"No agreement imminent on salmon labeling " says the LA Times.
Beyond sharp and predictable differences over whether genetically engineered salmon belongs in the food supply, a rough consensus emerged Tuesday at a Food and Drug Administration hearing on labeling requirements: If the fish is approved for market, consumers should have a way to avoid it.
I'd like to see a new law passed here. Check out what the FDA says about labeling laws:
Under current law, FDA does not have the authority to require labeling based on consumer interest alone. For example, in Stauber v. Shalala, the court explained that, absent evidence of a material difference between milk from rBST-treated cows and non-rBST-treated cows, the use of consumer demand as a rationale for mandatory additional labeling would violate the law.
(The "Stauber" in that case is almost certainly MY FRIEND John Stauber. Kinda cool... but would be cooler if he had won his case.)
More news:
Panel Advises More Aggressive FDA Analysis of Engineered Salmon:
While a genetically engineered salmon is almost certainly safe to eat, the government should pursue a more rigorous analysis of the fish's possible health effects and environmental impact, members of a federal advisory committee said yesterday.
That is GREAT news. Although, with the data provided by AquaBounty and the FDA, the panel would have to be either entirely corrupt or stupid to decide otherwise.
Biotech Salmon Leaves Many Questions:
The first genetically modified animal aimed at consumers' dinner plates faces an uncertain future following a federal advisory panel on Monday that gave a mixed assessment on whether such food -- a salmon -- is safe to eat.
A number of the Food and Drug Administration's panelists raised concerns about the fast growing fish, made by Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc, saying there was not enough data to answer key questions about allergens and other potential risks.
"There are questions that have not been answered by the data that has been presented," panelist James McKean, a veterinarian and professor at Iowa State University, said.
But other panel members argued there was no difference between the altered salmon and its natural counterpart.
"I would not feel alarmed about eating this kind of fish," said Gary Thorgaard, a professor and fish researcher at Washington State University.
(I'd like to point out that saying the fish is probably safe is entirely different from saying that there's enough data to approve it.) |
