The Washington Post

By Lyndsey Layton

September 18, 2010

www.washingtonpost.com

As the Food and Drug Administration considers whether to approve genetically modified salmon, one thing seems certain: Shoppers staring at fillets in the seafood department will find it tough to pick out the conventional fish from the one created with genes from another species.

Despite a growing public demand for more information about how food is produced, that won’t happen with the salmon because of idiosyncracies embedded in federal regulations.

The FDA says it cannot require a label on the genetically modified food once it determines that the altered fish is not “materially” different from other salmon – something agency scientists have said is true.

Perhaps more surprising, conventional food makers say the FDA has made it difficult for them to boast that their products do not contain genetically modified ingredients.

The labeling question has emerged as the FDA determines whether to approve the fish, an Atlantic salmon known as AquAdvantage that grows twice as fast as its natural counterpart. The decision carries great weight because, while genetically modified agriculture has been permitted for years and engineered crops are widely used in processed foods, this would be the first modified animal allowed for human consumption in the United States.The AquAdvantage salmon has been given a gene from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish, and a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon.

‘The public wants to know’

Consumer advocates say they worry about labeling for genetically engineered beef, pork and other fish, which are lining up behind the salmon for federal approval.

“The public wants to know and the public has a right to know,” said Marion Nestle, a professor in the Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health Department at New York University. “I think the agency has discretion, but it’s under enormous political pressure to approve [the salmon] without labeling.”

The debate will be taken up this week, with an advisory committee meeting Sunday and Monday on whether to allow the modified fish, and a separate panel meeting Tuesday on whether the fish should be labeled. The panels will offer recommendations to the FDA commissioner, who will decide both matters.

The biotechnology industry is opposed to mandatory labeling, saying it will only bewilder a public that is not well informed about genetic engineering.

“Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,” said David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don’t really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices.”

The FDA defends its approach, saying it is simply following the law, which prohibits misleading labels on food. And the fact that a food, in this case salmon, is produced through a different process, is not sufficient to require a label.

The controversy comes at a time when Americans seem to want to know more about their food – where it is grown, how it is produced and what it contains. Books criticizing industrial agriculture have become bestsellers, farmers markets are expanding and organic food is among the fastest-growing segments of the food industry.

The FDA itself is part of a new effort to improve nutrition information on processed foods.

In the European Union and Japan, it is nearly impossible to find genetically modified foods, largely because laws require labeling, said William K. Hallman, director of the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers University. “No one wants to carry products with such a label,” he said. “The food companies figure that consumers won’t buy it.”

There is nothing to stop salmon producers or food makers in the United States from voluntarily labeling their products as genetically engineered – except a fear of rejection in the marketplace, Hallman said. “I don’t know of a single company that does that,” he said.

The FDA maintains it can only require labeling if a genetically engineered food is somehow different from the conventional version – if it has an unusual texture, taste, nutritional component or allergen, for example.

Although some consumer advocates maintain there are important differences, the agency’s scientists have already said they see no “biologically relevant” variations between the AquAdvantage salmon and traditional salmon.

Consumers could be certain of getting the non-modified version if they bought salmon labeled as “wild,” but most salmon consumed in this country is farmed.

Ever since the FDA approved the first genetically altered material for use in food in 1992, when Monsanto developed a synthetic hormone injected into cows to increase milk production, the agency has held that it cannot require food producers to label products as genetically engineered.

In the intervening years, the use of genetically engineered crops has skyrocketed; 93 percent of this year’s soybean crop is genetically engineered, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Byproducts of those crops – soy lecithin, for example – are found in thousands of processed foods from chocolate bars to breakfast cereal; none is labeled as containing genetically modified ingredients.

No ‘Hormone Free’ either

The labeling matter is further complicated because the FDA has maintained a tough stance for food makers who don’t use genetically engineered ingredients and want to promote their products as an alternative. The agency allows manufacturers to label their products as not genetically engineered as long as those labels are accurate and do not imply that the products are therefore more healthful.

The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use “Hormone Free” labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase “GMO-free” on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words “GMO,” saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.

“This to me raises questions about whose interest the FDA is protecting,” said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has introduced legislation that would require labeling for genetically engineered food. “They are clearly protecting industry and not the public.”

One state with a sizable salmon fishing industry – Alaska – passed a law in 2005 that requires labeling of any genetically engineered fish sold there.

“One side of the argument says let’s give consumers sovereignty over their food choices,” Hallman said. “The other says we’ve done the science on this and it’s no different, so if we put a label on it, we’re implying it’s somehow risky and that’s like government imposed false advertising.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091803520.html?referrer=emailarticle

	This table is for reference only and gives a general idea as to the high fluoride content in some foods and beverages.

	BEVERAGES:
	Juices

	6.8mg/l Gerber’s White Grape Juice #3 0.98 – 1.20mg/l Minute Maid OJ #6,#7 3.0mg/l Gerber’s Graduate Berry Juice #6 0.78mg/l Dole Pineapple #7 >0.6mg/l Prune Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Cranberry Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Pear Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Red Grape Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Cherry Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Apple Grape Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Apple Juice #13

	Soft Drinks

	0.82 -0.98mg/l Coca Cola Classic #6,#7 1.12mg/l Diet Coke #8 0.29mg/l Snapple #7 0.73mg/l Sprite #8 0.85mg/l Hawaiian Punch #8 0.45mg/l Hansen’s Soda #7 0.37mg/l Capri Sun #7 0.79mg/l Publix Orange Juice #8 0.44mg/l Gatorix Punch Concent. #8 0.56mg/l Lipton Ice Tea #8

Tea see also: Green Tea Article (L=Leafs, P=Prepared) UK TEAS

Iced Tea

180.16mg/kg Coarse Tea(L) #19 72.62-89.02mg/kg Green Tea(L) #19 71.11mg/kg Refined Green Tea(L) #19 30-340 mg/kg Black Tea(16 samples) #20 4.57mg/l Tea (P) #17 1.01-5.20mg/l De-caffeinated Teas(P) #21 2.58-3.69mg/l Milk Tea(fr.Brick Tea) #23 77mg/kg Pu’er Brick Tea (L) #24 441mg/kg Bianxiao Brick Tea(L) #24 6.0-6.9mg/kg Herbal Teas (L) #20 7.8mg per cup 1 Cup Black Tea (P) #16 15.6mg/L “Wisdom of the Ancients” Instant Green Tea (P) #37 2.95mg/L Dr. Oetker Black Tea (P) #38 3.99mg/L Apicha Black Tea (P) #38

	Fruit & Vegetables

	0.3 – 13mg/kg Potatoes #12 22mg/kg Potato Waste #30 0.2 – 70.0 mg/kg Spinach #12 14.0mg/kg Rice #12 14.0mg/kg Peas #12 8.2mg/kg Yams #4 2.10mg/kg Corn #4 17.7mg/kg Beets #4 0.205mg 1 Cup Cooked Kale #16 0.180mg 1 Cup Cooked Spinach #16 1mg 1 Medium Apple #33 125 – 250 mg/kg Alfalfa #36

	Sugar & Substitutes

	13.0 mg/kg Sugar #5 10.0ppm Fructooligosaccharides #5 12.0ppm Polydextrose #5 8.0ppm Sorbitol #5

	Meat

	9.0-14.0mg/kg Mech.De-bond Pork #11 2.0-3.0 mg/kg Hand De-boned Pork #11 14.0-42mg/kg Mech.De-boned Beef #11 2.0-4.0mg/kg Hand De-boned Beef #11 1.0mg/kg Chicken Skin #13 1.23mg/kg Cooked Veal #17 1.11mg One Big Mac #1

	Dairy

	0.72mg/l Lucerne 2%Milk #7 0.074mg 1 Cup Nonfat Milk #16 1.50mg/kg Butter #4 1.62mg/kg Cheese #4

	Fish

	61.0mg/kg Canned Sardines #1 61.73mg/kg Shrimp #19 3.36mg/kg Shellfish #17 4.57mg/kg Some Canned Fish #17 26.0mg/kg Mackerel #4

Water

SEE ALSO: F- in Mineral Waters

	0.7-1.2mg/l Tap Water in fl.areas 0.21mg/l Gerolsteiner Wasser #9 8.5mg/l Vichy Water #10 0.05mg/l Reverse Osmosis Water #9

Cereals

SEE ALSO: Fluoride in Cereals

	2.1mg/kg Kellogg’s Fruit Loops #6 1.02mg/kg Cooked Wheat Cereal #17 7.2mg/kg Wheat #4 9.6mg/kg Shredded Wheat #41

Infant Foods

See also: Formula/Soy Unfluoridated Area Fluoridated Area

	Mixed Cereal 0.93ppm 3.85ppm #32 Oatmeal Cereal 0.98ppm 4.87ppm #32 Barley Cereal 1.99ppm 4.30ppm #32 Rice Cereal 2.11ppm 6.35ppm #32

	0.01-8.38mg/kg 238 Infant Foods #29 1.08-2.68mg/l Soy-based Infant Formula #31 0.024-0.172mg/l Breastmilk (area w/0.7ppm in tap water) #22

	Strained Meats

	Chicken w/broth 5.29ppm Range 1.94-10.64ppm #32 Turkey w/broth 0.39ppm Range 0.34-0.43ppm #32

	Other

	250 – 765mg/kg Soil #39 44.0-220.0mg/kg Dolomite #5 0.66-6.8mg/kg 10 Table Salt Varieties #1 7.0mg/kg Sea Salt #1 1.36mg/kg Peanuts #4 3mg 1 Teaspoon Bone Meal #18 200 – 350 ppm Fluoridated salt #40 231 – 310 ppm “Himalaya Salt” #40

	SEE ALSO: Salt Fluoridation

	130.0-160mg/kg Gelatin #15 328 mg/kg Super Kelp Tablets #35

	Dental Products

	1920mg/kg Aquafresh For Kids #6 6,000-12,000ppm Topical Fluoride Gel #23 500-1,500ppm Most Toothpaste #23 12,300ppm Radent Prophy Paste #26 12,300ppm Topex Fluoride Foam #27 2000ppm School-based Oral Mouthrinse Program #28 60,000-120,000ppm Silver Fluoride Solutions #23

	Permissable Cryolite Content Application Federal Register Cryolite (Sodiumfluoaluminate)=>Fluorine=54.3% see also: Pesticides

Proposed

Current

	45mg/kg 7mg/kg Cabbage #14 95mg/kg 7mg/kg Citrus Fruits #14 35mg/kg 7mg/kg Collards #14 30mg/kg 7mg/kg Eggplant #14 180mg/kg 7mg/kg Lettuce, head #14 40mg/kg 7mg/kg Lettuce, leaf #14 10mg/kg 7mg/kg Peaches #14 55mg/kg none Raisins #14 30mg/kg 7mg/kg Tomatoes #14 45mg/kg 7mg/kg Tomato Paste #14

	References
	#1 – Siebert & Trautna, Dept Expt Dentistry, Univ Würzburg, Germany. “Z. Ernaehrungswiss. 24 (1985) pp. 54-66″. [Abstract:”Fluoride content of selected human food, pet food and related materials”, Fluoride 19(3):152-153 (1986) #2 – Walters CB – Journal of Sci Food Agric 34:523-8(1983) #3 -  Jan G. Stannard, et al. “Fluoride Levels and Fluoride Contamination of Fruit Juices,” Journal of Pediatric Dentistry, 16(1):38-40, (1991) #4 -  Leading Edge Research Group #5 -  Lab tests , courtesy Cathy J.Rookard, Director, ACIDD (Association for  Children and Infants with Digestive Disorders) #6 -  Fluoride Risk Assessment Symposium in San Diego, June 19-21,1998;(local media conducted an analysis of fluoride content in some foods) #7 -  Lab Tests, San Jose, California (non-fluoridated area) #8 -  Lab Tests, Jupiter, Florida (non-fluoridated area) #9 -  Label(Canada) #10- Lantz O, Jouvin MH, De Vernejoul MC, Druet P – “Fluoride-induced chronic renal failure”  Am J Kidney Dis  10:2, 136-9 (1987) #11 – Field RA, Kruggel WG, Riley ML – J. Animal Science 43 ,755 (1976) #12 – Bredemann G – Biochemie und Physiologie des Fluors und der industriellen Fluor-Rauchschaeden. Berlin, (1956) #13 – Journal of the American Dental Association (Heilman, et al.,July 1997) #14 – Federal Register: August 7, 1997(Volume 62, #152) (PF-750;FRL-5727-3) #15 – Kumpulainen, J.,Koivistoinen,P.:Residue Reviews 68 p. 37 (1977) #16 – BabyCenter Editorial Team w/ Medical Advisory Board (http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/674.html#3) #17 – Dabeka WD, McKenzie AD – “Survey  of lead, cadmium, fluoride, nickel, and cobalt in food composites and estimation of dietary   intakes of these elements by Canadians in 1986-1988”  Journal of AOAC International  78 :4,  897 -909  (1995) #18 – Label, Kal-Mart Meal Powder #19 – Asanami S, Tanabe Y, Koga H, Takaesu Y – “Fluoride Contents in Tea and Sakura Shrimp In Relation To Other Inorganic Constituents” Shikwa Gakuho,  89(8):1407-12 (1989) #20 – Nabrzyski M, Garjewska R – “Aluminum and Fluoride in Hospital Daily Diets and in Teas” Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 201 (4):307-10 (1995) #21 – Chan JT, Koh SH – “Fluoride content in caffeinated, decaffeinated and herbal teas” Caries Res 30(1):88-92 (1996) #22 – Latifah R,Razak IA – “Fluoride levels in mother’s milk” J Pedod 13(2):149-54 (1989) #23 -Gotjamanos T, Afonso F – “Unacceptably high levels of fluoride in commercial preparations of silver fluoride”  Dent J 42(1):52-3 (1997) #24 – Cao J, Zhao Y, Liu JW -  “Safety evaluation and fluorine concentration of Pu’er brick tea and Bianxiao brick tea” Food Chem Toxicol 36(12):1061-3 (1998) #25 – Cao J, Zhao Y, Liu J – “Brick tea consumption as the cause of dental  fluorosis among children from Mongol, Kazak and Yugu  populations in China” Food Chem Toxicol 35(8):827-33 (1997) #26 – http://www.pascaldental.com/Fluoride.htm #27 – http://www.sultandental.com/PGflfoam.htm #28 – Oxford County Board of Health, Community Dental Services at (519)539-6121/ 1- 800-755-0394http://www.ocl.net/oxf/ocbh/dnt-rins.html #29 – Heilmann JR, Kiritsy MC, Levy SM, Wefel JS – “Fluoride Concentrations of Infant Foods” JADA 857 (1997) #30 – Federal Register: March 12, 1997; Volume 62, Number 48, Page 11437-11441 #31 – Silva M, Reynolds EC – “Fluoride Content of Infant Formulae in Australia” Aust Dent J 41(1):37-42 (1996) #32 – Singer L, Ophaug R – “Total Fluoride Intake Of Infants” Pediatrics 63, p.460 (1979) #33 -Waldbott GL, Burgstahler AW, McKinney HL – “Fluoridation:The Great Dilemma” Coronado Press (1978) #35 -Trautner, K et al – “Die Bewertung der Fluoridzufuhr mit der Nahrung. Studien zur Bioverfuegbarkeit” Dtsch. Zahnaerztl.Z.38:50-53 (1983) #36 – Milhaud G, Riviere F, Enriquez B – “Experimental study of fluorosis in lambs” Ann Rech Vet 6(4):369-77 (1985) #37 – PFPC 2004 – Norwest Labs, Langley, British Columbia, Canada #38 – Buzalaf MAR, Bastos JRM, Granjeiro JM, Levy FM, Cardoso VE da S, Rodrigues MHC – “Fluoride content of several brands of teas and juices found in Brazil and risk of dental fluorosis” Rev Fac Odontol Bauru 10(4):263-267 (2002) #39 – Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft  (2000) #40 – PFPC – Salt Fluoridation (2003) #41 – PFPC – Fluoride in Cereals (2001)

Lettuce……………….. 8ppm
Parsley………………. 7.8ppm
Stinging Nettle……… 7.8ppm
Spinach……………….. 5.7ppm
Dill, garden Dill… …..5.3ppm
Allspice………………..5ppm
Clover Pepper………..5ppm
Jamaica pepper………5ppm
Pimenta………………. 5ppm
Bitter melon, Sorosi 4.8ppm
Rhubarb………………. 4ppm
Pistachio……………… 3.8ppm
Black Currant……….. 2.8ppm
Coconut……………….. 2.7ppm
Cauliflower………….. 2.5ppm
Cabbage,
Red cabbage
White Cabbage………..2.5 ppm
Apple
(Malus domestica BORKH.)… 2.1ppm
Ben Nut, Drumstick Tree, Horseradish Tree…. 4ppm
Black bean, Garden bean,
Green bean String bean……… 2ppm
Ginger………. 2ppm
Cloudberry… 1.9ppm
Carrot………. 1.8ppm
Red Currant, White Currant.. 1.8ppm
Brazilnut………………………. 1.7ppm
Tomato (Miller)…….1.7ppm
Pecan………………….1.6ppm
Black Walnut…………1.6ppm
Dog Rose, Dobbrier, Rose…. 1.5ppm
Rown Berry………. 1.5ppm
Cashew………1.4ppm
Shagbark Hickory…… 1.3ppm
Almond………….1.3ppm
English filbert …..1.2ppm
Butternut…… 1.1ppm
Bell pepper, Cheery Pepper,
Cone Pepper, Green Pepper,
Paprika, Sweet Pepper…… 1ppm
Pea…….. 1ppm
Mandarin, Tangerine…..1ppm
Gooseberry….1ppm
Peach ….1ppm
Onion…. 1ppm
Strawberry…. 1ppm

Source: Jim Duke, U.S. Agricultural Research Service 1992 http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/

More:
http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/fluoride/fluoridetoo-14.html#P1425_142839

Water Fluoridation Impacts the Environment

Fluoride pollution from aluminum smelters has long been known to cause problems such as damage to plants and risk to livestock grazing grasses exposed to the chemical. But there are not many highly publicized studies that look at the ecological impact of fluoridating municipal water supplies. Past research, however, shows that the practice hailed by the CDC as one of the greatest public health advances of the 20th century for humans may be causing damage to the environment.

An excerpt from a research review by Edward Groth III, a former staff member of the Environmental Studies Board of the National Research Council, sets the stage:

“To date, except for instances of gross spillage of fluoride into the air or water, fluoride has received relatively little attention as a contaminant of the ecosystem. In the case of water pollution especially, there have been many other pollutants which have been present in massive amounts, and which have had a very significant impact. It is easy to understand how a pollutant like fluoride, which is usually present at fairly low levels, and which has more subtle, insidious effects, when it has effects at all, has been given relatively low priority, both in terms of research attention and regulatory control. It is possible that fluoride may have had some adverse effects on aquatic life, but that such damage has been masked by the far more severe effects of untreated sewage, industrial effluents, pesticides, and other major pollutants. As controls on these more easily recognized pollution problems are becoming more effective and widespread, attention can turn to less prominent pollutants such as fluoride, whose impacts may be more easily detected as water quality improves in respect to other parameters.”

At the Source

Ninety percent of artificially fluoridated water supplies in the U.S. do not purchase pharmaceutical grade fluoride but instead purchase fluosilicic acid, a waste product mainly of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

The fluosilicic acid is extracted from wet scrubbers, according to Michael Connett, Research Director of the Fluoride Action Network, an international coalition of scientists, medical professionals, environmentalists, and others working for fluoride awareness. Connett describes wet scrubbers as pollution management tools that were devised to capture the fluoride gases produced during phosphate fertilizer production. The designated hazardous waste, which is too toxic to be dumped in rivers or soil, is recovered from the scrubbers, packaged unrefined, and sent out to municipalities across the U.S. ready to be applied to local drinking water.

In a Canadian Broadcasting Company piece from 1967 called “Air of Death,” the severe toxicity of the waste from the fertilizer industry and the need for pollution control is clear.

“Farmers noticed it first… Something mysterious burned the peppers, burned the fruit, dwarfed and shriveled the grains, damaged everything that grew. Something in the air destroyed the crops. Anyone could see it… They noticed it first in 1961. Again in ‘62. Worse each year. Plants that didn’t burn, were dwarfed. Grain yields cut in half…Finally, a greater disaster revealed the source of the trouble. A plume from a silver stack, once the symbol of Dunville’s progress, spreading for miles around poison – fluorine. It was identified by veterinarians. There was no doubt. What happened to the cattle was unmistakable, and it broke the farmers’ hearts. Fluorosis – swollen joints, falling teeth, pain until cattle lie down and die. Hundreds of them. The cause – fluorine poisoning from the air.”

Following incidents such as the one detailed above, the phosphate fertilizer industry has drastically cleaned up in large part due to stringent Environmental Protection Agency regulations. And large amounts of fluoride are no longer finding their way into our air, water, and soil. Much smaller amounts of fluoride from the phosphate fertilizer industry, however, are still finding their way into the environment and stricter limits on these lower levels of the waste have yet to be set.

Industrial Waste in the Water

The risk to the environment from fluoride comes as the sewage effluent from municipalities enters rivers and streams after processing.

Groth, who has a PhD in biological sciences, says aside from some waste still coming from industry, another significant source of fluoride water pollution is domestic sewage.

In his 1975 review of the environmental impact of fluoride Groth explained that most of the fluoridated water used in urban areas is returned through sewage systems to the aquatic environment. Groth described a number of studies that related environmental fluoride concentrations to specific sources. One such study measured tributaries of the East Gallatin River above the town of Bozeman, Montana, as containing 0.1 ppm (parts per million) fluoride or less, while the river below the city’s sewage outfall (the only fluoride source in the area) was found to have concentrations of 0.3 to 0.8 ppm. This clearly illustrates that fluoride added to municipal water supplies finds its way to our rivers through our sewage systems and raises background levels of the chemical.

Groth also mentions a study of fluoride input to Narragansett Bay, in Rhode Island, which showed that “36 percent of the fluoride entering the bay was due to fluoridation of water supplies in five communities on rivers feeding into the estuary. In midsummer, pollution from these sources was enough to double the fluoride content of the rivers.”

Fluoridated Fish

In a 1994 research review, Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada, researchers Richard G. Foulkes and Anne C. Anderson reviewed the literature to find that concentrations of fluoride lower than 1.5 ppm, the level “permissible” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has both lethal and adverse effects on salmon.

The EPA allowed a “permissible level” of 1.5 ppm for fluoride discharged into fresh water. But the researchers suggest a level of 0.2 ppm is required to remove the risk to aquatic species. British Columbia’s “recommended guideline” is actually 0.2 ppm, but it does not have legislation to back it up.

The research review covers a field study, which demonstrated that relatively low level fluoride contamination from an aluminum smelter 1.6 km above the John Day Dam caused inhibition of migration in the salmon, which led to high salmon loss at on the Columbia River from 1982-1986. In 1982, the average daily discharge of fluoride caused a fluoride concentration of 0.5 ppm at the dam and a migration time of more than 150 hours leading to a 55% loss of the salmon. In 1983, the concentration was reduced to 0.17 ppm and the migration time to less than 28 hours with a loss of 11%. In 1985, the concentration was 0.2 ppm with a salmon loss of 5%. This study clearly shows that even lower levels of fluoride, the same levels that are discharged from artificial fluoridation of municipal water supplies, can cause a large loss of the salmon population

Other studies reviewed by Foulkes and Anderson support the findings that fluoride levels below 1.5 ppm have lethal and other adverse effects on aquatic species. One study shows delayed hatching of rainbow trout at 1.5 ppm; another shows brown mussels died at 1.4 ppm; yet another shows that levels below 0.1 ppm were lethal to the water flea.

The researchers argue that these studies provide evidence that the “safe” level of fluoride in the fresh water habitat of salmon species is not 1.5 ppm but, 0.2 ppm. They also make the point that the decline in salmon stocks, especially Chinook and Coho, is a major economic problem for both commercial and sport fisheries and that fluoride pollution, even at relatively low levels, plays a role in this problem. The researchers argue that “until evidence to the contrary based on impartially, conducted field studies, is available, the “critical level” of fluoride, in fresh water, to protect salmon species in the US Northwest and British Columbia, should be 0.2 ppm.”  They say this would require, among other actions, the cessation of deliberate metering of fluoride waste into community water supplies.

source: DC Bureau

Genetically Modified Salmon is the newest proposal from the biotech industry. Many of us here at Justmeans have been weighing the topic of GMOs over the last several months, not just in the Sustainable Food department, but globally across the site.

The consensus still stands that nobody is sure what exactly GMOs will do in the wild or in our bodies. And because we don’t know, this is why there is so much hesitation from the consumer sector. Personally, my fear is less about the immediate damage we can cause on our bodies (though it is still a primary concern), rather, the idea that GMO products can easily cross-bread with non- genetically modified organisms. What will happen if superfoods breed out organic and traditional foods? When so much pesticides are used that the soil won’t fertilize a traditional seed? When, now, salmon overtake the already unstable traditional salmon population? The answers are “we don’t know.” And this is why we should be cautious.

Because if patented “products” are alive, then it is in the best interest of said company to breed out any competition. Then who benefits? Who loses? What happens when we open up the possibility of a monoculture in our food system? Think: Potato Famine of Ireland. They depended on one kind of potato that one season, failed.

The genetically modified salmon is up for serious approval by the FDA. The New York Times reports, “The salmon’s approval would help open a path for companies and academic scientists developing other genetically engineered animals, like cattle resistant to mad cow disease or pigs that could supply healthier bacon.” [1]

The genetically modified salmon is meant to be kept in a farm-raised environment, but studies have shown that farm-raised salmon contains toxic levels of PCBs and other cancer-causing materials. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are mixtures of up to 209 individual chlorinated compounds (known as congeners). There are no known natural sources of PCBs. PCBs are either oily liquids or solids that are colorless to light yellow. PCBs have been used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment because they don’t burn easily and are good insulators. The manufacture of PCBs was banned in the U.S. in 1979 because of evidence they build up in the environment and can cause harmful health effects. However, PCBs persist in the environment. Fish absorb PCBs from contaminated sediments and from their food. [2]

USA Today reported this concern in February:

“PCBs stay in the body for 10 years,” says David Carpenter, one of the study’s authors and director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany in New York. A 10-year-old girl who eats contaminated fish will still have half the contaminants when she’s 20 and would pass them on to her child if she gives birth, Carpenter says. [3]

Moreover, Farmed salmon are “fatter” and PCBs are stored in fat and remain there for an extended period of time, so farmed salmon can potentially contain higher levels of PCBs. So now we want to introduce genetically modified salmon whose sole aim is to get bigger, faster. And because Americans are typically fatter than other populations, these PCBs store in our fat. Nice.

It seems that the American ideal of “bigger, faster, better, more” is really just a side effect of greed. If salmon farmers start using genetically modified salmon, we will likely see an decrease in our already overwhelmingly unhealthy population as salmon is touted a “healthy fish” because of its rich fat laden with omega acids. This is still true for wild salmon, but as farmed salmon has focused more on market profitability rather than the health of the fish (and therefore the clientele) we risk a lot more than just our health: we risk the health of an entire ecosystem of marine life. Why don’t we try a new approach: pay more, eat less. Genetically modified salmon is not the answer.

GMO Salmon Near FDA Approval—Public’s Input Not Wanted

This is a Call to Action! The only thing that can stop this travesty is a massive public outcry.

by Heidi Stevenson

3 July 2010

As the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) nears approval for the first genetically engineered salmon, the public’s views on the issue are not wanted. These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will be the first animals approved for food, but the FDA is treating them like veterinary drugs, so the approval process is not open to the public and none of the documentation is available for inspection.

The modified fish, called AquAdvantage^® by their developer, AquaBounty Technologies, grow to market size very quickly. AquaBounty claims the fish can be ready for sale in 16-18 months instead of the usual 3 years for standard farmed salmon.

What We Know…

AquaBounty implanted two genes into the genetically engineered salmon. One is a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon of the Pacific Ocean, and the other is a gene from the pout fish that turns the growth hormone gene on. These keep salmon from turning their growth hormones off when it’s cold, so they continue to grow.

The FDA’s approval process requires submission of seven data sets. The first five have been approved. AquaBounty believes the last two sets are close to approval.

Even more revealing, though, is that the FDA has been discussing whether to require labeling of the GMO salmon—which sounds very much like they’ve already decided to approve AquaBounty’s salmon. As it now stands, the FDA does not require any other GMO food to be labeled, unless it’s significantly different from its natural counterpart or contains an allergen that the natural form doesn’t. There’s a belief that the public is “confused” by being informed.

AquaBounty’s CEO, Ronald L. Stotish, tries to create the image that their purpose is to benefit humanity. He has said that the GM fish would help grow food for the world with fewer resources. Of course, it ignores the massive amount of food the fish will need to grow so fast, the land required to provide the feed for the fish, transportation for getting feed to the fish, and the use of land that might grow vegetables or grass to graze animals for far less efficient food production in the fish. With so little basis in reality on this point, it’s difficult to believe any of AquaBounty’s statements about safety, health, or environmental standards.

…And What We Don’t Know

The method used to transfer genes is not being provided to the public. If a virus was used as a vector to transfer the genes, then the potential for inducing cancer in people who eat the salmon exists. The FDA does not seem to believe that we have the right to know what gene-transfer technique is used.

Gene Transfer?

Gut bacteria, present in everyone and necessary for life, are known to exchange genes. A study by the UK’s Food Standards Agency has shown that horizontal gene transfer can occur with a single serving of food. Is this possible with AquAdvantage salmon? We don’t know, and the FDA asks us to trust them that they’ll make the right decision.

Allergens?

Do the transferred genes produce new proteins that could be allergenic in some people? Again, we have only the word of the corporation that hopes to profit from the sale that a deadly allergen isn’t created by their product.

Nutritional Quality?

The nutritional quality and taste of the GM salmon is supposedly indistinguishable from natural Atlantic salmon. That’s what AquaBounty says—but the fact is that these are not the same as wild fish. They are less mature than the fish normally eaten now. Why should we believe their claims…especially since the FDA won’t show us any documentation to back them up?

Fish Suffer?

Do the fish suffer from abnormally rapid growth? Do they suffer from their altered anatomy? We don’t know. AquaBounty, of course, says they don’t. The FDA doesn’t believe we have the right to know.

There is one fact that we do know about these fish. They’ll be factory-farmed. Fish raised in such conditions generally suffer horribly in extremely crowded conditions eating toxic food, which is then transferred to us when eaten. For years, farmed salmon have been known to be dangerously infested with dioxins, PCBs, and toxaphene, which are known as carcinogens, and several other dangerous chemicals.

Fish Sterile & Unable to Escape?

AquaBounty claims that the fish are sterile females and that they cannot escape from the fish farms. There are two clear problems with these claims. The first is the assumption that the techniques used to make the fish sterile will last. Genetic alterations have been known to reverse, so we don’t know if these salmon would necessarily be unable to breed. The claim that they can’t escape from the farms because they aren’t located near the ocean is belied by the fact that AquaBounty does not intend to raise the fish themselves. Their plan is to sell eggs to fish farms. Are we to believe that they won’t sell to a farmer because he’s located by the ocean?

We do know that farmed fish are already escaping into the wild with devastating effects on the wild salmon. Should we believe the promises of AquaBounty that their fish cannot escape and, if they do, that they cannot breed?

Peter Melcher of the UK’s Soil Association, says

Once you have bombarded an animal with other genes, the DNA is unstable, and there is no guarantee these fish will remain sterile. It poses far too great a risk to wild salmon. A fish that grows so quickly is also likely to lose some of the nutritional benefits. There is no such thing as a free salmon lunch and we will pay the price.

What we do know about these fish is terrible. What we don’t know could be even worse. But the FDA doesn’t think we have the right to know, and AquaBounty is only telling us what they want us to hear.

Who Runs AquaBounty?

When trying to understand the nature of a corporation and its focus, it helps to look at who is on its board of directors. In AquaBounty’s case, it’s very revealing.

Richard J. Clothier is the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board and Chairman of the Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee. His career has put him at the head of agribusiness corporations, including Robinson plc, which makes packaging for supermarket products, and Spearhead International Ltd, which operates factory farms in several countries. Before that, he was a CEO with Dalgety plc, a now-defunct manufacturer of products sold by supermarkets. He retired recently as Group Chief Executive of PGI Group plc, an agribusiness firm involved in tea, flower, and produce production in Africa.

Other key figures with AquaBounty are former officers and executives of major multinational corporations, investment firms, medical device manufacturers, and pharmaceuticals. Stotish, the President and CEO, was previously an officer with a pharmaceutical firm involved in genetic manipulation. Elliot Entis, a board member, specializes in commercial and regulatory issues of biotech food introduction. Another board and audit committee member, Richard Huber, was a chairman and president of the giant health insurer, Aetna.

The collection of men at the helm of AquaBounty is remarkable for their connections with the worst sort of Agribusiness, Big Pharma, and multinational corporations. These are men who are practiced at the art of making money at any cost to the public and environment. It seems that they’ve found the perfect vehicle for their sort of expertise in AquaBounty.

The FDA’s “Public Meeting”

The FDA will probably hold a “public meeting” of an advisory committee in early fall, supposedly for obtaining public input. It’s a standard procedure before final approval of a drug. Limited information, consisting of material, picked by the FDA, that supports the product, is given to the public. It promises to be no more than a show. Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology project director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says that the public is not given adequate time to analyze the data provided.

Take Action!

Belying the true status of GM salmon in the FDA, a government official has stated anonymously, “It’s going to be a P. R. issue.” Let’s hope so!

Here’s what you can do:

Let’s stop Frankenfish!