Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/28/2004 09:06 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 281
"An Act relating to labeling and identification of genetically
modified fish and fish products."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken stated this bill is sponsored by Senator Elton.
Senator Elton testified this legislation would require genetically
modified fish to be labeled. The federal Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has not approved any transgenetic fish for the
marketplace, but the FDA does have a pending application for the
approval of the 'Frankenfish', which is a farmed salmon that would
grow at a much greater rate than presently farmed fish. This
legislation is similar to legislation passed in Oregon and
California, and is unanimously supported by the State legislature's
Salmon Industry Task Force. The Senate Resources Committee also
unanimously passed this legislation.
Senator Olson asked whether any fish currently available in the
marketplace has been genetically altered.
Senator Elton replied, "no", that the only genetically altered fish
approved for sale is the neon blinking aquarium fish sold in pet
stores. His concern is related to a pending FDA application that
would approve genetic alteration of salmon fish. This alteration
would cause the fish to grow at very fast rates, and would
subsequently increase the profitability of the industrial fish
makers.
ELISE HSIEH, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section,
Civil Division, Department of Law, testified via teleconference
from an offnet location to the uncertainty of whether this law
would be valid when the Food and Drug Administration grants the
pending application. The FDA would not likely approve the label
proposed in this legislation because there are no known health
risks associated with transgenic fish. The State would have to
prove the necessity of labeling transgenic fish, and a threat to
State commerce would not be an acceptable reason.
Ms. Hsieh continued that the State of Vermont passed legislation
requiring that hormone-produced milk be labeled, and created a
label that specified that the milk did not have adverse health
affects. The State of Alaska may have to make a similar compromise
in order to require a label for transgenic fish.
Senator Olson questioned how the states of Oregon and California
have justified the passage of similar legislation.
Ms. Hsieh was not familiar with the laws adopted by those states.
She noted that several states are passing food-labeling laws with
the knowledge that the FDA may challenge their laws.
Senator Elton informed that this legislation is proposing a
"consumer notice", and not a health warning. He gave examples of
similar labeling, such as country of origin labeling and the
labeling of farmed and wild salmon at the grocery level. This
legislation would not necessarily pre-empt the actions of federal
Food and Drug Administration.
Ms. Hsieh countered that existing law regarding labeling and
advertisement of halibut and salmon does not require such labeling,
but rather allows it. Because interstate commerce product would not
be required to label, fish harvesters could easily opt out of
labeling.
Senator Bunde referenced the zero fiscal note for this legislation
and asked the fiscal impact to retail businesses. He remarked that
imported products would have to be labeled at the grocery stores.
Senator Elton was unsure but referred to the required labeling at
the grocery level of wild and farmed salmon, and stated that he did
not hear any grocer comment on negative economic impacts related to
the labeling.
Co-Chair Wilken ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|