FDA Ignores Abnormaities Found in GMO "Frankenfish" Salmon
by Tony Isaacs
At the recent hearings on the GMO salmon many are referring to as “Frankenfish, the FDA noted evidence of abnormalities that had been detected in the fish, including "“increased frequency of skeletal malformations, increased prevalence of jaw erosions and multi-systemic inflammation”. While such findings would seem to be cause for alarm, the FDA instead dismissed the abnormalities as being “within the range observed in rapid growth phenotypes of non-genetically engineered Atlantic salmon.”
In other words, the abnormalities that were found in GMO salmon were consistent with those found in farmed salmon which had been genetically manipulated for accelerated growth through other means. Does comparing GMO salmon to factory farmed fish instead of salmon found in their natural environment mean that GMO salmon are safe or is it more an indictment of other factory farmed fish? The logic the FDA used is reminiscent of the studies that found MSG was safe because its side effects were not significantly worse than a control substance it was compared against. The control substance: Aspartame.
A closer look at farmed salmon does not paint a picture of healthy fish. For example in Chile, where most of our factory-farmed salmon come from, up to 80 percent of the salmon suffer from a condition called “screamer disease,” where severe facial disfigurements lock their jaws permanently open.
In Norway, another major salmon exporter to the United States, “humpback” spinal compression deformities have been found in 70 percent of salmon farm operations. Twenty different types of spinal malformations have been repeatedly found in factory-farmed Atlantic salmon – abnormalities which have been linked to the physiological stress of intensive production.
GMO salmon would be the first transgenic farm animal approved for human consumption. Approval could open up a floodgate of other genetically engineered animals, and perhaps a Pandora’s Box as well. What if, for example, huge cows were created which had to be delivered via Caesarian section? Already there are breeds of genetically defective “double-muscled” created cattle.
Approval of GMO salmon would also likely serve to further entrench unhealthy factory farm operations. Chickens have been bred for such rapid muscling to the extent that billions suffer in chronic pain every year from skeletal disorders, and many of them are unable to even walk.. Hens lay so many eggs that they risk prolapse (laying their own uterus). Up to a quarter of dairy cows are clinically lame and turkeys are so top-heavy that they are incapable of physically mating.
Such animals exist today as a result of genetic manipulation. The creation of transgenic farm animals with genes that are modified through biotechnology would give agribusiness additional tools to stress animals beyond natural biological limits at the expense of their health and welfare.
Ironically, the biotech company that invented the GMO Salmon has argued that the list of health disorders their fish suffer from could be seen as an advantage because “any escapees from containment would be less capable of surviving.” According to the company, genetically modified fish grow at such a rate that the metabolic demands might make them less likely to create ecological havoc should they escape into the wild. However, previous studies have indicated just the opposite – finding instead that GMO salmon which escape in the wild would represent huge threats to native salmon populations.
Another major concern of GMO salmon and other organisms is the possibility of transgenic DNA transferring to humans, as we have already seen with genetically modified crops. Despite the concerns, the FDA is widely expected to ultimately approve the “Frankenfish” salmon, and do so without requiring a GMO label.
It is curious. I think that a very large number of posts have deserved having ratings given, not merely to give kudos to the poster, but more importantly to call greater attention to messages that have important information worthy of widespread attention. Maybe the alert button isn't working? I have given several on other folks messages that still have no rating. Or maybe there is some incredibly tough new standard? If so, it is perhaps a bit too tough if it causes some of the messages I am thinking about to go without recognition.
In my own case, I do think I have posted some very important information and I also think that I have written some of my best articles in recent months - which I invariably share first at CZ before they are published at the sites I write for. Maybe my quota of ratings has been all used up by the ratings Luella May gives me on our private forum? Not that I disagree with many of her ratings, but I swear, the poor gal thinks I do no wrong, and our forum often has quite the abundance of red. Beats the heck out of my ex, who thought I could do no right. The truth is somewhere in the middle, hopefully closer to Luella's opinion than that of my ex.
Just my two cents.
Anyone can click on the Good Message alert for any message, good or bad. The alert is supposed to notify a moderator about a message which may warrant giving a recommendation to, but the moderator is under no obligation to automatically give a rating just because someone clicks on the alert. Someone might just be a big fan or happen to believe the same as the message, but in the moderator's opinion the message may not be worthy of singling out. It is a judgment call we try, or should try, to make our best calls on on an individual basis and try to call attention to items we believe others would benefit from and/or which have been well crafted.
Perhaps this is a topic more suited for the Webmaster forum?