Sponsors seek ban on intentional release of self‑spreading viruses; agriculture and veterinary groups warn of broad consequences

Representative Donna Henderson told the committee she introduced House Bill 14‑58 to prohibit intentional release of "self‑spreading" viruses and bacteria without consent, saying the measure targets a new class of engineered RNA agents that could spread from person to person without consent.

Henderson said she asked legislative counsel to add the word "intentional" to the statute’s definition of "release" and to add an exception so the section would not apply to individuals unknowingly infected. "My intent with this bill is to not stop any of the normal vaccines that are being used today," Henderson said, adding the bill aims to preemptively protect citizens from engineered self‑spreading agents.

Several supporters described the technology in stark terms. Charlene Nelson, a private citizen, invoked gain‑of‑function research and called the technology "dangerous," urging a "do pass" recommendation.

Opposition testimony came from multiple animal‑health and agriculture interests. The North Dakota Veterinary Medical Association (NDVMA) and the state veterinarian’s office told the committee the bill’s wording is broad enough to cover long‑used modified‑live and recombinant vaccines in veterinary medicine and could hamper disease control and emergency responses. "House Bill 14‑58 poses a significant threat to public and animal health in North Dakota," said Kim Brummond on behalf of NDVMA, adding that the bill would create "unnecessary legal obstacles for the use of recombinant or modified live vaccines" used to control diseases such as brucellosis, anthrax and avian influenza.

Dr. Ethan Andrus, state veterinarian, echoed that concern and noted regulatory oversight of veterinary biologics already exists at federal and state levels, including USDA Center for Veterinary Biologics approval and reporting to the state veterinarian's office. He said commercially available products have undergone safety testing and that the bill would complicate responses to animal disease outbreaks.

Livestock groups and individual producers described practical difficulties with written consent and recordkeeping in on‑farm or feedlot settings. "This is about somebody telling me what I can do with my private property," testified Pete Hanover of the North Dakota Farm Bureau; ranchers and producers warned the written‑consent and civil liability provisions could expose producers and veterinarians to new legal risk.

Public‑health and disease‑control officials also raised concerns that the bill as written could apply to everyday transmissible infections such as colds, gastrointestinal viruses or donor blood antibodies and would require substantial clarifications. Kirby Krueger, director of disease control and forensic pathology at the Department of Health and Human Services, said "self spreading viruses and bacteria are everywhere all the time" and that the bill’s broad language risked unintended coverage of routine infectious disease occurrences.

Committee members asked the sponsor and opponents about whether the term "individual" in the statute refers only to humans; Henderson said legislative counsel intended "individual" to denote humans, but several witnesses said animal‑human interfaces and zoonotic risks mean the language could still capture animal vaccines and veterinary practice. The NDVMA and other opponents urged the committee to recommend a "do not pass" and called for more precise drafting to exclude established veterinary vaccines and existing regulatory frameworks.

Ending: The hearing drew extensive testimony from medical‑freedom advocates, animal‑health professionals and agricultural stakeholders. Opponents asked for substantial rewording to avoid disrupting veterinary vaccines, disease control and producer operations; the committee closed the hearing without taking a vote.