Inside D.C.

Noise about a fish and GM labeling

The ongoing and very noisy debate over whether or not foods should be labeled because they’re the product of or contain genetically modified ingredients got a whole lot noisier this week as FDA dropped three policy bombs in rapid succession November 19. The dust has yet to settle.

First, the agency made history by approving the first food animal produced using genetic engineering anywhere on the planet.  Developed by AquaBounty Technologies, a Massachusetts biotech company and a client of mine, the company first applied for approval nearly 20 years ago, but for various procedural and political reasons, the approval came just this week.

The creature in question, an Atlantic salmon, grows to market weight twice as fast and appears identical to a conventional Atlantic salmon, but consumes 20-30% less feed and other inputs.  This accomplishment is achieved by including snippets of Chinook salmon and eel pout DNA.  The actual approved product is the eggs from which the fish is grown – not the fish – and FDA found after “exhaustive” scientific review that the fish are safe and there’s no material difference from conventional Atlantic salmon.

I won’t even get into the number of lawmakers who immediately made noises about the fish, other than to say their public statements have more to do with home state market competition issues and labeling than with science or safety. The good news is Congress is on Thanksgiving recess all next week.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), nicknamed here in DC the “Food Police,” praised the FDA GM salmon approval.  CSPI looks at the science of technologies, and unless there’s a reason for concern, does object to biotech nor does it support labeling GM foods.  FDA learned some valuable lessons from the GM animal review process, lessons which can inform other GM product approvals, but in the end, “The salmon’s safety has been affirmatively determined by the agency,” said CSPI.

But as if approving the first biotech food animal wasn’t enough to gin up the anti-technology gang out there, FDA declared because there are no safety or other differences between the GM salmon and its conventional cousins, no mandatory labeling is necessary.  Pouring even more salt into the anti’s open wound, the agency included a separate draft guidance document that lays out its “most recent thinking” on why GM food labeling – derived from plants or animals – isn’t necessary, but also provided guidance if a company wishes to voluntarily label a product for the presence or absence of GM ingredients in foods under its jurisdiction. A similar document specific to Atlantic salmon was also released.

By the time the fish approval, the decision not to label the fish and the guidance on why GM labeling shouldn’t be mandatory was read and digested by the various anti-technology groups, the public relations machines kicked into high gear and the ether was awash in statements, press releases and media quotes denouncing the actions and the agency.

Then the crowning touch came when FDA issued a separate decision denying a petition by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) asking the agency to mandate labels on GM ingredients and foods.  Said FDA in its release, the “petition does not provide evidence sufficient to show that foods derived from genetically engineered plants, as a class, differ from foods derived from non-GE plant varieties in any meaningful or uniform way, or that as a class, such foods present any different or greater safety concerns than foods developed by traditional plant breeding.”  Between the GM salmon approval, the denial of its petition and the draft guidance on labeling, CFS can be expected to file at least one lawsuit against FDA.

And if all of that FDA-generated GM labeling hoopla wasn’t enough for one week, supporters of federal legislation to give USDA authority to preempt state and local GM labeling laws is being negotiated in the Senate as a potential rider on the FY2016 omnibus spending bill.  The House has approved its bill giving USDA the preemptive authority, along with requiring the department to consult with FDA and to create a voluntary certification program if a company wishes to label for the presence or absence of GM ingredients.  Further, FDA is required to define the term “natural” when used on human food labels, an exercise already underway at the agency.  In the Senate, it’s expected industry will be required to provide a QR code on food label, allowing consumers to use a smart phone to check a company’s website for the use of GM ingredients.

Do you ever wonder if sometimes a little information is way too much information?

I wish you all a safe and happy Thanksgiving.

 

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published.


 

Stay Up to Date

Subscribe for our newsletter today and receive relevant news straight to your inbox!