WASHINGTON, D.C. (Reuters) — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is still considering whether a proposed genetically modified fish is safe for consumers.
FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg says the agency is examining as many as 35,000 comments about the application for the salmon by Boston-based AquaBounty Technologies Inc., which applied for approval in the mid-1990s.
“We will be moving forward in a deliberate, science-driven way, reflecting all of the important inputs … as we consider this product application,” Hamburg recently told the U.S. Senate’s health, education, labour and pensions committee.
Read Also
Short rapeseed crop may put China in a bind
Industry thinks China’s rapeseed crop is way smaller than the official government estimate. The country’s canola imports will also be down, so there will be a lot of unmet demand.
AquaBounty has said in the past that it expected a decision from the FDA by the end of last year.
Hamburg did not say when the FDA would make its final decision.
The fish, known as the AquAdvantage salmon, would be the first GM animal product to reach U.S. consumers, if approved.
The company has said its salmon is safe to eat and could help address numerous food supply issues, including the demand for healthier food and depleted fish stocks, because it is modified to grow more quickly.
However, environmental, health and consumer advocates have raised concerns, citing unknown long-term effects that a GM food could have on people and the planet.
Republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told Hamburg she wanted assurances that the agency would not allow the fish to be sold if it could not determine it was safe.
She also said the fish should be clearly labelled if it is approved to show it is genetically modified.
“I don’t believe that the FDA has adequately studied the environmental effects, the economic impacts … let alone the potential health impacts on humans,” said Murkowski, whose state is home to a significant fishing industry.
Replied Hamburg: “If we could guarantee that it wasn’t safe to eat, then it would not pass our approval standards.”
