November, 04 2020, 11:00pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
George Kimbrell, gkimbrell@centerforfoodsafety.org,
Steve Mashuda, smashuda@earthjustice.org
Federal Court Declares Genetically Engineered Salmon Unlawful
Court rules Food and Drug Administration failed to analyze risks to endangered salmon from escape
SAN FRANCISCO
Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violated core environmental laws in approving the genetically engineered salmon. The Court ruled that FDA ignored the serious environmental consequences of approving genetically engineered salmon and the full extent of plans to grow and commercialize the salmon in the U.S. and around the world, violating the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Court also ruled that FDA's unilateral decision that genetically engineered salmon could have no possible effect on highly-endangered, wild Atlantic salmon was wrong, in violation of the Endangered Species Act. The Court ordered FDA to go back to the drawing board and FDA must now thoroughly analyze the environmental consequences of an escape of genetically engineered salmon into the wild.
"Today's decision is a vital victory for endangered salmon and our oceans," said George Kimbrell, CFS legal director and counsel in the case. "Genetically engineered animals create novel risks and regulators must rigorously analyze them using sound science, not stick their head in the sand as officials did here. In reality, this engineered fish offers nothing but unstudied risks. The absolute last thing our planet needs right now is another human-created crisis like escaped genetically engineered fish running amok."
In 2016, Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Earthjustice--representing a broad client coalition of environmental, consumer, commercial and recreational fishing organizations and the Quinault Indian Nation--sued the FDA for approving the first-ever commercial genetically engineered animal, an Atlantic salmon engineered to grow twice as fast as its wild counterpart. The genetically engineered salmon was produced by AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. with DNA from Atlantic salmon, Pacific king salmon, and Arctic ocean eelpout. This marks the first time any government in the world has approved a commercially genetically engineered animal as food.
The Court ruled that FDA failed to consider and study the environmental risks of this novel GE fish. When GE salmon escape or are accidentally released into the environment, the new species could threaten wild populations by mating with endangered salmon species, outcompeting them for scarce resources and habitat, and/or introducing new diseases. The world's preeminent experts on GE fish and risk assessment, as well as biologists at U.S. wildlife agencies charged with protecting fish and wildlife, heavily criticized FDA's approval for failing to evaluate the impacts of GE salmon on native salmon populations. Yet FDA ignored their concerns in the final approval.
"This decision underscores what scientists have been telling FDA for years--that creating genetically engineered salmon poses an unacceptable risk if the fish escape and interact with our wild salmon and that FDA must understand that risk to prevent harm," said Earthjustice managing attorney Steve Mashuda. "Our efforts should be focused on saving the wild salmon populations we already have--not manufacturing new species that pose yet another threat to their survival."
Studies have shown that there is a high risk for genetically engineered organisms to escape into the natural environment, and that genetically engineered salmon can crossbreed with native fish. So-called "transgenic contamination"--where genetically engineered crops cross-pollinate or establish themselves in nearby fields or the wild--has become common. These contamination episodes have cost U.S. farmers billions of dollars over the past decade. In wild organisms like fish, it would be even more damaging.
The Court also rejected FDA's argument that it lacked authority to consider the adverse environmental impacts of GE animals, including the GE salmon. To find otherwise, the Court said, would lead to "absurd possibilities," like approval of GE animals that could cause serious harm to other life. The Court held FDA had to consider environmental risks in its decision.
The lawsuit also highlights FDA's failure to protect the environment and consult wildlife agencies in its review process, as required by federal law. U.S. Atlantic salmon, and many populations of Pacific salmon, are protected by the Endangered Species Act and in danger of extinction. Salmon are keystone species and unique salmon runs have sustained people and wildlife for thousands of years. Diverse salmon runs today remain essential to indigenous food sovereignty, sustaining thousands of American fishing families, and are highly valued in domestic markets as a healthy, domestic, "green" food.
"Salmon are at the center of our cultural and spiritual identity, diet, and way of life. It's unconscionable and arrogant to think man can improve upon our Creator's perfection as a justification for corporate ambition and greed," said Fawn Sharp, Quinault Indian Nation President. "Our responsibility as stewards of our sacred salmon demands we aggressively protect their natural habitat and genetics. We applaud today's court decision; our prayers were answered and justice prevailed."
"It's a terrible idea to design genetically engineered 'Frankenfish' which, when they escape into the wild (as they inevitably will), could destroy our irreplaceable salmon runs," said Mike Conroy, Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA), one of the Plaintiff groups in the suit. "Once engineered genes are introduced into the wild salmon gene pool, it cannot be undone. This decision is a major victory for wild salmon, salmon fishing families and dependent communities, and salmon conservation efforts everywhere."
"Genetically engineered salmon place wild salmon at risk and set a dangerous precedent for other genetically engineered animals, like cows and chickens designed to fit into factory farms, to enter the food system. We applaud the court for this carefully-reasoned decision," said Dana Perls, Food and Technology program manager at Friends of the Earth U.S. "All products made with genetic engineering, especially live animals like genetically engineered salmon, should undergo thorough and precautionary assessment for impacts to our health and environment, be properly regulated and clearly labeled before entering the market."
"Salmon fishermen and women don't want to see these lab-made salmon in our waters nor in any market or restaurant where salmon is sold," said John McManus, president of Golden State Salmon Association. "The federal Food and Drug Administration clearly let America down when it chose to overlook the environmental risk these fish pose."
Represented by Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice, plaintiffs in the case include Institute for Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Ecology Action Centre, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Friends of Merrymeeting Bay, Golden Gate Salmon Association, and the Quinault Indian Nation.
Center for Food Safety's mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action, we protect and promote your right to safe food and the environment. CFS's successful legal cases collectively represent a landmark body of case law on food and agricultural issues.
(202) 547-9359LATEST NEWS
Children of Jailed Women's Rights Activist Narges Mohammadi Accept Her Nobel Peace Prize
"This bittersweet moment reminds us of the important, brave, and selfless work of human rights defenders who shape a brighter future for everyone and also of the pushbacks they still face," said the U.N. human rights chief.
Dec 10, 2023
An empty chair sat on the stage at the 2023 Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo, Norway on Sunday, symbolizing the absence of the rights activist who was being honored: Narges Mohammadi, who is currently serving a 12-year prison sentence in Tehran for multiple charges related to her activism against Iran's theocratic government.
Accepting the award in Mohammadi's place were her 17-year-old twins, Kiana and Ali Rahmani, who read a speech their mother had prepared.
"I write this message from behind the tall and cold walls of a prison," Mohammadi wrote. "It seems that in the globalized world, either human rights will become respected internationally or human rights violations will continue to spread across state borders."
"The realization of democracy is contingent upon the realization of human rights," she continued. "Human rights have reached the level of historical awareness among the people of Iran and constitute the focal point of the activities of many movements, currents, and groups. It has the capacity and power to create widespread national solidarity and coalitions."
Mohammadi has been a rights campaigner for three decades, most recently serving as deputy head of the Defenders of Human Rights Center in her home country of Iran.
The Nobel Committee chose to honor her "for her fight against the oppression of women in Iran and her fight to promote human rights and freedom for all."
In her speech, Mohammadi denounced "the mandatory hijab" as "a disgraceful government policy." Her family has said she's been denied medical care in prison for refusing to wear the head covering.
On Saturday, her family also announced she had begun a hunger strike to protest the treatment of the Baha’i religious minority in Iran and other human rights violations. She has not seen her children since 2015 and has not been permitted to speak to them for two years.
"This bittersweet moment reminds us of the important, brave, and selfless work of human rights defenders who shape a brighter future for everyone and also of the pushbacks they still face," said Volker Türk, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights.
Mohammadi ended her acceptance speech with a message of hope, urging human rights defenders to continue "resistance and non-violence."
"With hope and eagerness, and alongside the resilient and courageous women and men of Iran, I extend my hand to all forces, movements, and individuals that focus on peace, the global covenant of human rights, and on democracy," said Mohammadi. "I am confident that the light of freedom and justice will shine brightly on the land of Iran. At that moment, we will celebrate the victory of democracy and human rights over tyranny and authoritarianism, and the anthem of the people's triumph on the streets of Iran will resonate worldwide."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Global South Decries 'Weak' Progress on Climate Adaptation at COP28
"There are countries here with the capacity to ensure the outcome of this summit is historic for the right reasons," said Mary Robinson, chair of The Elders. "They need to lean in now with ambition and urgency."
Dec 10, 2023
With just two days left until the conclusion of the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Dubai, climate justice advocates from the Global South on Sunday expressed alarm over the latest draft of the Global Goal on Adaptation, a document being negotiated at the summit as policymakers finalize an agreement on further progress that must be made to limit planetary heating.
African countries proposed a Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) a decade ago, and a number of advocates warned Sunday that the document so far appears "vague," with insufficient financial pledges from fossil fuel-producing nations to help the Global South to adapt various sectors—including agriculture, water, and transportation—to the climate emergency.
"Across the world millions of people, most of whom are least responsible for carbon emissions, are attempting to adapt their lives and livelihoods to a distorted climate," wrote Mohamed Adow, founder and director of Power Shift Africa, at Climate Change News. "Although it isn't just about money, funding is important and severely lacking. The goal for 2023 was to raise $300 million for the Adaptation Fund, but at COP28 we've only seen $169 million in pledges, a mere 56% of the intended amount."
On social media, Simon Evans, deputy editor of Carbon Brief, provided an analysis of Sunday's draft, which he said was "very heavily qualitative, not quantitative" and includes only a "vague link to finance."
"Qualitative targets" in the text include "significantly reducing climate induced water scarcity" and "strengthening resilience"—phrases that "could mean almost anything," said Evans.
The draft reiterates an earlier call for wealthy nations to double adaptation finance by 2025, but only "urges" and "invites" governments to provide resources for developing countries that are disproportionately affected by climate-linked sea level rise, drought, and flooding—despite the fact that the entire continent of Africa is behind just 4% of planet-heating global greenhouse gas emissions.
The call to "urge" powerful countries to contribute meaningfully to a climate adaptation fund "is code for 'only if you feel like it, but no worries if you don't'," said Teresa Anderson, global climate justice lead for ActionAid.
"Overall, the text is weak and doesn't sufficiently address the aspiration for setting the required adaptation measures and indicators and mobilizing adaptation financing," said Adow.
The U.N. Environment Program said in November that between $215 billion and $387 billion is needed annually to help the Global South adapt their infrastructure to the climate crisis. In 2021, just $21 billion was provided.
While developed countries "have committed to at least double adaptation finance by 2025," said Obed Koringo of CARE Denmark, "a detailed roadmap is the only way to achieve this. This must set out what individual developed countries plan to provide by 2025 and how this adds up to $40 billion annually."
"It is disappointing to see that negotiations on adaptation are hurtling towards a damaging global failure," said Koringo. "We are afraid that it will have catastrophic consequences for communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis, especially in Africa... Failure to invest in adaptation, including early warning systems, flood defenses, and drought-resistant crops, will only increase the costs of loss and damage in the long run."
African policymakers this weekend also continued to sound alarms over the language being negotiated for the Global Stocktake (GST), the document that's expected to direct countries on how to proceed to limit planetary heating. Climate campaigners have joined experts in demanding a phaseout of fossil fuels, but European and American negotiators have pushed for language that would call only for a "phasedown," and fossil fuel-producing countries are demanding that the agreement address only "unabated" emissions—allowing for failed technical fixes like carbon capture instead of moving to reduce emissions altogether.
"Allowing 'abated' fossil fuels will mean developed countries which can afford expensive carbon capture technologies can keep expanding," chief Egyptian negotiator Mohamed Nasr told The Guardian.
Mary Robinson, chair of The Elders, called on governments including Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and the E.U to "abandon their subterfuge" and stop "obstructing a livable future."
"I fear COP28 is falling short of what is required to stay within the 1.5°C warming threshold. The science tells us we are in grave danger of bequeathing our children a completely unlivable world," said Robinson. "There are countries here with the capacity to ensure the outcome of this summit is historic for the right reasons. They need to lean in now with ambition and urgency. COP28 presents an opportunity for leaders to be on the right side of history."
"Governments must not leave this summit without an agreement to phase out all fossil fuels," she said, "and this agreement must not be at the expense of other critical workstreams here."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Horrifying Precedent': Penn President Resigns Amid Right-Wing Campus Speech Uproar
"She was coerced into resigning for defending her students’ right to political free speech," said one critic.
Dec 10, 2023
Professors at the University of Pennsylvania on Saturday were joined by rights advocates in condemning the attacks that forced university president Liz Magill to resign days after she testified before the U.S. Congress.
Magill had angered lawmakers from both parties by refusing to say students should be punished for hypothetically "calling for the genocide of Jews."
Magill announced her resignation Saturday after the university lost a $100 million donation from hedge fund manager Ross Stevens, a Penn alum, due to last Tuesday's hearing at the House Education and Workforce Committee.
At the hearing, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) demanded to know whether hypothetical calls for committing a genocide against Jewish people would violate the policies of Penn, Harvard, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Stefanik also conflated calls for "intifada"—an uprising against oppression which is not necessarily violent or aimed at eliminating any group of people—with demands for a genocide against Jewish people. Committee members did not point to examples of students actually calling for genocide.
Magill, along with the presidents of the other two elite institutions, told the committee that such speech, if "directed and severe, pervasive," would qualify as harassment and would be disciplined as such, but suggested that in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Penn does not generally discipline people for speech alone.
Magill's testimony represented Penn's official rules governing free speech, which state that "universities can invest their efforts and resources in educating their members and in creating spaces and contexts for productive dialogue, but they cannot legitimately punish members—students, staff, and faculty—who choose not to participate in those, or who profess bigoted and other hateful views."
But powerful donors including Stevens and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, another Penn graduate, demanded Magill's ouster and said they would end their financial support until the president resigned.
The Penn chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) said that "Penn faculty and students who have expressed concern for Palestinian civilians and criticized the war in Gaza," had been targeted by "distortions and attacks" that have done nothing to actually address "the scourge of antisemitism—a real and grave problem."
"Instead, they have threatened the ability of faculty and students to research, teach, study, and publicly discuss the history, politics, and cultures of Israel and Palestine," said the group. "These attacks strike at the heart of the mission of an educational institution: to foster open, critical, and rigorous research and teaching that can produce knowledge for the public good in a democratic society."
The AAUP said the next university president must "defend the principles of shared governance and academic freedom, which protect the educational mission of the university."
"And they must correct what has become a dangerous myth suggesting that the defense of academic freedom and open expression is in any way contradictory to the fight against antisemitism," the group added.
The attacks on Magill from Congress—including a letter signed last week by 74 members of both parties who demanded her resignation—followed calls in September from the school's Board of Trustees for Magill to distance Penn from a literature festival that celebrated Palestinian writers.
The Board of Advisors at Wharton, Penn's business school, also wrote to Magill on Thursday asking for her resignation and notifying her of resolutions they had unanimously proposed, including one saying students and faculty would not "engage in hate speech, whether veiled or explicit."
Jonathan Friedman, director of free expression and education programs at PEN America, said the "vague" resolutions threaten "to ban wide swaths of speech."
Writer and rights advocate Leah McElrath said Magill's resignation set "a horrifying precedent" and was indicative of a larger effort in the U.S. to suppress political speech that is critical of the Israeli government and and to "expand the definition of antisemitism to include anti-Zionism."
"The story here is not solely about Liz Magill," said Alex Kane, senior staff reporter for Jewish Currents. "The main story is a McCarthyist atmosphere consuming college campuses over calls for Palestinian liberation. Magill tepidly defended free speech for Palestine advocates, then made a big PR misstep and fell into a right-wing trap."
Since October 7, colleges including Columbia University and Brandeis University have suspended their campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine, which has held protests against Israel's U.S.-backed war in Gaza. About 18,000 Palestinians—including more than 6,600 children—have now been killed and 49,500 have been wounded as the Israel Defense Forces have claimed they are targeting Hamas and making efforts to protect civilians.
Peter Beinart, editor-at-large for Jewish Currents, said the ongoing controversy over antisemitism on college campuses—now the subject of an official House investigation—is meant to distract from the massacre of civilians in Gaza.
"Forcing [the] resignation of [a] university president for failing to condemn non-existent 'calls for genocide' of Jews," said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now, "all while an actual U.S.-supported genocide of Palestinians [is] underway—is ALL about silencing criticism of Israel."
Note: This article has been corrected to better reflect the comments of the AAUP at University of Pennsylvania.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular