Consumer Group Slams 'Flimsy Science' in Franken-Salmon Approval Process

Consumer Group Slams 'Flimsy Science' in Franken-Salmon Approval Process

by Dan Bacher

(September 21) Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of the national consumer group Food & Water Watch, slammed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for relying on "flimsy science" in the September 20 hearing on the approval of AquaBounty's genetically engineered Atlantic salmon.

Hauter urged the FDA to halt the approval of AquaBounty’s AquaAdvantage salmon until the agency could do its own studies regarding the long-term effects of human consumption of genetically engineered (GE) meat.

The 11-member FDA advisory panel did not vote or make a recommendation on whether to approve these "franken-salmon" for human consumption after holding Monday's public hearing

“In light of the flimsy science debated in yesterday’s FDA hearing on genetically engineered (GE) salmon, the labeling discussion today is wholly inappropriate," said Hauter. "Yesterday, even members of the Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee, who are generally in favor of biotechnology, raised serious concerns around some of the science, citing the poor methodology and construction of the studies, which were provided by AquaBounty."

The Obama administration’s fast-track campaign to approve the first genetically engineered fish for human consumption is no surprise, when you consider the enormous influence that Monsanto, AquaBounty and other bio-tech corporations have over the FDA.

Obama appointed Michael R. Taylor, J.D., as Deputy Commissioner for Foods under the FDA in January. Taylor is a former top executive, lawyer and lobbyist with biotech giant Monsanto. Taylor's role as a promoter of "franken-foods" for years explains why his agency so easily embraced "junk science" from AquaBounty in yesterday's hearing, rather than requiring an independent investigation of the potential threats that genetically engineered salmon pose to human health and imperiled wild Pacific and Atlantic salmon populations.

"The small data sets, the poor design, and the fact that the company killed off salmon that were deformed prior to doing a physical analysis for comparison with non-GE fish were all cited," Hauter stated. "They didn’t test enough fish, or the most appropriate types of salmon that would be likely to end up on consumer’s plates."

She urged that the agency develop a "more sophisticated process," based on the latest science, for the approval of GE meats for human consumption.

“Given yesterday’s hearty debate on the flawed science before the committee, we believe that it is even more imperative that the agency develop a more sophisticated process for allowing GE meats to become part of the American diet," emphasized Hauter. "Their regulatory regime has not kept pace with the advances in science. We are hopeful that the FDA will not act to approve GE salmon during the up-coming end of year holidays, when people are too busy to notice—which we have seen agencies do in the past on controversial issues. They need to be intellectually honest about the poor science and not bow to political pressure from the biotech industry."

“We will continue to urge the FDA to delay approval until it can do its own independent, well-designed, long-term studies on the effects of consuming genetically engineered meat," she concluded.

Fishing Groups, Tribes Oppose Approval of GE Salmon

The approval of GE salmon is overwhelmingly opposed by fishing, Tribal, environmental and consumer groups. A coalition of 25 fishing and salmon organizations, representing fishermen and women across North America, wrote a letter to the administration on September 16 to express their opposition to the approval of AquaBounty’s genetically engineered salmon (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/09/17/18658994.php).

GE salmon opponents include the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Salmon Protection and Watershed Network (SPAWN), SalmonAid Foundation, Salmonid Restoration Federation, Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association and Water4Fish.

"We all know there is a great appetite for salmon, but the solution is not to 'farm' genetically engineered versions to put more on our dinner tables; the solution is to work to bring our wild salmon populations back, and to protect and maintain existing native salmon populations," the letter read. "The approval of these transgenic fish will only exacerbate the problems facing our wild fisheries. We strongly oppose the approval of these genetically engineered salmon and urge FDA to reject GE salmon."

The letter added, "Should FDA decide to approve the AquAdvantage GE salmon despite our opposition, clear, mandatory labeling is an absolute must to allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions."

Indian Tribes who fished for salmon and other fish for subsistence and ceremonial purposes for thousands of years are also opposed to the approval of GE salmon.

"The companies are creating these fish not for the environment and for the failing salmon runs, but for the same reason the hybridized African/European honey bee was created - to make a profit," said Caleen Sisk-Franco, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. "These bees were developed because they could make more honey than regular honey bees. However, these bees not only made more honey, but they also attacked and killed people. Likewise, these genetically engineered fish are designed to grow faster to make more profits."

She is worried that if these franken-fish are approved, these fast-growing fish will wipe out entire wild salmon populations by eating other fish and competing for them with habitat, as well as by spreading disease. "The company and federal authorities claim they won't get loose, but Atlantic salmon already get loose wherever they're raised," said Sisk-Franco.

On the average, 15 percent of farmed fish escape into the wild. For example, 170,000 one-year-old salmon escaped from aquaculture facilities in Machias Bay, Maine, during a winter storm in December 2000, according to an editorial in the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law ( http://www.vjel.org/editorials/ED10031.html).

"Who knows what these fish will do to the water and habitat?" she asked. "They shouldn't approve these fish without the appropriate tests by independent parties on what they can actually do when they escape."

Sisk-Franco noted how members of the Winnemen Wintu traveled to New Zealand this April to conduct joint ceremonies with the Maori people as part of an ambitious effort to bring back the eggs of winter run chinook salmon, originally introduced to island rivers from the McCloud River, to reintroduce the species into the McCloud above Shasta Dam (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/us/21tribes.html). Ironically, at the same time the federal government is moving forward with the approval of genetically engineered salmon, she said federal authorities are worried about reintroducing winter run fish to their native system!

"Federal officials know about the DNA and genetics of the winter run and they know that the New Zealand salmon are disease-free, but at the same time they don't seem to care what will happen by approving these franken-fish that haven't been independently studied," Sisk-Franco concluded. "Do they know what impact the GE fish may have upon people's health? Will they be required to label these genetically engineered fish?"

Poll Reveals Overwhelming Opposition to Approval of GE Salmon

Not only are consumer, fishing and environmental groups and Indian Tribes strongly opposed to the approval of GE salmon, but so is the American public.

In its public comments at the agency’s headquarters on September 20, Food & Water Watch unveiled the results of a recent poll it conducted with Lake Research Partners showing that 78 % of Americans believe AquaBounty’s GE product should not be approved for human consumption. Opposition grows even stronger for genetically engineered meat, with 91 % saying the FDA should not allow transgenic pigs, chicken and cattle into the food supply until the agency could perform its own safety studies.

“The FDA is on the verge of approving a product that an overwhelming number of Americans will reject unless the agency can conduct its own studies showing that it’s safe, which it hasn’t done,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. “The FDA has publicly disclosed four studies that it considered in this process. One was nearly 20 years old, and the other three were from AquaBounty itself—that hardly qualifies as independent analysis of the safety risks involved with this untested method.”

She said that Americans are in "near unanimity "in their disapproval of genetically engineered fish and meat in the marketplace.

The unusually high number of people polled who disapprove of the FDA’s process of approving transgenic animals prompted Joshua Ulibarri of Lake Research Partners to note, “I can’t remember a time when so many people polled were of one mind on an outcome. It’s pretty clear that people are not buying what the FDA is selling here.”

To make matters worse for consumers, the FDA could put it on the market without requiring labeling. “Based on past experience with FDA's regulation of GE food like soy, corn and other food products, there would be no way to tell real salmon from GE salmon at the supermarket,” said Hauter.

Hauter criticized the FDA for relying on the very industries that it regulates for the data that it analyzes when approving new drugs or genetically engineered animals destined for the food supply The background documents released by the agency contain multiple examples of how the limited data supplied to the agency limited the conclusions that could be drawn.

Hauter said the nutrition and allergenicity studies the FDA mentioned in its publicly released brief on the issue earlier this month looked at relatively small numbers of fish. The nutritional composition study looked at 144 fish. The allergenicity study included only six GE salmon (out of a total of 18 fish). Both studies were conducted by AquaBounty or its contractors.

“The FDA is relying on company data from only a handful of fish,” noted Hauter. “Such flimsy science isn’t good enough to assure the public that this product is safe to eat. This approval should be halted until the FDA can show the public that it has done a thorough review to make sure this product is safe.”

For more information on the poll please see: http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/release-FWW-Omnibus.pdf

Act Now to Stop the Approval of GE Salmon!

For more information and to send an email opposing the approval of genetically engineered salmon, go to http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org. or http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4693

Please also visit the Center for Food Safety to send a letter to the FDA urging them to oppose the approval of AquaBounty's GE salmon.
Live site: https://secure3.convio.net/cfs/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=325