Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/01/1998 03:22 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 65 - CLASSIFY WILD SALMON AS ORGANIC FOOD Number 0080 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business was HJR 65, Requesting that Alaska wild salmon be included as an organic food under federal law. Number 0090 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON presented HJR 65. He stated Alaska's wild salmon had long been recognized as a heart-healthy food by the medical community and indicated this resolution asked the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Alaska's congressional delegation, and Congress in general, to allow Alaska's wild salmon an opportunity to be classified as an organic food. He noted the organic food market, encompassing many different types of foods, was approximately $3.5 billion in 1996 and was growing at a rate of about 20 percent per year. Representative Hudson indicated the salmon farming industry was working to have farmed salmon classified as an organic food and that Alaska had to appeal for that classification for far healthier wild salmon. He indicated farmed salmon were raised in closed systems and were fed antibiotics, steroids and things of that nature, while Alaska salmon was out in the pristine, cold Alaska waters. Representative Hudson stated it was very important that this effort was made. He commented he did not know if they would be successful, but indicated this resolution simply asked that the USDA and Congress allow Alaska wild salmon the opportunity to be classified as an organic product. He noted there were witnesses to testify about the marketing assets of this effort. The sponsor statement read: The organic-foods market is a growing market (annual growth rate of 20%) with total sales of $3.5 billion in 1996. Alaska's wild salmon, long recognized by the medical community as a heart healthy food, and reared in pristine Alaskan waters should be a strong candidate for this growing market. Unfortunately, farmed salmon producers, both domestic and foreign, are ahead of Alaska in striving to convince the U.S. Department of Agriculture that farmed salmon should qualify for Organic certification under federal law. House Joint Resolution 65 requests that Alaska wild salmon be fairly considered by objective scientific criteria as an organic food. The United States Department of Agriculture, via the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), is seeking the establishment of national standards for the organic production and handling of agricultural products. The deadline for public and official input is May 30th, 1998. The global salmon industry is fiercely competitive. Organic certification is a valuable market niche because a rapidly growing base of consumers has demonstrated willingness to consistently pay top dollar for products of choice. HJR 65 is but one step in pursuing this significant market. It puts the United States Department of Agriculture on notice that Alaskans are watching the pending debate over organic qualification, and it asks our delegation in Congress to assist in this matter, to insure the huge agri-business doesn't simply dominate the agenda from the start. Number 0290 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to page 1, line 5, of the resolution, asking about the wording "environmentally clean waters" [lines 4 and 5 read, "WHEREAS the ocean waters off the coast of Alaska are among the most environmentally clean waters on the globe; and"]. Chairman Rokeberg indicated he agreed with the concept of Alaska's clean waters but was not sure he understood the meaning of "environmentally clean". Number 0320 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON brought forward the word "pristine". CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee would take testimony and indicated the committee might want to consider alternate language for "environmentally". Number 0370 JEFF BAILEY, President, Prime Select Seafoods, Incorporated; commercial fisherman, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated Prime Select Seafoods, Incorporated, was a fishermen- owned seafood marketing company located in Cordova. He thanked the committee for considering this important resolution encouraging inclusion of Alaska's wild salmon in the USDA's National Organic Program. He stated, "My interest in this issue began in December when I heard on National Public Radio that USDA was seeking public comment on the (indisc.--whistling) to regulate (indisc.) organic label. I did some research and discovered in my dismay that wild salmon ... Alaska wild salmon in particular, was not included in the proposed rules. My first reaction was to contact USDA to see if wild salmon was simply overlooked. They informed me that wild salmon was not on the list because USDA ... had no way to monitor what wild fish eat in their ... open ocean environment. My outrage came later when I learned that (indisc.--coughing)-raised salmon was being considered for inclusion ["exclusion" stated on tape] because USDA could monitor what they consumed. We began a campaign to reverse Alaskan salmon's exclusion. It is essential that Alaska present an unified front ... to strongly promote inclusion of Alaska wild salmon in the National Organic Program. The farmed salmon industry has already recognized the value of a USDA certified organic label and has been working closely with USDA for over seven years. Alaska is woefully behind on the issue and is very close to having its salmon excluded from the organic program." Number 0510 MR. BAILEY continued, "This exclusion will prohibit Alaskan fishermen from being able to participate in an organic industry which last year was worth $3.5 billion in the US [United States] alone. We can do something about it and need this resolution to provide the political clout needed for USDA's reconsideration. Alaska salmon is sold in an extremely competitive market. We have lost significant market share to the farm-raised fish and consumers lack awareness of the inherent and important differences between farm-raised and wild fish products. The organic label could help us provide a critical distinction and add substantially to the overall value of Alaska's salmon resource. This added value translates into money; money for fishermen, processors, support industries and the state of Alaska. It is time for Alaska to stand up and say enough is enough with regards to the ever increasing displacement of our wild salmon resource by farm-raised salmon and trout in the world marketplace. Recognition of Alaska wild salmon as a certifiably organic product has the potential to turn the entire Alaska salmon industry back to ... its historical place as a dominant power in the world salmon industry." Number 0590 REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN indicated he was ready to move the resolution. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he appreciated Representative Ryan's anxiousness. Number 0602 REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA thanked Mr. Bailey for his work and indicated he hoped that if HJR 65 passed through the legislature Mr. Bailey would continue his efforts. Number 0615 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Bailey why farmed salmon producers were ahead of Alaskans in getting the USDA to adopt that standard, noting they were speaking of overseas, foreign salmon here. Number 0639 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA responded he thought that was part of the point, stating, "While we're cutting our ASMI [Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute] budget, our marketing budgets here in Alaska, they're doubling theirs. They're out there doing everything they can to find market for theirs. ... These people recognize how to sell something ...." Representative Kubina said the organic foods market was exploding in the United States. He commented on farmed salmon being raised in closed pens, stating "You can't call that clean, environmentally or not, clean water." Representative Kubina also noted the use of antibiotics and coloring agents in the production of farmed salmon, and he said these groups were saying to the United States government, or the United States regulators, "Hey, we should be ... organic ...." Representative Kubina indicated he felt this was the opportunity for Alaska to say, "Whoa, wait a minute, here's the real organic," because, he stated, "Our fish are organic, purely natural, we're not feeding them anything, the world feeds them." AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER stated, "The oceans are feeding 'em." Number 0719 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he couldn't agree with Representative Kubina more. He asked if Mr. Bailey had anything to add. Number 0725 MR. BAILEY added that the USDA has never regulated seafood in the past in any manner, it was strictly agricultural products, and he indicated the agency was more comfortable with what the farmed salmon producers could show the USDA because of the definition of farming. He said he thought Alaskans found themselves outside a regulated authority that had never really recognized them anyway, indicating this was why he thought Alaska had been caught off-guard and was behind. Mr. Bailey stated he felt very strongly that this resolution and position would "turn their heads around." He indicated the USDA program had received over 25,000 comments and an extension of the comment period was being discussed. He noted he did think the program had potential, but indicated the program was going to be rewritten and this was where Alaska needed to be included. Number 0787 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, "We need to get the word out to all Alaskans to make sure they're commenting to the right people." Number 0812 KATE TROLL, Fisheries Development Specialist, Division of Trade and Development, Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), came forward to testify. She stated the department had been working on and reviewing these proposed regulations, developing official comments. Ms. Troll said the legislature's resolution was "in sync" with those official statements as they were currently drafted. She explained farmed salmon was ahead of Alaska salmon here because USDA decided to include fish in its definition of livestock. She noted these regulations were written from a terrestrial farm perspective and apparently the farmed salmon industry was able to get the USDA to insert "fish" in this definition of livestock. Ms. Troll indicated that while Alaska salmon was not specifically excluded, it clearly was not included at that point. She stated, "Our focus has been to say, 'Wait a minute ... ocean-farmed environments as well wild seafood is dramatically different than ... livestock. You need to have a separate section which addresses seafood.'" She indicated that, while wild salmon certainly is the impetus behind their involvement in commenting on these regulations, all Alaska seafood products would be affected. She commented that there was no notion of crops coming from the sea under the USDA's definition of wild crop harvesting. Ms. Troll stated it was very clear through reading that anything pertaining to seafood was an afterthought, commenting, "So that's why ... we're pushing to say, 'Hey, back off. Start over again with seafood.'" She indicated the department had been working with the Governor's office in Washington, D.C., which had been in contact with Senator Stevens' office. She said Senator Stevens made an inquiry which basically told the USDA there would be changes, and she said they were very glad to have that message delivered from the Senator's office. Additionally, Ms. Troll noted the proposed rules would prohibit the use of any word sounding like organic, directly or indirectly. She commented Alaska's whole marketing campaign was based on "wild" and "natural," stating, "These rules go into place, we'd be prohibited from using 'wild' and 'natural,' when clearly if anything is intrinsically organic, it is our salmon." She noted it was a fight full of irony, but one she believed would have major positive market impacts, not only for the salmon industry but for the entire seafood industry. Number 1005 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated he was glad the Administration was addressing this, noting it did go far beyond salmon "in all the things that we have out there." He stated, "And we do have farmers .... We have shellfish farmers all over the state. And so, while I want this to go forward, the more you think about it, the more I think we need to make sure that we protect our place and I'm glad you're there." Number 1035 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Ms. Troll her views on the use of "pristine" instead of "environmentally" on page 1, line 5, of the resolution. MS. TROLL said she thinks "pristine" fit, noting the term was used in the draft she had been working on. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that "pristine" means "remaining in a pure, unspoiled state," and it struck him that might even have more power. Number 1080 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated his preference for "pristine," indicating he felt, after thought, that "environmentally clean" also was appropriate because of the presence of plankton, et cetera, in water which is absolutely pristine and environmentally sound but not necessarily clean in the sense of being transparent. Referring to Representative Kubina's statement, Chairman Rokeberg said it seemed appropriate to cover all Alaskan naturally-harvested seafood. He asked Ms. Troll if she thought this resolution should be expanded, or if there were any recommendations from the Administration or herself as a specialist in this area. Number 1143 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated he would like to see the resolution go forward in its current form because of it was a response to the fish farm, and he would agree to work with people on another resolution dealing with the whole industry, rather than holding up anything. Number 1175 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Ms. Troll had said that possibly the USDA regulations currently being drafted might have negative ramifications on advertising, even other species, and some of those other things, if they were not granted organic status. He asked if that was correct. Number 1182 MS. TROLL answered in the affirmative. She said the proposed rules, as currently written, would make it extremely difficult for any Alaska seafood product to say it qualified because fish was not in the USDA's thinking as a wild crop. She indicated Alaska's seafood would fall under this wild crop category since it was not livestock, referring again to the success of the farmed salmon industry in getting "fish" inserted into the definition of livestock which would give that industry an advantage in saying its products were organic and Alaska's were not. She noted salmon was currently the "hot button" concern, where the state saw the farmed salmon industry taking a lot of its marketing advantages away. She commented Alaska needed to stop this and HJR 65 addressed this primary concern. Ms. Troll noted the resolution was not in conflict at all with the comment being drafted by the Administration; she stated, "We just realize ... that, strategically, we thought it would be best, rather than try to insert a word and change a word here, is to say, 'Wait a minute, don't treat seafood as an afterthought - it merits its own section and here's elements we'd like to see in that section.'" Number 1266 BARBARA BELKNAPP, Executive Director, Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI), came forward to testify next. She stated ASMI supported HJR 65; it believed HJR 65 would be beneficial to ASMI in its marketing efforts as well as to the industry. She said Ms. Troll had been doing a tremendous amount of work on the technical aspects of this and ASMI had been assisting. She indicated an organic designation would be particularly helpful in the Japanese market, where Alaska's market share was eroding rapidly, and where the consumers were currently very label and health conscious with the recent E. coli (Escherichia coli bacteria) problems. Ms. Belknapp said the organic designation is even more important in Europe, with mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) and some of the other things there. In the United States, she said it was not as broad, but her feeling was that any niche market or added consumers through organic labeling would be beneficial to the industry. Number 1334 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked why they couldn't put on an "Alaska wild salmon" label. MS. BELKNAPP replied they did, but she said they didn't say "organic." Ms. Belknapp explained it became a little complicated because "wild" was used in some markets and "natural" in others. "Natural" was mainly used in the United States to avoid confusion with endangered salmon, and "wild" was used in Japan and Europe. She noted "pristine waters" was used all the time as part of their advertising. Number 1370 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked if Alaskan red (sockeye) salmon wasn't very popular in Japan and commanded a higher price. He noted he hadn't been there in a few years. MS. BELKNAPP replied that unfortunately Alaska's market share had eroded in the last two years from more than 50 percent down to almost 20 to 30 percent. She stated Alaska had lost 70 percent of its market share in Japan to farmed salmon. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the costs of the two types of salmon were the same. Number 1399 MS. BELKNAPP replied in the negative, stating Alaska sockeye salmon was more expensive. She commented farmed salmon was priced below all United States product in the United States and outside the country. That was a real disadvantage for Alaska, but she said it had been proven that most people would pay more for products labeled organic. Ms. Belknapp reiterated that Alaska's Japanese market share was eroding quickly and anything that could help stop that was valuable. Number 1440 CHERI SHAW, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU), testified next via teleconference from Cordova. She noted she was speaking behalf of CDFU and herself, and read from a prepared statement: CDFU supports HJR 65 and the effort it will create to allow wild Alaska salmon to be federally labeled as organic. While the market for wild salmon has been eroding due to the increasing production of farmed salmon, the organic market has been growing dramatically. As noted in HJR 65, in 1996 alone sales were worth $3.5 billion. Organic food sales have increased 20 to 25 percent in each of the last 6 years. Overseas, organic foods are even more popular. The commercial fishing industry has often been called the first permanent fund. With the high quality of management we find here in Alaska, the salmon fishing industry will pump millions, if not billions, of dollars into the state's economy into perpetuity. Anything the legislature can do to help increase Alaska's salmon share in the global market will benefit all Alaskans. In conjunction with a passage of HJR 65 in the legislature, a letter-writing campaign by all Senators, Representatives and the constituents they represent should be organized requesting the federal government allow wild-harvested Alaska salmon to be labeled organic under the Organic Foods Production Act. This step forward will give the state and its salmon industry a valuable marketing edge they've both been searching for in this increasingly competitive global market. The organic label will increase demand for Alaska wild salmon and should increase exvessel value, thereby adding growth to the state's revenue in shared raw fish taxes. This is a win - win situation. Number 1528 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked where and to whom would they write. MS. SHAW replied to the USDA, to Dan Glickman, she believed. Number 1541 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he asked for the record and the committee would obtain that information from Representative Hudson. He noted the Secretary of Agriculture was Daniel R. Glickman. Number 1564 ED WOJAK testified next via teleconference from Seattle. He testified as an individual, commenting he worked as a Bristol Bay fisher and a business lobbyist with predominantly Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) groups in Norton Sound and on the Yukon Delta as clients. He indicated he heard of this USDA rule- making the previous fall, and had questioned why fish wasn't included when the USDA was considering standards for organic beef and poultry. He said he found that fish as food was listed as livestock in this Act, and livestock was considered to be an agricultural product which would qualify for organic certification, yet it didn't appear Alaska's fish would qualify. Mr. Wojak indicated he testified at the Seattle USDA hearing, which was one of four hearings held country-wide. He commented on the irony of the situation and indicated the information he received from the USDA panel was that his ocean-harvested wild product would not qualify for organic certification but a pen or pond-raised product would. He said he further commented to the USDA, "We, as harvesters of wild salmon, we have never lost those standards of purity and wholesomeness that you're striving to achieve with your organic program ...." He noted the previous testimony had spoken to the rest of his comments and he thanked the committee on behalf of Alaska's fishermen for considering this issue. Number 1669 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was anyone else who wished to testify on HJR 65. Hearing none, he commented to Representative Hudson that while he thought resolutions should be written in a positive form as a matter of tone, there was nothing indicating farm-raised fish shouldn't be considered organic. Chairman Rokeberg asked if they were advocating for two separate standards. Number 1705 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON answered in the affirmative, indicating they wanted to make sure pristine-watered, Alaska wild salmon were organic. Number 1725 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated he agreed with Ms. Shaw's suggestion of a letter-writing campaign once this was adopted, indicating they should make that whole issue very clear to Alaska's congressional delegation and the Secretary of Agriculture in those letters. Number 1736 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG alternately suggested another resolution covering all seafood, noting that was an important point. He referred to a letter from ASMI being distributed to the committee. Number 1753 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA made a motion to change the word "environmentally" on page 1, line 5, to "pristine". Number 1762 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the amendment was adopted. Page 1, line 5 now read, "pristine clean waters on the globe; and". REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked if "pristine clean" was redundant. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the chairman wished to delete the word "clean". CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked for the definition of "pristine". REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied he thought it meant natural, noting he had just had that definition. Number 1773 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at ease at 3:53 p.m. The committee came back to order at 3:54 p.m. Number 1805 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the chair would entertain another amendment to delete the word "clean" which occurred on page 1, line 5. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA made a motion to adopt the amendment. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the amendment before the committee was to delete the word "clean", stating the sentence would read "... among the most pristine waters on the globe". He asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the amendment was adopted. Number 1805 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to move HJR 65 as amended, with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. Number 1814 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections. There being none, CSHJR 65(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|