Genetically Engineered Salmon: Coming to a Plate Near You?

The genetically modified salmon called AquAdvantage was discussed on
Monday in front of the Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee, which
will help the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decide whether or not
to approve the fish for commercial production. The meeting comes after
an unusually short 14-day period of public comment on the "new animal
drug."

That's right: the first potentially approved genetically engineered
animal is being considered just like a pharmaceutical, instead of as a
precedent with significant implications for the environment, other
species, and human health, which would usually require a 60-90-day
comment period to enable the public to go over the 255-pages of recently
released technical information from the FDA.

Unlike clones, which are copies of an animal and which the FDA has
already ruled safe to eat (and are also being sold without a label),
genetically modified animals are those which have had their genetic code
altered. The AquAdvantage salmon, for example, mixes a gene for
producing a growth hormone from the Chinook salmon and a gene that
encourages over-production of that hormone from an eel-like fish called
the ocean pout.

Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, criticized the decision a letter to the agency
dated September 15th. "Since GE salmon is not in any way a lifesaving
product such as certain pharmaceuticals or medical devices," the group
wrote, "we must question why the agency believes it is necessary to
move forward so quickly, in a way that does not allow for the standard
60 to 90 days of public review."

Consumers Union also criticized the make-up of the committee, which
they suggested should have included "three fish ecologists, four food
safety experts (including specialists in food allergies and in the
effects of hormones on human health), and scientists from the consumer
and environmental community." Sourcewatch gives details on the committee members, while Jill Richardson provides bios
for the temporary voting members on the committee, which includes a
former employee of Monsanto and one non-scientist consumer
representative.

After presentations by witnesses supporting the fish's approval,
consumer groups, scientists and others were given the chance to speak on
the record. A re-occurring theme included discussion of the fact that
AquaBounty Technologies, the company behind the petition, had control
over the studies the FDA was now looking over instead of conducting
studies based on the FDA's established guidelines. Second, that the
scope of the plans for the AquAdvantage salmon's production would by
necessity be bigger than the small tank facility in Panama that was
presented in the documents. Many groups asked that the FDA request and
Environmental Impact Statement with consideration of the effects on
larger-scale ecosystems, the fear being that the salmon could escape and
compete with already-endangered wild salmon populations.

The FDA has already ruled that the genetically modified AquAdvantage salmon is safe to eat,
and yet during the public comment period, many speakers focused on the
shoddy science, small sample size, and the potential for allergic
reactions. Another topic brought up during the hour of public comment
was the lack of sufficient data on health concerns about modifying the
fish to produce four times more of the growth hormone iGF-1, which has
been tied to increased risks of cancer.

The committee had very few questions for the speakers during the
public comment period, aside from taking interest in a poll by Food and
Water Watch, which found that 78 percent of consumers do not approve of
genetically engineered salmon. This coincides with the findings the
Washington Post received when it asked its readers,
"If genetically engineered salmon wins FDA approval, will you buy it?"
to which 78 percent responded "No. I'm too concerned about potential
health and environmental risks."

Tomorrow's VMAC meeting
on genetically engineered salmon will deal specifically with whether or
not the GE salmon should be labeled. (You can give public comment on
this issue until November 22, 2010, details at the previous link and
below.) Consumers Union conducted a nationwide poll [PDF] in 2008 which revealed that 95 percent of consumers want genetically modified food labeled.

But as Lyndsey Layton reported
in the Washington Post on Sunday, if the AquAdvantage salmon is
approved it will most likely not be labeled as genetically modified, and
thus will remain indistinguishable from other salmon at the
supermarket. "The FDA says it cannot require a label on the genetically
modified food once it determines that the altered fish is not
"materially" different from other salmon-something agency scientists
have said is true," Layton writes.

And the opposite is also true-wild salmon will have trouble using
packaging that claims the product to be "GE-free," because the agency
feels these types of labels imply a quality difference.

But the exact opposite is true abroad. Layton writes:

In the European Union and Japan, it is nearly impossible
to find genetically modified foods, largely because laws require
labeling, said William K. Hallman, director of the Food Policy
Institute at Rutgers University. "No one wants to carry products with
such a label," he said. "The food companies figure that consumers won't
buy it."

If you feel empowered to speak out on this issue, Food and Water Watch suggests
calling the White House. And you can still give your thoughts on the
labeling question (and more, why not?) for AquAdvantage Salmon by
identifying Docket No: FDA-2010 -N-0385 via https://www.regulations.gov or by writing:

Division of Dockets Management
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061
Rockville, MD 20852