Just in time for Halloween, prepare for “The Return of the Frankenfish.” It sounds like a bad horror movie. This monster salmon, genetically engineered to grow five times faster than a normal fish, was last heard from a year ago. At that time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was inviting [filtered word] comment on whether to approve it for human consumption.
During that comment period, feedback was overwhelmingly negative. Thousands of citizens, including hundreds of Alaskans, objected to the transgenic fish, citing concerns about its safety. It was widely noted that research supporting the fish was laughably weak, and mostly funded by the company seeking to have it approved. Many people also warned of the potential negative impact on the ecosystem and wild salmon stocks should the “Frankenfish” ever escape.
Apparently, the decision makers at FDA were not swayed by public testimony. Two weeks ago, the agency completed its interagency review and gave genetically modified salmon the thumbs-up. If the Office of Management and Budget follows suit, the so called “AquaAdvantage” salmon would be the first transgenic animal approved for human consumption.
Most Alaskans are acutely aware of the foolishness of risking the viability of wild salmon stocks for a genetically engineered farmed salmon that is inferior in every way. Our Alaskan congressional delegation stands united in opposition, and has introduced legislation that would ban the commercialization of genetically engineered salmon, and failing that, require its labeling.
To put things in context though, FDA’s approval of the Frankenfish was hardly a big surprise to anyone familiar with the agency’s long-term infatuation with genetically engineered foods. Nearly 20 years ago, FDA rejected the advice of its own scientists and gave the green light to the first genetically engineered food crops.
Since then, genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and beet sugar have quietly infiltrated our food supply. Today the overwhelming majority of packaged foods sold in this country have some genetically modified ingredients. Most consumers are only dimly aware of the presence of genetically modified foods in their diets, because these foods are not required to be labeled.
Whatever your opinion about genetically modified foods, it is hard to argue against labeling them. Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union recently noted: “Polls show that consumers demand transparency in the foods they buy and overwhelmingly support the labeling of genetically engineered food. In order to make informed decisions, the public deserves a truthful marketplace.”
Fortunately, a sliver of truth is entering the marketplace, at least for shoppers who want the assurance that their foods do not contain GMO’s. A non-profit educational organization called the Non-GMO Project has established America’s first third party non-GMO verified label—the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal. This label helps shoppers recognize products that meet rigorous GMO avoidance practices. The Non-GMO verified label has been popping up on hundreds of foods in the last year. Non-GMO foods were recently identified as one of the fastest growing categories in the natural products industry.
The Non-GMO project has also produced a shopping guide that lists the most common crops and derivative ingredients to avoid. It also lists all the brands that are currently enrolled as non-GMO verified. The Guide is regularly updated. It can be downloaded for free at www.nongmoproject.org. In addition the project has developed a free guide for your smart phone.
A final bit of good news on the labeling front: Earlier this month a huge coalition of non-profit organizations, businesses and trade associations submitted a legal petition to FDA requesting the agency require labeling of GMO foods. Although it is a longshot, it is certainly a chance to let the FDA know that the public is paying attention. Nancy Hirshberg of Stoneyfield Farm, one of the campaign’s coordinators, says, “our goal is to break the record for the number of public comments submitted to FDA. We want to send a message to Washington that people care deeply about this issue.”
To submit comments to the FDA supporting the labeling petition, visit www.justlabelit.org. And have a Happy Halloween.
• Ottoson lives in Juneau and has a longtime interest in food and health. He owns Rainbow Foods.
Comments (16)
Add commentSmoked Frankenfish!
I remember when the warning labels went on cigarettes in the 70's--a lot of good that did! Merely identifying the source of protein to a hungry world will have little impact. A hungry world wants cheap protein;if this stuff's toxic we'll know soon enough. Strict regulations need to be enforced to keep these genes out of the natural environment until we know more!
Contrary to the claim made in this article...
(and the claim was made), I do not find it difficult to argue against labeling genetically modified food.
Before all else, an unbiased, objective reading of this My Turn will illuminate the majority of the paragraphs as being built upon emotional pleas, not evidence. And in the 21st century, it should go without saying, that the emotional content of a cause does nothing to validate the truth or falseness of it.
I am in principle against labeling anything if it provides no value to the consumer. Take Texas science books of the recent past. Remember the warning labels demanded by creationists? The ones slapped on biology books "warning" that evolution was controversial?
I see a parallel here with book labels and well-fed Western anti-GMO disciples. Here's the test: ask an activist if they would ever abandon their mission if all the evidence indicated they were likely wrong about so-called GMO dangers.
If there was nothing, even in theory, that would give them pause to reconsider their position, they are religious disciples of a faith based movement rather than a rational, open-minded seeker of evidence based truth.
Whether they are book labels or food labels, neither tells us meaningful data (either about the origin of the universe or the benefits/harms of consumption) but rather confuses, scares, and/or annoys.
I am annoyed. Stop this nonsensical, irrational crusade against agriculture when technology like GMO is providing stability and sustenance in the most food-starved countries on earth. The scientific consensus is practically unanimous regarding the safety of this food. I will change my mind when there is evidence to the contrary.
Will you?
Mike
My comment is under review. Have I ever violated TOU?
Mike
Thank you David!
If anyone knows about healthy food, it's you. I do NOT want to eat food made with GMO's and appreciate the info. I also want food labeled as to whether or not it contains GMO's. Snagger and Mike don't care if they eat GMO's, so it won't bother them if the label is there. But I for one, would like to avoid it - the same way I avoid high fructose corn syrup.
Agree Kara.
Agree Kara. If someone doesn't care, they won't read the label anyway. Have another cig and enjoy your big mac with a side of chemotherapy. I prefer to eat whole natural foods, as they evolved/were created. As for "the scientific consensus is practically unanimous regarding the safety of this food." Dude! You really gotta read some science not funded by Monsanto or ConAgra. I know its hard to find, but its out there!
Food
Well written truthful article. Like MOST drugs that the FDA approves there is little or no testing done to know the affect of the body. Frankenfish are in exactly the same category. Have any of you that think GMO"s are good for the body ever taken the time to realize that since the FDA has allowed the use of chemicals in our food supply the incidence of cancer has increased in the world
I am not against a person's right to hold
whatever belief they want. But just like religion, anti-agriculture disciples want to use my taxes to fund an agency to do little more than needlessly scare and confuse people.
It's the process of discerning fact from fiction that is in play here. I don't expect the FDA to regulate the benefits of food based on religious purity such as being kosher or halal. And they don't.
I don't expect the FDA to regulate food based on poison-mongering faith assertions about GMOs either. Yet they are being lobbied to do just that.
I do not know the writer of this article. The Empire states his occupation which to me presents a possible conflict of interest that interestingly is not divulged by the writer. But this is not a scientific journal so I can overlook that. The writer may be a great person, etc., but he is wrong when he states it isn't easy to argue against labeling GMOs. I have barely scratched the surface.
Mike
Mike, you are so ridiculous
Mike, you are so ridiculous with your claims. How is it a conflict of interest that Dave owns a health food store? He sells healthy foods to people who want healthy food.There were many scientific studies that showed high fructose corn syrup was safe too. And even studies showing that having cocaine in your srink was not only safe, but health promoting. Cigarettes were benign according to science for decades. All right up until they were not. Studies done by the industry that is hawking the crap are worthless. Get a clue!
Labeling
Mike - thank you for your reasoned argument. I appreciate being reminded to look at the science. Humans are emotional animals and often it is difficult to get past fear and try to be objective, especially when it comes to something as personal as our individual and collective well-being or health.
Unfortunately, much of the fear is a result of corporate reticence in allowing independent researchers access to their data. And as kpawsuh pointed out, bad science being passed off as good isn't an isolated incident. The FDA has made questionable decisions before and the government doesn't do itself any favors when it allows the revolving door between industry and government posts. That only encourages mistrust and I think there are probably good reasons for it.
I've read that other animals who have a much better sense of smell than humans will opt for non-GMO foods when presented with a choice of the two. That gives me pause. I've read that GM seeds will feed the hungry but then read that agribusinesses like Monsanto use those seeds to basically force farmers to buy their seeds every year and have created issues of water shortages because the GM seeds needs more water than the region can support.
In the end, I simply do not have the knowledge to make an informed decision on this topic. It is overwhelming to me how so much of our food and goods come from such shady practices - child slave labor to produce chocolate for Nestle and Hershey, bottled water at the expense of local need and use of military to guard the bottling plant of Fiji water, pesticide use in flower production that causes cancer and other chronic illnesses in workers, and on and on and on. I can't keep up on everything.
As such, I prefer to have more information than not and would prefer to have labeling. I have, I am sure, eaten GM foods unknowingly but I will take a wait-and-see approach in committing my support. Consumers should have the right to make an informed decision. My tax dollars are mis-used in much more egregious ways than labeling requirements.
Still, I thank you for the reminder to rely on science and will continue to work on educating myself so I don't have to rely on fear-mongering (which is used successfully by all sides) to make decisions.
kpawsuh
While some concerns over GMOs are justified, the majority are not. The vast majority of food we eat today that isn't a product of genetic engineering is still unnatural. All of the cereal grains we eat, many vegetables and fruits, and most of the animals we eat have been "tampered with" by us; they were created accidentally or on purpose via eugenics. They are genetically modified organisms, old-school style.
You know I'm a major tree-hugger, but I'm also all for GM foods. I am NOT for the ways in which Monsanto takes advantage of our legal system to use those new crops. But that isn't a fault in the biology of the product.
That said, Mike, there is definitely a real risk of "frankenfish" and other GMOs, both plant and animal, escaping into the wild and displacing natural organisms. We've already seen it happen in a few instances. But other fears, like being poisoned by such organisms, are not founded in reality.
A little biology about 'Frankenfish'
All the biologists did in this case was to research the genes that enable the shut down of the growth cycle for 6 months a year in the salmon. Then they switched the settings on those genes. Genes have a enable/disable option and are like a on/off switch. In this case, it may have been one gene, or several related genes that effect the shutdown of the growth cycle. All the genetic modification did was to change the instructions in the DNA - instructing the body to continue it's normal growth pattern year around instead of shutting the growth down for half a year. The genetic instruction in this case would not effect the salmon biology in any other way. A analogy for this type of modification would be similar to making one or several modifications in a computer registry for a desired change in a operating system in a computer. Just because a few settings are changed for a specific situation doesn't mean the computer would go rogue. It doesn't even mean the operating system would be altered in any other way other than the changes specified in the registry. The key research on the Salmon was to map out exactly which biological process were effected by the switches in each gene.
There are people who feel threatened by this kind of product because they have financial insecurities - and financial interests. Most notably commercial fishermen and their friends. They want to convince everybody that this modification is scary just because they feel it reduce the competition and inflate the price of Wild Salmon, which they have a financial interest in. In short, they are just trying to make more money by demonizing these fish. They do the same thing with farmed fish.
I think it would be better to simply stay positive and emphasize the quality of fresh ocean fish than to get ugly & derogatory about other products in the marketplace. If you really do have a superior product, then simply promote it and get the best price you can get. If you have a superior product, you will always have a market. Being derogatory and attaching emotional baggage to the competition is sleazy and just plain sounds bad.
Do you trust the FDA?
I think the point is irrelevent if the FDA is involved. Who here takes prescription medicine? I'll bet the majority. How safe are you with their approved drugs? The FDA is staffed by corporate-bought drones who do nothing. On the bright side we can export Frankenfish to the Chinese, label it as fresh caught, and maybe buy a few hours of interest on the deficit.
Export?
I think the US Dept of Commerce just reported that we import 85% of the fish we eat. This new fish is aimed to reduce those imports. Its seems more likely this fish, if not produced in the US, will be grown in China and sold here as wild fresh caught!!
Aqua Advantage Aqua Bounty will sue fisherman Just like Monsanto
Safety! I am more worried about the largest employer in Alaska! When AquaAdvantage comes to the pacific we won’t just loose our wild salmon population we will loose the ability to fish for salmon. AquaAdvantage owns the genetic patens on those fish! And that 1 percent that can reproduce will and Aqua Advantage will own the offspring and every offspring that contains that gene. This has already been played out in court with Monsanto’s gmo crops farmers across the united states and Canada have lost every thing when Monsanto sued for patent right infringement, this for having a gmo plant on their property. Many farmers were seed savers and never planted a gmo crop, but as nature has it pollen flies and cross contamination happens, the courts ruled and have continued to rule "by cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants (canola farmer Percy Schmeiser) deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the patent." With this ruling, the Canadian courts followed the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision on patent issues involving plants and genes. Any fisherman caught with a Gmo fish will be sued by Aqua Advantage they will not win. When they come here it will be the death of Alaska fishing, from commercial to subsistence. That 1 percent that can breed will. I think the only way to stop this from killing Alaskan fisherman would be to make a law that says the fish in Alaska waters belong to the state of Alaska, If any pet fish or Gmo fish that is found swimming in Alaska waters and is claimed by anyone other than the fisherman those claiming owner ship should be fined so much per fish, that it won’t be worth it for them to pull a Monsanto and go after our fisherman.
From the editor: Some 'Frankensite' problems
Apologies to some whose comments may have been accidentally blocked. I found that a couple of comments were posted many times in a row, and I suspect a glitch in the system caused the repeated posts — and then caused the repeated posts to be blocked.
Spoorprint's comment above has been restored. If your comment is missing just shoot me an e-mail at john.moses@juneauempire.com. I'll look for it.
I like this article, there
I like this article, there are some interesting info inside it.