House Votes To Block FDA Approval Of Genetically Modified Salmon

WASHINGTON -- The House voted Wednesday to prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption.

The FDA is set to decide this year whether to approve the modified fish, which grows twice as fast as the natural variety. The FDA said last year that the fish appears to be safe to eat but an agency advisory panel said more studies may be needed before it is served on the nation's dinner tables.

If the salmon is approved, it would be the first time the government allowed such modified animals to be marketed for human consumption. It was created by a Massachusetts company, AquaBounty, which says its fish is safe and environmentally sustainable.

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, offered an amendment to a farm spending bill late Wednesday that would prohibit the FDA from spending money to approve AquaBounty's application. The amendment was approved by voice vote.

Young argued that the modified fish would compete with wild salmon in his state. Other critics have labeled the modified salmon a "frankenfish" that possibly could cause allergies in humans and eventually decimate the wild salmon population.

AquaBounty has added a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon that allows the fish to produce their growth hormone all year long. The bioengineers were able to keep the hormone active by using another gene from an eel-like fish called an ocean pout that acts like an on switch for the hormone, according to the company. Conventional salmon produce the growth hormone only some of the time.

The FDA has appeared favorable toward the engineered fish, saying there are no biologically relevant difference between the engineered salmon and conventional salmon and there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from its consumption. The agency is also considering whether the fish needs to be labeled as modified.

Approval would open the door for a variety of other genetically engineered animals, including a more environmentally-friendly pig that is being developed in Canada or cattle that are resistant to mad cow disease. Each would have to be approved by the FDA.

The House is expected to pass the farm spending bill later this week. The Senate has not weighed in on the issue.

Comments

[SuperMom101]

03:03 PM on 06/22/2011

Here's a simple test to see if frankenfood products (also known as genetically modified organisms - GMO) should be "farmed" and fed to the American public: would any member of congress eat genetically modified salmon?

Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire

[DrMandible]

10:13 AM on 06/20/2011

Good.

[tribalogical]

07:49 AM on 06/20/2011

yes. only two words needed to banish the concept altogether: "reasonable certainty".... is that enough to say that introducing a 'frankenfish' for consumption (not to mention it getting into the wild) is perfectly OK? I think not.

before we convict someone of a crime, we must have NO reasonable doubt remaining about their guilt.

before we say something like this is "safe" to eat, there must be NO reasonable doubt about its safety. Not "it looks mostly ok, within reason..." That implies a different philosophy in practice. One that says, "It SEEMS reasonably OK, so we'll try it... we can always take it away later if something goes wrong after the consumption "beta testing" process...."

But then, it's too late. Ask Australia about removing the rabbits from their ecosystem... you know, the ones they thought with "reasonable certainty" were OK to introduce there.

Yeah.....

[lomamonster]

10:24 PM on 06/19/2011

Food will find a way.

[jsgaetano]

02:06 AM on 06/19/2011

Frankenfoods shouldn't be available unless they are clearly labeled for the consumer to know what they are getting. But of course conservatives will stop that at any cost.

[vietveter]

11:14 PM on 06/18/2011

This is just like the GMO corn or soy beans. Once they are out they can’t be put back in the box. One of the ‘frankenfish’ in the open water and the deed is done.

OOPS, too late

[aligatorhardt]

06:14 PM on 06/18/2011

Every introduced species has been a pest problem. We should be very careful with corrupting nature. Excessive growth hormones may produce super cancers. If the fish displaced native populations it would decrease natural diversity. We cannot allow company studies to be the only information considered, as we can assume it will be biased.

[larmar]

06:31 PM on 06/18/2011

Yep, including man.

[Mississippi Red]

11:29 AM on 06/18/2011

The big difference between a GMO pig and salmon is that the GMO salmon will escape and interbreed with wild fish. Its bad enough that farmed fish that are not GMO's are interbreeding with wild fish. The price of GMO salmon far exceeds the benefits. Farm raised salmon (and shrimp among others) are not ecologically sustainable, regardless of the propoganda put forth by the industry. There is no excuse to allow this basically stupid and shortsighted idea to become reality. An idea pushed by a handful of people with dollar signs in their eyes and greed in their hearts.

[vietveter]

11:30 PM on 06/18/2011

This story reminds me of a novel I read several years ago. Now the fish in that book were some Frankenfish for sure. The fish were some steroid abusers and kicked some serious dorsal fin on the other fish.

The point is that we don’t know what can and will happen until it does happen . . .
And then it is too late

[tribalogical]

07:54 AM on 06/20/2011

It has also been proven pretty robustly that "farmed" fish/shellfish are less healthy (or to put it differently, more sickly), and less beneficial to consume. In particular because, like factory-farmed beef, et al, hormones and antibiotics have to be introduced, which are also consumed (and it's not very often we hear about the long-term or even short-term effects of those additions).

This rush to alter "what is" with a for-profit motive perturbs me... I also believe in an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. Why do salmon need to be "altered" again? They seem to be pretty great as is, no?

and if it's to address the disappearing stocks of wild salmon vs demand, it means we have to change our behavior, not the genetics of the fish!

Just sayin'....

[freefromharm]

09:51 AM on 06/17/2011

Agribusiness tells us that the solution to keeping up with our demand for fish is high tech engineering and fish factory farms since we faced with about a 30-40 year window before wild fish species commonly eaten today could be extinct (unless more sustainable fishing practices are adopted on a global scale). If we have to go to these extremes to keep fish on our plate, maybe it's time to consider replacing fish with something that does not destroy our marine ecosystem. When more people see how these fish factories operate, they won't want to eat their product.

[Mississippi Red]

11:50 AM on 06/18/2011

I wish you were right. But people are eating all kinds of meat and have successfuly ignored how that meat is raised.

[tribalogical]

08:00 AM on 06/20/2011

there's really only one answer. You stated it: "Adopt more sustainable fishing practices on a global scale". That's it. No further "creativity" required.

I can eat more vegetables. I'll live with a few less fish on my plate each year. I don't need "fish at any cost!"..... least of all polluting the very same wild stocks we're presumably seeking to "protect" by introducing genetically engineered variants.

We DO NOT KNOW the long-term results of such introductions. But if history tells us anything, it's that introducing new species to existing environments has a destructive effect. There are no exceptions. The experiences in Australia provide a perfect petri dish. The problems they still suffer there should be the single and only needed example of how NOT to engage in planetary stewardship....

No to genetically engineered fish! Not needed! Bad idea! No!! Common sense.... just use a little common sense....

[European1919]

08:43 AM on 06/17/2011

Will eating this fish make our rectal cancers grow twice as fast, too?

[maxfax]

05:39 AM on 06/17/2011

"fish appears to be safe to eat " But what about after the eating?

[European1919]

08:44 AM on 06/17/2011

"Appears" isn't good enough. Either before or after.

[tribalogical]

08:04 AM on 06/20/2011

it goes well beyond the "consumption" issue... is it safe to eat? well, they're probably not poisonous... they won't make you feel sick, or kill you quick....

that's not the only question to be asked and answered. the FIRST one is: do we NEED genetically modified fish? If yes, WHY?

Second, what other potential effects exist, both biological and environmental? Breeding, feeding, caring (antibiotics, etc? Are there weaknesses introduced along with the 'enhanced growth rates'?)

People tell us hamburgers are "safe to eat"... I would argue (based on the prevalence of obesity, heart-related problems and other maladies so common in the land of the burger-swilling people) that perhaps it isn't the case? And what goes into the production of those meats.... if you knew, you might not be so quick to 'consume' them...

[Beth Alexander]

12:40 AM on 06/17/2011

This headline is very misleading. I clicked thinking the House had literally BLOCKED the approval period. It's still expected to pass, but the House just blocked the FDA's ability to spend money on approving it. :( Sadness. I sure as hell wont be eating any. Regular farm-raised salmon is bad enough.

[maxfax]

05:40 AM on 06/17/2011

But does it have to be labeled? And who checks?

[Ghostberry]

07:30 AM on 06/17/2011

assuming they even require it to be labeled, you may be eating it soon anyways.

[Moxo]

12:29 AM on 06/17/2011

DDT was pronounced safe! One of the company execs actually ate some of the stuff on tv to prove it was safe.

Looked suspiciously like white sugar.

[tribalogical]

08:07 AM on 06/20/2011

yes, and after a very long period of profits and "beta testing" it was finally removed from US MARKETS..... but the powers that be still allowed it to be produced and sold to "developing countries"....... knowing full well the long term effects of the stuff.

anything for profit, eh?

THIS is exactly why I do not trust the FDA embrace of this new idea, and why I demand a more vigorous process before introducing such a paradigm shift into our environment and ecosystems...

I'm not interested in 'beta testing' the safety of new food variants..... sorry!

[deweaver]

09:40 PM on 06/16/2011

The stupidity, arrogance and corruption of our political class is demonstrated by the ease with which crass special interest legislation is moving forward. Alaska commercial fishermen have purchased legislatures to prevent competition from locally produced ultra fresh product by making aquaculture in Alaska illegal. Now they are going after a faster growing fish which would give environmentally sustainable closed containment water recycling culture systems that would be located close to the markets an advantage.

Meanwhile, the fishermen want to market their ranched (majority are hatchery fish) salmon as "wild". This is simply a classic rancher/farmer commercial fight seeking to kill off the farmers before they get large enough to also buy the politicians.

It must be noted that allowing them to kill competition also allows them to kill future jobs. In addition, a faster growing fish with a more efficient food conversion would provide more of the desperately needed protein at a more reasonable cost and would ultimately be environmentally more sustainable.

[porscheguy]

11:22 PM on 06/16/2011

I think you don't know what you are talking about.

[Just4theHalibut]

03:32 PM on 06/17/2011

I think he DOES know what he is talking about. Analogy is a good one.

[thaiorchidsource]

11:46 PM on 06/16/2011

deweaver, your assessment is dead on! I could not have commented better. It will eventually come down to farm raised salmon because of over fishing, and damaging the environment has already affected the wild salmon sources in many areas. Commercial salmon fishing is already a dying business.

[Mississippi Red]

11:32 AM on 06/18/2011

So we should rush to kill off wild salmon stocks even faster simply to make a few dollars?

[Wayne Dennis]

05:09 PM on 06/16/2011

Havent we learned as yet from the "engineered Meats we now are consuming from fast food resturants? with the amount of growth hormones in the beef and chicken we eat its no wonder we now look at 13yrs old girls that look like they are in there twentys and the over weight problems we have now are due in fact to these drugs that cattle and other livestock are being fed. and now we want to put genetically engineer fish that grow in massive size? its been proven that what they eat does pass over to humans so I guess in several years we are going to see 7and 9 foot men and women ( as a norm..) walking this earth.. and other growth problems...

[thaiorchidsource]

11:47 PM on 06/16/2011

Wayne, your being silly. hahahhahahaha

[Mississippi Red]

11:39 AM on 06/18/2011

I wonder why biologists who know the details of the agribusiness/antibiotics/hormones system give their children organic milk. Do you think that the people who know most about the effects of agribusiness on health might have a clue? Or should we listen to the corporate propoganda?