Genetically modified salmon meets stiff resistance-what comes next?
Genetically modified foods represent a diverse and ever evolving market, growing concurrently beside the biotechnological field and industry. Outstanding gains in GM agriculture have paved the way for new market breakthroughs, though whether the public is ready is another story. Possibly the markets most significant initiative-the approval of GM salmon-has met stiff resistance from several non-profits and activist groups. Opposition organizers assert the largely untested fish should be both further studied and reclassified, some seeing GM salmon as unsafe altogether. Marketers and developers see the fish as an irreplaceable opportunity to expand the already existing GM market from agriculture to livestock. Barricading them from this vision stands a series of petitions filed by nonprofit Food and Water Watch, a group at the oppositions’ forefront. If successful, the petitions would mandate lengthier, more revealing studies on the manufactured salmon as well as inquiries into the reliability of producers-who’d otherwise maintain a relative monopoly.
AquaBounty’s GMO salmon features a combination of eel and Chinook Salmon genes, resulting in bigger, faster growing fish. The FDA, according to the Epoch Times, approved the fish as meeting all safety regulations as a veterinary drug, legal under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Food and Water Watch found the drug classification logical, for example, with the GM goat which produced pharmaceuticals in its milk-not for something meant for regular consumption.
“A drug is a different process”, says FWW Assistant Director Patti Lovera, “it judges whether it’s effective in doing what it says its going to do.” “We think it should be a different process for something that we’re going to eat.” “We would like to think”, she continues, “that they are taking a second look at the concerns that we’re raising, and lots of other groups have raised, and it’s starting to sink in. But we don’t know. It’s not a very transparent process. We don’t know what’s going on inside the agency.”
AquaBounty, the Epoch Times reports, first submitted an GM salmon application to FDA in 1995, by 2010 they nearly had the green light. However, with several grocery chains already pledging not to carry the salmon, and similarly sized fish coming out of traditional breeders, final approval has remained elusive.
Additionally, a rash of new evidence from the US Securities & Exchange Commission casts doubt on the company’s reliability and responsibility. According to the Center for Food Safety, records show AquaBounty previously handed over safety responsibility to an independent contractor in 2013. Documents submitted to SEC as part of an attempt to join the NASDAQ stock market revealed the trading of hands, and the contractors untimely death left AquaBounty in a very awkward position. The trade involved the companies Panamanian facility, at which several environmental laws were “breached”, according to CFS.
“At times, even AquaBounty doesn't seem to know what’s going on in Panama”, says FWW Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “The horrendous environmental record of AquaBounty, which includes a security lapse that lead to ‘lost’ salmon in Panama and regulatory violations related to environmental safety are a predictable consequence of the companies cavalier approach to raising this risky fish.” “FDA is dangerously out of touch”, says CFS Senior Attorney George Kimbrell, “advancing AquaBountys application based on its promises, not reality.” Food and Technology Campaigner with Friends Of The Earth Dana Perls also called AquaBountys contradictions too numerous and costly to trust the company. She also alluded to the possibly irreparable ecological damage inflicted by GM salmon which have escaped into the wild under the companies’ watch.
Food and Water Watch’s webpage chronicles the nonprofits attempts to halt the approval of genetically modified salmon. The groups two most recent legal petitions call on the FDA to further evaluate the fish produced by one particular company, Aquabounty, classifying it under “food additive” instead of “animal drug”. If successful, the reclassification of AquaBounty's creation could lead to it being ultimately deemed unsafe for consumption.
“It couldn’t be more clear to customers that GMO salmon is a food, not a drug”, says FWW Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “It’s also clear that there are serious food safety concerns with this fish”, Hauter continues, “and major scientific gaps in FDA’s animal drug risk assessment. It’s time for FDA to step up and protect the health and welfare of American citizens rather than the economic interests of the biotechnology industry.”
According to Food and Water Watch.com, the organizations petitions call on the FDA to classify GM salmon as a “food additive”. Additives rely on immediate and rigorous toxicological tests to validate safety rather than the manufacturer's word, in this case AquaBounty. Their concerns stem partly from a FDA GM salmon allergen study which not only utilized just six fish, but found a 20-50% increase in allergenic potency when compared to naturally bred salmon. Even other researchers have noted major weaknesses in FDA’s food safety reviews.
“For an agency responsible for 80 percent of the food that we eat-and which often touts its commitment to science based regulations”, Executive Director Hauter explains, “the FDA is shockingly lenient with the quality of science it is requiring of Aquabounty.” “We can’t declare that GMO salmon is safe to eat based on a regulatory review process that treats a food product like a drug. The only appropriate course of action for FDA is to evaluate GMO salmon as a food and declare it unsafe.” FWW submitted similar petitions in 2012 which were utterly ignored by the Food and Drug Agency.
“The agency [FDA]”, says Hauter, “needs to seriously evaluate this petition, as it supports what consumers, scientists, grocery retailers and even the commercial salmon industry have been saying all along: GMO salmon is totally unnecessary and highly risky.” If approved, FWW’s webpage reports, AquaBounty’s GMO salmon would be the first biotech animal to enter the mainstream food supply-the industry would explode.
Scientifically speaking, one can not say for certain whether or not GMO salmon is harmful if consumed. The fact of the matter is that there simply arent enough studies, public or otherwise, which can confidently provide an answer. More specific, conclusive, thoroughly conducted studies must be pushed for as we can not trust corporate America nor the government agencies its bought out. The pressure must continue for the sake of our health and the health of generations to come, the GM fight is much much bigger than just the individual. We must remain critical of company’s like AquaBounty and Monsanto which recklessly disregard the sovereignty of the earth with their franken-creations. Not only are humans not guinea pigs, the earth isn’t either, citizens must do everything in our power to make business people and politicians remember this sacred reality-including write blogs.
