balance in that companies are comfortable and it is not too
impactful for businesses in Alaska. She pointed out that with
many consumer products, what happens in California basically
happens for all of the states as many of the products are
prepared in California and sent to Alaska. She remarked that
there could be value in a requirement, as with Connecticut, when
any other four other states pass their laws the Connecticut law
goes into effect. She expressed that she is very open to
suggestions.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO held over HB 92.