California votes to label (but not ban) GMO frankenfish

You can’t keep a lid on it

Recreational and commercial fishermen, consumer advocates, environmental activists and leaders of Indian Tribes are strongly opposed to the Obama administration plans to approve genetically engineered salmon for human consumption. Not only do they pose a great risk to human health, but their inevitable escape into the wild could prove catastrophic for imperiled Pacific and Atlantic coast salmon populations.

“If they escape into the ocean, they’ll compete with wild salmon for food, contaminate the gene pool and possibly cause extinctions,” said Caleen Sisk-Franco, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. “This comes at a time when Pacific salmon runs have recorded historically low numbers, and when many, including my tribe, fear they may soon be lost forever. ‘AquaBounty’ is like coyote building with sticks, and the GE salmon are as shoddily constructed as coyote’s children.

“Thus, we find it ironic that the government is fast-tracking the GE salmon yet skeptical about our own unorthodox but far safer plan to return Chinook salmon to our river, the McCloud,” in reference to the Tribe’s ambitious plan to restore winter run chinook salmon to the McCloud above Shasta Dam.

Jobs, jobs, jobs

The recent collapse of Central Valley chinook salmon populations, due to a combination of increased water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, declining water quality, a poor ocean conditions, spurred the loss of 23,000 jobs in the recreational and commercial salmon fishing industry. While the fall run chinook stocks appear to be on an upswing this year, the ESA-listed winter run and spring run chinook populations of the Sacramento River continue to decline.

“AB 88 is extremely important because consumers in the market place must have the means to be able to distinguish between our natural wild salmon and genetically engineered farmed salmon,” summed up Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. “This bill would provide consumers the means to tell the difference – rather than having them take home Frankenfish and getting a rude surprise.”

Opponents of the legislation include BIO, BIOCOM, California Aquaculture Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Grain and Feed Association, California League of Food Processors, California Seed Association, Grocery Manufacturers Association and Western Plant Health Association

What you can do:

• Click on the Food & Water website to contact your legislator to support AB 88
• For more information on GMO fish, visit CFS’s campaign website.
• Friend Red Green and Blue on Facebook for more of our coverage of salmon, GMO foods and other environmental issues.

For information on labeling bills:

• California’s AB 88 (mandatory labeleling)
• The U.S. Senate: S. 230 (ban) and S. 229 (mandatory labeleling)
• The U.S. House: H.R. 521 (ban) and H.R. 520 (mandatory labeling)

More on Salmon, MLPA and California’s water wars:

• Salmon farms are the filthy feedlots of the sea
• Why Is A Big Oil Lobbyist In Charge Of California’s Marine Protection Program?
• Commission approves full Central Valley salmon season for California
• Wikileaks: Marine protection zones are being tailored to help corporate interests, screw native peoples
• Can California Get Smart on Water Use?
• Pushing lies about California’s water projects

Dan Bacher is the Editor of the Fish Sniffer online and print magazine. He blogs at Sacramento for Democracy, Alternet and DailyKos.

(Salmon drawing  Some rights reserved by Alan Bell)