PeopleClaim helps resolve consumer and commercial complaints against businesses,
professionals, government agencies, or individuals by exposing bad business practices
and unfair treatment. Aggrieved parties are invited to use PeopleClaim's dispute
resolution process free of charge or choose premium options that may help resolve
Claimant's opinion: Disregarding the people’s right to information about what is in their food.
The United States Food and Drug Administration, by approving the sale of unlabeled genetically engineered salmon without fully analyzing its potential risks, is disregarding consumers' right to know what is in their food, and endangering human health and the environment.• As the taro plant is considered a relative to the indigenous Hawaiians, likewise the salmon is considered a relative to the indigenous cultures of North America, and intrinsic to their ancient and sacred customs. Therefore, to protect and preserve the cultural integrity of indigenous civilizations, salmon genes and their DNA must remain inviolable.• Genetically engineered salmon was invented by combining two strands of DNA, constructed artificially from the DNA of the Chinook salmon and the eel-like species called an ocean pout. This technique is fundamentally different from traditional methods of selective breeding or hybridization that are performed within the natural reproductive context; and produces outcomes that could never occur in nature. • By breaking down the protective barriers that exist to prevent the transfer of genes between species, genetic engineers have radically restructured the DNA of an entire species.• Genetically engineered salmon could escape, which would produce unintended effects within each ecosystem to which it belongs.• While genetically engineered salmon is presumed safe for consumption, it has not been tested for human safety. Therefore, consuming genetically engineered salmon could cause unpredictable and potentially adverse effects on human health.
Contributed by Matt M. Retired Mediator On: 10/14/2016
2 issues here: is it safe and should it be labelled. The first can be debated, the second really can't. A free society depends upon full and fair disclosure of issues that could effect their health can choice. Could labelling stigmatize the GMO salmon industry- sure, but thats a marketing challenge for them- not a legal right to protect their business over consumers' rights to know. End of story.... or at least it should be.
Contributed by Ken R. Editor Of The Organic & Non-Gmo Report On: 10/14/2016
American citizens like citizens in more than 60 other nations should have the right to know whether their foods are genetically engineered or contain genetically engineered ingredients. Also, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's process to approve this GMO salmon is deeply flawed since it is regulated as a veterinary drug. This product should be subject to rigorous safety testing before it is allowed on the market, and the FDA, which deems genetically engineered foods to be substantially equivalent to conventional foods, has not conducted such testing. The fact that more than 60 major food retailers, including Costco, Safeway, Kroger, and others are refusing to sell this salmon shows that consumers don't want to eat this experimental fish.
Great Ken. I have mixed feelings on the safety of GMO's. I avoid them to be safe when possible. But the right to know is undeniable. Great to see higher levels of science being applied to this important topic.
As a physician, educator, and one who has written about and spoken nationally at professional meetings about food safety issues, I have reviewed the data on GM salmon and concerned that the FDA has not adequately assessed the potential adverse environmental and human health consequences of GM salmon approval. I agree with the suggested change of policy to label GM salmon, so that consumers can know how their food is produced and make their own choices regarding what to consume.
Details of my involvement in, and copies of my articles and slide shows on GM foods can be found on the Food Safety/Food Justice page of the Public Health and Social Justice website.
Contributed by Zen H. Founding Executive Director Of Moms Across America On: 09/27/2016
GMO salmon has been bred to grow 4X fatter, 4X faster and be sterile. No mother, knowing this informations, would willingly feed this fish to their child. We understand why the manufacturers would not want labeling. We submit however that they cannot hide knowledge for long, and that even if GMO salmon were to make it on the market unlabeled, eventually we would all find out where it is, that salmon would not sell, the grocery stores would experience a loss and suffer. To best protect the grocery store owners and staff from loss of wages and the American people from health issues, we recommend that the pursuit of GMO salmon be abandoned now and resources be redirected and invested on protecting the wild salmon from disease and cleaning the water from toxic chemicals.
Labeling of genetically engineered food is a commonsense precautionary measure in the face of scientific uncertainty. Therefore, the outdated policy position the FDA took over 24 years ago should be revised. There is no scientific consensus on GMO safety; in fact, the American Medical Association adopted new policy in 2012 recommending the U.S. government require safety testing of of all GMO food before it is marketed: http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/. Furthermore, the unintended effects of genetic engineering documented in the scientific literature are not disputable: http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/browse_titles.htm Even so, proving that genetically engineered salmon is harmful is not necessary in order to require mandatory labeling before it is sold for human consumption. The U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) prohibits the misbranding of food articles, which includes if a label is "misleading." The FD&C defines misleading to include a failure to "reveal facts material" about a food product. Whether their food is genetically engineered is clearly of material importance to American consumers: a New York Times poll conducted in 2013 found that 93% of Americans favor GMO labeling: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html?_r=0
Contributed by Anne D. Founder And Director Of Truth In Labeling Coalition On: 08/29/2016
Contributed by Jenny P. Physician, Public Health Advocate, Mother On: 08/29/2016
Contributed by Fran F. Paralegal On: 08/29/2016
The rise of food allergies and autoimmune illness is very concerning. The EpiPen controversy is a controversy precisely because of the ubiquity of life-threatening allergies. We don't know why allergy rates have risen so much - it certainly can't be entirely attributed to the rise of GE crops and food - but that is all the more reason to be extremely cautious.
I understand selective breeding, but cross-breeding (sometimes using genes from completely different species such as fish and vegetables) in a lab without giving nature a chance to say 'nope, doesn't work' does not make sense to me.
I eat salmon frequently, both at home - where I can choose my sources - and in restaurants, where I usually cannot. Food fraud is rampant as it is. If GE salmon isn't labelled, I certainly won't order salmon in restaurants any more.
Furthermore, because I don't trust that GE salmon won't contaminate the non-GE supply, I will probably also stop buying salmon to cook at home.
That is the bottom line.
I believe that the entire salmon industry could suffer from this.
Genetic engineering must not be confused with cross-breeding. Genetic engineering is performed outside the the natural reproductive context, by violating barriers that prevent the combining of genes from different species.
Absolutely. Great way of putting it.
There has to be a way to keep the GE salmon away from all waters where non-GE fish live and spawn.
Get a public mediator profile. Anyone can apply.
Join our community and start resolving disputes — it's free and fast.
Let the PeopleClaim community help resolve your dispute.
Marquette University Law Student
Pre Law Student
Law Student in Los Angeles, CA looking forward to helping solve people's issues.
BA Michigan, future JD from USC
Co-Editor-in-Chief at USC Business Law Advisor
Law student at USC (LLM program)
Former trial lawyer, trained mediator, mother of four geniuses
Arbitrator, Mediator, with MBA, Master of Dispute Resolution & licensed Real Estate Broker
Retired since the end of 2014. I'm a professional volunteer and part-time UBER driver.
Restraining Order Peace Advocate; Mediator Panelist, U.S. District Court; Los Angeles Superior Court. Call 562 688 0000.
Graduating from USC Law, years of dispute resolution training, civil litigation experience
International, Real Estate & Finance Attorney
Creative and solution focused conflict resolution expert
Ed: Sociology, MBA, MSHE. Committed to fairness and positive resolution.
Practice limited to Periodontics and Implant surgery. Laser certified in LANAP
Cpm Scheduler | Defect & Delay Claim Specialist | Expert Witness, At Repone
Elizabeth Esrey, of Esrey Mediation, is a private mediator with over 20 yrs experience.
Professional And Executive Liability Insurance Expert, Broker And Claims Mediator
Owner at Finding Common Ground Mediation & Law Services®
I've mediated 1,400 disputes over 30 years & teach mediation with cfocus on common ground
DIVORCE COACHING & MEDIATION, COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE, SHARED PARENTING PLANS
Fiduciary, Trust Consultant, Expert Witness, Mediator
Would you like to suggest how this case should be resolved?
Would you like to add a comment or solution?
PeopleClaim is a new way to resolve disputes online without lawyers or mediators.
By inviting suggestions from the public, disputing parties get ideas that can lead
to settlement – and the person(s) who contributed them can win a reward.
Here's what to do: Read the case (left side of page). Then go to the bottom of the
page and enter your suggestion in the space provided. Click the Solution button.
Your suggestion will be sent to both parties and will post on the claim. If the
two sides agree to settle based on your suggestion, you're eligible to win. Note:
Cash rewards may be split among more than one person if settlement depends on ideas
from more than one contributor. If you have a claim of your own to resolve, click here.