When the FDA announced it found the genetically engineered AquAdvantage salmon safe just before Labor Day, news headlines and even Alaska Senator Mark Begich called it a "frankenfish." A closer look at AquAdvantage makes it seem unlikely that Mary Shelley could have ever dreamed up anything as wild as the fast growing GE salmon. Even more worrisome is the science used to justify the salmon's safety, which Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen calls "sloppy," "misleading," and "woefully inadequate."
If approved, AquAdvantage will be the first genetically engineered animal to directly enter the U.S. food supply -- a fact that raises the stakes of the FDA's approval process, as it sets a precedent for all future GE animals. Because of a regulatory decision in the 1980s that no new laws are needed to regulate genetically engineered foods, the FDA is actually regulating the GE salmon as a drug. The next step in the approval process will be a series of public meetings held September 19-21. Already, a number of groups, including Food & Water Watch, the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, and Organic Consumers Association have written to President Obama, urging him to discontinue the approval process for the GE salmon. (Full disclosure: I serve on the Policy Advisory Board of the Organic Consumers Association, but I was not a part of the decision to sign onto this letter.)
Why the FDA Is Ignoring Flawed Science and Deeming a New GE 'Frankenfish' Safe to Eat and Sell Un-labeled | Personal Health | AlterNet
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (5)
It is, frankly, an ethical struggle dealing with the concept of genetically-modified foods. Against the fears regarding the health outcomes, and the tremendous anger about some of the consequences of patented plants and animals, rests the thought of how wonderful it would be to feed millions through new technologies.
But we've already seen the repercussions in India, where the government is refusing to allow modified foods into the country due to the problems farmers have experienced with accidental pollination from patented crops. It also seems a bit incredulous that those who need these foods will actually get them, and that famine will continue apace throughout the world.
I'm curious about whether anyone else goes through this experience.
- 3 votes
is this another monsa nto spin off? if you control the food what else do you control? it is definitely out of control already, companies suing farmers cause their ge accidentally got onto the farmer's land.... what else do they have that's been 'engineered'? what else have they already made that we don't even suspect? franken _______— ? and no, those that need food don't get it now, (and there is plenty to go around in spite of rumors to the contrary)why would we think that they'll get it when it's been modified?
- 4 votes
is this another monsanto spin off?
The only name mentioned was Aqua Bounty but given the corporate buy-outs these days, I wouldn't be surprised if they became a Monsanto offshoot pretty soon.
- 4 votes
What is most troublesome is that when genetically modified issues are present, it seems to most profoundly affect the native farmer and consumer. Something is wrong when a farmer cannot save and use seeds b/c of a corporation on the other side of the world. This is against all laws of nature and God. WITH THIS FISH--Will it be able to reproduce in the wild? Will there be unintended consequences? I'm just asking. Even to the untrained observer, I would think diversity is critical in our food supply and Could That Be Threatened?
It is strange, isn't it. When you consider how basic it was to farming to not "sell your seed corn" that it became a normal part of speech. Now, it's illegal.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |



