New Study Claims FDA Review of GM Salmon Is Incomplete

Wednesday 24 November 2010

by: Mike Ludwig, t r u t h o u t | Report

 

(Photo: Mark Benger)

The process used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review genetically modified (GM) salmon presents “an incomplete picture” of the risks and benefits of what could be the first GM animal food approved for human consumption, according to a recent Duke University study.

The FDA’S preliminary conclusions, announced in September, found that the GM salmon were as safe to eat as any other salmon. A comment period on whether the FDA can require GM salmon to be labeled as GM expired on Monday, putting the agency one step closer to a final decision.

The Duke Study, published in the latest issue of Science magazine, echoes the concerns of anti-GM activists, who argue in public hearings that the FDA has not considered enough data on the potential health and environmental consequences of farming GM salmon.

“Instead of focusing on the safety of a food taken one portion at a time, or whether it was produced through genetic modifications or through classic breeding, a more useful approach would be to evaluate whether society is better off overall with the new product on the market than without it,” said Jonathan B. Wiener, one of the study’s co-authors.

Members of Congress have also expressed concern about the review process, and last week, senators from Alaska introduced legislation that would ban GM salmon if the FDA approves the fish.

The salmon have DNA from other organisms that cause the fish to grow faster and larger. The FDA is specifically reviewing the DNA, which is considered a “new animal drug.” Duke environmental economics professor Martin Smith said the review process has ignored broad effects that large, fast-growing salmon could have on the environment and society, like how cheaper salmon might lower prices and increase consumption.

“These market impacts could dwarf any small differences in nutritional content,” Smith said.

Smith said the review process has only compared the nutritional value of GM salmon to regular salmon and screened for known toxins and allergens.

Smith and his team argue a full review would consider broader definitions of environmental safety and public health. The FDA should also make a fuller assessment of potential economic and environmental impacts, such as the amount of pollution created by salmon farms and the increased harvesting of the wild fish used to feed farmed salmon.

FDA spokesperson Siobhan DeLancey said the FDA did not receive a copy of the Duke study and the review process is still under way.

Smith and his team also argued the FDA should have put more thought into the potential threat GM salmon could pose to native salmon if the fish escaped into the wild.

Last week, watchdog group Food and Water Watch released internal documents from the Department of the Interior to Truthout showing that federal wildlife officials are concerned about the GM salmon proposal and the FDA’s failure to consult the Fish and Wildlife Service about the potential for the salmon to escape and threaten endangered populations in the wild.

“The approval of genetically modified salmon will set an important precedent for other transgenic animals intended for human consumption,” Smith said in a statement. “It’s essential that FDA establishes an approval process that assesses the full portfolio of impacts to ensure that such decisions serve society’s best interests.”

AquaBounty Technologies, the company that spent a decade developing the GM salmon, has proposed to breed the fish in inland tanks in Canada and then grow them in Panama.

Some activists are concerned that a decision on the salmon is imminent, but DeLancey said the agency is still reviewing comments from the industry and the public.

The FDA also has to decide whether to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact or an Environmental Impact Statement, a preliminary decision that would be subject to a 30-day comment period.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

BACK to margotbworldnews.com

Letter from the Editor

Logo of General Motors Corporation. Source: 2007_business_choice_bro_en.pdf (on GM website).

George Bernard Shaw once said: “I showed my appreciation of my native land in the usual Irish way: by getting out of it as soon as I possibly could.” This week many of his fellow countrymen may have been considering joining the centuries-old diaspora from the Emerald Isle as a joint EU/IMF delegation arrived to negotiate a bail-out of its stricken banks. At least some of the banks would die if not kept alive by cheap unlimited European Central Bank funding – the same easy money delaying the almost inevitable debt restructurings in Ireland, Greece and possibly elsewhere. It also drags the ECB firmly into the political realm and makes it easier for politicians to dodge difficult decisions – just like their dreaming Californian cousins. Meanwhile the Fed was robustly defending its own QE2 programme designed to drive down US bond yields, but they stubbornly decided to rise instead as the latest data on mortgages showed a still-moribund housing market. Amidst the general confusion the spectre of looming Chinese price controls to fight inflation cooled the commodities rally, but counter-intuitively may have shown evidence of a maturing market in Shanghai. It is understandable that at such times cautious investors like Abu Dhabi’s investment vehicle sought the safety of developed markets. But despite the relative success of the largest IPO in US history for General Motors’ owners (don’t mention the taxpayers), the rulers of the Arab emirate are hardly likely to want to give up their German and Italian cars anytime soon. There is hope for the eurozone yet. John Casey, Lex publisher http://www.ft.com/lex/best

BACK to margotbworldnews.com

Stars on Cars’ ratings system getting tougher

Toyota Camry(1996-1998) Japanese Spec.

By KEN THOMAS

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — No more grade inflation for new cars and trucks.

The Transportation Department outlined changes Tuesday to the government’s 5-Star Safety Rating System that will make it more difficult for new cars and trucks to earn top scores.

Only two of the first 34 vehicles tested under the new program – the 2011 BMW 5 Series and a version of the 2011 Hyundai Sonata – received the top grade of five stars. The Toyota Camry, the best-selling passenger car in the United States, received three stars.

The ratings range from one to five stars, with five stars being the highest and one star being the lowest.

The so-called “Stars on Cars” system, which evaluates vehicles on front-end and side-impact crashes and rollovers, was started in 1979 and has helped generate interest in safety equipment such as side-impact air bags and anti-rollover technology. But the program is being revamped for the 2011 model year because so many vehicles were receiving top marks under the old system, making it difficult to distinguish the best performers.

Typically, more than 90 percent of the vehicles tested under the old system earned four or five stars. In 1979, less than 30 percent received four or five stars.

“More stars equal safer cars,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Through new tests, better crash data and higher standards, we are making the safety ratings tougher and more meaningful for consumers.”

LaHood said the new rating system will encourage automakers to install crash avoidance technologies and will help car shoppers “navigate a crowded marketplace with trustworthy and objective safety analysis.”

The new system adds an overall score, uses different sized test dummies and takes into account crash-prevention technologies and a new test that simulates a car striking a pole or a tree. The overall score combines the results of front, side and rollover tests and compares those results with average risk of injury and the potential for vehicle rollover of other vehicles.

Consumers will not be able to compare a score of a new 2011 model year vehicle with that of a 2010 model year vehicle because of the new test criteria. The window sticker attached to vehicles in dealership lots will need to be redesigned and will not include the overall score until the 2012 model year. Vehicles that have not been tested will be listed initially as “not rated.”

In the latest testing, most of the 34 vehicles reviewed received an overall score of four out of five stars. The 2011 Nissan Versa got two stars while hybrid and conventional versions of the Toyota Camry received three stars. Another 21 vehicles will be tested later this year.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents General Motors, Toyota, Ford and other auto companies, said the changes will mean the ratings found on new car labels will probably go down, even in cases where there have been no significant changes to the vehicle.

Mike Stanton, president of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, which represents Toyota, Honda, Nissan and others, said car makers had been concerned about confusion over the new grading system. But he expected consumers to embrace the changes.

“Everybody knows that vehicles are very, very safe today so it’s a degree of how safe and what’s the new technologies and hopefully this will take hold as people pay attention,” Stanton said.

—

Online:

NHTSA‘s New Car Assessment Program: http://www.safercar.gov

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers: http://www.newstarsoncars.com

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/05/1857976/stars-on-cars-ratings-system-getting.html#ixzz11V52pzZ9

BACK to margotbworldnews.com