The FDA announced it was beginning the approval process for bio-engineered salmon in August last year. The agency determined the fish are safe for consumption based on research done by the very company selling it, AquaBounty Technologies, who used less than 30 fish in their review process. In response to the announcement, the Center for Food Safety has been leading a broad coalition of consumer activists calling on the FDA to deny its approval and demanding that if the “frankenfish” is to be on the market (despite massive protest), that it be clearly labeled.

Since 1982, when Monsanto first introduced the bovine growth hormone, the agency has claimed that it cannot require a label on GM food unless there are differences in its texture, taste or nutritional component, in comparison to the conventionally grown or raised food.  Following the FDA approval hearing for the salmon, another hearing was held regarding the labeling of the GM product when it potentially comes to market. Jaydee Hanson, Policy Analyst on Cloning and Genetics at the Center for Food Safety, says “The FDA is arguing that this genetic construct is just the same as natural constructs, and therefore it doesn’t need to be labeled because it’s the same thing that we’ve been eating”.

To say that there is no difference in the Aquadvantage salmon that is altered to grow twice as fast than a naturally raised salmon is a bold face lie . “By the company’s own data, this fish has less omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids than regular farmed salmon in worse ratios,” Hanson argued. “It tastes insipid. When you compare ordinary farm salmon to wild salmon, it doesn’t taste as good because it doesn’t have the fats that give the fish that good taste. The genetically modified salmon is not going to taste as good as even regular farm salmon. So basically everything you eat salmon for, it doesn’t have, or it’s got less of than any other kind of salmon.”

Hanson also observed the structural differences of the fish, gleamed from the largest sample size of engineered salmon in the entire study, a group of just 12 animals. That is all that was needed to note obvious issues such as the skeletons poor condition along with a more eroded jaw than those of normal farmed salmon, they also have enlarged gills and their flesh is inflamed. Even still, they say that it’s no different from conventional fish and its safe for human consumption.

It seems preposterous that companies selling adulterated food don’t have to let consumers know; what’s worse is that producers selling non-GMO products aren’t allowed to label their products as such, which leaves consumers in the dark about what they are buying. “Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,” said David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “It differentiates products that are not different.  As we stick more labels on products that don’t really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices.”

How degrading! To act as though people shouldn’t be educated or aware of what they consume because it would “confuse” them is an insult to our countries intelligence. What is ironic about their statement is that it comes at a time when US consumers are more interested than ever before to know where their food is coming from and how it is produced. The Post notes that the debate over genetically modified salmon “comes at a time when Americans seem to want to know more about their food – where it is grown, how it is produced and what it contains.” And according to the CFS, “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.”

Since the FDA can not be relied upon to make the right choice when it comes to keeping consumers safe and educated, and continually disregard the desires of the American public, California is taking action to make sure that anyone buying salmon in their state knows what they’re paying for. California State Assembly member Jared Huffman has introduced a bill that would require all GE salmon sold in the state to be clearly labeled.  Alaska Representatives Bob Miller and Scott Kawaski have also announced that they would be sponsoring similar legislation requiring the labeling of genetically engineered salmon. They will also introduce this year, a second piece of legislation that would prohibit genetically engineered species from being cultivated in Alaskan waters.

Ocean Conservancy’s George Leonard told Slashfood that they support Huffman’s bill and that consumers have a right to know. ”This has implications well beyond salmon. We need a broader debate over genetically engineered fish. Conversations about sustainable seafood are all about more information and more transparency over gear type, species name and more. Whether your fish has been genetically modified or not should be part of that conversation,” says Leonard.

George Kimbrell, senior staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety says that states have the ability to enact local and state level legislation, he anticipates Oregon and Washington states to follow suit with labeling requirements. “Part of this is to prod the federal government to take action to protect our food and the environment,” he says.

Aquabounty and the fishing industry wait with bated breath for the FDA to reach their final decisions on approval and labeling; the agency has stated there’s no timeline in place for issuing a final decision. Even still, West Coast director of CFS, Rebecca Spector says “We don’t think it’s premature,” We want to send a message to the FDA that Californians don’t want bioengineered salmon, or at least want it to be labeled.”

~Health Freedoms

Dissatisfied with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current review of the first-ever proposed commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) salmon, Today [January 6], California State Assemblymember Jared Huffman introduced an Assembly Bill (AB 88) which would require that all GE salmon sold in California contain clear and prominent labeling.  The Center for Food Safety (CFS), a co-sponsor of the bill, applauds Assemblymember Huffman for protecting the public’s right to know how their food is produced by drafting this important piece of food safety legislation.

“The federal agency charged with protecting our food supply is failing us yet again,” said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety. “Consumers have the right to know that the food they consume and feed their families is safe.  Until FDA does an adequate environmental and human health review of genetically engineered salmon, it is up to individual states to protect consumers and their families.  The Assemblymember’s proposed bill will protect Californians through labeling, which restores consumer confidence and choice.”

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.

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.

“Consumers sent a clear message to FDA that they do not want to eat genetically engineered salmon and should FDA decide to move forward despite overwhelming opposition it must be labeled,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. November 22^nd marked the end of a two month public comment period on the labeling of GE salmon.  Nearly 400,000 public comments have been sent to FDA, demanding the agency reject this application and require mandatory labeling of this transgenic salmon should it decide to approve it.

By: Heather- Center For Food Safety

http://ge-fish.org/2011/01/06/in-wake-of-pending-fda-approval-of-ge-salmon-california-bill-could-restore-americans%E2%80%99-right-to-choose-in-the-marketplace/#more-327

Sources:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/genetically-modified-salmon-has-less-nutritional-value

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/fda-labeled-free-modification/

http://www.slashfood.com/2011/01/07/lawmakers-tackle-genetically-modified-salmon/#ixzz1CgDJ80lf

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/bioengineered-salmon-california-bill-seeks-clear-label/