Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/22/2017 06:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB46 | |
| HB172 | |
| HJR12 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 12-OPPOSING GEN ENGINEERED SALMON
6:22:30 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12, Opposing the United
States Food and Drug Administration's approval of AquaBounty
AquAdvantage genetically engineered salmon; and urging the
United States Congress to enact legislation that requires
prominently labeling genetically engineered salmon and salmon
products with the words "Genetically Modified" on the product's
packaging. [Before the committee was CSHJR 12(FSH).]
6:22:48 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, prime sponsor of HJR 12, provided a PowerPoint
presentation entitled, "HJR 12: Opposing GM Salmon, Say No to
Frankenfish." She said HJR 12 expresses the State of Alaska's
opposition to approval of genetically modified (GM) salmon.
Addressing slide 2 she explained that on November 19, 2015, the
federal government [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] approved
the sale of genetically modified salmon. This is a big deal,
she stated, because it is the first approval of a GM animal for
human consumption; GM plants were approved in 1994. This
approval is very specific: it is to one company, AquaBounty,
and its one specific proposal [AquAdvantage Salmon].
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to slide 3 and described the genetic makeup
of the approved fish as being an Atlantic salmon with genes from
two other fish - the ocean pout, an eel-like fish, and the
Chinook salmon. Showing slide 4 she explained that the Chinook
gene makes the genetically modified fish grow bigger faster and
the ocean pout gene makes it grow year-round, which is an
interruption to the natural life cycle of a salmon. She pointed
out that both salmon shown in the photographs are 18-month-old
farmed salmon and that the genetically modified fish is twice as
big and grew twice as fast to reach that size.
CO-CHAIR TARR showed slide 5 and said the motivation behind the
genetically modified salmon has always been about profit, not
sustainability. While the purpose of companies is to make a
profit, she continued, this is really about looking at a way to
produce a protein product in a faster amount of time for a lower
cost. This is in contrast to the sustainable management of
[wild] fisheries done in Alaska [slide 6]. Alaska is a world
leader in sustainable fisheries management and this means
something to Alaskans, she said. Alaska has managed its fish
populations to assure abundance for commercial fishers and sport
fishers, as well as people visiting Alaska to fish for salmon.
Sustainability might mean something different to AquaBounty than
it does to Alaskans, she posited. Turning to slide 7 she noted
that Alaska's pollock fishery is sustainably harvested and
pointed out that the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI)
has been engaged in a multi-year process for certifying the
Alaska fisheries that are managed on a sustained yield basis.
6:27:10 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR displayed slide 8 and explained how these
genetically modified salmon would be grown to full size. The
eggs would be raised on Prince Edward Island (PEI) in Canada and
then shipped to Panama to be raised in land-based pens. Upon
harvest, the fish would be shipped to the U.S. The involvement
of three countries to produce this genetically modified fish is
interesting given that AquaBounty is based in Massachusetts.
From conversations with people intimately involved in this, she
understands that AquaBounty wouldn't try a proposal like this in
the U.S. because the company doesn't think it would get support.
Therefore, the company has taken this proposal around the world
to figure out the locations where it can happen. The actual
proposal approved by the [FDA], she continued, is specific to
the eggs being raised on Prince Edward Island, the fish being
raised in Panama, and the product being sold in the U.S.
CO-CHAIR TARR turned to slide 9 and stated that concerns with
genetically modified salmon include the threat to wild salmon,
the risks to human health, and the risks to [Alaska's] economy.
Moving to slide 10 she elaborated that the threat to wild salmon
is posed from escapement. For example, farmed [Atlantic] salmon
being reared in Washington and British Columbia have escaped and
been caught by fishermen in Alaska. The Alaska Department of
Fish and Game makes announcements to fishermen throughout Alaska
requesting that fishermen report any farmed-raised fish that
they see. At the federal level, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) have recognized these risks.
CO-CHAIR TARR referred to slide 11 and noted that some folks may
question why there is concern because the AquaBounty salmon
would be raised in land-based pens. However, she pointed out,
the AquaBounty facility [on PEI] is adjacent to Fortune Bay
which empties into Northumberland Strait that then goes to the
St. Lawrence Seaway and the Atlantic Ocean. Any issues at this
facility could result in the potential for escapement. Turning
to slide 12 she said she visited the facility in 2013 prior to
the FDA's approval and met with people from Prince Edward Island
and Panama who were concerned and interested in opposing this.
Prince Edward Island is known for its tourism, she said, and now
when the island is researched online articles about the
Frankenfish are the first things to come up and there is concern
about PEI being known as the home of the Frankenfish as that may
deter people from visiting. Co-Chair Tarr explained that the
facility has traps in its drain systems to prevent escapement,
which are pointed to by those people who say there shouldn't be
cause for concern about escapement. However, she continued, she
remains uncomfortable because there would be no access to this
facility by U.S. regulators, which would limit the ability of
the U.S. to have influence on the safety of this facility.
6:32:14 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR displayed slides 13 and 14 and elaborated further
on the threats to wild salmon. She reported that millions of
comments were received during the comment period for this
proposal. Right after the comment period closed, McGill
University in Canada published a research report that found
these genetically modified salmon could interbreed with wild
brown trout and, most alarming, the hybridized fish could out-
compete both the GM salmon and the wild [brown trout]. Such
interbreeding and the overtaking of the natural species is the
reason for concern about escapement, she continued. While some
folks might say the risk for escapement is low, she wants to err
on the side of being very conservative about this because
Atlantic salmon runs have been stressed from overharvesting and
much restoration work is taking place. On the West Coast, dams
are being removed to allow natural fish passage. The Bristol
Bay fishery of Alaska is extremely important ecologically
because it is one of only a few wild fisheries; most of the
other Alaska fisheries have some hatchery fish to stock the
fisheries. Another risk from farmed salmon, Co-Chair Tarr
pointed out, is the spread of diseases to wild salmon that arise
from the less healthy environment of the farm pens and that are
unnatural to the wild salmon.
6:35:02 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR turned to slide 15 to address the risks to human
health. There is controversy regarding genetically modified
foods and human health, she allowed. Relative to GM salmon,
humans would be eating the foreign deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
along with the growth hormones. Of concern is the way in which
the FDA assessed the safety for genetically modified salmon. It
wasn't evaluated as a food product, she explained, but rather it
was evaluated under the veterinary drug protocols. For some
people, that calls into question all the information and is a
reason why people have strong concerns about whether it was
properly evaluated for health risks.
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to slide 16 to discuss the risks to Alaska's
economy. She recalled that the first introduction of farmed
salmon caused a dramatic price decrease for wild salmon. This
led to establishment of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
(ASMI) and the state making significant efforts to market Alaska
wild salmon and all its health benefits. These efforts have
been very successful - Alaska's wild salmon is now one of the
most well recognized brands nationwide. Genetically modified
salmon coming to the market could undermine the confidence in
Alaska wild salmon, Co-Chair Tarr posited. This is why Alaska's
past and present congressional delegation has been fighting at
the federal level for mandatory labeling. If consumers were
unable to differentiate Alaska wild salmon from farmed salmon
they may choose not to buy any salmon at all, which would be
very harmful to Alaska.
6:37:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND requested an explanation of the meaning
of veterinary drug protocols.
CO-CHAIR TARR replied that instead of using the process for
evaluating a food product the FDA used the process for
evaluating a veterinary drug protocol. The question is whether
that effectively assesses whether there is any health risk
because it needs to be understood from the aspect of a human
eating this rather than it being used as a veterinary drug.
This is very unusual, she said. There is no precedent for this
because this would be the first time that a genetically modified
animal is approved for human consumption. If this goes forward,
a better system needs to be developed, Co-Chair Tarr posited.
Talk about this needs to continue because the AquaBounty web
site used to list several other species that the company was
interested in also producing as genetically modified food
products. Now its web site has transitioned away from that and
only focuses on salmon. If this continues and other products
are going to be evaluated, Tarr added, then there needs to be a
standard that evaluates it as a product that a person eats and
whether there is a health risk associated with that.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND inquired whether the FDA evaluated the
drugs that were used on the fish or evaluated the fish as if it
were a veterinary drug.
CO-CHAIR TARR responded it was the latter; the FDA evaluated the
fish through the veterinary drug process.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she is confused because veterinary
means animals - dogs, cats, horses, cows. She asked whether the
FDA evaluated it as to its effect on animals eating these fish.
CO-CHAIR TARR answered, "Those type of evaluations that were
considered in the overall evaluation were considered low risk
because of the land-based operations." Whether it was done in a
substantial enough way is one of the criticisms.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her understanding that this is
being considered a land-based operation even though it is on the
edge of a river.
CO-CHAIR TARR replied yes and estimated that the facility is
about 200 feet away from a small stream that flows into Fortune
Bay. She offered her belief that there is question about the
safety of the facility. The fish would be grown in land-based
pens and the evaluation process states there would be little
opportunity for escapement. A big criticism is whether this was
fully evaluated for any of these potential impacts. There are
reasons for concern, she said. Even those things with a low
likelihood need to be addressed because the worst must be
planned for. While it was said that there would be little
opportunity for interbreeding, the question is whether one is
willing to take that risk and what that risk means in terms of
influence to a wild population, and her position is no.
6:42:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND inquired whether the AquaBounty facility
is using water from the creek that it is situated near. She
commented that the hatchery pictures in the presentation look
similar to the new hatchery in Anchorage, which is located next
to Ship Creek but uses well water.
CO-CHAIR TARR responded that these are the facilities located in
Panama. She said she has no pictures of the [Canadian] facility
because it is fenced, and the fence seen behind her [on slide
12] is as close as one can get. About 50 feet from where she is
standing in the photo is a little creek that empties into
Fortune Bay, she continued. It is not that these factors
weren't considered in the proposal, but rather the thinking that
the safety protocols in place like the traps and water sources
would limit the potential of something bad happening. While it
is probably true that in most circumstances things will work
correctly, she said she is more worried about when things go
wrong and there are a variety of reasons that that could happen.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND observed that the first item on slide 15
states, "People who eat the GM salmon will be eating the foreign
DNA, along with the growth hormones." She offered her
understanding that growth hormones or hormones used on cattle
and other animals have been implicated in the early onset of
puberty in girls. She inquired whether the hormones [added to
the fish in this proposal] were part of what the FDA evaluated.
CO-CHAIR TARR answered that many people don't think they were
evaluated properly because it wasn't evaluated as a food
product. Care must be taken in talking about hormones, she
noted. The growth hormone used in dairy and beef has been very
controversial and some companies have a specific disclaimer on
their products that say they don't use this growth hormone
because of the concern about what it does to growing young
people. Endocrine disrupter hormones mimic natural sex hormones
like estrogen, she continued. When used in personal care
products, for example, they end up in the water system and those
are the hormones causing the impacts of early onset of puberty.
6:45:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH shared his belief that HJR 12 is a wise
bill and said it is important to oppose this sort of thing
early. While the AquaBounty proposal is on the opposite side of
the continent, if it is a success it won't be long before the
company is looking to have one on the Pacific side too. The
farmed fish industry has demonstrated an inability or
unwillingness to contain its product, he continued, and he
wouldn't be surprised if farther down the line the company
started to say that it could save a lot of money by moving from
land-based to net pens. He asked whether there is any prospect
of the FDA reassessing this as a food for human consumption
rather than as a veterinary drug.
CO-CHAIR TARR replied yes, as recently as last summer there was
some concern and some additional meetings. The FDA received
over 300,000 written comments on some of the issues that came
out of that process. Displaying slide 17, she said she stands
with Senator [Lisa] Murkowski and other folks on following this
until it's a done deal. Dozens of Alaska fishing groups and
retailers have said they oppose it and won't sell it. Alaska's
congressional delegation has come out in opposition. Forty
members of Congress oppose it and that number probably needs to
be updated with the new Congress. Millions of comments were
against [approval of genetically modified salmon] plus there are
the retailers.
CO-CHAIR TARR turned to slide 18 and reported that since this
was approved there has also been international opposition.
Folks in Canada unsuccessfully sued their government, but have
since filed another lawsuit. Moving to slide 19 she said
litigation is continuing in the U.S. and it goes back to
approval through the veterinary drug protocol. So, it is an
unresolved matter. She noted she is a botanist by training and
was a student when the federal government approved genetically
modified plants and said there were many reasons for concern
about that. The pitch [to the public] in 1994 was that
genetically modified foods are needed to feed people. Now, more
than 20 years later, there are still a lot of hungry people.
Many countries will not grow some of those products. Even after
Haiti was ravaged by weather, Haitian farmers turned down the
genetically modified seeds that they were given.
CO-CHAIR TARR said her observation is that there is enough food
out there. For example, Americans produce and throw away enough
food to feed half the U.S. on an annual basis. It is not a lack
of food production, but rather a lack of access that is much
more related to a person's economic status, she advised. People
with money have access to food and those without money don't.
Alaska is striving to be the model of sustainable fishery
management, she continued, and she would like to move towards
making others be more sustainable with their wild fish
populations and not overharvest. Rebuilding fish populations
like the East Coast is doing should be what is looked at as the
solution, not producing a genetically modified product in a
land-based pen. It is not a done deal, she said, and she
applauds Senator Murkowski's work for mandatory labeling so that
if stopping this is unsuccessful people will at least have the
opportunity to know which salmon is genetically modified and
which is wild and can make an informed consumer choice.
6:51:01 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON opened public testimony on HJR 12.
6:51:18 PM
L. VAL GIDDINGS, PhD, noted his PhD is in animal genetics from
the University of Hawaii. He said he has been intimately
involved for three decades in biotechnology regulations, safety
assurance, and policy in the U.S. and around the world. He
spent a decade working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture
conducting safety assessments for transgenic crops. He has been
following the AquAdvantage salmon for at least 25 years. He
said salmon is his favorite fish to eat and there is no better
salmon than Alaska's. Therefore, he continued, he is puzzled by
some of this evening's testimony because [the AquAdvantage]
salmon was actually developed in no small part to address and
reduce the threats to wild salmon and to provide an increased
source of high quality fish protein at lower prices than is
available in many parts of the world today which are too far
away to access Alaska's salmon in an economical manner.
DR. GIDDINGS said the comments heard about the potential hazards
associated with this salmon are in general contradicted by the
facts. Concerns that the AquAdvantage salmon might threaten
wild populations are entirely misplaced for a number of reasons,
he stated. Salmon lay their eggs in clear, gravel-bottomed,
fresh water streams in the headwaters of major rivers on the
West Coast. "The salmon in the Prince Edward Island facility
that AquAdvantage uses to produce their eggs would be the water
that is a football-pitch distance from that facility is not
fresh water, it is salt water," he continued. Salmon eggs that
meet with salt water at that stage of development suffer a very
quick fate of death, he said. Even if these fish were to
survive an escape from the egg rearing facility or from the
contained concrete tanks that AquaBounty is presently using in
the Panamanian highlands, or from tanks that AquaBounty
ultimately hopes to situate in the American Mid-West in order to
have its production facilities close to major population
centers, and make their way into the Pacific and find their way
into habitats shared by Alaska's wild salmon, they would still
pose substantially less threat than those salmon already face
from the sea pens on the West Coast for the simple reason that
these AquaBounty/AquAdvantage fish are sterile and therefore
incapable of reproducing.
DR. GIDDINGS stated that while [the AquAdvantage salmon] grow
year-round they do not actually grow to any larger size than
normal; they just reach that size more rapidly than
conventionally farmed fish. Growing year-round means they must
eat year-round. The reason wild salmon don't grow through the
winter, he noted, is because they are adapted to winter
conditions in which food is rare to non-existent, so they don't
eat. If these feedlot salmon were in the wild population, then
they would starve to death during the first winter. Even if
these salmon did escape and encounter wild Alaska salmon - and
the potential for that is virtually zero because of where they
are being grown - the GM salmon are incapable of competing or
threatening the wild salmon's habitat because they cannot
survive a winter and are sterile. Therefore, these concerns
about potential threats are entirely misplaced, he said.
DR. GIDDINGS addressed the statement that was made about the
FDA's approval process being faulty because the review was under
the animal drug provisions rather than under food provisions.
He said he was at the three days of testimony held by the FDA on
September 19-21, 2010. The FDA's review was done under the new
animal drug provisions of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, he continued, and after reading well over 1,000 pages of
documents laying out exactly the details the FDA went through in
reviewing this proposal, he can say that the new animal drug
provision review was much more rigorous than the normal food
safety approval process. It included explicit examination of
the potential for any negative consequences or surprises for
humans or other animals to consume this salmon, Dr. Giddings
said. The FDA found that the GM salmon is nutritionally
indistinguishable from any other salmon. The hormone levels
present in the GM salmon are so low as to be undetectable with
the best available immunological screening methods, he added.
Every reasonable question that could be asked about the safety
of this fish either for human consumption or in terms of
potential environmental impacts should the fish escape and
against all odds manage to survive, has been asked and the
answers documented in the abundant literature posted on the
FDA's web site. This literature documents more than 10 years of
rigorous specific evaluations conducted on this salmon by the
FDA. The concerns have been raised, examined thoroughly, and
found to be without foundation, Dr. Giddings concluded.
6:59:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH noted that "ich" [ichthyophthiriasis] has
afflicted some of Alaska's natural salmon, specifically in the
lower Yukon [River]. He offered his understanding that it has
something to do with warmer water and it degrades the salmon.
He asked whether wild salmon populations eventually would be
able to protect themselves from [ichthyophthiriasis].
DR. GIDDINGS replied that ichthyophthiriasis is caused by a
fungus [of the genus] Ichthyophthirius. He said he is unaware
that ich has historically been a significant problem for wild
salmon, but is well known to people who keep fish in aquaria.
It requires and thrives in warmer water and generally tends not
to be a problem in cold water, which is the essential habitat
for salmon. It is possible to imagine ways in which genetic
techniques might be used to improve salmon stocks so that they
have improved levels of resistance to ichthyophthiriasis or
other disease, he added, although he is unaware of anyone
specifically working on that with salmon in particular.
However, he continued, it is not something that would be of any
specific concern under the conditions being talked about for
raising these AquAdvantage salmon, which is intended to be done
in closed-circuit concrete containment facilities inland far
from any ocean waters and far from any tributaries that feed
into ocean waters.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he understands that this naturally
occurring disease has been a problem with degrading some of the
natural salmon stocks. He added that he is very intrigued about
the genetic options or the potential for improving or addressing
these long-term concerns because, for example, the Hawaiian
papaya crop is considered a genetically modified organism (GMO)
success story. When Hawaii's papaya crops cratered in the mid-
1990s from ring-spot virus, [they were replaced by] the rainbow
papaya, a GMO papaya that now has 77 percent of the market.
7:02:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH drew attention to the diagram of the
proposed onshore facility in the sponsor's presentation, which
shows the intake, all the way around through the fish tank, the
various levels of treatment, and out to discharge to fresh or
seawater. He asked whether Dr. Giddings is familiar with that.
DR. GIDDINGS responded that he doesn't have the aforementioned
diagram in front of him, but is familiar with the facilities at
Prince Edward Island as well as those in Panama and is willing
to address questions about the facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH, regarding the levels of bacteria control
and treatment for diseases that can sometimes explode in this
sort of facility, inquired how all the antibacterial agents
would be removed from the water before the discharge to fresh or
seawater phase.
DR. GIDDINGS answered that protocols for closed-circuit systems
of this sort are very well developed. A variety of efficient
filtering and treatment techniques are available to remove from
the water any bactericides or antibiotics used to treat a
problem. It is important to realize, he continued, that the PEI
and Panamanian facilities do not produce a large amount of
effluent. These facilities are very different from most of the
conventional hatcheries throughout the western U.S. and Alaska,
which often do have substantial effluent and which effluent can
contain significantly elevated levels of nitrogenous or
phosphorous wastes from the fish food and fish excrement. The
PEI and Panamanian facilities are closed-circuit systems where
the water is re-circulated and filtered through active charcoal,
sand, and micro-pore filters of various sizes. Any antibiotics
or other compounds can be removed by autoclaving/sterilization.
The closed system is much more easily controlled than is the
case with most traditional hatcheries.
7:05:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH requested Dr. Giddings to send information
on the facilities currently in Panama because he is interested
in knowing what the standard is there. If something is done in
one place it can be done in another, he posited, and so he would
be interested in knowing what is being done there now.
DR. GIDDINGS agreed to try to do that, but said it would likely
not be until early April due to other obligations he already
has. Regarding the Panama facility, he said it is not correct
to say that AquaBounty avoided basing facilities in the U.S. out
of fear it wouldn't get approval. AquaBounty has received
approval from the FDA as always intended because the U.S. is the
primary market. The PEI facility was chosen because it was an
available excellent facility and not far from the company
headquarters in Massachusetts. Most importantly, he continued,
the researchers who developed this technological innovation are
Canadian and they wanted to have the facility based in Canada
for reasons of their own personal national pride. The adult
rearing facility was placed in Panama because Panama offered
AquaBounty some very lucrative concessions to put the facility
there.
DR. GIDDINGS further elaborated that putting the facility in
Panama provided a profound level of additional bio-security
because the facility is in the Panamanian Cordillera at a high
elevation of about 4,500 feet, which is necessary to provide a
cool enough climate and cool enough water to sustain salmon in
those tropical latitudes. The stream abutting the facility
feeds into a river that flows into Lake Gatun, a manmade lake
that is part of the Panama Canal. About 10 miles downstream
from the facility the water that any escaping salmon would
encounter is brown, muddy, and about 20 degrees higher than the
maximum temperature that salmon can tolerate. So, Dr. Giddings
continued, if salmon did manage to escape from the Panama
facility they would not survive their encounter with the waters
of Lake Gatun. Even if these fish made their way from that
facility through this muddy warm water of Lake Gatun, out
through the locks into the Pacific Ocean, and up to Alaska, they
are sterile and would die the first winter and would therefore
represent a reduction in the potential hazard compared to that
from Atlantic salmon in existing sea pens in the Northwest.
7:09:34 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON observed from his iPad that Dr. Giddings is
an independent consultant.
DR. GIDDINGS replied that's correct.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether Dr. Giddings is [working for]
AquaBounty.
DR. GIDDINGS responded no and said it is a frustration to him
because he has known the people working on this for 25 years and
the founding chief executive officer (CEO) has been a friend for
many years. He related that he has told AquaBounty for a long
time to hire him, but the company has a very low budget, so he
has given his work and time pro bono because he believes in what
the company is doing. He is not on AquaBounty's payroll and has
never been on its payroll for anything remotely related to the
salmon. His opinions are his own, he continued, and are based
on his long intimate knowledge of following this fish with great
personal and professional interest.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON inquired whether Dr. Giddings has ever
visited the PEI facility and the Panama holding tanks.
DR. GIDDINGS answered no he has not visited the PEI facility,
but said he has talked with AquaBounty at length about it and
has reviewed diagrams, pictures, and videos of it. He has
looked closely at all the FDA documents that examine both the
PEI facility and the Panama facility in detail, he continued.
He has not been to the Panama facility proper, but has been
within about 5 miles of it and is familiar with the watershed it
sits on and the river that flows into Lake Gatun.
7:11:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked from where Dr. Giddings is
calling.
DR. GIDDINGS replied he is calling from Silver Spring, Maryland,
and added that he has spent much of his career working in and
around Washington, DC, as a regulator and an advisor to the
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND inquired whether Dr. Giddings has ever
visited Alaska's clean waters and its newest fish hatchery.
DR. GIDDINGS responded no, but said that it's at the top of his
bucket list.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND suggested Dr. Giddings come take a look
because she objects to his characterization of Alaska's fish
hatcheries. She noted that Alaska's new fish hatchery is in
downtown Anchorage and rears millions of all the types of wild
game fish that exist in Alaska. This hatchery won a Leadership
in energy and Environmental Design (LEED) award for energy
efficiency and for its incredible ability to clean. She further
noted that the hatchery is able to clean 95-99 percent of the
fish excrement from the water. Having visited and seen how this
hatchery works, she urged that Dr. Giddings do the same in the
near future.
DR. GIDDINGS answered that it is on his list. He apologized for
saying anything that was taken as disparaging of this facility
as that was not his intent because he is aware of the hatchery
and agrees it is world class. The comments he made about some
hatcheries having problems with nitrogen and phosphorous
effluent do not apply to this facility, nor is he aware of any
facilities in Alaska to which they would apply. However, he
continued, those comments are relevant to some facilities that
he has visited in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon and that is
where those problems were discovered, which prompted the kinds
of measures that led to the superb LEED facility in Anchorage.
Alaska has certainly set a world standard there, he added, and
he didn't mean to say anything to suggest otherwise.
7:14:30 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR said she noticed at another committee meeting that
Dr. Giddings had a company affiliation but tonight he is listed
as an independent consultant. She asked whether Dr. Giddings is
receiving payment to provide testimony tonight by a company
other than AquaBounty.
DR. GIDDINGS replied that if he listed a company before it was
probably his consulting company, PrometheusAB, Inc. He said he
was asked by Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) to
testify before the committee this evening, but BIO is not paying
him to do so.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted that [BIO] was the affiliation listed by Dr.
Giddings the other evening. She requested that in the interest
of transparency, [Biotechnology Innovation Organization] be
listed as his affiliation for this evening.
DR. GIDDINGS answered that it is fine with him if Biotechnology
Innovation Organization is listed as his affiliation.
7:15:45 PM
JERRY MCCUNE, President, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA),
Cordova, Alaska, noted that UFA is the largest fishing
organization in Alaska. Canada's fish farms currently have a
real lice problem, he pointed out, and he does not trust Canada
not to bring [the AquAdvantage salmon] back and raise them in
Canada, which is very close to Alaska's borders. Sterile or
not, non-native species in Alaska's streams are not wanted.
[The public] was told that Atlantic salmon would not survive
this far north, he recalled, but they've been found in Alaska's
streams and in fishermen's nets and are possibly trying to spawn
in the state, which would be devastating to have non-native
species. While Alaska is not under threat by this [GM salmon]
yet, he said, it is a possibility that [AquaBounty] will try to
do it in Canada should it become a success. Regarding labeling,
Mr. McCune stated that UFA has been behind labeling salmon for a
long time because UFA thinks people should, for their own good,
know what they are consuming.
7:17:18 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON closed public testimony after ascertaining no
one else wished to testify.
CO-CHAIR TARR spoke to the ability of the U.S. to regulate this
genetically modified product. She related that the FDA's web
site, "fda.gov", states that the particular conditions of use
allow production and grow-out of AquAdvantage salmon at two
facilities - Prince Edward Island in Canada and Panama. She
read as follows from the web site: "As we state in the
environmental assessment, because these facilities are outside
the United States and because NEPA [National Environmental
Protection Act] does not require analysis of impacts in foreign
sovereign countries, the EA [environmental assessment]
considered environmental impacts in Canada and Panama only to
the extent necessary to determine whether there would be
significant effects on the environment in the United States due
to exposure pathways originating from the facilities in Canada
and Panama." So, she advised, keep in mind that the U.S. has no
ability to make sure that these are well-regulated facilities
and to think about the harm that that could cause.
CO-CHAIR TARR continued reading further from the FDA web site:
"FDA does not have jurisdiction to regulate potential facilities
that would be located outside the United States that would
produce fish for export to countries outside the United States.
FDA also does not regulate products that are produced outside
the United States and will never enter U.S. commerce. Although
FDA does have jurisdiction to regulate facilities in the United
States and products imported into the United States, the FDA's
approval does not allow production and grow-out of AquAdvantage
salmon in any facilities other than those in Canada and Panama."
So, she said, it should be clear that [the U.S.] does not have
the ability to regulate those.
CO-CHAIR TARR spoke to the statement that Canada was chosen
because of Canadian pride and said it is almost laughable and is
absolutely not true. She related that AquaBounty tried to get
U.S.-based facilities, but there were significant protests in
opposition and as a result AquaBounty had to seek facilities
outside of the U.S.
CO-CHAIR TARR spoke to the statement about sterility. She said
research has shown that in up to 5 percent of the cases
sterility is not true, and therefore it is a real concern.
Since it is unknown how these facilities would be regulated
because they are outside the U.S., there are real reasons to be
concerned and that is why she is putting HJR 12 forward at this
time. She offered her hope that committee members are also
concerned and willing to support the resolution.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether Co-Chair Tarr stated for the
record what she is reading.
CO-CHAIR TARR replied yes, it was from the FDA web site's
response to public comments on the environmental assessment.
She reiterated that this is concerning because the facilities
are outside the U.S.'s jurisdiction for regulation so there is
no opportunity to ensure it is done the way the U.S. might want.
Having been to the AquaBounty facility in Canada, she continued,
she does not have a high level of confidence in the facility's
location and the ability for it to not be problematic.
7:20:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE stated he would like to entertain a
motion of moving the resolution forward given the wait since
2013, the federal delegation already being in line, and the
great people of Alaska who catch fish.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE moved to report CSHJR 12(FSH) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 12(FSH) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR012 Sponsor Statement 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 ver A 2.22.17.PDF |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Fiscal Note LEG-SESS-02-23-17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Version D (FSH) 3.12.17.PDF |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Alaska Trollers Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Petersburg Vessel Owners Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Southeast Alaska Seiners Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Alaska Dispatch News Article 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Reps. Young and Defazio 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - United Fishermen of Alaska.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Presentation House Resources Committee 3.12.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Letter of Support from SalmonState.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Nelson 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Letter of Support from Trojan 3.14.17_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Wieland 3.21.14.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HB032 Supporting Document - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB032 version A 3.12.17.PDF |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB032 Fiscal Note - DEC 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - GMO Q & A 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - HB 92 - AK Trollers Association Letter of Support.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - HB 92 Consolidated Letters of Support 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - Info Graphic 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - Letter of Support for HB 92 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - News Article #2 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - News Article #3 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - News Article #4 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - News Article #5 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - NY Times Article 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB032 Supporting Document - Letter of Support UFA 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB032 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Wieland 3.21.17.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB172 Sponsor Statement 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Ver A 3.14.17.PDF |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Section Analysis 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Fiscal Note -DCCED-AMCO 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Fiscal Note - LAW-CRIM 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Fiscal Note - DNR-PMC 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Fiscal Note - CORREECTED DCCED-CBPL 3.20.17.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Letter of support-Constance Fredenberg 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Letter of Support-Jack Bennett 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - 2014 Farm Bill Sec. 7606 3.15.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - Kenai Peninsula Borough 3.15.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Kenai Soil & Water Conservation District 3.15.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Industrial Hemp Updated Slide Presentation 3.15.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Modern-uses-for-cannabis-Chart3-640x453 3.15.17.jpg |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB046 Sponsor Statement 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Ver J 3.14.17.PDF |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Fiscal Note - DOA - DGS 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Fiscal Note - DNR - AGS 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Supporting Docuemnt - A Performance Audit of the Alaska Agriculture and Fisheries Products Preference.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Supporting Document-AlaskaAgFacts08.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Supporting Document-Articles 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |