Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
02/23/2012 05:00 PM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB100 | |
| HJR10 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 100-BAN CULTIVATION OF GENETICALLY MOD. FISH
5:05:43 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 100, "An Act prohibiting growing or
cultivating genetically modified fish in the state."
5:06:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, as the prime sponsor of the bill,
introduced HB 100 and offered some background on the bill. He
explained that proposed HB 100 was "an act prohibiting the
growth and cultivating of genetically modified or enhanced fish
in the State of Alaska." He pointed out that genetically
modified fish had become an increasing problem, with the
potential for it to be considered as a food. He referred to
earlier testimony objecting to the cross of king salmon and
ocean pout, as the potential damage was unknown. He explained
that the proposed bill would prohibit the growing and
cultivating of any genetically modified fish in the State of
Alaska, in order to protect the wild stock of salmon and the
natural way of life in Alaska. He pointed to the Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute (ASMI) marketing efforts for wild, untainted
fish.
5:08:54 PM
MINDY O'NEALL, Staff, Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alaska
State Legislature, explaining the concern for genetically
modified fish, presented a video, available on YouTube, titled
"Stop Frankenfish."
5:11:49 PM
MS. O'NEALL said that Alaska had already taken some steps to
prevent this practice in the state. She pointed out that
modified fish had to label as such in Alaska.
5:12:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked about the reproductive capacity of
the Frankenfish.
MS. O'NEALL replied that, according to the producers, the
modified fish were all female and were 98 percent sterile.
5:13:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, noting that the proposed bill did not
allow growing or cultivating of the modified fish in Alaska,
asked if they could be imported.
MS. O'NEALL replied that she did not have any information about
that.
5:14:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER questioned whether there were concerns for
possession, sales, or sneaking them in.
MS. O'NEALL agreed that these were all potential concerns as the
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) had not yet ruled on
genetically modified fish; however, the sale of any of these
fish in Alaska required its being labeled.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked for specifics on live fish.
MS. O'NEALL, in response, reported that although farmed fish
were released into wild Alaskan streams every year, there was a
concern that genetically modified fish could also be introduced
into the wild streams.
5:15:49 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON asked if other countries were raising genetically
modified fish.
MS. O'NEALL replied that other countries were even more hesitant
and stringent than the U.S. She pointed out that the U.S. was
the first country to request regulations for production of
genetically modified fish.
5:16:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if the FDA should be studying the
use of genetically modified fish as a food additive.
MS. O'NEALL directed attention to a recent article which called
for the FDA to change the specification for genetically modified
fish, in order to make the evaluation process more public.
5:17:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON clarified that classification as a food
additive required closer scrutiny by the FDA.
5:18:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN, directing attention to page 2, line 3
of proposed HB 100, pointed out that AS 17.20.040 had two
definitions for genetically modified fish. He suggested a need
for a clarification of the definition in the proposed bill.
CHAIR THOMPSON opened public testimony.
5:20:44 PM
PAUL SHADURA II, Member, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association
(KPFA), testified that KPFA was in support of proposed HB 100.
He declared that it was "extremely important to have the state
go on record with their interest in protecting the natural
resources to the highest degree." He expressed concern that, as
the sterility factor was not 100 percent, there was a threat to
native fish species. He offered his belief that genetically
modified fish should be classified as an invasive species, and
needed to comply with the current regulations. He referenced
the escape of farmed fish from British Columbia, and cited
concern for the introduction of virus and disease to Alaska's
wild salmon stocks.
5:23:01 PM
GEORGE PIERCE, testifying in support of proposed HB 100,
suggested that it be a worldwide bill. He reflected on a
documentary that had caused him great concern, citing the
possibilities for escape and the resulting diseases in the wild
salmon stock. He questioned whether consumption of the sterile,
genetically modified fish could induce sterility in the human
population. He declared that this was a worldwide issue, and
that it was necessary to stop "messin' with our food chain." He
expressed his desire for the Board of Fish to also "tune in and
listen."
5:25:11 PM
HEATH HILYARD, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Guides
Organization (SEAGO), testified in support of proposed HB 100
and echoed the same concerns as the previous witnesses. He
declared that there was a threat to the wild salmon stock,
citing the quality of the wild salmon. He expressed agreement
with an amendment to more closely define genetically modified
fish, as mentioned earlier by Representative Austerman.
5:26:58 PM
RICHARD YAMADA, Representative, Alaska Charter Association,
testified in support of proposed HB 100 and reported that there
were several entities attempting to get approval for genetically
modified fish through the FDA. He declared that a risk
assessment had not been performed for genetically modified fish,
and that a risk existed for release of these fish into the wild.
He described an outbreak of infectious salmon anemia (ISA) that
had infected a hatchery. He relayed that a computer generated
model had indicated that should 60 infected salmon be released
into a wild stock of 60,000 fish, extinction of that species
could occur within 40 generations. He opined that 500,000 fish
had escaped from salmon farms in the Northwest in the past 10
years. He emphasized that the risk from genetically modified
fish far outweighed any benefit to the State of Alaska for food
production.
5:31:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked if these genetically modified fish,
growing at an accelerated rate, would out-compete wild fish for
food.
MR. YAMADA expressed his agreement that the competition for food
would be extreme.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked if wild fish swimming in close
proximity with pens of confined fish were susceptible to
disease.
5:33:20 PM
MR. YAMADA confirmed that there could be contamination through
water transfer; as hatcheries required water exchange, even
filtered water could carry lice and diseases.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked if there was any information to the
effect of genetically modified or farmed fish on wild fish stock
in other parts of the world.
MR. YAMADA replied that he was not aware of any.
5:34:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if Mr. Yamada recommended a ban on
the importation of live genetically modified fish.
MR. YAMADA, in response, stated that the fact of not raising
fish would assume that there would be not be any import.
5:35:33 PM
GERALD McCUNE, Lobbyist, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA),
stated that the official UFA stance was for the FDA to prohibit
permits for this. He offered his belief that the technology
could be sold to someone in closer proximity to Alaska. He
suggested that, if permits were approved, it could be necessary
for the fish to be labeled, and not allowed to be raised in
Alaska. He offered his belief that regulations already existed
to prevent the import of live non-native fish or eggs into the
State of Alaska.
5:36:46 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON reflected on reports of the escapement of farmed
fish which had been caught in Southeast Alaska.
MR. McCUNE confirmed that the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
had documentation of Atlantic salmon being caught in Southeast
Alaska, and as far north as the Copper River, which had escaped
from Canadian fish farms. He reflected on the problems arising
from farmed fish pens in Canada.
5:38:28 PM
BEN MULLIGAN, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, reported that there were regulations banning the
importation of live fish under AS 16.05.251.
5:39:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, declaring "frankenfish is a scary
proposition," asked if it should be included specifically in
statute.
MR. MULLIGAN replied that it would not be a bad decision.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, reflecting on the concerns, asked if
there was any harm to add it to statute.
5:41:04 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON asked if the definition for genetically modified
fish needed to be clarified.
MR. MULLIGAN suggested that the definition in AS 17.20.048 could
be included in the proposed amendment to AS 16.40.210.
5:42:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, reflecting that genetically modified had
"been on the books in some fashion since 1949" and that it was
currently referred to as genetically engineered, asked if the
statutes should reference genetically engineered.
MR. MULLIGAN replied that the wording was interchangeable.
5:43:41 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON closed public testimony.
5:43:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI read the definition for genetically
modified fish in AS 17.20.040(b)(2)(A): "a finfish or shellfish
whose genetic structure has been altered at the molecular level
by means that are not possible under natural conditions." He
noted that the definition further included techniques to
genetically modify other species. He opined that the definition
for natural conditions, which he had read to the committee,
would cover any circumstance for the genetically modified
organism.
5:44:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied that it was not his intention
to redefine, but an addition of [AS 17.20.040](b)(2)(A) would be
helpful.
5:45:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
as follows:
Page 2, line 3, after "AS 17.20.040"
Insert "(b)(2)(A) and (B)"
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
5:46:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER, directing attention to the definition in
AS 17.20.040](b)(2)(A), suggested that "created" should be
substituted for "altered." He nominated that this was necessary
for clarity for enforcement.
5:47:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN opined that a fish that cannot
reproduce would need to be "altered."
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked to clarify that the alteration
occurred at the egg level, or the gene level, which was prior to
its being a fish. He expressed his desire to reinforce the
amendment.
5:48:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved to report HB 100, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
100(FSH) was reported from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.