Skip to main content

Prepare To Welcome Our New Frankenfish Overlords

Support Provided By
salmon1-600
Salmon dinner (with scare-effects) | Photo: theaudiochick/Flickr/Creative Commons License

The holidays are a time for heading home, recharging the batteries after a stressful year at work, guzzling alcohol with long-lost friends and eating carb-loaded/meat-heavy dishes with extended family. It's also a good time for government regulators to dump legislation that is, decidedly, not universally-beloved -- the lack of news cycles during the holidays lessens the blowback from the opposition.

This, after all, can only explain why American regulators decided to announce, just before Christmas, that the FDA finally concluded its investigation on GMO-"enhanced" salmon, and gave it the thumbs-up. Using their verbiage, they found that genetically-modified salmon will have "no significant impact" on the environment and are "as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon" for the fish-eating public.

(Note: Following the December 21st decision, the public has 60 days to comment, which most likely won't lead to changing anything.)

As the New York Times notes, the actual assessment is dated May 4th, suggesting the administration was waiting for just the right time to let the public know. You know, like after a giant election and, well, if you're going to wait that long, might as well wait until all legislation-followers are focused on something grand like the Fiscal Cliff debates, while everyone else is busy shopping for gifts and prepping Christmas dinner. It's almost as if, oh I don't know, the regulators had something to hide. Like, perhaps, this is something we should be worried about.

At least, that's the opinion of the many anti-GMO activists angered by the news. From the NY Times piece:

"The G.E. salmon has no socially redeeming value," Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group opposed to farm biotechnology, said in a statement. "It's bad for the consumer, bad for the salmon industry and bad for the environment. F.D.A.'s decision is premature and misguided."

There's also worry about a scenario that sounds like the synopsis to a low budget sci-fi movie, wherein the Frankenfish escape from whatever habitat they're created in, into the wild, cross-breed with normal fish, and create some kind of super-creature. No, not one that will be able to walk on land and devour us all. (Unfortunately.) More like we won't entirely know how their DNA will react to ours when we eat them. This, after all, was what the FDA testing on the genetically engineered fish was about in the first place.

The FDA's response, that those growing the fish will be doing so in secure environments, clearly isn't good enough for anti-GMO folks:

Peter Riley, of the pressure group GM Freeze, said: "The sterility system does not guarantee that there will be no escapes into the wild and some of them will be fully fertile. It's also debatable whether anyone wants to buy GM salmon, even in the US, if it is properly labelled."

The FDA counters this with a kind of awesome half-backwards/half-completely-logical argument that wouldn't feel out of place in a novel by Kurt Vonnegut: Even if the U.S. doesn't approve the production of Frankenfish, other countries will, so international waters will be getting contaminated anyway. All we're doing, therefore, is prolonging the inevitable if we don't okay the production of GM fish. Which is an argument that is impossible to argue with.

In any case, this is it. Genetically-modified fish are on their way. Get your stomachs ready. Too bad we Californians don't have an automatic way of, like, knowing which fish are GM and which are not through, let's say just off the top of my head here, a label of some kind.

Support Provided By
Read More
A black and white photo of an adult dressed as the easter bunny with a giant costumed head, holding a little girl on their left who gives it a kiss on the cheek and, with his right arm, holding a little boy who brings his hands to his eyes as though wiping away tears.

Behold the Bunnies and Bonnets of L.A.'s Past Easter Celebrations

The onset of the spring season heralds the arrival of fragrant flowers in bloom — and all the critters that enjoy them, including the Easter bunny and families who anticipate his arrival with egg hunts, parades and questionable fashion choices.
A black and white image of an elephant holding a broom with its trunk. A man is seen near the elephant, walking towards the animal.

Lions and Tigers and Cameras! How the Movies Gave Los Angeles a Zoo

The early days of the movies in Los Angeles inadvertently allowed visitors to experience the largest collection of animals in the western United States. When animals weren't appearing in a movie, they were rented out to other film companies, performed for studio visitors, or in the case of filmmaker William Selig's collection — an opportunity to create one of Los Angeles' first zoos.
A vertical, black and white portrait of a blonde woman wearing a sparkly four-leaf clover costume as she holds her arms out and extends a leg as though in a curtsy.

Irish for a Day: L.A.'s History of 'Going Green' on St. Patrick's Day

Whether it was a parade, dance, tea party, home celebration or just enjoying a good ol' wee dram of whisky, here's a photo essay of how Los Angeles donned its green apparel to celebrate St. Patrick's Day and embrace the luck o' the Irish over the years.