Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/29/2004 09:05 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 282(RES)
"An Act relating to the identification of finfish in food
products and to the misbranding of food products consisting of
or containing finfish."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken noted that this bill would require retail
restaurants to specify on their menus whether the finfish being
offered for consumption were farmed or wild fish. He pointed out
that the Senate Resources version of the bill, Version 23-LS1213\Q,
is before the Committee for consideration.
SENATOR KIM ELTON, the bill's sponsor, stated that he is carrying
the legislation on behalf of the Joint Legislative Salmon Task
Force, which unanimously approved it. This bill would require
restaurant menus to specify whether the fish being served are wild
or farmed. Currently, grocery store labeling must include this
information. This bill would simply extend that concept to
restaurants. Consumer awareness and consumer choice are important
issues, especially given the fact that toxicity levels being found
in fish are being discussed in the scientific and popular arena.
Many people prefer to eat fish at restaurants as opposed to
preparing it at home, as they feel that a restaurant has more
expertise than they do in this regard.
Senator Elton stated that the Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force
is comprised of processors, Legislators, and public members. One
question that arose during the bill's Senate Resources Committee
hearing was in regards to the restaurant industry's reaction to the
legislation. Only one restaurant has voiced the concern that this
labeling would incur additional costs; however, he opined that
because most fish is served fresh in restaurants, the information
would be on the daily or fresh menu as opposed to a printed menu.
Co-Chair Green asked regarding definition language in Section 2,
subsection (b)(1) and (2) on page three, following line 23, in that
while the definition of farmed fish is detailed, the definition of
fish is limited. The language in question, reads as follows.
(1) "farmed fish" means fish that is propagated, farmed,
or cultivated in a facility that grows, farms, or cultivates
the fish in captivity or under positive control but that is
not a salmon hatchery that is owned by the state or that holds
a salmon hatchery permit under AS 16.10.400; in this
paragraph, "positive control" has the meaning given in AS
16.40.199;
(2) "fish" means finfish;
Senator Elton understood that finfish is defined elsewhere in State
Statute. Continuing, he communicated that one definition of
"finfish" are those fish that are not shellfish.
Co-Chair Green asked for further clarification.
Senator Elton noted that, "for the purposes of this legislation,
fish is finfish and not shellfish."
Co-Chair Green asked whether the fish being referenced in Section
2, subsection (b)(2), on page three, line 30 is defined in current
State Statute or is specific to language in this legislation.
Senator Elton responded that the definition of fish is defined
elsewhere in State Statute.
ELISE HSIEH, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section,
Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, testified via
teleconference from an offnet site and explained that "finfish," is
a commonly used term, which is included in the Department of Fish
and Game Chapter Title 16. She stated that finfish, shellfish, and
fish by-products are included in "the broader term, seafood."
Therefore, she supported Senator Elton's position "that finfish is
different than shellfish."
Co-Chair Green questioned the need to include the Section 2
definition language in the legislation, as the intent of the bill
is to address the difference between wild fish or farmed fish and
not to define "fish" as opposed to shellfish.
Senator Elton expressed that the inclusion of the "fish" definition
is the result of being "overly cautious" in its attempt to clarify
what finfish is in regards to the intent of this bill.
Co-Chair Wilken understood that the intent of the fish definition
would be to distinguish that the bill would not affect things such
as oysters.
Senator Elton concurred, and noted that "a more common" example
would be shrimp, as the majority of the shrimp that is imported
into the United States is farmed.
Co-Chair Wilken asked regarding the reason that schools and
correctional facilities are excluded from the disclosure
requirement denoted in Section 2, subsection (4) (B) and (C) on
page four, lines nine and eleven respectfully.
Senator Elton responded that the intent of this legislation is to
focus on businesses serving the open public rather than on those
that do not. While he would not be opposed to the inclusion of
those entities exempted in Section 2, subsection (4), it might
prove awkward were, for instance, British Petroleum (BP) required
to provide signage in its North Slope employee cafeteria.
Co-Chair Wilken acknowledged the explanation.
Co-Chair Wilken ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|