tagged w/ GE salmon
-
http://www.peachygreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/coho-salmon1.jpg
U.S. Sen. Mark Begich is sending President Barack Obama a sample of smoked Alaska salmon -- and a pitch for the wild specimen.
This follows Obama's mention of salmon in his State of the Union address. Obama said one government agency is in charge of salmon when they're in fresh water, another is in charge when they're in saltwater, and "I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked."
Begich says the mention caught Alaskans' attention, and he wanted Obama and his family to have a taste of smoked wild salmon. In a letter dated Friday, he also said he thinks one taste will convince the president that salmon are "best kept wild."
Begich, a Democrat, has been fighting to bar federal approval of genetically altered salmon for food.http://www.peachygreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/coho-salmon1.jpg
U.S. Sen.... 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
-
-
Over the last decade, top food and agriculture biotechnology firms and trade associations spent over half a billion dollars - $572 million - in campaign contributions and lobbying Congress in support of controversial industry projects like genetically engineered (GE) food animals, according to a new analysis by national consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch. Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions and lobbying expenditures by biotechnology interests more than doubled during this time.
"The public needs to know that despite their concerns with eating genetically engineered (GE) foods, there's a powerful industry spending hundreds of millions to promote products like GE salmon," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "Over the last few months, our coalition has collected approximately 200,000 petitions from consumers who oppose FDA approval of genetically engineered salmon. Yet sadly, each of these consumers would have to pay nearly $3,000 to match the biotech industry's lobbying influence."
The analysis comes less than a week before the FDA will close its public comment period on the first GE animal to be approved for human consumption, AquaBounty salmon. The FDA could approve the controversial product as early as Nov. 23.
In addition to promoting GE foods, biotech lobbyists work to prevent foreign governments from banning or limiting the products and fight requirements that they be labeled for consumers.
FDA labeling of AquaBounty salmon has been a hotly contested issue. Despite consumer concerns, the agency currently does not require it. According to an NPR article published earlier this week, a survey of more than 3,000 people (conducted for NPR by Thomson Reuters) revealed that 9 out of 10 people believe GE foods should be labeled. The majority said they would not eat a genetically engineered fish, labeled or not.
Food & Water Watch's analysis also exposed intricate relationships and financial connections between well-connected lobbyists and former high-ranking legislators who lobby Congress and the federal agencies. According to the analysis, food and agriculture biotechnology firms and trade associations have hired on as lobbyists at least 13 former members of Congress and over 300 former congressional and White House staffers through well-connected lobbying shops.
The consumer group's analysis comes on the heels of its release of startling U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service emails (obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request) revealing the agency scientists' disbelief that the FDA would approve AquaBounty salmon. With regards to GE fish escapes, one Fish & Wildlife Service geneticist was quoted saying, "Maybe they [the FDA] should watch Jurassic Park."
"It seems the FDA is more interested in pandering to lobbyists then listening to the American public and the other federal agencies it is required by law to consult with," Hauter said.
At least 30 House members and 13 senators have expressed concern with the FDA's review process for GE salmon, with many calling for its outright prohibition.
On Monday, Nov. 22, a coalition of groups including Food & Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, the Organic Consumers Association, Food Democracy Now and CREDO Action will submit over 200,000 consumer comments to the FDA and President Obama, urging them to reject the approval of genetically engineered salmon.
Click here for Food & Water Watch's full biotech lobbying analysis:
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/report/food-and-agriculture-biotechnology-industry-influence/Over the last decade, top food and agriculture biotechnology firms and trade... 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
-
-
Adding a new twist to the controversy over genetically engineered (GE) salmon, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) revealed today that, in recent hearings on transgenic fish, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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 (ESA).
“This adds further evidence that in fact GE salmon pose a serious threat to marine environments and is another compelling reason for the FDA not to approve the fish for commercial use,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “While the FDA applauded the company’s choice of land-based containment as responsible, it never revealed that it is illegal in the U.S. to grow genetically engineered salmon in open-water net pens.”
The Biological Opinion and supplemental information, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, challenge claims by AquaBounty Technologies, the developer of the GE salmon, that the transgenic fish pose no threat to marine environments. The GE Atlantic salmon under consideration was engineered with growth hormone genes from an unrelated Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and DNA from the anti-freeze genes of an eelpout (Zoarces americanus).
The Biological Opinion issued by FWS and NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2003 expresses concerns that transgenic salmon would threaten and adversely affect wild Atlantic salmon, currently on the Endangered Species List. Federal agencies are required by Section 7 of the ESA to consult with the expert fisheries agencies when any action may impact a protected species. As part of the consultation, the expert agencies draft a Biological Opinion explaining under what circumstance the proposed activity would not endanger the survival of the protected species. The Biological Opinion here analyzed the authorization of net pen salmon aquaculture and required:
“The prohibition on the use of transgenic salmonids at existing marine sites off the coast of Maine” in order to “eliminate the potentially adverse disease and ecological risks posed by the use of transgenic salmonids in aquaculture.”
Despite this knowledge, it appears that FDA has not consulted in depth with the expert fisheries agencies regarding the current Aquabounty GE salmon. FDA acknowledges that “preliminary” discussions have been held. However, the documents released today by CFS also include an email from FWS staff to NOAA further revealed that:
Shortly after the Atlantic salmon was listed as endangered, several of us from USFWS and NMFS spent 2 days down in Maryland meeting with Aqua Bounty 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 Aqua Bounty after that.
“The recent developments only add to the increasing concerns raised by the public, members of Congress and the FDA’s own Advisory Committee,” said Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Food Safety. “The documents received make clear that some data was even kept from FWS and NMFS scientists who would not sign the confidentiality agreements requested by the FDA. If the FDA won’t even share confidential company data with government scientists, what else is it keeping secret from the public?” added Hanson.
cont.Adding a new twist to the controversy over genetically engineered (GE) salmon, the... more
-
-
As the Food and Drug Administration considers whether to approve genetically modified salmon, one thing seems certain: Shoppers will have a hard time determining whether the fish in the grocery store is genetically altered with no label to guide them.As the Food and Drug Administration considers whether to approve genetically modified... more
-
-
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on August 25, 2010 that it will potentially approve the long-shelved AquAdvantage transgenic salmon as the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption. The GE Atlantic salmon being considered was developed by AquaBounty Technologies, and genetically engineered to produce growth hormones year-round, creating a fish the company claims grows at twice the normal rate. This could allow factory fish farms to crowd the salmon into pens and still get high production rates.
We have only a short window to tell FDA to reject these GE fish - Can you send a comment today?
Each year millions of farmed salmon escape from open-water net pens, outcompeting wild populations for resources and straining ecosystems. Any approval of GE salmon would represent another serious threat to the survival of native salmon populations, many of which have already suffered severe declines related to salmon farms and other man-made impacts. Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences notes that a release of just sixty GE salmon into a wild population of 60,000 could lead to the extinction of the wild population in less than 40 fish generations. Wild Atlantic salmon are already on the Endangered Species List in the U.S.; approving these GE Atlantic salmon will be the final blow to these wild stocks.
The human health impacts of eating GE fish are entirely unknown, but some scientific research raises cause for alarm: for example, some scientists have asserted that foreign growth hormones in transgenetic fish may increase production of other compounds such as insulin in the fish. Additionally, FDA has recognized that a transgene cannot be “turned off” once it is inserted in the organism, and will therefore have effects that are uncontrollable.
These GE farmed salmon will also carry with them all of the health hazards of other farmed salmon, but transgenic fish may be more susceptible to disease than fish currently grown in aquaculture facilities because transgenic fish are identified as “macro-mutants” with a reduced ability to survive. Consequently, the amount of antibiotics given to transgenic fish may be higher than the amount currently given to farmed fish; already farmed salmon are given more antibiotics than any other livestock by weight, threatening the health of those who eat them and the continued efficacy of these antibiotics to treat human disease.
The company first applied for approval of the fish in 2001, but the Bush Administration delayed its approval until it was out of office. Ironically, the Obama Administration, who came to office promising a more environmentally sound and transparent process, is using the Bush Administration-developed framework for the approval of genetically engineered animals. This process uses the fiction that the genetically engineered salmon is, in effect, an animal “drug.” The failure of the FDA to develop a transparent process for the approval of GE animals and instead use the secretive process of the New Animal Drug regulations means that consumers will be deprived of basic information as to the safety of these animals.
Tell the Food and Drug Administration not to approve GE salmon AND, if the Obama Administration insists on approving these genetically engineered fish, it should require the fish to be labeled when marketed to fish farmers, fish retailers and food companies, restaurants, and when marketed to consumers.
Please take action today! The hearing for approving the salmon is scheduled for Sunday, September 19, and no public comment period has been established for the approval of genetically engineered fish outside of this meeting, so this may be our only chance to oppose this dangerous approval! Only a public comment period on labeling of the GE fish has been opened.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on August 25, 2010 that it will... more
-
-
A salmon that grows at twice the normal rate is set to be the first genetically modified animal available for human consumption.A salmon that grows at twice the normal rate is set to be the first genetically... more
-
