AP, lots more: The weird task at the FDA of deciding the safety of GM salmon – as though “safety” is what creeps people out.
A lot of news reports flowing over the transom this week on genetically altered salmon and whether selling them should be okay by the FDA – and whether consumers are entitled to mandatory labels disclosing their transpecies origins. As though it makes a difference to life’s peril quotient – do we demand that merchants by law tell us whether that beef at the meat counter is angus, piedmontese, or zebu? But put a little chinook and ocean pout DNA in Atlantic salmon to make them grow in pens to full size in a jiffy (and all be females too) and some people go nuts worrying about their right to know and the possibility of allergic reaction or growing an ocean pout tail fin for all I know. Plus much more seriously – what hazards might such farmed fish pose to wild populations should they escape their inland tank farms and some of them fail to be sterile as advertised? What will they eat? Is salmon chow production going to be a major enviro problem itself? How about the salmon poop, where will THAT go?
As one would expect the major carrier of this US-based news story is the Associated Press, where Mary Clare Jalonick has it out under the hed FDA considering whether to label engineered fish. Her lead – “Genetically modified salmon for dinner? Diners might not even know it.” Not even? That sentence structure implies that if they don’t, it’s a scandal and it’s on the FDA. Better would be if the hed merely asked, “Must diners be told?” But she smartly keeps the story simple, and focussed on food safety rather then the bigger issue of environmental hazard.
At ABC, Kim Carollo reported late yesterday that the panel has already decided to do nothing – asking for more data. This is not in the AP. That is a puzzle. The Chicago Tribune‘s Andrew Zajac, Monica Eng, and Kristin Samuelsen also reported that no decision will be coming out of this advisory committee until it learns more.
At NPR, on Monday’s Morning Edition April Fulton began appropriately on the nutritional and healthiness of GM salmon vs. the natural kinds. The report says also that the broader implications of large scale salmon farming, especially with an always-on growth gene, will be heavily debated. One can only wonder whether this is something for the FDA to settle, or other agencies such as EPA or Fish & Wildlife Service. At NPR’s site, a blog by Scott Hensley works hard on the yuck factor of including a gene from the ugly ocean pout. He writes that the fish have three sets of chromosomes (italics his) without explaining why anybody should care – but implying it ought to give us the yips.
Finally, a little more background and context. At HealthDay, posted via the Bloomberg/Business Week combo, Jennifer Goodwin tells readers clearly that this hearing is just one small part of a cumbersome, extended process of approval. One FDA science advisory panel already has told the agency itself that these salmon are just as safe eatin’ as the ones that grow wild. Now the Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee is at bat. And Goodwin lists some of the large array of advocacy groups with their many objections. Plus, she links to a huge FDA background info document laying out the criteria for decision (in Grist below).
Other stories:
- NYTimes – Andrew Pollack: Panel Leans in Favor of Engineered Salmon ; A calm and useful piece – focuses on the safety issue before the veterinary panel. Also worth reading is his earlier (Sept 3) report on the thumbs-up the FDA’s science advisory panel already gave to these fish.
- Wall St. Journal question of the day: “Would you eat genetically-modified salmon if approved by the FDA“. Results so far (spoiler alert!) about two thirds say ….. no. What exactly is the usefulness, distinct from the purpose which is to inspire conversation, of such uncontrolled and sloppy surveys?
- PostMedia News (Canada) Sarah Schmidt (Sept 17) Foes of engineered salmon appeal to Obama to halt FDA approval ; Largely about the Canadian roots of these altered salmon.
The point is that a right to know a food’s history and broad societal and environmental impacts appear rather distinct from the Food and Drug Administration’s far narrower, primary mandate to focus on documentable health and safety effects on the people who eat it. Most of these news stories on the salmon issue don’t help readers distinguish the categories of worry or whether the FDA is the right body to address them all – or whether this particular stage of the process is so important.
Maybe sorting through the welter of worries that people have about GM foods, and whether they all best left to the FDA to worry over, is the job of pieces sporting “news analysis” tags.
Grist for the Mill:
FDA Public Meeting Advisory (with background documents); FDA Key Facts Commonly Misunderstood about these fish; ; FDA advisory panel Briefing Packet ; Center for Food Safety (advocacy group) Press Release (in which the group’s senior policy analyst says FDA needs a “more fulsome novel foods approach.” Fancy-sounding, but somebody should have looked up fulsome in a dictionary and saved the woman from a minor printed public embarrassment); AquAdvantage / AquaBounty Technologies Press Page .
- Charlie Petit
