| Last week, I had a piece on GE salmon up on Alternet. When I posted about it here, I promised it would be Part 1, and a Part 2 would be forthcoming. Well, it's here. It's up on Grist: Why is the FDA About to Rubber Stamp GE Salmon?
The long story short is that the committee that is hearing the salmon case today doesn't have any fish, salmon, or biotech experts on it (it's a committee of vets), so they added four "temporary voting members" with expertise fish and biotech. Two are scientists who are into GE animals (one used to work for Monsanto!), and one - the "consumer rep" - is a lawyer, not a scientist, who is highly pro-biotech. One of the scientists and the consumer rep (even calling him that makes me convulse in anger!) have both served on the USDA's heavily pro-biotech "AC21" biotech advisory committee alongside reps from Monsanto, DuPont, and Cargill. The fourth is a fish expert (the ONLY fish expert) who specializes in polyploidy, not genetic engineering.
Additionally, the FDA only gave the public 14 days to comment on the science used to justify the GE salmon's safety. And, as Consumers' Union points out, why is the FDA violating its own law here (as it would be if it approves the GE salmon)? All of the research on the salmon was done in Canada, but the salmon would be approved for production in Panama. According to the rules they are using to regulate the GE fish as a New Animal Drug, that should not be allowed. |
