FDA Logic Provides Another Reason To Choose Wild-Caught Salmon
Sunday, the FDA began a three-day meeting to determine whether or not to approve the sale of genetically engineered salmon to the public in the United States.
This morning, ABC News is reporting that in a move that surprised many, the FDA concluded the meetings without approval of the modified fish. Advance documents provided by the FDA had indicated that they view wild salmon and genetically engineered salmon as essentially the same biologically, so few observers were expecting a denial of approval.
It is a safe bet that the issue will be revisited, and at some point in the future, you will probably have genetically engineered salmon on your grocers shelf. This is a reality despite the ethical and safety issues, which will forever be debated.
The larger, lesser-known issue involves labeling, and holds many more ramifications for consumers. In Europe and Japan, sales of genetically modified (GM) products are allowed, but the fact that the products have been modified must by law be apparent on the label. Since the vast majority of consumers in these markets do not want GM products, they are very rarely found.
In the United States, the biotechnology industry has fought against mandatory labeling. So far, they are winning the fight with the argument that additional information on a product label will only confuse the typical consumer.
The FDA adds that they won't require a label to denote GM food, because implicit in the approval to market is the notion that the GM product is not materially different than the equivalent non-GM product.
Whether or not you agree with the aforementioned logic, the more maddening issue is that the FDA will not allow producers marketing non-GM salmon to label their products as such. Using the same "not materially different" logic, the FDA stance is that to label non-GM salmon as in fact being non-GM, would imply that product is somehow superior to the GM product.
Continued on the next page
Follow Technorati