BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 88
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 19, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 88 (Huffman) - As Amended: March 21, 2011
Policy Committee: HealthVote:10 - 6
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
VOTE ONLY
SUMMARY
This bill requires that genetically engineered (GE) salmon or
other finfish products prepared from those fish or the progeny
of GE fish be conspicuously disclosed on the label. GE fish
without this label will be considered misbranded.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)This bill allows the review of GE fish or fish products to
take place during routine inspections of food manufacturing
and distribution facilities and/or during investigations
derived from consumer complaints. Therefore, the costs
associated with this legislation would be minor and absorbable
within existing resources.
2)Minor nonreimbursable costs to local government for additional
enforcement, offset to some extent by additional fine
revenues.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . This bill is modeled after similar legislation passed
in the state of Alaska in 2005 that requires labeling of all
genetically modified seafood. The author states that the FDA
is currently weighing approval of the first GE salmon for
human consumption and determining whether labeling of GE
salmon in the marketplace is warranted. The author asserts
that the FDA's current review does not adequately consider the
potential environmental and health effects associated with GE
AB 88
Page 2
salmon, including, but not limited to, risks to native salmon
populations and other freshwater and marine species.
Furthermore, the author states that public opinion polls
indicate that 95% of the public wants labeling of genetically
modified foods and nearly 50% of the public would not eat GE
seafood. According to the author, this bill is intended to
require the labeling of all GE salmon and other finfish
entering and sold within the state to provide accurate and
truthful labeling of these products so consumers may protect
their health and California's environment.
2)Background . Genetic engineering refers to the use of
recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques to introduce new
characteristics or traits into an organism. A GE animal is
one that contains an rDNA construct intended to change the
animal, for example by making fish grow faster. The FDA notes
that genetic engineering has been used for approximately 20
years in the production of plants and microorganisms that make
food and medicine. Many staple crops, such as corn and soy,
have been genetically engineered to be resistant to certain
herbicides.
3)Environmental Concerns . In a September 2010 issue brief, Food
and Water Watch notes that AquaBounty Technology, the company
that created the GE salmon, intends to sell GE salmon eggs to
commercial farms to grow to full size, claiming that the
operators will raise fish in contained aquaculture facilities
that limit the possibility of escape. However, Food and Water
Watch notes that if the fish do escape, the impact will be
severe. They cite research from scientists at Purdue
University which suggests that the escape of even a small
number of salmon could cause extinction of wild populations in
as little as 40 generations.
The danger comes because since GE fish will be larger and more
voracious (growing twice as fast as normal salmon), they could
out-compete other wild fish for food and habitat. Of greater
concern is the fact that their own weak constitutions, not
designed for life outside of captivity, could mean GE salmon
only last long enough in the wild to prevent natural
populations from reproducing, leading to a total extinction of
salmon in open waters.
4)Opposition . BIOCOM, an organization representing the
AB 88
Page 3
biotechnology and life sciences industry, notes that the
federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) closely regulates
the use of bioengineering and biotechnology in foods and is
currently reviewing the approval of consumption of genetically
engineered salmon. BIOCOM argues that it should be left to the
FDA to determine whether or not labeling should be required on
these products.
5)Key Question . While this bill does not prohibit the sale of GE
fish or fish products, it does require it to be labeled so
consumers know what they are purchasing. The question before
the Committee is whether consumers have a right to know how
their food is developed. Does the required label falsely imply
that the food is somehow different or presents a risk to the
consumer? Or does it provide the consumer with the information
they need to make an informed choice about the products they
are purchasing and the food they are consuming?
6)Precedent in Other States . In 2005, Alaska enacted Senate Bill
25 to require the labeling of all products containing
genetically engineered fish and shell fish. SB 25 states that
all genetically engineered fish will be "conspicuously labeled
to identify the fish or fish product as a genetically modified
fish or fish product" whether packaged or unpackaged.
To date, Congress has not taken any action to expressly
regulate or prohibit the labeling of genetically engineered
animals; therefore, it can be argued that California, like the
state of Alaska, is not preempted from enacting labeling
requirements. Also, Alaska's law has not been challenged or
invalidated since it was enacted, thus setting the stage for
other states to enact similar labeling requirements for
genetically engineered seafood.
7)Related Legislation . In 2008, SB 1121 (Migden) would have
required the labeling of all food containing genetically
modified animals. That bill was held on the Senate
Appropriations committee Suspense File.
SB 63 (Migden) in 2007 was substantially similar to SB 1121.
That bill was vetoed. In his veto message, Governor
Schwarzenegger wrote, "Federal law prohibits states from
enacting labeling requirements for meat and poultry that are
in addition to those federally established. Further, I am
concerned that this bill would require tracking and labeling
AB 88
Page 4
requirements that could be unworkable, costly and
unenforceable.
Also in 2007, AB 1100 (Ruskin) had similar labeling provisions
with regard to the selling and manufacturing of cloned animal
products for human consumption. The original contents of that
bill were removed and replaced with language pertaining to the
child-proofing of gasoline containers.
8)Pending Federal Legislation . Three bills have been introduced
in the current congressional session to address the issue of
GE fish. H.R. 520 (Don Young - AK), 112th Cong., (2011) and
S. 229 (Mark Begich - AK), 112th Cong., (2011) amend the FDCA
to deem a food to be misbranded if it contains GE fish unless
the food bears a label stating that it contains GE fish. Two
companion bills, H.R. 521 (Don Young - AK), 112th Cong.,
(2011) and S. 230 (Mark Begich - AK), 112th Cong., (2011),
amend the FDCA to deem GE fish to be unsafe under provisions
related to new animal drugs and adulterated food.
Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)
319-2081