HJR 12-OPPOSING GEN ENGINEERED SALMON  10:03:32 AM CHAIR STUTES announced that the first 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 products with the words "Genetically Modified" on the product's packaging. 10:03:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR, as prime sponsor of HJR 12, began by saying the proposed resolution would support efforts by Alaska U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski at the federal level. She began a PowerPoint presentation and referred to Slide 2, entitled "Why the need for HJR 12?" She stated that in November 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed genetically modified (GM) salmon, which is the first time a GM animal has been approved for human consumption. She expressed that she is strongly opposed to this. The approval process used by the FDA was the "veterinary drug" approval process. She maintained that since the product is for human consumption, it is questionable whether the veterinary drug approval process is the appropriate process for considering this use of technology. She mentioned that traditionally a different regulatory route would have been utilized. 10:03:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to Slide 3, entitled "What is GM salmon?" She explained that the GM salmon approved by the FDA is produced by adding the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from two different species of fish to Atlantic salmon. She identified the two fish as follows: the ocean pout, shown on the left side of the slide, is an eel-like fish that offers continuous growth due to its natural life cycle; and the Chinook salmon, shown on the right, is selected for its size. Consequently, the GM fish grows bigger and faster. REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to Slide 4, entitled "How does it work?" to illustrate the different growth rates. The goal is to produce a salmon that grows to full size twice as fast. REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved on to Slide 5, entitled "Why GM Salmon?" She cited statements on the website of the company who proposed GM salmon, AquaBounty, to point out that the actions of the company were "never really about sustainability; this has always just been about profit." She relayed the information on the website, which read [original punctuation provided]: "The innovative faster growing AquAdvantage Salmon, which would shorten production cycles by half and drastically reduce feed costs, could finally make land-based fish farming economically viable." She commented that "we have to question ... the difference between what's healthy for an ecosystem versus what is an economic opportunity." 10:06:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Slides 6 and 7 to illustrate Alaskan salmon. She moved on to Slide 8, which portrays the production environment of GM salmon: it is grown in an industrial warehouse setting with land-based pens. She stated that the proposal from AquAdvantage includes making the GM salmon fish eggs on Prince Edward Island (PEI) in Canada; growing them to size in Panama; and shipping the fish back to the U.S. for market. She asserted that three different countries are involved because of opposition [to GM salmon] from other countries and the United States. REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Slide 9, entitled "Concerns about GM salmon," and listed the concerns: threats to wild salmon, risks to human health, and risk to the state economy. She turned to Slide 10, entitled "Threat to Wild Salmon," and relayed that escapement is always an issue. She mentioned that the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) solicits reports from fisherman who have caught farmed salmon, and she added there have been many such reports. REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the map on Slide 11. She relayed that she was invited by residents of PEI to the site where the AquaBounty eggs would be produced; the residents were concerned about the negative effects of being known as the home of the "Frankenfish." She said the AquaBounty site was on the bay leading to the St. Lawrence Seaway and on to the Atlantic Ocean. She maintained that there are concerns about escapement at that location, because of its proximity to a water body. REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to Slide 12 showing photographs of her visit: the AquaBounty facility, which appears to be low technology ("low-tech"); meeting with the Premier of PEI to ask his opinion of the proposal; and local residents who have expressed opposition to the proposal. 10:09:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved on to Slide 13, entitled "Threat to Wild Salmon," and relayed the threats: GM salmon can spread disease; GM salmon are more aggressive and can outcompete wild salmon; and GM salmon can cross breed with wild fish. She continued with Slide 14, which displayed screenshots of several articles on the results of scientific studies on GM salmon. She referred to the headline, "GM salmon can breed with trout and harm ecosystem," and explained that scientists learned that GM salmon can breed with trout, and the new fish which results can outcompete both the GM salmon and the wild relative. She added that the new, more aggressive fish could be very damaging to natural ecosystems. REPRESENTATIVE TARR continued with Slide 15, entitled "Risks to Human Health." She mentioned that no long-term studies have been conducted on the safety of human consumption of GM salmon. Since the FDA used the veterinary drug approval process, it was not necessary for it to consider the safety of human consumption. REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Slide 16, entitled "Risk to State's Economy," and reminded the committee of the dramatic drop in the price of Alaskan wild salmon when farmed salmon came onto the market. The state responded by creating the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) and investing tremendously in branding Alaska's wild salmon. She stated that the state's marketing efforts have been very successful; Alaska wild salmon is a widely recognized brand; and people consider Alaska wild salmon to be a healthy source of protein. She declared, "That creates a lot of value." She added that another economic risk is the risk to Alaskan jobs, since the seafood industry is the largest private sector employer with over 70,000 jobs. 10:11:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that Alaskans are not alone in opposing GM salmon and named the various sources of opposition listed on Slide 17: Alaska's congressional delegation oppose GM salmon; Senator Murkowski has been a leader and will be introducing additional legislation on this matter; more than 40 members of the U.S. Congress oppose GM salmon; more than 1.5 million comments opposing GM salmon were received by the FDA in the comment period; more than 90 percent of Americans support labeling of GM foods reflecting greater public interest in the source and healthfulness of food; and 65 retailers, many of them major, will not sell GM salmon. REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Slide 18, "International Opposition," to report that there have been lawsuits regarding GM salmon; there is concern for the damage to wild salmon populations on the East Coast of the U.S.; and there have been dam removal projects on the West Coast of the U.S. to restore traditional fish passage areas. She concluded that people are working hard to support and sustain wild salmon populations. 10:14:01 AM The committee took a brief at-ease at 10:14 a.m. 10:14:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Slide 19, entitled "US Lawsuit filed March 31." She mentioned the various groups and efforts opposing GM foods and imposing regulations, especially on the West Coast: legislators; Pacific NorthWest Economic Region (PNWER); ballot initiatives in Canada, Washington, and Oregon; and local ordinances opposing GM foods. She relayed that a lawsuit was filed in the United States in March 2016; the lawsuit went to court on Election Day last year; and no judgement has been issued yet. The lawsuit claims the approval process was not adequate in considering GM salmon a food source for humans, and there are unanswered questions about ecological impacts. She asserted that since salmon is so important to Alaska - to its culture, its tradition, its communities, and to the health of Alaskans - "we should stand together as we have in the past and say 'No' and stand together in opposition of GM salmon." 10:16:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked if HJR 12 addresses only GM fish and no other products. REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied, "Yes, that is correct." REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT relayed that the proposed resolution states that more than two million Americans are opposed to the FDA approval [of GM salmon]. He mentioned that Representative Tarr testified that about 1.5 million people had submitted testimony during the FDA comment period. REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that one of the numbers reflects the individual comments received, and a single comment may represent many signatures on a petition. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked for confirmation of his understanding of the GM salmon production process: the eggs are incubated on PEI, then moved to Panama for rearing. REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered, "That is the proposal that's been approved. It requires the three countries' involvement: the eggs in one location; the growing the fish in Panama; and then, for sale in the United States." 10:18:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked for more clarification regarding the danger a [fish] egg poses. He mentioned that the discussion has addressed concern for the eggs growing into bigger fish and destroying what is left of the [wild] Atlantic salmon. He said eggs are not usually released into the wild and grown, thus he questioned the concern about the facility being on PEI, the movement of eggs to Panama, and the shipment of the fish back to the U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied that the concern is that the process includes early stage development, and there is opposition to interbreeding with wild [salmon] populations. She maintained that there is concern that Panama environmental standards would not be the same as those in the U.S. She asked, "Is the likelihood of escapement low?" She attested that it probably is low because of the [prevention] measures put in place. She said she didn't want to suggest negligence on the part of Panama; however, she maintained that the threat is real. She stated that the McGill [University] study that she referred to on Slide 14 [Oke KB, Westley PAH, Moreau DTR, Fleming IA. 2013 Hybridization between genetically modified Atlantic salmon and wild brown trout reveal novel ecological interactions. Proc. Royal Society B] was published just after the closing of the comment period for the proposal. She relayed that she wrote to the FDA asking that it consider this recent research report. She asserted that the dynamic of the conversation on the proposal changed once there was research showing that interbreeding occurred, and that interbreeding was problematic. 10:20:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if the sponsor would consider adding "salmon" after the word "engineered" on line 3, page 1, of the resolution. He stated that the resulting phrase would read, "urging the United States Congress to enact legislation that requires prominently labeling genetically engineered salmon products". He maintained that "GM products" is difficult to define; if the resolution was limited to salmon, it may receive more support. REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that is a great suggestion, which had been considered. She explained that the proposed resolution reflects the broader labeling legislation efforts by Congress; however, since the intent of Alaska's resolution is to be specific to salmon, she said she did not have a problem with limiting the resolution to salmon. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for more information about what happens if a fertilized salmon egg escapes the PEI facility: Would the salmon egg grow naturally and result in a salmon or would that be less likely due to the genetic engineering? REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that the way the proposal is written, it is specific to certain life stages, and that is what has been approved by the FDA. She added that the PEI facility has more than just the eggs that will be used for the GM fish, which is the concern of the local residents. She stated that AquaBounty has proposals for several other species. She maintained that there is a lack of confidence in their work, and the people she contacted want to take every precautionary measure. 10:23:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that based on the public concern for the proposal, placing the facility near a water body was particularly unreceptive to that concern. He maintained that there are more appropriate locations. REPRESENTATIVE TARR said that she totally agrees with Representative Eastman. She stated that AquaBounty was at one time based in Massachusetts and wanted to locate the facility in that state. She relayed that the local community refused, which lead to the company changing locations. She opined that having three countries involved in the production of a product makes regulation more challenging and the public less comfortable with the process. 10:25:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, which would be to limit the proposed resolution to GM salmon. He opined that due to the many definitions of "genetically engineered," it would be subject to additional criticism. 10:25:23 AM CHAIR STUTES objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE TARR declared that she is not opposed to the offered conceptual amendment. She suggested that the proposed resolution specify "genetically engineered salmon or salmon products". REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he concurred with Representative Tarr's suggestion. 10:25:50 AM CHAIR STUTES removed her objection to Conceptual Amendment 1, [as amended]. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted. 10:26:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT clarified that the committee's action was the adoption of Representative Eastman's conceptual amendment, as amended by Representative Tarr's addition of "salmon or salmon products". 10:26:24 AM CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HJR 12. After ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, she closed public testimony. 10:26:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his appreciation of the action and advocacy on the issue addressed by HJR 12. 10:27:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report HJR 12, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 12(FSH) was reported from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.