Lawmakers talk again about GMO labeling

The Associated PressJanuary 18, 2014 

Months after Washington voters narrowly rejected an initiative requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods, lawmakers are reviving the GMO debate in Olympia.

Lawmakers heard a bill Friday that would require labels on genetically engineered salmon for sale, even though federal regulators have not yet approved any genetically modified animals for food. Another bill would require many other foods containing GMOs to carry a label.

The debate comes as the U.S. Department of Agriculture appears likely to approve an apple that has been engineered not to brown when it’s sliced or bruised. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also has been considering an application for a genetically modified salmon that grows twice as fast as normal.

“Salmon is such an ingrained item here,” said Rep. Cary Condotta, R-East Wenatchee, who is sponsoring House Bill 2143. “We label farmed vs. fresh caught (fish.) Why wouldn’t we label transgenic fish? It just makes sense.”

The bill also would prohibit genetically engineered fish with fins from being produced in state waters.

Currently, there are no federal or state requirements for genetically engineered foods to be labeled.

The Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Fish Growers Association, Washington Association of Wheat Growers and other members of the aquaculture and biotech industry spoke against the bill Friday. Some said the bill wasn’t necessary, because state law already prohibits the use of transgenic fish in aquaculture.

Others noted that voters have already spoken — and rejected — a mandate to label GMO foods. Efforts to require labeling in Washington state failed last November, when voters rejected Initiative 522 by 51 to 49 percent. Backers blamed the defeat on a record $22 million raised by labeling opponents, including large biotech corporations and food manufacturers. Supporters raised about $8.1 million.

“Let’s be honest. Is this bill really about fish?” said Heather Hansen with Washington Friends of Farms and Forests. She added that the true intent is to stigmatize genetic technology and create fear.

Those who spoke in favor of the bill at Friday’s hearing worried about the impact on the state’s native salmon populations.

If FDA regulators clear the fast-growing salmon, it would be the first genetically altered animal approved for human consumption in the U.S.

The FDA is reviewing public comments on a draft environmental assessment, FDA spokeswoman Theresa Eisenman said. “We can’t predict a timeline when a decision will be made.”

Critics call the modified salmon a “frankenfish.” They worry that the modified fish will decimate the natural salmon population if it escapes and breeds in the wild. Others believe breeding engineered animals is an ethical issue.

AquaBounty Technologies, which produces the so-called AquAdvantage Salmon, has said the fish are safe, that they will be grown as sterile, all-female populations in land-based facilities and won’t pose a threat to wild salmon populations. Messages left with the company were not immediately returned.

The FDA has concluded that the salmon was as safe to eat as the traditional variety and that the fish “will not have any significant impacts on the quality of the human environment.”

Meanwhile, Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc., a British Columbia company, has asked the USDA to approve two varieties of the nonbrowning Arctic Apple that it has grown in test trials in Washington and New York.

Those modified apples will carry the Arctic Apple brand, but not a specific label noting it is genetically engineered. “We’re not labeling to say that, but we’re not hiding it either,” said Neal Carter, the company’s president.

The company licensed the nonbrowning technology from Australian researchers. Essentially, the genes responsible for producing the enzyme that induces browning have been silenced in the apple variety being marketed as “Arctic.”

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service concluded in a draft environmental assessment that the apples “are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.”

The Olympian is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service