Wednesday, September 22, 2010


I expect that those who have been reading me for the last five or so years are wondering why I am not weighing in on the great genetically modified/altered salmon debate.

The reason is that I do not like to write about things I haven't explored thoroughly. I am not as free to explore myriad topics these days with all the other readings on my agenda. It is possible my head could explode.

I did hear a little bit on the Diane Rehm Show today and I have a link for an NPR story. What I hope is that you will do a little reading on your own for this one.

I can say that the FDA is tasked with determining if the labeling has to indicate that it is a GM (genetically modified) food. A company does not have to make that distinction UNLESS the GM food is substantially different from the non GM food and or could cause health problems because of this new production practice. So the question regards how this fish compares to wild or farm raised salmon.

The debate I heard this morning was pretty interesting. The problem the two scientists argued over was whether or not the data was good. The concerns are about allergens, growth hormones and insulin-like growth factor number one. IGF-1 is studied in regard to cancer. There is also concern for the environment on several levels.

I was able to follow some of this because of the epidemiology and environmental health classes I have taken in the past. Diane Rehm spoke up and asked how in the world the consumer was supposed to understand the "data" validity, and such.

I actually did find a link to the transcript to the show. I think you should take a look and if you like you can listen to the pod cast instead. It was great to hear Diane speak up for us!

Oh, the fish is supposed to have all the good things we want in our salmon, i.e. those Omega 3s. I myself will wait on this one.

No comments: