Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/03/2004 03:30 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 281-GENETICALLY MODIFIED FISH
VICE CHAIR WAGONER announced SB 281 to be up for consideration.
4:55 - 4:57 - at ease
SENATOR KIM ELTON, sponsor, said that SB 281 is a proactive bill
that provides that labeling identify genetically modified (GM)
fish and fish products, which are defined as "foods in which
genetic structure has been altered at the molecular level by
means that are not possible under natural conditions or
processes." This bill addresses concerns raised by consumers,
people in the environmental community, people in the health
community and Alaska fish marketing groups. It requires Alaska
retailers to identify and label food containing fish and
shellfish products that have been genetically modified. The bill
is similar to and based upon legislation introduced in other
states, like Oregon and California, and it comes to this
committee and to the Legislature with the unanimous support of
the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force.
SENATOR ELTON noted that genetically modified fish are not
allowed in the marketplace currently. However, SB 281
anticipates future entry into the consumer markets as the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) has a pending proposal to allow
the production of a genetically modified salmon. He noted that
country of origin labeling legislation is now being considered
in Washington, D.C.
SENATOR DYSON said he appreciated Senator Elton bringing this
issue forward. He asked what labeling SB 281 would require of
frozen or fresh salmon, not in a container.
SENATOR ELTON replied that most retail outlets identify fresh
fish on a placard.
My intention would be that it be identified on the
placard.... I do think Alaska consumers are relatively
sophisticated and any retail outlets... caught selling
genetically modified fish, I would think that's almost
a self-policing kind of a thing. The difficulty that
Alaska consumers have is mostly [with] packaged fish
and shellfish that are coming from... other foreign
countries. The intent would be to label it on a
placard. That's probably the least likely place for
this to enter the marketplace in Alaska.
SENATOR DYSON respectfully disagreed, because he has seen farmed
fish being sold as fresh fish in both restaurants and meat
markets.
I see genetically modified fish coming out of the
farms as one of the first assaults we'll have.... I'm
not sure your bill makes it really clear that if it's
not packaged, it should be placarded. I won't hold the
bill up for that....
He asked what Senator Elton intended for fish that is sold in
restaurants.
SENATOR ELTON agreed that if Alaska gets genetically modified
fish, it would probably be through the farm system. He may be
too optimistic, but in coastal communities he is familiar with,
when a retailer is selling unpackaged farmed fish, there's a lot
of pressure and he thought that pressure would double or triple
if it were GM. He said the bill just covers retail fish, but he
would double check on that.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS asked what the state's remedy was for
misbranding.
SENATOR ELTON replied that is a problem. Current law has a
labeling provision for retail fish. "It is a problem of
enforcement." He expected that people would notice mislabeling
and report it to the department and hoped that retailers would
choose to follow the law.
CHAIR OGAN arrived at 5:10 p.m.
SENATOR SEEKINS said it seems that intentionally or even
unintentionally mislabeling food is an unfair trade practice.
For instance, it would be an unfair trade practice if he sold a
used car as a new car.
When it comes to the health of individuals, we rely on
DEC and a few other things like that. But having come
from the retail sector myself, I wonder why if we're
really serious.... why we don't do treble damages,
cease and desist orders and a few things like that....
What would really compel me not to comply?
SENATOR ELTON agreed with him completely. The existing situation
is that it would not be an attempt to deceive if the law doesn't
require you to identify it. So the issue is being raised to that
level.
TAPE 04-20, SIDE A
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if a statement could be inserted stating
that violation of this bill constitutes an unfair trade practice
under AS 45.50.
SENATOR ELTON responded that he would consider that, but the
problem is that this is a fairly large area. Section 1 is
existing law. The only thing that is being added is the
genetically modified component.
If we did decide to do that, I would think it would
require a great deal of discussion with all of the
other elements that are covered already in existing
statute and that's a pretty big bite to chew off right
now.
MS. KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), said SB 281 has
a zero fiscal note because the FDA has not allowed genetically
modified fish to be sold in the country, yet. However, a fiscal
note would be associated with enforcement if the FDA does
approve it in the future. She informed them that HB 378 puts
many stipulations on misbranding in this chapter as a violation
of the Fair Trade Practices Act.
SENATOR LINCOLN moved to pass SB 281 out of committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There
were no objections and it was so ordered. There being no further
business to come before the committee, VICE CHAIR WAGONER
adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|