tagged w/ wild salmon
-
Dissatisfied with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current review of the first-ever proposed commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) salmon, late yesterday the California Assembly Health Committee approved a bill which would require that all GE fish sold in California contain clear and prominent labeling. The bill, AB 88, was introduced by Assemblymember Jared Huffman. The Center for Food Safety (CFS), a co-sponsor of the bill, applauds the Health Committee for protecting the public’s right to know how their food is produced.
“The FDA has indicated that it will not require these GE fish to be labeled once they are approved,” said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety. “As such, it is incumbent on the California State legislature, starting with the Health Committee, to let the people of California make informed choices about the food they eat by requiring the labeling of GE fish sold in California.”
Public opinion clearly and consistently calls for food labeling. Recent polls indicate that 95% of the public want labeling of genetically-modified foods, and that nearly 50% of the public would not eat seafood that has been genetically engineered. Consumers sent nearly 400,000 public comments to FDA demanding the agency reject this application and require mandatory labeling of this transgenic salmon should it decide to approve it.
The Center for Food Safety recently called on the FDA to recognize the immense public outcry for mandatory labeling of untested, unapproved transgenic salmon. CFS led a broad coalition of consumer, environmental, religious and animal welfare groups, along with commercial and recreational fisheries associations and food retailers, grocers and chefs in demanding the FDA deny approval of the long-shelved AquaBounty transgenic salmon and require mandatory labeling of the fish is approved despite intense opposition. If approved the transgenic salmon would be the first genetically engineered animal intended for human consumption.
“Until FDA completes an adequate environmental and human health review of genetically engineered salmon, it is up to individual states to protect consumers and their families,” said Spector. “California has always been a leader in environmental and food safety laws, and AB 88 continues this tradition by protecting the public from a potentially harmful food technology. More importantly, it gives consumers the right to know what they are eating and gives them a choice in the marketplace.”
Read CFS’s testimony presented at the Health Committee hearing at the link.Dissatisfied with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current review... more
-
-
Big biotech companies that develop genetically modified (GM) organisms have spent more than half a billion dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying in the past decade, raising concerns about an upcoming Federal Drug Administration (FDA) decision that could approve GM salmon for human consumption, according to consumer group Food and Water Watch (FWW).
But the biotech industry has not wooed everyone in Washington. On Thursday, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) introduced legislation that would ban the GM salmon - sometimes called "frankenfish" - if the FDA approves it.
The GM salmon, which have additional genes that cause the fish to grow faster and larger, would be the first GM animal food approved in the United States. The FDA could reach a decision as early as November 23.
Begich was one of ten lawmakers who signed a letter to the FDA in September asking the FDA to halt the review of the GM salmon. The lawmakers expressed concern about the FDA's review process, which considers the product a new drug for animals instead of a new animal for human consumption, according to the letter.
Begich said the FDA never responded to the letter, and he is not the first government official to feel ignored by the FDA during the review process.
Earlier this week, FWW released internal documents from the Department of the Interior to Truthout showing that federal wildlife officials are concerned about the GM salmon proposal and the FDA's failure to consult the Fish and Wildlife Service about the potential for the salmon to escape and threaten endangered populations in the wild.
"The FDA seems to be on its own timeline and hasn't even responded to a letter signed by several lawmakers," Begich said. "We will move ahead without the agency, taking steps to ban frankenfish and keep humans and our wild salmon safe."
In September, The FDA found the salmon safe for human consumption.
Groups like the FWW and the Consumers Union testified against the FDA's findings, arguing that the FDA had not considered enough data on the potential health and environmental consequences of GM salmon.
Begich also introduced separate legislation that would require GM salmon to be labeled as GM if it is approved.
A Thomas Reuters poll conducted in September shows that 64 percent of Americans are unsure if GM food is safe, and 93 percent of those polled want GM foods to be labeled.
Food companies do not have to notify customers about GM ingredients, and it's unclear if the FDA could require special labels for the GM salmon.
Begich's legislation, which is co-sponsored by Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Patty Murray (D-Washington), may have a tough road ahead.
The FWW, which opposes the GM salmon, is concerned that the heavy political influence of the biotech industry carries more weight in Congress and the FDA than that of concerned scientists and consumers.
A new FWW report details a steady increase in political spending from biotech companies and describes a "revolving door" system of former legislators, who left office and returned to Washington to lobby for companies advancing the technology.
"Over the last few months, our coalition has collected approximately 200,000 petitions from consumers who oppose FDA approval of genetically engineered salmon," said FWW director Wenonah Hauter. "Yet sadly, each of these consumers would have to pay nearly $3,000 to match the biotech industry's lobbying influence."Big biotech companies that develop genetically modified (GM) organisms have spent more... more
-
-
One of the arguments against expanding the FDA's powers over food safety is that the agency has repeatedly shown an unwillingness to enforce existing laws and to regulate aggressively in the face of corporate lobbying.
Unfortunately, we now have more evidence that the FDA may indeed be a bad-faith regulator.
The Center for Food Safety has unearthed convincing evidence that the FDA is attempting to freeze out marine and fisheries experts from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in its rush to approve biotech company AquaBounty's genetically modified salmon for human consumption.
According to documents obtained by the consumer group via a Freedom of Information Act request, the FDA has held only "preliminary" discussions with these agencies regarding AquaBounty's product and has not allowed government scientists to review some of the company's "confidential" data. According to an email sent between staffers at Fish and Wildlife and NOAA, they've been kept out of the loop for some time:
Shortly after the Atlantic salmon was listed as endangered, several of us from USFWS and NMFS spent 2 days down in Maryland meeting with AquaBounty and FDA about development of genetically modified salmon and discussion around the need for FDA to engage in Section 7 consultation with the Services. We never heard a peep out of FDA or AquaBounty after that.
It's ironic that the FDA, an agency so bureaucratically unprepared to regulate GE foods that it considers AquaBounty's salmon the same way it would a "veterinary drug" has decided that this process has no place for scientists who actually understand fish biology and marine ecosystems.
Specifically, the Center for Food Safety accuses the FDA of having "knowingly withheld a Federal Biological Opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) prohibiting the use of transgenic salmon in open-water net pens pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act."
cont.One of the arguments against expanding the FDA's powers over food safety is that... more
-
-
Second largest U.S. retailer after Wal-Mart will now use only wild-caught
Target Corp., the nation's second-largest discounter after Wal-Mart Stores Inc., said Tuesday that it pulled all farmed salmon from its stores as it looks to be more environmentally conscious.
The retailer said it will no longer carry farmed salmon in its fresh, frozen or smoked seafood sections. The move impacts national brands and the chain's own Archer Farms and Market Pantry brands, which will now use wild-caught Alaskan salmon.
Companies have increasingly shifted away from farmed salmon due to pressure by consumers and environmentalists, who want wild-caught salmon used because it can help preserve salmon levels as well as species health and doesn't hurt local habitats.
Salmon farms are viewed by these parties as hazardous due to the pollutants and chemicals they can emit as well as the potential dangers of farmed fish escaping and intruding on native salmon.Second largest U.S. retailer after Wal-Mart will now use only wild-caught
Target... more
-
-
A plan to restore salmon runs on California's Sacramento River also could help revive killer whale populations 700 miles to the north in Puget Sound, as federal scientists struggle to protect endangered species in a complex ecosystem that stretches along the Pacific coast from California to Alaska.
Without wild salmon from the Sacramento and American rivers as part of their diet, the killer whales might face extinction, scientists concluded in a biological opinion that could result in even more severe water restrictions for farmers in the drought-stricken, 400-mile-long Central Valley of California. The valley is the nation's most productive farm region.
The plan has faced heated criticism from agricultural interests and politicians in California, but environmentalists said it represented a welcome departure by the Obama administration from its predecessor in dealing with Endangered Species Act issues.
The Sacramento plan, they add, is in sharp contrast to the plan for restoring wild salmon populations on the Columbia and Snake rivers in Washington state and Idaho. That plan, written by the Bush administration, essentially concluded the long-term decline in those federally protected runs didn't jeopardize the killer whales' existence because hatchery fish could make up the difference.
The 85 orcas of the southern resident killer whale population travel in three separate pods, spending much of their time roaming the inland waters of Washington state from the San Juan Islands to south Puget Sound. During the winter they have been found offshore, ranging as far south as Monterey Bay in California and as far north as British Columbia's Queen Charlotte Islands. Each orca has distinctive markings, which allows them to be tracked.
In the mid-1990s, there were nearly 100 orcas in the three southern resident pods. The population fell to fewer than 80 in 2001. In 2005, they were granted federal protection as an endangered species. They have been studied closely for only 30 years or so, but historically there may have been up to 200 southern resident orcas.
Researches think the decline has resulted from pollution - which could cause immune- or reproductive-system dysfunction - and from oil spills, noise and other vessel disturbances, along with a reduced quantity and quality of prey.
With the largest 27 feet long and weighing 10,000 pounds, orcas are constantly on the prowl for food. They have been known to hunt in packs. Their meal of choice: salmon, particularly chinook salmon.
By some estimates, the orcas eat about 500,000 salmon a year.
The Sacramento and American river systems combined were once among the top salmon-spawning rivers on the West Coast, trailing only the Columbia and Snake rivers.
Prompted by lawsuits, the National Marine Fisheries Service last month published its latest plan for the Sacramento and American rivers' winter and fall chinook salmon runs. Without further curtailments of water for the federal Central Valley Project - a several-hundred-mile network of dams, canals and pumping plants - and the California State Water Project - the nation's largest state-built water and power development and conveyance system, which supplies water for 23 million Californians - the two runs are in jeopardy of extinction, the plan said.A plan to restore salmon runs on California's Sacramento River also could help... more
-
