Three consumer advocacy organizations have filed a petition with the Office of Food Additive Safety of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition requesting that ABT Technologies’ application to approve genetically engineered (GE) salmon be reviewed under the food additive provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The company’s new animal drug application for the GE salmon is currently pending before the agency’s Center for Veterinary Medicine. According to Food & Water Watch, Consumers Union and the Center for Food Safety, the company’s GE process “significantly alters the salmon’s composition . . . in a way that is reasonably expected to alter its nutritive value or concentration of constituents, and the new substance raises safety concerns. Under the Agency’s regulations and guidelines, such a substance must be treated as a food additive and the Agency must make a closer inquiry into the safety…
Tag Archives fish
U.S. Representatives Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.) have reportedly asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate claims that seafood sold in grocery stores, restaurants and markets is often mislabeled. According to the congressmen’s October 31, 2011, letter, two separate investigative reports used DNA testing to conclude that purveyors frequently sold seafood as more expensive or different varieties. In particular, The Boston Globe reported that 48 percent of fish sampled in the area were sold under the wrong name, while Consumer Reports estimated that more than one-fifth of the 190 pieces of seafood it tested in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York were “mislabeled as a different species of fish, incompletely labeled, or misidentified by employees.” The latter report also noted that all 10 of the “lemon soles” and 12 of the 22 “red snappers” purchased were not the species advertised. “Only four of the 14 types of fish…
Alaska’s U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D) and Lisa Murkowski (R) have introduced two new bills as part of their ongoing campaign to prevent the federal government from allowing the sale of genetically engineered (GE) salmon. Information about related legislative proposals they sponsored in January 2011 appears in Issue 380 of this Update. One new proposal (S. 1717) would make it unlawful for anyone to “ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, or purchase genetically altered salmon or other marine fish, or a product containing genetically altered salmon or other marine fish, in interstate or foreign commerce.” The other proposal (S.A. 751), offered as an amendment to a House appropriations bill (H.R. 2112), would preclude the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from spending any funds to approve an application for the approval of GE fish. One such application is pending before the agency. According to Begich, “There is just too much at…
A coalition of 38 industry organizations has sent a letter to U.S. House and Senate leaders urging Congress to allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to complete its review of an application for genetically engineered (GE) salmon. The coalition’s letter comes on the heels of a recent House-approved appropriations amendment that prohibits FDA from using money in fiscal year 2012 to finalize its review of AquaBounty Technologies’ application to produce fast-growing GE Atlantic salmon and the efforts of a bipartisan group of congressional lawmakers to halt the application’s approval process. According to the “Animal Agriculture Coalition,” if it the amendment becomes law, FDA’s ability to process such applications using best-available science would be diminished, damaging the agency’s credibility “at home and overseas.” Coalition members include the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), whose president and CEO was quoted as saying that “disrupting FDA’s science-based assessment process based on non-scientific political concerns would…
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has called on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to stop the approval process for genetically engineered salmon. Fifteen members of the House of Representatives and eight members of the U.S. Senate signed separate letters to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg expressing economic and environmental concerns over the fast-growing fish. “We are concerned that the FDA’s review of GE salmon uses the same criteria as it would for approving a veterinary drug,” noted the Senate letter, adding that “the lack of transparency in the approval process is extremely disconcerting given that approval of GE fish is likely the first step toward approval of many more GE animals for human consumption.” The House recently approved an amendment prohibiting FDA from using money to approve GE salmon applications in fiscal year 2012 and, according to the letters, similar language has been drafted for consideration by the Senate.…
A California appeals court has determined that canned tuna sold in the state does not need a mercury warning label under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) for reproductive toxicity because the mercury is naturally occurring and thus falls within a Prop. 65 exemption. People ex rel. Brown v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, No. A116792 (Cal. Ct. App., decided March 11, 2009). A trial court ruled in 2006 that the labels were not required because (i) federal law preempts state action on methylmercury in fish; (ii) the trace levels of mercury in canned tuna were too insignificant to require warnings; and (iii) the mercury is naturally occurring. Further information about that ruling appears in issue 170 of this Update. The appeals court specifically considered and based its ruling on the last basis for decision only, finding that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination as to the source of mercury contamination in fish.…
After a two-month trial, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Robert Dondero late last week ruled that California cannot require the manufacturers of Chicken of the Sea, StarKist and Bumble Bee tuna to warn consumers that their products contain mercury and mercury compounds. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed the lawsuit in June 2004 under the state antitoxics law Proposition 65, which requires businesses to warn the public about exposure to chemicals “known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.” The law does not apply to chemicals that occur naturally in food. Press reports indicate the court ruled that (i) Prop. 65 is preempted by a March 2004 Food and Drug Administration joint consumer advisory on methylmercury in fish and shellfish; (ii) low levels of mercury contained in tuna products do not merit warnings; and (iii) tuna is exempt from Prop. 65 requirements because mercury in fish is naturally occurring.…
