26 February 2011

You Can't Tell A Frankenfish By Looking At the Label

We know the folks at the FDA only have our interests at heart when they make decisions that affect the food we eat. So we can not question their undying commitment to keeping us safe- even if keeping us safe also keeps us in the dark. But after all, they are the experts and we're only the uneducated masses and consumers who pay their salaries. So here's what's up with the FDA deciding whether or not we need to know something or not about GMO salmon-  affectionately known as Frankenfish. Franken-salmon are 4x bigger and need to be dyed pink to pass for salmon- and the nutritional profile stinks. But you wouldn't know it from the label because there is no label.

 

S 230 / HR 521 : GMO Salmon Unsafe Bills


Is this in our future?
Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
I completed my morning perusal of “things that really matter but most of the American public are too distracted by the “Unexpected numbers” out of the MainStream Media (MSM) to give a flying leap” and found this most interesting little Bill sitting on Thomas.gov.:
A BILL
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prevent the approval of genetically engineered fish.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PREVENTING THE APPROVAL OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FISH.

    Section 512(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    • `(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a genetically engineered fish shall be deemed unsafe under this section, including for purposes of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii).’.
Curious I wandered over to see what the companion Senate language was and lo-and-behold, here it is:
A BILL
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prevent the approval of genetically-engineered fish.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PREVENTING THE APPROVAL OF GENETICALLY-ENGINEERED FISH.

    Section 512(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    • `(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a genetically-engineered fish shall be deemed unsafe under this section, including for purposes of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii).’.

S 229 also refers to “labeling”, but one wonders why the Bill proposing GMO Salmon labeling came before S 230 which proposed banning an unsafe product (i.e. GMO Salmon)? For those of us who really don’t understand the entire legislative process, it’s a “chicken and egg” type thing I guess – which did come first?
Last September, PPJ reported this story: Label GMO Salmon? Consumers Get “Too Confused” Says BioFreakenomic Guru! in which David Edwards explained the way it oughta’ be with these words:
“Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,” or “As we stick more labels on products that don’t really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices.”
Two days later  “confused” citizens were told that GM Salmon Was Postponed For Now! Blacks Law probably has a definition for the word “now”, however if we thought that “now” meant for any significant length of time – those of us who enjoy eating non-GMO food might want to know it has been reported by some sources that the FDA is considering granting approval. Rodale has the call out to contact Senators and Representatives to support the ban as well. After all,  if the FDA doesn’t need to follow the same rules when it wants something approved, they’ll just hightail their way around it if we don’t speak up:
The FDA is also “cheating” on how they approve the fish by using a process designed for veterinary drugs — not food products. The FDA’s assessment to determine consumer health risks is largely based on flawed scientific studies and lacks the thoroughness that we would expect from a federal agency deciding whether to approve the first genetically engineered food product. Three of the four studies the agency based its review on were non-peer-reviewed and conducted by AquaBounty, the very company that would benefit from producing the fish. The data collection is rife with serious procedural errors. For instance, AquaBounty’s scientists used only six GE salmon to determine the potential for allergies — a dangerously limited data set — and even this small sample revealed that there was a significant difference in the potential for GE salmon to cause allergic reactions. The company scientists also “unblinded” the fish during the study, making them aware of which salmon were GE and which were not. This is a violation of fundamental scientific method.
I find this of interest from the September hearing Transcript where Josh Sharfstein, the Principal Deputy Commissioner at FDA states the following:
You may all know this, but I will say this anyway: none of this is required under the law.
It’s not required that we put out a clear document that explains
the approach the FDA takes to labeling and the reasons
for that approach, the background for that approach.

Yeah well Josh – thanks for that input! The American Consumer will take that into account while we contact our Legislators with our  version of a “clear document”
NO TO GMO SALMON
Co-Sponsor S 230 or HR 521
Enhanced by Zemanta

1 comment:

Asantewaa said...

DIVEST MONsatan NOW not later!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Josephs-Ark-Initiative-Grow-Food-Indoors-NOW-not-later/211791079278?sk=notes#!/note.php?note_id=169776583070816