Introduction
Commercial production of aquatic transgenic animals, like
fish and shellfish, poses a variety of environmental concerns
for state policy makers. In addressing potential risks to
natural ecosystems, lawmakers have approached the subject
from two directions. Some states, like Oregon and Washington,
have found it more efficient to allow departments of environmental
quality and fish and wildlife to adopt rules modifying the
definition of exotic species to include transgenic animals
and allow for banning and regulation. Other states, like
Michigan and California, have enacted legislation that imposes
a ban and assigns regulatory oversight of aquatic transgenic
animals to a specific state agency. Listed below are examples
of how states have implemented regulations.
California
California has utilized both a legislative and rulemaking
approach to aquatic transgenic animals. SB
245 bars the incubation, spawning, and cultivation of
transgenic fish species within the waterways controlled
by the state and up to 3 miles offshore in the Pacific Ocean.
Status: Signed into law 10/12/03.
Additionally, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
amended the California Code of Regulations §
671.1, which makes it unlawful to possess, transport,
or import aquatic transgenic animals, including freshwater
and marine fishes, invertebrates, crustaceans, mollusks,
amphibians, and reptiles. It also extends authority to grant
permits as exemptions to the regulation.
Status: Adopted 9/27/03.
Maryland
HB
189 was intended to protect the Chesapeake Bay and other
waters controlled by the state. It places a five-year moratorium
on the release of transgenic aquatic species and authorizes
the Department of Natural Resources to only issue a permit
if the transgenic species are confined and precluded from
entering any state controlled waters.
Status: Signed into law 4/10/01.
Michigan
The Michigan legislature recently passed SB
226, which defines genetically engineered organisms
and empowers the Department of Natural Resources to adopt
rules to prohibit their release into state waters. It also
authorizes the department to grant permits and establishes
penalties for violating the law like fines, prison time,
and possible natural resource damages.
Status: Signed into law 3/30/04.
New York
The state assembly recently considered A 10315. This bill
defines transgenic aquatic animals and prohibits their sale
and possession except for educational, scientific, and research
purposes.
Status: In Committee 3/23/04.
Oregon
The Department of Fish and Wildlife recently modified its
rules to contain provisions regarding transgenic fish (Oregon
Administrative Law 635-007-0595). It states that fish
modified through genetic engineering if released into wild
populations have the potential of causing adverse ecological
and genetic impacts. The new rule prohibits the release
of transgenic fish into locations where such fish may gain
access to wild fish populations.
Status: Adopted in 2004.
Washington
In 2001, the Washington State Legislature passed a bill
that directed the Department of Fish and Wildlife to work
with the aquaculture industry in adopting rules regarding
transgenic fish. The working group’s initial recommendation
suggested a two-year moratorium on use of transgenic fish.
However, the department felt that transgenic fish posed
great environmental risks and prohibited the use of transgenic
fish indefinitely (Washington
Administrative Code 220-76-100). Also, it gives the
department the right to deny a permit if the project poses
significant genetic, ecological, or health risks to native
fish stocks.
Status: Adopted in 2003.
|
