GMO Fish Will Require Labeling In Alaska

[Guest]

Bill Requires Labeling Genetically Altered Fish
By HAL SPENCE
Peninsula Clarion

Genetically altered fish will need to be labeled as such when products are to be sold in Alaska.

That's the effect of Senate Bill 25, sponsored by Sen. Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, and Sen. Kim Elton, D-Juneau. The Alaska House approved the measure unanimously Monday. It had previously won unanimous support in the Senate.
Known as the "Frankenfish" bill, the measure is headed for the governor's desk.

"The message that Alaska seafood is more natural than seafood that has been engineered in a lab is a highly important marketing tool," Stevens said. "This bill helps highlight Alaska seafood as distinct from genetically modified seafood, doing away with any vagueness that may exist to the consumer when purchasing seafood without labeling, and reinforcing the natural message."

Prompting lawmakers to pass Senate Bill 25 was the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering an application by an aquaculture company to sell a genetically modified, growth-enhanced salmon. According to a press release from Elton's office, Atlantic salmon are expected to be the first species slated for genetic modification, but catfish, tilapia and others would follow.

Meanwhile, according to the Pacific Fisheries Legislative Task Force, a biotech company called Aqua Bounty has sought Canadian approval to use genetically modified fish in Canada's fish farms, Elton said.

"I am encouraged by the bipartisan support this bill received," he said. "It is a sign that, when it comes to seafood, Alaskans stand up for informed consumers and friends and neighbors working in the wild fish industry."

According to Stevens and Elton, legislation requiring labeling genetically modified fish products already exists in the European Union, Japan, New Zealand and Australia. SB 25 is similar to legislation introduced in Oregon and California.

The bill requires Alaska retailers to identify and label foods containing fish and shellfish, or fish and shellfish products, which have been genetically modified.

COMMENTS FROM BIO OPPOSING THE LABELING LEGISLATION

Testimony Opposing Senate Bill 25
“An Act relating to labeling and identification of genetically modified fish and fish products”

Submitted by the Biotechnology Industry Organization to the Alaska House Labor & Commerce Committee April 4, 2005

On behalf of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), we appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 25, “An Act relating to labeling and identification of genetically modified fish and fish products.” BIO strongly supports existing federal requirements for accurate and informative food labels. These labeling requirements communicate information that is relevant to health, safety and nutrition of all food products sold in the United States. State-based labeling requirements that differ from previously established, stringently enforced federal guidelines, provide no value for consumers and only serve to disparage biotechnology foods. In addition, Senate Bill 25 is contrary to existing Alaska state law that calls for conformity with federal food labeling guidelines.

The requirements of Senate Bill 25 contradict existing Alaska state and federal laws. Title 17 of Alaska Statute Law (Sec. 17.20.010) states, “the definitions and standards adopted [by the State] shall conform as far as practicable to the definitions and standards adopted under authority of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).” The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require labeling of foods derived from biotechnology (genetically modified food) unless that food differs significantly in terms of safety, nutrition, how the food is used, or the consequences of its use. Senate Bill 25 would establish a threshold for labeling that does not exist in federal statute.

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s labeling guidance requires that a food label must reveal all material facts about that food. For instance, the FDCA requires that if a biotech food differs significantly from a conventional food in its nutritional or allergenic properties that fact must be disclosed on the label. The FDA has taken a science-based approach in developing this guidance and decided biotech foods do not inherently “present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by [conventional methods].”

FDA uses the principal of "substantial equivalence"—focusing on the final product, not the process used to develop a food product, to determine how it should be labeled. In addition, mandatory labeling requirements that vary from state-to-state would not only conflict with FDA guidelines, but would be costly and confusing to consumers.

Proposals similar to Senate Bill 25 have been struck-down in federal court. In 1996, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a Vermont law requiring the labeling of milk products from cows treated with biotechnology-derived growth hormone. The Court ruled mandatory labeling of this kind to be unconstitutional forced speech. Following that decision, a number of states, including Alaska (Alaska Stat. § 17.20.013), adopted laws to regulate the voluntary labeling for milk from cows that were not treated with growth hormones. Consistent with FDA policy, these voluntary labeling guidelines require that such labels clearly state that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from cows that are treated with the growth hormone and those that are not.

Senate Bill 25 proposes a solution to a situation that does not yet exist in Alaska, or in any state. There has yet to be single biotech fish product approved for human consumption by the FDA. Therefore, this legislation proposes to regulate a food product that does not yet exist. Alaska should not preempt federal decision-making on this issue. Rather, if sellers of conventionally-bred fish wish to label their products as such, they are free to do so in a truthful and non-misleading way according to FDA guidelines (www.cfsan.fda.gov/lrd/biotechm.html#label). Alaska should not force fish breeders to make disclosures that FDA has deemed are not relevant to the health and safety of consumers.

We strongly encourage the House Labor and Commerce Committee members to oppose Senate Bill 25. If you have any questions or would like additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Patrick Kelly at
202-962-9503 pkelly@bio.org or Dr. Barbara Glenn, Director of Animal Biotechnology at 202-962-6697 bglenn@bio.org. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Patrick M. Kelly
Vice President
State Government Relations
Biotechnology Industry Organization