SENATE BILL NO. 281 "An Act relating to labeling and identification of genetically modified fish and fish products." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Co-Chair Wilken stated this bill is sponsored by Senator Elton. Senator Elton testified this legislation would require genetically modified fish to be labeled. The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved any transgenetic fish for the marketplace, but the FDA does have a pending application for the approval of the 'Frankenfish', which is a farmed salmon that would grow at a much greater rate than presently farmed fish. This legislation is similar to legislation passed in Oregon and California, and is unanimously supported by the State legislature's Salmon Industry Task Force. The Senate Resources Committee also unanimously passed this legislation. Senator Olson asked whether any fish currently available in the marketplace has been genetically altered. Senator Elton replied, "no", that the only genetically altered fish approved for sale is the neon blinking aquarium fish sold in pet stores. His concern is related to a pending FDA application that would approve genetic alteration of salmon fish. This alteration would cause the fish to grow at very fast rates, and would subsequently increase the profitability of the industrial fish makers. ELISE HSIEH, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified via teleconference from an offnet location to the uncertainty of whether this law would be valid when the Food and Drug Administration grants the pending application. The FDA would not likely approve the label proposed in this legislation because there are no known health risks associated with transgenic fish. The State would have to prove the necessity of labeling transgenic fish, and a threat to State commerce would not be an acceptable reason. Ms. Hsieh continued that the State of Vermont passed legislation requiring that hormone-produced milk be labeled, and created a label that specified that the milk did not have adverse health affects. The State of Alaska may have to make a similar compromise in order to require a label for transgenic fish. Senator Olson questioned how the states of Oregon and California have justified the passage of similar legislation. Ms. Hsieh was not familiar with the laws adopted by those states. She noted that several states are passing food-labeling laws with the knowledge that the FDA may challenge their laws. Senator Elton informed that this legislation is proposing a "consumer notice", and not a health warning. He gave examples of similar labeling, such as country of origin labeling and the labeling of farmed and wild salmon at the grocery level. This legislation would not necessarily pre-empt the actions of federal Food and Drug Administration. Ms. Hsieh countered that existing law regarding labeling and advertisement of halibut and salmon does not require such labeling, but rather allows it. Because interstate commerce product would not be required to label, fish harvesters could easily opt out of labeling. Senator Bunde referenced the zero fiscal note for this legislation and asked the fiscal impact to retail businesses. He remarked that imported products would have to be labeled at the grocery stores. Senator Elton was unsure but referred to the required labeling at the grocery level of wild and farmed salmon, and stated that he did not hear any grocer comment on negative economic impacts related to the labeling. Co-Chair Wilken ordered the bill HELD in Committee.