With the ink barely dry on the FDA’s approval of GM salmon, and several watch-dog groups threatening to sue, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, joins consumer groups wary of the genetically modified fish.
The Senator joined consumer groups who voiced concern on Capitol Hill last week, stating:
“I believe strongly that the consumers have a right to know.”
America has a sweet tooth. We eat over 8 tons of sugar derived from different sources every year. For decades farmers provided a myriad of food makers with the sugar they needed without relying on GM sugar beets. But with promises made by Monsanto in 2008 (the year genetically modified sugar beet seeds were introduced), farmers began counting on increased yields and reduced costs. Now they face record low sales as American consumers demand non-GMO food.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration just approved the sale of genetically modified salmon – the first GM animal allowed on the market.
The FDA says that AquaBounty’s product will not require special labeling because it is nutritionally equivalent to conventional farm-raised Atlantic salmon, though this has not been proven.
In a sneaky plan to get around regulatory approval, one US-based company tried to ship genetically modified salmon eggs to Prince Edward Island in Canada, which were then meant to be sent to Panama to be used in what activists are calling a ‘huge, live experiment’ which could have permanently damaged non-GM salmon.
The biotech firm Editas Medicine says that humans who have had their DNA genetically modified could exist within the next 2 years. The company announced that it will soon start the first trials of what it calls a groundbreaking new technique.
Basing their decision on evaluations of hundreds of thousands of women and minorities, Fortune Magazine has named Monsanto one of the ‘50 best places to work’ based on diversity. But can a workplace be all that great when its main objective is to genetically manipulate nature and leave the planet a genotoxic, pesticide-riddled, soil-ruined mess.
How do you continue to push GM crops on a population that has overwhelmingly voted against them in poll after poll? You start a campaign similar to the one the tobacco industry began in the 1920’s with the help of Edward Bernays to discredit any naysayers and even put doctors in commercials smoking cigarettes. You also do whatever it takes to buy out ‘real’ scientists and call those into question who inquire about the true safety of GM foods. You label them anti-science and discredit their credentials.
A Supreme Court in Mexico recently denied biotech the right to push GM soy in the country, and the ramifications of the decision is helping to save Mayan beekeepers’ honey.
Beekeepers in the Mexican sates of Yucatan and Campeche were concerned about GM contamination of their honey, but will now be protected.
Three environmental groups are calling for a halt to the open field trials planned for GM moths at Cornell University.
Farmers in India are having doubts that genetically modified cotton is providing much benefit after a whitefly attack ravaged their fields.
The whitefly attack on the Bt cotton variety in Punjab and Haryana reportedly contributed to the suicides of at least 3 farmers around the city of Bhatinda and tens of thousands of protestors took to the streets to demand state aid. [1]
