|
|
|
|
|
|
State of
|
|
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
K. L. COOL director |
- Bill
Number and Sponsor:
Senate Bill 226
Senator Hammerstrom, et al.
- Purpose:
SB 226 amends 1994 PA 451 by modifying several sections and adding part 413. The intent of the legislation is to define genetically engineered organisms and prohibit their release into waters of the State except under permit issued by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The bill authorizes the DNR to grant or deny such a permit. The bill mandates that the DNR promulgate rules to implement the new part and establishes penalties for violation of the part. Further, it prohibits the importation of genetically engineered organisms or eggs thereof.
- How does this legislation impact current programs in the department:
Genetically Engineered Organisms (GEOs) are genetic variants of recognized species and pose significant risks to native fish and fish communities, including extirpation. Many GEOs look identical physically to “natural” forms of the species, making identification impossible without genetic analysis. As a result, many Departmental programs, including hatchery production and fisheries management would be compromised if GEOs were allowed into the State. Banning their importation and release protects the natural genetic variability that exists in native and naturalized stocks in the Great Lakes Basin.
- Introduced at Agency request:
No.
- Agency Support:
Yes.
- Arguments against the bill:
Due to their increased growth rates, resistance to specific pathogens or diseases, or other traits, some private fish producers favor GEOs. One of the most common ways in which GEOs are utilized is that “growth enhancing” genes are inserted into an organism, making that individual and its offspring grow at a faster rate than the recognized species. For private fish culturists, representing a $2-4 million per year industry, this equates to more efficient use of hatchery space and a more economical operation. Capitalizing on the higher growth rates, fish growers can produce more pounds of fish at a faster rate, and recognize potentially higher profits.
- the introduction of unwanted GEOs. Altering the genetic make-up of an organism creates a situation whereby that variation can be transferred to offspring, or interbred into native species’ offspring. This can result in extinction of recognized species. Also, as mentioned above, many GEOs look identical physically to “natural” forms of the species. As a result, many departmental programs such as hatchery production and fisheries management are compromised, both of which support a $1.5 billion/year sport fishing industry. By banning their importation and release, the legislation heads off potential introductions before they have an opportunity to become established in our waters.
- State Revenue/Budgetary implications: None.
- Implications to Local Units of Government: None
- Administrative Rules Implications: The legislation mandates that the DNR promulgate rules to implement this part.
- Other pertinent information: The legislation clarifies that a permit to allow importation and release of a species does NOT apply to GEOs unless specifically stated in the permit.
- User Groups/constituents that support this legislation: Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Michigan Environmental Council Trout Unlimited, Michigan Bass Federation, Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fishermen’s Association, Federation of Fly Fishers, others.
_____________________, Director
K.L. Cool
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
FI