1.FDA Misses the Boat in Signaling Approval of Genetically-Engineered Salmon
2.Alaska Delegation Fillets GM Salmon Report
3Senator Begich Alarmed by FDA Report on Frankenfish

TAKE ACTION: Tell FDA: Do Not Approve Genetically Engineered Salmon!
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/1881/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9138

RESOURCES: Find out more: http://ge-fish.org/
---
---
1.FDA Misses the Boat in Signaling Approval of Genetically-Engineered Salmon
George Leonard
National Geographic, December 22 2012
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/22/fda-misses-the-boat-in-signaling-approval-of-genetically-engineered-salmon/

Just as I was getting ready to head out for my Christmas break yesterday, my email Inbox signals that the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released its recommendation to approve the first-ever, genetically-engineered animal for human consumption. For those who track the FDA, they know this isn't unusual – the agency often makes controversial rulings right before the holidays, when decision makers, media and the public are trying to have some well-deserved downtime with their families. Today was a kind of an unwelcome, fishy Christmas surprise, nestled among the garland and mistletoe.

Make no mistake: GE salmon is controversial. Since September 2010, when this issue exploded on the national stage, there has been unprecedented pushback on plans to grow an engineered variant of farmed Atlantic salmon for the U.S. market. Over 400,000 public comments in opposition have been sent to the FDA. Forty members of Congress called for a full Environmental Impact Statement before approval was granted. Ocean Conservancy and our colleagues similarly called for a complete analysis – that asks and answers the full range of tough questions – before the government allows private industry to head off down a path of genetically-engineering our seafood supply. But with today’s release, the agency basically blew all of us off.

One might think that FDA’s 158-page analysis contains all the information we need to feel comfortable about GE fish in our seafood supply. It doesn’t. As their 5-page summary states, the agency intentionally narrowed the scope of the analysis and thus completely missed the boat.

FDA makes clear that it is green lighting only one small facility in Canada and another in Panama to grow out this novel fish, which will then be sent to the U.S. for processing and sale. While Ocean Conservancy is deeply concerned that FDA has not undertaken a state-of-the-art risk assessment on this particular facility, it is the larger ramifications of this initial approval that have always been the more important issue. No viable business can be built on growing only a small number of fish in Panama. But if this initial approval paves the way for a massive expansion of GE fish farming, both here in the U.S. and around the world, then we have the makings of a real moneymaker – and potentially big environmental problems.

The global salmon farming industry is entirely based in the ocean, where floating cages fatten fish for market. The environmental impacts of net-pen salmon farming are well established, where escapes are commonplace and disease can be rampant when fish are overcrowded. While this initial application to grow GE salmon is for land-based facilities, the prospect of even larger profits from growing GE salmon in the ocean will certainly create pressure for approval in these more environmentally risky systems in the future.

The U.S. is poorly equipped to deal with this future scenario. In June 2011, NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco released a National Aquaculture Policy to guide how marine aquaculture proceeds in our ocean waters. While the policy includes some strong environmental provisions, it does not categorically prohibit the growing of GE fish in the ocean. It should.

Given FDA’s action yesterday and NOAA’s failure to prohibit GE fish in its aquaculture policy, the time has come for Congress to intervene. Congress should work to pass Senator Mark Begich’s PEGASUS Act or similar legislation that requires FDA to take the environmental risks seriously before approving GE fish.

If Congress doesn’t act soon, the nation’s ocean may suffer from FDA’s efforts to chart a course for GE salmon.
---
---
2.Alaska Delegation Fillets GM Salmon Report
Chris Klint
Channel 2 News, December 21 2012
http://articles.ktuu.com/2012-12-21/aquabounty_35959466

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska’s congressional delegation was united in its opposition Friday to a draft report from the federal Food and Drug Administration saying that the nation’s health and environment wouldn’t be significantly harmed by genetically modified salmon.

The fish, introduced by Massachusetts biotechnology firm AquaBounty, are engineered to grow much larger than wild salmon -- but many Alaskans see them as a threat to both the market for and the existence of wild fish.

Sen. Mark Begich said Friday that the FDA’s draft environmental assessment was the first step toward the release of what he called “Frankenfish” into the environment, comparing such an act to the devastation wrought in the wild by invasive species.

“The notion that consuming Frankenfish is safe for the public and our oceans is a joke,” Begich said. “I will fight tooth and nail with my Alaska colleagues to make sure consumers have a clear choice when it comes to wild and sustainable (fish) versus lab-grown science projects.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski shared Begich’s concerns, pointing out widespread opposition to the new fish.

“I am concerned with the recent news that FDA is moving forward with the approval of genetically modified fish,” Murkowski said in a Friday statement. “This is especially troubling as the agency is ignoring the opposition by salmon and fishing groups, as well as more than 300 environmental, consumer and health organizations.”

Rep. Don Young said he hoped to pass labeling requirements meant to keep the modified fish off the market.

“In the 113th Congress, I plan to reintroduce legislation that will at a bare minimum require genetically engineered salmon to be labeled to ensure that the public knows what they are purchasing at the grocery store and feeding to their families,” Young said.

Begich says the FDA is required by a 2007 reauthorization bill to submit a report on the potential impacts of genetically modified salmon -- a report it hasn’t yet delivered.
---
---
3.Begich Alarmed by FDA Report on Frankenfish
http://www.begich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2012/12/begich-alarmed-by-fda-report-on-frankenfish

*Calls on Alaskans to Make Public Their Opposition to GE Salmon

Sen. Mark Begich, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, blasted the announcement by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on its draft report finding that genetically engineered salmon holds “no significant impact” on the environment or public health.

“The notion that consuming Frankenfish is safe for the public and our oceans is a joke,” Begich said. “I will fight tooth and nail with my Alaska colleagues to make sure consumers have a clear choice when it comes to wild and sustainable versus lab-grown science projects.”

Sen. Begich has been protesting against the FDA’s march in favor of genetically modified salmon since he came to the Senate. Begich is calling on all Alaskans to participate in the ongoing public comment period and let the FDA know how they feel about Frankenfish. Public comment opens next Wednesday and Begich will publicize the mechanism for public comment when it becomes available.”

With loose findings that the modified fish are “unlikely” to harm the environment, the FDA draft Environmental Assessment (EA) is a step towards approving GE salmon for sale in the U.S. Alaska is the world’s largest producer of wild, sustainably-harvested salmon.

“People want to know they are eating natural, healthy, wild salmon,” Begich said. “Today’s assessment by the FDA imperils families and fisherman.”

Begich has been a vocal skeptic of introducing Frankenfish into the nation’s food supply, citing concerns about threats to the environment and public health. The damaging impacts of other invasive species released into the environment are well known. There are concerns that the consumer’s right to know what they’re buying and eating is being ignored.

“The FDA shouldn’t be making decisions on marine fisheries,” Begich said. “Today’s report is by no means the final say on this issue. I will continue to fight hard against these genetic mutations whose only purpose is purely for profit. Americans deserve to know the health and environmental superiority of wild Alaska seafood and not be fooled into thinking GE fish is somehow equivalent.”

Begich introduced the Prevention of Escapement of Genetically Altered Salmon in the United States, which would have prohibited the sale of Frankenfish unless the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a finding that production of Frankenfish would have no significant impact or found to be consistent with the National Environmental Protection Act.

The 2007 FDA reauthorization act required a report to Congress on the potential impacts of genetically modified fish on the environment generally. They have yet to submit a written report to Congress.

“I am also concerned that the FDA is continuing to disregard the will of Congress,” Begich said. “It seems incredibly irresponsible to be moving forward on Frankenfish before they’ve taken a step back, consulted with experts on marine fisheries, and considered the potential impacts more broadly.”

Public opposition to the approval of Frankenfish is strong. Last year, 93 groups representing fishermen, consumers and others signed a letter in opposition to the Frankenfish proposal. Polling data suggests even broader rejection of GE salmon among potential consumers.