Consumers reports: The FDA approval of GMO salmon is an "abuse of public trust."
It's been approved without allergy testing, though small studies showed significant allergies, and no labeling is required.
This is why people are fighting GMO's. The FDA and the producers are deliberately limiting safety research. There's no excuse for this.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/02/are-genetically-engineered-salmon-too-fishy/the-fdas-decision-on-the-aquabounty-salmon-is-an-abuse-of-consumer-trust
Michael K. Hansen is a senior scientist with Consumers Union, the policy and action division of Consumer Reports.
The F.D.A.'s decision to allow the sale of genetically modified salmon — the first genetically engineered animal approved for human consumption — discounted the needs of American consumers.
When it comes to food, consumers deserve rigorous safety testing for human and environmental risks and meaningful labels they can use to decide what to eat. They got neither.
SNIP
The AquaBounty salmon was engineered with genes from two other fish species to promote rapid growth. The F.D.A. should have rigorously assessed whether that process introduced any new safety risks, including whether this G.M.-salmon has higher levels of proteins known to cause severe allergic reactions in some people.
The F.D.A. had 15 years to mull over AquaBounty's application, but did not require that the company follow up on allergenicity tests it did on just 18 fish — despite the fact that the tiny sample study strongly suggested G.M.-salmon could pose a greater allergen risk. The F.D.A. should have conducted the most thorough safety assessment possible, considering this approval of the first genetically engineered animal for food sets a market precedent.
The F.D.A. also failed to require that AquaBounty salmon be labeled as such, even though poll after poll show that more than 90 percent of consumers favor labeling of all genetically engineered food.
SNIP
= new reply since forum marked as read
