Three state representatives from Fairbanks have backed a resolution asking the U.S Food and Drug Administration to drop the plan. Alaska hosts some of the nation’s most robust fisheries, and the legislators cite local economic concerns and broader health questions.
U.S. Rep. Don Young on Tuesday said he had proposed bills in Congress that would ban genetically engineered fish or at least require the products be labeled as such.
The state resolution, from Rep. Scott Kawasaki, D-Fairbanks, focuses on the Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies. The measure asks the FDA to reject the company’s application and said federal commissioners should work more closely with the National Marine Fisheries Service to study the environmental risks associated with engineered seafood.
State House Republican leaders have scheduled a hearing for today for the resolution before the House’s special fisheries committee. Reps. Bob Miller and Steve Thompson, a Democrat and Republican from Fairbanks, are two co-sponsors. They and Kawasaki all serve on the fisheries committee, and Thompson is chairman.
Young said this week his bills also serve as a response to AquaBounty’s application.
“Frankenfish are uncertain and unnecessary,” he said in a statement. “The assessments of these ‘fish’ are flawed at best, and the threat to the population of our wild salmon stock is unacceptable.”
Contact staff writer Christopher Eshleman at 459-7582.
Liquid nitrogen is applied only in the fall when the molecules are going to bind with soil. Additional he does this in strips so the seed, when planted in the spring are within an inch of the fertilizer. Of course this increases yields, do you actually think designing hybrids and gene-splicing was about anything else? Do you also realize that the basic price per bushel of corn that farmers have been paid for the last fifty years has been relatively unchanged? The only way to increase profits was to get better yields.
Also, with genetically modified organisms, there is no going back, because once something is introduced into the real world, it spreads. So think about whether you really want salmon on the market that has not been adequately tested if it potentially means harming the rest of our amazing, sustainable salmon resource.
You talk about the free market, so please research corn subsidies. Without corn subsidies, there would NOT be such cheap corn syrup, chips, chicken nuggets, etc. etc. and all the other endless varieties of processed corn out there. If corn subsidies stopped, the prices of these products would increase a great deal. So yes, I agree with you -- let the free market take the reigns, and watch as Coca Cola and all the other products out there are finally priced at their TRUE cost.
For what I eat: I avoid processed foods because they inevitably have GMOs in them. This means soy, cottonseed oil, corn and canola that is not organic. They are in a whole lot of foods. I buy only foods that do not have these ingredients or where these ingredients are organic. It's actually not as hard as you may think.
For herbicide v. pesticide: I apologize for the mistake.
Especially since a farmer has to only keep from using any commercial products on a field for three years before it is considered "organic". I would be frightened too! Tell us the truth, you have absolutely no idea where you food comes from! The free market is the answer here. You are free to purchase all the organic food you wish, just don't shove it down my throat and tell me to buy the crud or to be the only item in the store.
If you think farmer are going to apply more fertilizer than necessary you do not have a clue as to how to farm. Why would a farmer increase his cost of production needlessly? BTW, Roundup is a herbicide, not a pesticide. What do you eat since you have this death fear of GMO food?
My point is that I don't want to consume more of them, and given a choice, would consume none of them.
I want to be given that choice in terms of genetically modified foods being labeled as such.
Natural is best. Natural is what the human body has evolved with/under for millions of years. Not this artificial crap invented just within the last few decades.
For every problem that our science and technology tries to solve, it seems that a few more problems are created.
This isn't a question of market protection or competition. It's a question of food safety and the safety of our salmon supply, one of the few remaining sustainable resources in the US.
Too bad because you already are and have been for a couple of decades...
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food:
"The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient."
"In the US, by 2009/2010, 93% of the planted area of soybeans, 93% of cotton, 86% of corn and 95% of the sugar beet were genetically modified varieties."
You know, it never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to scare the sheeple with "what if's" and "could be's" and "damages unknown". Give me a break, when will people stop dragging their feet, grow up, and embrace the wonders of science? As you can see from the above statistics, the fact is that you already are and just don't know it.
Oh, and by the way, Newsminer, shame on your for using such a negative term in the title of this article. 'Frankenfish' is just a loaded term to create fear. Are you part of the tea party now? Normally I associate that type of psychological manipulation with religions and Republicans...
Using the same political criteria one might ask why with all that is known about hatchery fish Alaskans see those as a good things? We pride ourselves on a couple of species that have been specifically engineered and generate a multi-million dollar salmon market.
First we hear endless conservative mantras regarding the government should keep out of our lives followed closely by reasons to stop a competitive product from being sold in the same free market.
Is there any doubt we have engineered through selective inbreeding fish, game and grains for thousands of years. How far back to basics do we go to get the natural product? It appears only as far back as it will produce financial rewards.
It all about the money and not much else.
I DO NOT want to eat frankenfish.
I DO NOT want to consume genetically-modified foods.
I DO want legislation *requiring* genetically-modified foods to be clearly labeled as such.
I say, in this case, let the free market reign supreme. If the producers of genetically modified foods are so confident of their products, then they shouldn't resist having their products honestly labeled. The thing is, the producers of these foods have no such confidence, which is why they'll continue fighting tooth and nail against letting the public know exactly what they're consuming.
If left to the free - and open and honest - market, the sales of these products would tank. And the producers damn well know it.
-GMOs have only ever been tested for allergens, on animals. Companies are modifying DNA, something that has gone unchanged for eons and eons. DNA is "generally regarded as safe" according to the FDA, and that is why so little testing is required. We are walking experiments for GMOs. Nobody knows what the effects will be because they are untested. Do you want to be a guinea pig? I didn't sign up for this. 50% of the American population want GMOs labeled.
-GMO crops are terrible for the environment. Monoculture produces terrible, infertile soil, and the heavy use of nitrogen fertilizers and Ready RoundUp (Monsanto's pesticide) runs into rivers and creates a great deal more pollution than regular crops.
-Roundup Ready has recently been shown to create super weeds.
-GMOs are not modified to be more nutritious, they are modified only so that they can withstand Roundup Ready (which kills everything else). They are inserted with bacteria genes to do this.
-GMOs are created so that Monsanto can have a full, vertical control of the food supply. Farmers have to buy their seeds (which don't self-propogate), buy their fertilizer, buy their pesticide, all of which is VERY expensive.
-GMOs cross breed with regular plants, and the damage that will cause is as of yet unknown.
-Monsanto lobbyists have been in control at the FDA for years. This is a huge reason that our government opposes GMO labeling.
-over 200,000 farmers in India have killed themselves over Monsanto's bogus GMO cotton and its failures there.
-Monsanto has spent over $250 million in advertising to make these facts unknown.
-We CAN feed the world without GMOs. Right now we have enough food to feed the world yet millions starve every day. Why? The problem is distribution, not amount.
Do research on GMOs! You will find that they are not as simple, clear cut and safe as we have been lead to believe.
The GMO salmon has been shown to be highly aggressive and actually have eaten each other. Is this the salmon you want to eat, and be a test experiment of?
With continual population growth there must be a increase in food production, or someone will be going hungry. Corn production is up four times what it was in the 1960's. One can rant and rave about GMO food, but the sad fact is without improving the food or clearing additional acreage, somebody will go to bed with an empty stomach.
You cannot have it both ways.