Lebensmitteln und Medikamenten zuständig ist, den Schritt gewagt hat, eine Genehmigung für das erste genveränderte Tier zu fällen. Schon bald 20 Jahre hatte die kanadische Firma AquaBounty versucht, die genveränderte Lachssorte AquAdvantage Salmon (AAS) als Lebensmittel genehmigen zu lassen. Schon vor 5 Jahren stand man kurz vor der Entscheidung (Durchbruch für Frankensteinfood von transgenen Tieren?), jetzt kann also nach ungewöhnlich langer Zeit für solche eine Entscheidung der Turbo-Lachs, der durch die eingebauten Wachstumshormone doppelt so schnell wachsen soll, in den USA auf den Tisch kommen. Der Lachs, dem die FDA schon vor Jahren bescheinigt hatte, dass er für den Verzehr unbedenklich sei, da er sich biologisch nicht von normalem Lachs unterscheide, galt stets als Türöffner, um weitere genveränderte Tiere - von Kritikern gerne mal Frankenfood genannt - auf den Markt durchzusetzen. Auch AquaBounty hat noch andere Fischarten im Angebot, ansonsten warten zahlreiche transgene Tiere von Ziegen über Fische und Hühner bis hin zu Kühen und Schweinen auf eine Zulassung und die dahinter stehenden Firmen auf die entsprechenden Profite.
mehr:
- USA: Erste Zulassung eines genveränderten Tiers als Lebensmittel (Florian Rötzer, Telepolis, 20.11.2015)
Um den Kritikern entgegenzukommen, wurde gleichzeitig noch beschlossen, dass im Widerspruch zu den Forderungen der Industrie Lebensmittelprodukte, freiwillig gekennzeichnet werden dürfen, ob sie genveränderten Lachs enthalten oder nicht. Das gilt ab nun auch für andere tierische und pflanzliche Lebensmittel, wogegen die Industrie lange Sturm gelaufen ist, weil sie nun eben so gekennzeichnet werden können, dass sie keine genveränderten oder auch durch Bioengineering hergestellten Bestandteilen enthalten ("not bioengineered", "not genetically engineered" oder "not genetically modified through the use of modern biotechnology"). Vorschreiben dürfe die FDA dies nur, wenn zwischen einem genveränderten und einem nicht genveränderten Produkt ein "materieller Unterschied", beispielsweise im Ernährungswert, besteht. Das habe man bei dem genveränderten Lachs nicht erkennen können. Die FDA empfiehlt aber nicht, Kennzeichnungen zu verwenden, die behaupten, die Produkte würden aus gentechnikfreien Bestandteilen bestehen. (Hervorhebung von mir)
 |
| Screenschot aus dem folgenden Film |
- Genmanipulierter Lachs in den USA zum Verzehr zugelassen (Politparadox, 26.11.2015)
'Frankenfish' may be coming to a dinner table near you [4:03]
Veröffentlicht am 11.01.2013
SALEM, Ore. -- Some call it "Frankenfish."
It's a new genetically-engineered salmon that could soon land on your dinner table, and for the first time the FDA is looking at approving a genetically modified meat.
The meat is controversial and you might end up eating the new "super-fish" without even knowing it.
A company called AquaBounty started with a regular Atlantic salmon. It then added the DNA of a chinook salmon and an eel-like fish, which is how they made the super-fish.
The new DNA changes the hormones in the Atlantic salmon, making it grow quickly.
Scott Dahlman, with Oregonians for Food and Shelter in Salem, says the super-fish is safe to eat and is highly regulated by the FDA.
"There'll be a lot of curiosity about it to start off with," he says. "If it meets the needs of the people, if they're able to get what they want at a price that they want, and it's got the taste and characteristics they want, I think it will really take off."
But George Kimbrell with the Center for Food Safety in Portland believes the FDA is not doing a thorough enough job to make sure this scientific experiment is safe to eat and let loose on the world.
"Our position is this is a dangerous and irresponsible idea," he says.
Critics say 15 percent of farmed salmon escape. They believe the super-salmon could get out and cause damage.
Like something out of the movie "Jurassic Park," with its genetically engineered dinosaurs, some think the genetically engineered salmon will eat voraciously to keep up with their own growth, interbreed with other fish and weaken and destroy salmon in the wild. The fear is that jobs and fish could disappear.
"People don't want this fish. It has no redeeming social value. As we said, it creates only risk," says Kimbrell.
But supporters say AquaBounty is farming the fish securely by harvesting eggs on an island in Canada and flying them to landlocked tanks in Panama.
If they do escape somehow, supporters say the fish will all be female. They will also be sterile and so unable to breed.
"I mean, this is really just a new way to farm salmon, which is something we've actually been doing for years," says Dahlman. "It's just a new species of fish that some of these farmers might be using."
The FDA may soon approve the fish but whether you think it's a "super-salmon" or a "Frankenfish," you may not know if you're eating it. The FDA will not require labels telling you it's genetically engineered (GE).
"There's no requirement by the FDA because the FDA says that these things are not materially different," Dahlman says.
Kimbrell says many other countries require GE labels and he thinks Oregon and the entire United States should as well, especially for a creature he sees as a danger to humans, fish and jobs.
"People have a right to know," he says. "If this is going to be approved, and we think it shouldn't be, but if it is, it needs to be labeled."
mein Kommentar:
Es lebe der American Way of Life! Warum sie (islamische Terroristen) uns so hassen? Weil wir vor nichts Respekt haben.
But the anger among the security forces is about more than the big provocations. The commonplace, daily cultural misunderstandings and mistranslations on both sides can be just as damaging to relations, says the major. For example he recounts an incident that took place when he and his men were on patrol with U.S. troops in a dangerous and contested area. Through an interpreter, one of his soldiers asked one of the Americans if he believed in God. The American shook his head no and said he didn’t. Overhearing the conversation, Hasanzada quickly ordered the interpreter not to respond. But it was no use: the Afghan soldier had seen the American’s body language and understood. “My soldier got very upset, quit the army within days, and gave his salary to poor local people,” says Hasanzada. (aus Afghanistan: ‘Green on Blue’ Killings Explained, Sami Yousafzai, Newsweek, 27.08.2012)
aktualisiert am 26.11.2015
x
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen