[Fishlink] ~~>FISHLINK SUBLEGALS 9/6/02<~~
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
Wed, 11 Sep 2002 20:57:41 EDT
PLEASE HELP SUPPORT THE SUBLEGALS NEWSLETTER.
To donate go to: www.sublegals.net. Sublegals is published free
of charge and is dependent on your contributions.
##########################################################
~~>FISHLINK SUBLEGALS 9/6/02<~~
##########################################################
A WEEKLY QUOTA OF FISHERY SHORTS CAUGHT AND
LANDED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES
AND THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATIONS
VOL. 06, NO. 02 6 SEPTEMBER 2002
##########################################################
"The issues of care of the Earth have become ours. The issues of
providing healthy, living, empowered food to people have become ours.
The issues of sustaining a lifestyle for our family have become
ours.".........Jeff Main
##########################################################
IN THIS ISSUE.......
California Transgenic Fish Bills Held Up in Assembly
Committees As Legislature Adjourns. 6:10/01
National Research Council Warnings on Transgenic Fish. 6:10/03
NMFS Issues Draft Code For Responsible Aquaculture
With Extremely Short Comment Period. 6:10/07
RAND Report Documents Northwest Job Gains
Without Snake River Dams. 6:10/09
Hot Water Killing ESA-Listed Butte Creek
Spring-Run Chinook. 6:10/11
AND MORE......
##########################################################
6:10/01. ELEVENTH HOUR LEGISLATIVE HIJINKS KILL
CALIFORNIA TRANSGENIC FISH BILLS: Two bills aimed at
regulating transgenic fish were killed in hostile committees on 30
August, preventing a vote by the full California Assembly where the
legislation had the votes to pass. The two measures, both by
Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin (D-Duncan Mills), would have
required notice at point of sale of any transgenic fish sold in the state
(AB 791) and imposed a two-year moratorium on the importation,
production, transport or sale of any transgenic fish, except for research,
within the state until regulations were developed by the California
Department of Fish & Game for the safe use of these
genetically-modified animals (AB 307). Strom-Martin chairs the
Legislature's Joint Committee on Fisheries & Aquaculture. The bills had
already passed the California Senate (see Sublegals 6:06/01) and had
been sent back to the Assembly for concurrence. A preliminary count
indicated both had the required votes to pass the full Assembly and be
sent to the Governor had they been allowed to reach the floor.
Both measures were "gut-and-amend" bills written before the release
of the cautionary report by the National Research Council (NRC) on
genetically modified organisms (see Sublegals 6:08/01). The findings in
the NRC report strongly substantiated the need for the legislation.
Strom-Martin's initial bill on the labeling of transgenic fish, AB 2962
(see Sublegals 5:09/01), was effectively killed when it was removed
from the California Legislature's Assembly Health Committee and
re-referred to the Assembly Agriculture Committee -- an
agribusiness-friendly committee -- last spring. The bill to impose a
two-year moratorium on transgenic fish, SB 1525 by Senator Byron Sher
(D-Palo Alto), meanwhile, was not allowed to come to a vote in the
Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee because the chairman
insisted that the author must first agree to amendments demanded by the
biotech, agribusiness and aquaculture lobby. AB 791 required only a
notice (not labeling like SB 2962), and AB 307 provided a full
exemption for research, unlike SB 1525. On 29 August the bills were
scheduled for assignment to committee and a hearing time. AB 791 was
assigned to the Assembly Environmental Safety & Toxics Materials
Committee, which has jurisdiction over issues of notice, and AB 307
was referred to Water, Parks & Wildlife. When committee hearings
were finally announced, however, AB 791 was "double-referred" at the
insistence of the Agriculture Committee. AB 791 passed the
Environmental Safety Committee that evening, but when it was to be
heard by Agriculture on the morning of the 30th, no members except the
chair of that Committee (who had insisted on the double-referral) even
showed up.
While AB 791 had passed the required committee for concurrence,
the Assembly leadership then refused to let it go to the Assembly floor,
leaving it to languish in the Agriculture Committee. In the meantime, a
heavily biased analysis by Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife (i.e.,
misrepresenting the NRC report, failing to note the differences between
AB 307 and SB 1525) doomed that measure when it was heard the
morning of the 30 August. How much was actually spent by lobbyists to
get the "no" votes on the transgenic bills will be known within the next
60 days, when lobbying reports from the California Secretary of State's
office are released.
These two measures were not the only ones to fail in the Assembly
due to heavy corporate lobbying. Another measure, SB 234 by Senator
Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), to reform the California Board of
Forestry, including placing a fisherman on it for the first time, also failed
in the Assembly as the Legislature ground to adjournment on 31 August.
However, the issue of transgenic fish, as well as other genetically
modified organisms, is not going away. State legislation is likely when
the new California Legislature convenes in December. The transgenic
fish measures in this California legislative session had a broad coalition
of support, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for
Food Safety, CalPIRG, Community Alliance for Family Farmers
(CAFF), IFR, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), California
Trout, The Ocean Conservancy, Salmon & Steelhead Restoration
Coalition, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Association of Organic
Farmers, Greenpeace, PCFFA and some of the California's leading
seafood chefs. "In the meantime, transgenic fish can be approved to be
brought into California, or produced there, with no public notice, and no
hearing or public comment, while even the most private of information
on consumers can freely be traded by banks and other institutions," said
PCFFA Executive Director Zeke Grader. "There are no prohibitions
presently against aquaculturists experimenting with transgenic fish, even
in facilities where those fish may escape or spread disease devastating
wild populations, but God help a fisherman trying to get an experimental
permit, such as longline for swordfish, to try to develop more selective
and environmentally-friendly fishing gear." For more information on
AB 791, go to:
www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number+ab_791&sess=Cur
&house+A&author=strom-martin. For more information on genetically
engineered fish, go to: www.gefish.org.
6:10/02. CALIFORNIA FISH & GAME COMMISSION TURNS
DOWN REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON TRANSGENIC FISH,
ISSUE TO BE HEARD AGAIN IN OCTOBER. Also on 29 August the
California Fish & Game Commission turned down a request by the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), The Ocean Conservancy
and PCFFA to impose a two-year moratorium on the importation,
production or transportation of any transgenic fish into that state until a
thorough review is conducted of existing regulations, or new ones
developed, to assure adequate protections exist in law to protect
California's fish and wildlife resources from the introduction of
transgenic fish. The Commission decided instead to act on a California
Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) recommendation that the agency
begin a review of its current aquaculture regulations and report back to
the Commission at its October meeting in Crescent City. The request for
a moratorium was also supported by California Trout and United
Anglers.
Currently there are no California prohibitions against the use of
transgenic fish in research, aquaculture operations or the aquarium trade.
CDFG has approval authority over the fish used in aquaculture
operations and non-native fish imported into the State, but it is currently
not required to notify the Commission, provide public notice or public
hearings for their use. Guidance to CDFG on approving fish and
shellfish for aquaculture operations comes from its Aquaculture
Advisory Committee, made up exclusively of the aquaculture industry,
and its Aquaculture Coordinator, Bob Holbrook, whose salary is paid by
the aquaculture industry. For more information, go to:
www.dfg.ca.gov/fg_comm.
6:10/03. NRC WARNINGS ON TRANSGENIC FISH: To judge
from the response by the California Legislature (or the Assembly at
least) and the State's Fish & Game Commission to the potential threat
posed by transgenic fish and the adequacy of federal regulatory agencies
to deal with them, excerpts from the Executive Summary of the National
Research Council (NRC) report, "Animal Biotechnology: Science Based
Concerns," (see Sublegals, 6:08/01) are especially relevant. The NRC
said, "a case of immediate concern is the release of transgenic fish and
shellfish.....transgenic fish and shellfish might pose environmental
hazards. Cultivated salmon have escaped into the wild from fish farms
and these salmon already pose ecologic and genetic risks to native
salmon stocks. In studies of transgenic salmon under laboratory
conditions, some of these transgenic lines grew four to six times faster
than non-transgenic salmon, with a 20 percent increase in feed
conversion efficiency. In order to support their rapid growth, GH
transgenic salmon consume food at a more rapid rate than control
salmon......Possible environmental hazard pathways posed by escaped or
stocking of transgenic shellfish into natural ecosystems have not yet
been thoroughly considered. Information is not yet available to assess
ecological risk posed by production of these organisms, but it is clear
that confinement of these aquatic organisms will be difficult and they are
likely to escape" (p.11).
The NRC went on to say the "current regulatory framework might not
be adequate to address unique problems and characteristics associated
with animal biotechnologies. The responsibilities of federal agencies for
regulating animal biotechnology are unclear. How each agency will deal
with scientific uncertainty remains to be seen. The [NRC] committee
notes a particular concern about the lack of any established regulatory
framework for the oversight of scientific research and commercial
application of biotechnology to anthropods. In addition to the potential
lack of clarity about regulatory responsibilities and data collection
requirements, the committee also notes a concern about the legal and
technical capacity of the agencies to address potential hazards,
particularly in the environmental area.....The committee is concerned
that the regulatory agencies are not clear with regard to the scope and
limitation of their mandates to address such matters that do not directly
affect health and the environment. Specifically, there is a need for
clarity about whether the regulatory agencies consider it within their
charge to consider only the direct health and environmental impacts of
biotechnology or also the social or economic impacts of a technology
that, in turn, might cause adverse health or environmental impact."
(p.14) For more, go to:
www.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/o309084393?OpenDocument
.
6:10/04. GMO/TRANSGENIC LABELING AND CONTROL
MEASURES IN US CONGRESS: A number of bills aimed at the
labeling of genetically-modified (GMO) or "transgenic" foods have been
introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Dennis
Kucinich (D-OH). Kucinich, along with Representative Peter DeFazio
(D-OR), have been leaders in the House on the GMO issue. No similar
measures are currently before the U.S. Senate, although Senator Barbara
Boxer (D-CA) was the author of a measure in 2000, S. 2080, the
"Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act," that would have
required labeling of all genetically engineered foods. The Kucinich bills
include:
* the "Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act of 2002" (H.R.
4814) - requires food companies to label all foods containing ingredients
from genetically engineered plants or animals;
* the "Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act of 2002" (H.R. 4813) - to
improve the U.S. Food & Drug Administration's (FDA) oversight and
testing of transgenic foods;
* the "Genetically Engineered Crop and Animal Farmer Protection Act
of 2002" (H.R. 4812) - to better protect farmers and ranchers against
powerful biotech companies and restore farmers' traditional right to save
seed;
* the "Genetically Engineered Organism Liability Act of 2002" (H.R.
4816) - to clarify and reform liability and other legal issues associated
with genetically modified crops and foods; and
* the "Real Solutions to World Hunger Act of 2002" (H.R. 4815) - to
expand research to help developing nations better feed themselves.
For more information on the federal GMO-related legislation, go to:
http://thomas.loc.gov.
6:10/05. WHITE HOUSE PROPOSES REGULATION TO ALLOW
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS WITHOUT SAFETY
TESTING: The Bush Administration has released a new proposal to
regulate genetically engineered crops. Under the Administration's
proposed "guidance," the biotechnology industry will be allowed to push
ahead with new genetically engineered crops, even if the crops have not
been safety tested. The comment period on the proposal ends 30
September. For more information on the regulation and to comment by
email, go to: www.truefoodnow.org.
6:10/06. CALL FOR GAO INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE
LOSS OF US CORN EXPORTS DUE TO USE OF GMOS;
NOVARTIS GMO PROJECT SHUT DOWN IN UK: Rural Updates
reports the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) is calling for a
U.S. General Accounting Office Investigation to quantify the loss in corn
exports due "to (the) loss of international confidence in our corn supplies
from our questionable experiment with Genetically Modified (GMO)
corn." In a statement released 4 September, ACGA said that a recent
GAO report has already determined that "U.S. corn and soybean exports
are most threatened by new foreign regulatory measures because of their
biotech content." "What we do not know," said ACGA's Larry Mitchell,
"is how much this experiment has cost the grain marketing sector and the
U.S. taxpayer." ACGA stated it is becoming clear that importers and
foreign consumers continue to have many questions about GMO's.
"They're choosing alternatives," said Dan McGuire, Director of ACGA's
"Farmer Choice, Customer First" program. "'GMO' now seems to
stand for 'grain market outcast.'" For more see:
www.acga.org/news/2002/090402.htm.
Meanwhile in the U.K., European Ministers "ordered the suspension
of the final phase of farm-scale trials after a variety of unauthorized
genetically modified oilseed rape was grown in 14 fields in England and
Scotland." The "unauthorized" plants contained an extra gene that has
been modified to make it resistant to at least two types of antibiotics.
The European Union (EU) has called for all genetically-modified plants
containing this antibiotic-resistant marker gene to be phased out because
of fears that animals and humans eating such GMO food could
eventually develop diseases immune to these drugs. The incident was
called "a very serious breach" of GMO standards by the agro-chemical
company Novarits. The corporation could face prosecution with
unlimited fines or five-year prison sentences if found guilty. For more
information, go to: www.familyfarmer.org/updates/081602.html.
6:10/07. DRAFT US CODE FOR RESPONSIBLE
AQUACULTURE OUT, COMMENTS DUE BY 23 SEPTEMBER: On
23 August, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published
notice in the Federal Register (Vol. 67, No. 164, pp. 54644-54645) of
availability of a "Draft Code of Conduct for Responsible Aquaculture in
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone" for public comment. The draft,
however, was put out for only a 30-day comment period which closes at
1700 HRS (EDT) on 23 September. The Draft Code is available at:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/trade/AQ/AQCode.pdf. To view the Federal
Register notice, go to: www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
Comments must be sent to Colin Nash, NMFS/WASC, PO Box 130,
Manchester, WA 98353 or by fax to: (206) 842-8364. Comments will
not be accepted via e-mail. Due to the shortness of time given for public
comment (30 days) on an issue of this importance and complexity, a
number of fishing and conservation organizations are requesting
additional time to submit comments.
For more about the NMFS Aquaculture Program see:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture.htm. For other information on the
impact of aquaculture on marine ecosystems and fisheries, including a
comprehensive bibliography of scientific studies on ecosystem problems
of commercial aquaculture, go to the SeaWeb Aquaculture
Clearinghouse at: www.seaweb.org/resources/sac.
6:10/08. US FISHERIES AGENCY LISTS "SUCCESSES" IN
INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES FOR WORLD SUMMIT ON
SUSTAINABILITY: The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) has issued a statement of its "successes" in international fishery
conservation since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The
statement was issued during the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (see Sublegals, 6:09/10) that is now concluding in
Johannesburg, South Africa. The accomplishments listed by NMFS,
include:
* The first binding international agreement dedicated exclusively to the
protection of sea turtles (2001);
* The first agreement on international dolphin conservation during tuna
fishing in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (1999);
* Adoption of the United Nations International fish stocks agreement
(1995);
* Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and
management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas (1993);
* Adoption of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) and
development of four international plans of action addressing seabird
bycatch, conservation and management of sharks, management of
fishing capacity, and addressing unregulated fishing; and,
* First agreement to conserve and manage highly migratory fish stocks
in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (2000).
Despite the "successes" listed by NMFS and its partner, the U.S. State
Department, for the Johannesburg Summit, the U.S. has yet to ratify the
Law of the Sea (LOS) Treaty and it has been a party to some
questionable trade agreements that threaten marine and fish conservation
measures.
Of particular concern are the implications of "investor suit rules" to
marine conservation and fishing communities. Foreign investor law suit
provisions are found in trade agreements such as the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and appear in the draft text of the Free
Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), a high-level trade deal now under
development that would encompass 34 nations in the Western
Hemisphere. These investor suit rules are a problem to democratic
governments throughout the hemisphere because they allow corporations
to sue countries directly to overturn legitimate public interest laws and
regulations when they believe their actual or potential corporate profits
have been undermined. As currently practiced under NAFTA, these
rulings are decided at secret tribunals by non-elected bureaucrats who
have been given the power to determine whether laws ranging from
zoning ordinances to environmental protections constitute an
interference with corporate profits. While the U.S. Senate voted for
more transparency in the future, "they put the investor suits right on the
fast track and corporations back into the fast buck." For more see:
www.ratical.com/co-globalize/mmNAFTA2001.html.
For more information, on NMFS' and the State Department
partnership on international agreements, go to:
www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2002/sep02/noaa02117.html. For
details about NMFS' work on sustainable development, visit:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/international/WSSD.htm.
6:10/09. RAND REPORT SHOWS HOW SNAKE RIVER DAMS
CAN GO: A new energy policy study by RAND Science & Technology,
an independent research "think-tank," has concluded that the removal of
the four lower Snake River dams in the Columbia Basin and replacement
of the power they generate with alternative sources is not only
economically feasible but would actually create almost 15,000 new
long-term jobs and leave the Northwest economy stronger than ever.
These findings strongly refute U.S. Administration claims that dam
removal would cost the Northwest jobs, and revives the debate over
whether these four lower Snake River dams, which are economically
marginal as well as major fish killers, should remain in place. Most
scientists, including the Western Division of the American Fisheries
Society (AFS), have concluded that endangered and threatened salmon
and steelhead in the Snake River cannot be recovered without the
ultimate removal of the lower four snake river dams.
The current Columbia River salmon recovery plan, adopted in
December 2000 (see Sublegals 2:25/01), tries to achieve recovery only
under a "non-breach option," but that plan used extremely optimistic
recovery assumptions, and also has been poorly funded, poorly
implemented and shows little sign of success (see Sublegals 5:09/04;
4:22/14). A recent report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
also indicates that there has been little to show for the $3.3 billion
already spent on dubious artificial fish transportation schemes and other
attempted technological fixes to the Columbia River dams (see
Sublegals 6:09/04).
If the current recovery strategy fails, the federal government will have
no viable alternative for recovery of Columbia River salmonids but
selective dam decommissioning. A bill in Congress, the Salmon
Planning Act (H.R. 2573), would allow feasibility and contingency
economic transition strategies to be studied in the meantime and
currently has 75 co-sponsors. The RAND study also found that moving
the Northwest away from its current over-dependence on hydropower
and natural gas energy by diversifying energy sources with solar and
wind energy made the most economic sense for a secure energy future,
and that doing so would allow salmon recovery efforts to include
selective dam decommissioning with net positive impacts on the
regional economy. The RAND study is available on the Internet at:
www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1604. Also see:
www.wildsalmon.org.
6:10/10. B.C. FIRST NATIONS TO SPONSOR SUMMIT ON
SALMON FARMING 24-26 SEPTEMBER: Taking a greater role in the
salmon fish farm debate than in the past, the British Columbia
Aboriginal Fisheries Commission is sponsoring a major conference on
salmon aquaculture, to be held 24-26 September at the Holiday Inn
Hotel, 700 Old Lillooet Road, North Vancouver, British Columbia.
Panels of speakers will address issues of fish farm siting, disease and
parasite transfer, escapees, waste discharge, potential impacts on marine
ecosystems and human health. The summit will strive for
recommendations to make to the Canadian government, which has
recently lifted its moratorium on the expansion of the salmon farming
industry in British Columbia (see Sublegals 6:06/05; 5:18/04; 5:05/09;
5:03/18). To register contact Duane Urban, (604)682-5290, or at:
durban27@shaw.ca.
6:10/11. HOT WATER DUE TO LOW AND INTERRUPTED
FLOWS KILLING LISTED SPRING-RUN IN UPPER SACRAMENTO
TRIBUTARY: Over 1,500 have been counted, and an estimated 3,000
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed Spring-run chinook, out of a total
population of 10,000 to 15,000 fish, have died in Butte Creek since July
from high water temperatures in the river. Butte Creek, a tributary of the
Sacramento River, contains the largest of the remaining population of
spring-run in the Central Valley system. The problem has occurred
below Centreville Dam and began in July when the water flow was
interrupted. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
requires Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to release 40
cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) from the impassable Centreville dam,
although it requires releases of 47 cfs from Forks of the Butte Power
Plant upstream, indicating the flow regime for the river and compliance
may be a problem. The National Marine Fisheries Service has requested
a Section 7 consultation with PG&E under the ESA and on 28 August
wrote FERC requesting immediate action by this federal agency to
modify the PG&E license(s) to provide more coldwater. For more
information, contact Alan Harthorn at: ahart@harpos.to.
6:10/12. REPORT FAULTS WASHINGTON STATE'S POOR
WATER CONSERVATION POLICIES: The Center for Environmental
Law & Policy (CELP) has released its report, "Washington's Wa$ted
Water: Millions of Gallons and Millions of Dollars," criticizing
Washington State water policies which inhibit or discourage water
conservation and hurt fish such as salmon. The report cites government
studies that indicate that the region could save up to 40 million gallons
of water each day over the next two decades by implementing basic
conservation measures. For a copy of the report:
www.celp.org/conservation.html.
NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items,
comments or any corrections to Editor at: ifrfish@pacbell.net or call the
IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a source at either: (415) 561-FISH
(Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000 (Northwest Office).
##########################################################
"Sublegals" are a weekly fisheries news bulletin service of Fishlink. To
find out more about Fishlink, list information can be viewed and you can
subscribe yourself automatically at:
http://straylight.primelogic.com/mailman/listinfo/fishlink
If you have any trouble subscribing or unsubscribing, contact
PCFFA/IFR directly at: <fish1ifr@aol.com>.
##########################################################
"Fishlink" and "Sublegals" are registered trademarks of the Institute for
Fisheries Resources. All rights to the use of these trademarks are
reserved to IFR. This publication, however, may be freely reproduced
and circulated without copyright restriction. If you are receiving this
as a subscriber, please feel free to pass this on to your colleagues.
Subscribers who wish to post or circulate hard copy of Sublegals or
have no access to the Internet may receive fax subscriptions by faxing
their request, with their fax number to: (415) 561-5464. Thanks!
##########################################################
MADE YOUR PLEDGE? GOT YOUR SARCASTIC FRINGEHEAD
SHIRT? GO TO: www.sublegals.net and donate to these efforts.
##########################################################