The Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide

Carcinogens found in regular and diet Coke and Pepsi, consumer group says

Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Diet Coke, and Diet Pepsi contain high levels of 4-methylimidazole or 4-MI, a known animal carcinogen, a new chemical analyses has found.

The carcinogen forms when ammonia or ammonia and sulfites are used to manufacture the “caramel coloring” that gives these sodas their brown colors, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the consumer advocacy group that commissioned the tests.

The center petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to ban ammonia-sulfite caramel coloring in February 2011.

This week, the center again asked the FDA to revoke its authorization for caramel colorings that contain 4-MI, and to change the name of the additive to “ammonia-sulfite process caramel coloring” or “chemically modified caramel coloring” for labeling purposes.

“Coke and Pepsi, with the acquiescence of the FDA, are needlessly exposing millions of Americans to a chemical that causes cancer,” Michael F. Jacobson, center executive director, said in a statement.

“The coloring is completely cosmetic, adding nothing to the flavor of the product,” Jacobson said. “If companies can make brown food coloring that is carcinogen-free, the industry should use that. And industry seems to be moving in that direction. Otherwise, the FDA needs to protect consumers from this risk by banning the coloring.”

The center collected samples of Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, Dr Pepper, Diet Dr Pepper, and Whole Foods 365 Cola from Washington, D.C.-area stores:

• Pepsi’s products had 145 to 153 micrograms (mcg) of 4-MI in two 12-ounce cans.
• Regular Coca-Cola had 142 mcg per 12 ounces in one sample and 146 mcg in another.
• Diet Coke had 103 mcg per 12 ounces in one sample and 113 mcg in another.

California has a 29-microgram benchmark for 4-MI. Levels above that in a serving of food or beverage may be required to bear a warning notice. Based on California’s risk model, the center estimates that the 4-MI in the Coke and Pepsi products tested is causing about 15,000 cancers in the U.S. population.

While federal law bans food additives that cause any number of cancers, the FDA has an exception for contaminants of food additives. It tolerates a lifetime risk of one cancer in one million people.

Three of four samples of Dr Pepper or Diet Dr Pepper that center tested had low levels of 4-MI, with about 10 mcg per 12 ounces. But even those levels pose a cancer risk of seven in one million – seven times greater than what the FDA allows, according to the center. The lower levels in those three samples indicate that it’s possible to lower, if not eliminate, the amount of 4-MI.

Pepsi told the center that it has switched to a coloring in California that contains much less 4-MI and plans to do the same in the rest of the country, Jacobson said.

When most people see “caramel coloring” on food labels, they likely assume the ingredient is similar to what you might get by gently melting sugar in a saucepan, he said.

“The reality is quite different,” Jacobson added. “Colorings made with the ammonia or ammonia-sulfite process contain carcinogens and don’t belong in the food supply. In any event, they shouldn’t be obscured by such an innocuous-sounding name as ‘caramel coloring.’”

While the test results are troubling, the center says soda drinkers should be much more concerned about the high-fructose corn syrup or other sugars used in soft drinks. Soda drinkers are much more likely than non-soda drinkers to develop weight gain, obesity, diabetes, and other health problems.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

EPA to conduct safety reviews on 83 highly toxic chemicals

By Rita R. Robison

While Congress continues to fail to update toxic chemical laws and regulations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will conduct safety reviews of 83 chemicals often found in consumer goods and manufacturing.

The agency is giving top priority to seven chemicals considered the most serious risks to human health and the environment for assessment in 2012. They are:

• Antimony and antimony compounds
• HHCB (1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8,-hexamethylcyclopenta[g]-2-benzopyran)
• Long-chain chlorinated paraffins
• Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins
• Methylene chloride
• N-Methylpyrrolidone
• Trichloroethylene

“The list of chemicals EPA has targeted reads like a rogue’s gallery of carcinogens, neurotoxic substances and chemicals that could cause serious organ damage,” Jane Houlihan, senior vice president for Research at the Environmental Working Group, said in a statement. “Congress hasn’t come up with a legislative fix to help shield the public from toxic substances. But the Obama EPA under Administrator Lisa Jackson continues to do what it’s supposed to do: protect people and the environment.”

In conducting risk assessments on the seven chemicals, EPA will use information available through scientific literature, and the agency is also seeking unpublished studies.

This spring, the EPA plans to identify chemicals that it will conduct risk assessment on in 2013 and 2014.

The EPA will provide draft risk assessments for public review and comments as they’re completed. If an assessment indicates significant risk, the EPA will evaluate and carry out risk reduction actions. If an assessment indicates no significant risk, the EPA will conclude its current work on that chemical.

Additional chemicals will be added to the work plan as more data are developed and more chemicals screened.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Environmental medicine group calls for moratorium on use of wireless ‘smart’ meters

By Rita R. Robison

Have you ever wondered about the health effects from the meter your utility installed on your house?

Genetic, hormonal, and fertility effects and an increase risk of certain types of cancer could occur from exposure to wireless radiofrequency radiation from “smart” meters, the Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine said in a January statement to the California Public Utilities Commission.

The academy, a group of physicians and others that studies illnesses caused by biological and chemical agents, offered its comments prior to a commission decision on whether Pacific Gas and Electric Co. customers would need to pay to have their smart meters replaced with analog ones.

In its statement, the academy said children are at particular risk for altered brain development and impaired learning and behavior. In addition, wireless radio frequency or extremely low frequency radiation adds to the damage seen from toxic chemicals.

The academy based its opposition on a review of medical literature, which it said raises serious concern about the levels of radio frequency, RF – 3 KHz to 300 GHz, or extremely low frequency, ELF – 0 to 300 Hz, exposures produced by “smart meters.” Its statement calls for an immediate and complete moratorium on their use and installation until further studies can be done. 

“Chronic exposure to wireless radiofrequency radiation is a preventable environmental hazard that is sufficiently well documented to warrant immediate preventative public health action,” the academy said.

The academy believes that existing FCC guidelines for RF safety that have been used to justify installation of “smart meters” only look at thermal tissue damage and are obsolete. Many modern studies show metabolic and genomic damage from RF and ELF exposures below the level of intensity that heats tissues. 

“The FCC guidelines are therefore inadequate for use in establishing public health standards,” the academy said. “More modern literature shows medically and biologically significant effects of RF and ELF at lower energy densities. These effects accumulate over time, which is an important consideration given the chronic nature of exposure from ‘smart meters.’”

The academy also said:

The US NIEHS National Toxicology Program in 1999 cited radiofrequency radiation as a potential carcinogen. Existing safety limits for pulsed RF were termed ‘not protective of public health’ by the Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group, a federal interagency working group including the Food and Drug Administration, Federal Communications Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and others. 

Emissions given off by ‘smart meters’ have been classified by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer as a possible human carcinogen.

In addition to calling for a moratorium, the academy asked the commission to:

• Modify the revised proposed decision to include scheduling hearings on health impacts of RF and ELF in the second proceedings, along with requiring a cost evaluation and community wide opt-out.

• Provide immediate relief to those requesting analog meters.

Early this month, the commission voted 4 to 0 to allow PG&E to charge customers a $75 fee and a $10 monthly charge for restoring or retaining their analog meter. Low-income consumers will pay less.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Consumer group asks FDA to require sodium reduction in food supply

By Rita R. Robison

Voluntary efforts by industry to reduce sodium levels in the food supply have failed, according to comments filed with the Food and Drug Administration last week by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy organization. 

On Friday, the center urged the FDA to create strong, but realistic, mandatory regulations to reduce sodium levels in restaurant and packaged foods.

The public sees the need to lower sodium, according to a recent survey commissioned by the center. Seventy-one percent of Americans indicated that the food industry had a responsibility to reduce the sodium content of their foods, and 58 percent support a government requirement to reduce the sodium in processed and restaurant foods.

“Overconsumption of sodium is one of the single greatest causes of hypertension and cardiovascular disease, and restaurant and packaged foods – not salt shakers –are far and away the largest contributors of sodium in the American diet,” Julie Greenstein, deputy director of health promotion policy for the center, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the food industry has failed to significantly bring down sodium levels despite 40 years of governmental admonitions. It’s time for the FDA to step in and require reasonable reductions.”

The U.S. government’s 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that people with hypertension, those who are middle-aged or older, and African Americans should consume no more than 1,500 milligrams of sodium per day. About 70 percent of adults fall into those categories, yet current average daily consumption is actually closer to 4,000 mg, according to the Center for Disease Control.

Recently, the American Public Health Association passed a resolution that calls on the FDA to begin regulating sodium in the food supply within one year and to establish a timetable for gradually reducing sodium in the food supply by 75 percent over 10 years.

The center’s filing said that reducing sodium consumption would save billions of dollars in medical costs, and more than of 150,000 lives annually.

Overwhelming evidence indicates that excess sodium levels pose significant health risks, but consumer education efforts are poorly funded and ineffective, according to the center, making efforts to reform dietary habits of Americans difficult. 

A recent survey indicates that 59 percent of Americans are “not concerned” about their sodium intake. As a result, an Institute of Medicine committee recommended mandatory regulations limiting sodium levels to improve public health and decrease healthcare costs. 

Many frozen dinners and canned foods contain high amounts of sodium:

• Boston Market frozen Meatloaf with Mashed Potatoes and Gravy has 1,460 mg of sodium per serving, about one day’s worth.
• Marie Callender’s frozen Creamy Chicken and Shrimp Parmesan has 1,200 mg of sodium, almost a day’s worth.
• Applebee’s Provolone-Stuffed Meatballs with Fettuccine, has 3,700 mg of sodium, more than two days’ worth.
• Denny’s Spicy Buffalo Chicken Melt has 3,760 mg of sodium, two-and-a-half days’ worth.

The centers first petitioned the FDA in 1978 to reduce salt in processed foods. Besides urging the FDA to set mandatory limits on sodium content in the food supply, the center asked the agency to lower the Daily Value for sodium from 2,400 mg to 1,500 mg.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Where’s the outrage about top American visionary Steve Jobs dying from cancer?

By Rita R. Robison

Baby boomer Steve Jobs, Apple Inc. co-founder, died Oct. 5 of pancreatic cancer. He was 56.

In hundreds of articles and posts, Jobs was lauded for his leadership at Apple and Pixar and for his innovative ideas and sense of design.

A few articles described pancreatic cancer, what the symptoms and treatments are.

But no one wrote about what an outrage it is that the War on Cancer has failed, and the nation’s leading visionary had his life cut short due to its ineptitude. Why was there absolutely no discussion about this?

Cancer is scary. No one wants to get it. People don’t want to talk about it. Cancer in America is surrounded by fear.

And Big Cancer – the American Cancer Society and most other cancer non-profits, pharmaceutical industry, and federal government – wants it that way.

When people are fearful, they don’t question the how the War on Cancer is being carried out or how the billions of dollars on research are being spent.

War on Cancer declared

In his State of the Union speech in 1971, President Richard Nixon declared the War on Cancer. Nixon signed the National Cancer Act to make the conquest of cancer a national crusade.

Since 1971, the federal government, private foundations, and companies have spent about $200 billion searching for cures.

In the United States, 550,000 to 600,000 people die from cancer year after year, or roughly 1,500 people per day. This puts cancer as the second leading cause of death in the U.S. just behind heart disease, with it looking to take the number one slot given current growth statistics.

War on Cancer has wrong objectives

Sharon Begley, science editor for Newsweek, says the War on Cancer has the wrong objectives and people are dying from cancer as a result.

In her article, “We Fought Cancer…and Cancer Won,” Begley says: 

Indeed, it is possible (and common) for cancer researchers to achieve extraordinary acclaim and success, measured by grants, awards, professorships, and papers in leading journals, without ever helping a single patient gain a single extra day of life. There is no pressure within science to make that happen.

It is no coincidence that the ratio of useful therapy per basic discovery is abysmal. For other diseases, about 20 percent of new compounds arising from basic biological discoveries are eventually approved as new drugs by the FDA. For cancer, only 8 percent are.

Critics of the War on Cancer question the emphasis on scientific findings rather than helping cancer patients, she says.

By the 1980s, critics were asking why the war on cancer was spending the vast majority of taxpayers' money on elegant biology that cured millions of mice rather than on the search for more practical advances...

There is no more common refrain among critics of how the war on cancer has been waged: that innovative ideas, ideas that might be grand slams but carry the risk of striking out, are rejected by NCI [National Cancer Institute] in favor of projects that promise singles.

The infrastructure of cancer is to keep things moving along as they have been and to reward people doing safe research, says Begley. Exciting new ideas haven't fared well.

The huge majority of funding for cancer has gone into the search for ways to eradicate malignant cells rather than to keep normal cells from becoming malignant in the first place, she says. Scientists are looking for “magic-bullet research” because that's what brings the dollars in.

Scientists think studying whether broccoli prevents cancer is difficult, Begley says. And, broccoli can't be patented, so without the potential payoff of a billion-dollar drug there is less incentive to discover how cancer can be prevented.

Another missed opportunity is the use of natural compounds and nondrug interventions such as stress reduction to keep the microenvironment inhospitable to cancer, she says.

Environmental causes of cancer not researched and publicized

An additional facet of the misdirected emphasis of the War on Cancer is the failure to research and make known the environmental causes of cancer.

For about 20 years it’s been known through studies that children and pets have higher rates of cancer if they live in households that use pesticides in their yards. Despite this information, pesticides continue to be sold in brightly colored boxes in home improvement and big box stores, department stores, and supermarkets with no warning of these dangers.

America needs to change its public policy about pesticides and chemicals that cause cancer.

It was extremely disappointing recently to see the wide-spread coverage that a report from the Institute of Medicine received. It said a comprehensive review of environmental factors revealed that no one factor makes a huge difference in the development of breast cancer. The institute said things not to worry about include hair dye, cell phones, and BPA.

This advice differs widely from that offered by the Breast Cancer Fund, which encourages women to avoid BPA and a number of chemicals found in cosmetics, food, plastics, and household cleaners. See the fund’s “Which Chemicals Are Linked to Breast Cancer” for more information.

The institute’s report was based on a review of scientific literature on breast cancer. It shows the need of Big Cancer to continue to keep consumers fearful and uninformed about the causes of cancer. When the public isn’t knowledgeable, it won’t call for chemicals that cause cancer to be banned, thus reducing industry profits.

When a TV-station in the Seattle area asked a breast cancer survivor about the results of the report, she was unimpressed. She said, and I agree, that cancer rates are increasing rapidly so the role of environmental factors needs to be understood and publicized.

I also think that the federal government has its head in the sand about cell phone radiation.

A new study in Sweden raises serious concerns about the potential for a large increase in brain cancer resulting from widespread mobile phone use.

Based on a 30-year time between first mobile phone use and diagnoses of brain cancer, the model predicts that there will be a 100 percent increased incidence of brain cancer (2-fold) if DNA repair efficiency is decreased by mobile phone use, and a 2,400 percent increase in brain tumors (25-fold) if mobile phone use mutates DNA.

So, it’s difficult to lose Steve Jobs, as an Apple user someone who I admired, at such a young age.

Consumer action needed to demand change

I’d like to see consumers become more informed about the failures of the War on Cancer and demand accountability from politicians, not-for-profit organizations, the federal government, and the pharmaceutical industry on how cancer research is being conducted.

The goals of cancer research should be preventing deaths, not fancy science that promotes the scientists.

Copyright 2011, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Ways to help the planet on Earth Day

By Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

We live in challenging times. The economy continues to limp along in a slow recovery from the Great Recession, brought to us by corporate greed.

Because tax revenues are down, conservatives are leading a charge to cut the size of government – and with these reductions come the elimination of valuable government programs. Unfortunately, rhetoric from the right is capturing the public’s attention.

Just this week, we marked the first anniversary of the Gulf Oil Spill. In Japan, a cluster of damaged nuclear power plants continues to spew radiation into the air and sea daily.

You’d think environmental issues would be rising on our list of public interest priorities. Instead, they’re being overshadowed with deficit debates and another war.

What can consumers do to help the environment? My advice is to join a consumer group and take action to protect the environment.

Here are groups I think are worthwhile:

The Environmental Working Group – The EWG researches issues and tells consumers things they wouldn’t know otherwise. I appreciated their research on cell phone radiation. I’ve put off buying a smartphone until Verizon Wireless produces a phone that emits low levels of radiation.

The Sierra Club – Since 1892, the Sierra Club has been working to protect communities, wild places, and the planet. It’s the largest environmental organization in the United States with 1.4 million members. Local chapters throughout the U.S. offer opportunities for hikes and other outings and action on local and state issues.

Earthjustice – The group’s slogan is, “Because the earth needs a good lawyer.” The public interest law firm works to protect natural resources and wildlife and to defend the right of all people to a healthy environment.

National Resources Defense Council – The NRDC’s priorities are establishing a clean energy future that curbs climate change, reviving the world's oceans, defending endangered wildlife and wild places, protecting health by preventing pollution, fostering sustainable communities, and ensuring safe and sufficient water.

Friends of the Earth – The group’s current campaigns focus on promoting clean energy and solutions to climate change, keeping toxic and risky technologies out of the food consumers eat and products they use, and protecting marine ecosystems and the people who live and work near them.

Environmental Defense Fund – The EDF works on stabilizing climate, improving the health of the ocean, supporting people and wildlife by preserving land and freshwater ecosystems, protecting health by studying air pollution and chemicals that effect health.

National Audubon Society – The society works to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humans and the earth's biological diversity.

Earth Island Institute – Earth Island acts as an umbrella organization, providing individual projects with the freedom to develop new initiatives by offering professional services, from fiscal administration and program management to office space and equipment.

Greenpeace International – Greenpeace takes action to protect the oceans and forests, eliminate the use of harmful chemicals, and transition to a world powered by clean and unlimited energy sources like the wind and sun.

Washington Toxics Coalition – This is the group I contact when I want to find out about harmful chemicals. The coalition’s website offers tips on healthy living, including suggestions for less toxic products to clean your home, safer products for children, and pesticide free food.

For other Earth Day tips, see my article, “Top 10 Earth Day Tips.”

Copyright 2011, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

FDA investigating whether synthetic food dyes affect children’s behavior

By Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Synthetic food dyes should be banned and warnings need to be placed on products containing the dyes until the colors are removed. That’s the position of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

FDA hearing

In response to a letter from the center, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has scheduled a public hearing at the Hilton Hotel in Silver Spring, Md., on March 30 and 31on the possible adverse effects that synthetic food dyes have on children’s behavior.
 
Among those testifying will be consumer groups, scientists, manufacturers, and the Feingold Association, which helps special needs children.
 
Jane Hersey, the association’s national director, would like the hearing to be the first step in banning of these additives from the American food supply.
 
“It is time for the FDA to finally recognize what many parents have known for decades – that eating petroleum-based food dyes can make children hyperactive and inattentive,” Hersey, whose own daughter’s behavior was affected by these additives, said in a statement. “The FDA should ban these dyes and require warning labels in the meantime.”

Requirements in the European Union

The European Union requires labels on most foods containing synthetic food dyes to warn that these additives “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” Britain’s Food Standards Agency has also called on manufacturers to voluntarily remove the dyes and has advised parents to limit their children’s consumption of dyed foods if they show signs of ADHD.

What physicians' groups think

In the United States, the American Academy of Pediatrics said in journal article that “a trial of a preservative-free, food coloring-free diet is a reasonable intervention” for hyperactive children. On its website, the American Academy of Family Physicians states: “Studies have shown that certain food colorings and preservatives may cause or worsen hyperactive behavior in some children.” 

Millions of pounds of synthetic dyes eaten each year

Per capita consumption of synthetic food dyes – which are found in candy, cereals, sports drinks, cookies, and other processed foods targeted at children – has increased five-fold since 1955. Since then, the number of children diagnosed with ADHD increased from 150,000 in 1970 to 5.4 million by 2007.
 
“It is no coincidence that the levels of ADHD have skyrocketed as children consume more and more of these chemicals,” said Hersey. “Children’s foods do not need to be colored with synthetic dyes, since manufacturers can substitute safe natural colorings, such as those made from fruits, vegetables, and minerals” she said.

Some companies going natural
 
A few companies, such as Starbucks and NECCO, have begun to switch from synthetic dyes to natural ones in some products, while Frito-Lay is testing dye-free snack foods, Hersey said.

Copyright 2011, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Top 10 worst environmental stories of 2010

The Environmental Working Group polled its staff and came up with the environmental happenings they thought had the worst impact last year. Here are the results:

 
 

1. BP's Gulf oil spill was the top environmental disaster of 2010, with slow response, use of dispersants, and secrecy about what's in the dispersants.

2. Congress failed to ban Bisphenol A, an endocrine-disrupting chemical, in baby bottles and children's sippy cups.

3. Brazilian Blowout, a hair-straightening product, is shown to have high levels of toxic formaldehyde despite the company's insistence that it's "formaldehyde free."

4. The climate change bill dies in the U.S. Senate, due to vocal and persuasive arguments by climate change skeptics and protectors of the energy status quo.

5. Chromium-6, a carcinogen, was found in tap water samples in 31 of 35 cities tested by the Environmental Working Group.

6. California's "Green Chemistry" rule is gutted, when regulators announced weak rules for carrying out the state's pioneering law designed to reduce the use of toxic substances in consumer products and shift toward safer alternatives.

7. Texas, Ohio, and other states approved the use of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from deep rock formations beneath school property, because they were tempted by the revenue they could gain by leasing mineral rights to drilling companies.

8. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn’t adopted sunscreen rules that would ensure that sunscreens are safe, effective, and don't make exaggerated claims, despite the fact that the agency has been working on the rules for 32 years.

9. Congress failed to revise the Toxic Substances Control Act, the 1976 environmental law that is inadequate and has never been updated.

10. Congress reauthorized the tax credit that pays gas refiners 45 cents a gallon to blend corn ethanol into gasoline and the excise tax that blocks imports of cheaper Brazilian ethanol made from cane sugar.

See the Environmental Working Group’s article for more information on these environmental disasters.

Let’s hope that 2011 is a better year for the environment and consumers.

Copyright 2011, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

 

Radiation exposure can cause cancer

When I was in Radio Shack waiting for my turn to be helped, like you often do at Radio Shack, I started chatting with the T-Mobile salesman for about his cell phone offerings.

I showed him the Verizon phone I’ve had for about five years and told him I wanted a smartphone, but wasn’t willing to pay $30 for Internet access.

He said T-Mobile offers a limited Web smartphone option for $10.

I told him I was a consumer writer and looking for a cell phone with low radiation emissions. Then, the Radio Shack clerk, who was cashiering, chimed in that the radiation from a cell phone is less than from a microwave oven.

I’m tired of people downplaying the dangers of radiation exposure, especially people who sell things to consumers.

I was pleased to read a newspaper article, “Health Care Providers Pledging Less Radiation,” that stated, “Too much radiation can cause cancer.”

It described the Image Wisely campaign, which encourages health care providers to use the least radiation necessary on patients for procedures.

Radiologists, medical physicists, technologists, and physicians are urged to take the pledge to image wisely for the health and safety of their patients.

Consumers also have a role to play by not requesting procedures that may not be necessary.

Image Wisely is an awareness program of the American College of Radiology, Radiological Society of North America, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, and American Society of Radiologic Technologists.

For more information on the link between cancer and radiation, see the Breast Cancer Fund’s “State of the Evidence 2010: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment.”

Copyright 2010, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

FDA poised to approved genetically engineered salmon

It’s a food that you hear about over and over again as America tries to get back on track to eat healthier. Salmon. It’s high in omega 3 fatty acids, which aids cardiovascular health.

Now the food industry, supported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, wants to alter this great food so it can make more money – and make it faster.

Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc. has submitted an application to the FDA to request that it be allowed to sell an Atlantic salmon that has been given a gene from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish, which allows the salmon to grow twice as fast as a traditional Atlantic salmon. It also contains a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon. The fish is called AquAdvantage Salmon.

Unfortunately, it looks like the FDA is going to approve this travesty.

In its background paper, “An Overview of Atlantic Salmon, Its Natural History, Aquaculture, and Genetic Engineering,” the agency says aquaculture of fish is the only way to meet the needs of growing populations. Fish consumption is increasing throughout the world.

Farm-raised fish, which will be bigger fish when this proposal is approved, will lead to increased water pollution, increased illness among fish, and the decimation of wild salmon stocks as the genetically engineered salmon intermingle with wild salmon.

We’ve just had a major foodborne illness outbreak. A billion shell eggs were recalled. The massive recall brought attention to the deplorable conditions in which chickens are raised – pens in which they can’t perch or spread their wings.

Now the food industry wants to grow bigger fish in more pens. It’s a foodborne illness and environmental disaster waiting to happen.

I think genetically engineered foods are bad for the American public. Most of these foods are banned in Europe. And, unfortunately, in this country, genetically engineered foods aren’t required to be labeled. About 75 percent of the food that Americans eat is genetically engineered, and they don’t even know it.

The tone of the FDA’s background paper was very positive toward genetically engineered food. It looks like the Obama administration is going to cave in to the food industry once again.

Although President Obama was willing to take on the health care industry, to a degree, and financial institutions, also modestly, he hasn’t been willing to tackle the powerful food industry at all.

The administration made a big deal out of its proposals to curb obesity – all voluntary.

Next we’re likely to get "Enviropig," a hog genetically altered to produce environmentally friendly manure.

The FDA will present information that the agency has evaluated, with any confidential information redacted, to the Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee at a public meeting to be held on Sept. 20. The material will be available two to 14 days before the meeting.

On labeling food from AquAdvantage Salmon, the agency is likely to say it doesn’t need special labeling. None of the genetically engineered crops sold in America are labeled. A hearing will be held Sept. 21, at which the public can express its views on labeling AquAdvantage Salmon. 

A coalition of 31 consumer, animal welfare, environmental and fisheries groups announced opposition to the approval last week, citing, in particular, concerns that the salmon could escape and possibly outcompete wild salmon for food or mates, The New York Times reports.

Among them are Center for Food Safety, Food and Water Watch, SalmonAID Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Salmon Fishermen’s Association, Sierra Club, Say No to GMOS, Center for Environmental Health, PCC Natural Markets, Northern Atlantic Marine Alliance, and Organic Consumers Association.

Allowing such a healthy food as salmon to be genetically engineered is very discouraging. The only hopeful thought I have is that consumers can continue to buy and eat locally grown organic food and wild salmon.

We have a great Farmers’ Market here in Olympia, Wash., that sells wild salmon. I think I’ll go buy some tomorrow.

Copyright 2010, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist