PVP Removal Petition Form (PDF) | Resolution Form (PDF) | Contact Elected Officials | Your Vote Matters! Register!
PLEASE HELP US REACH OUR GOAL OF 100,000 SIGNATURES
If you are an individual please use the Petiton Form (8.5×11 printed page) and collect 9 other signatures. Or, use the online form for yourself:
Petition to all State and Federal elected officials.
Demand for Return of Water that is Natural to the Eel River
We will not allow Eel River Water to be treated as a commodity. It belongs in its natural course. For 100 years the Eel River headwaters have been diverted into the Russian River via the PG& E Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project (PVP). The severe impacts to both river systems have been well documented and violate the Public Trust. More than 100 miles of prime Coho and Steelhead habitat have been lost behind the PVP dams. Billions of dollars have been lost from the economy of Humboldt and Mendocino counties by the impact of this diversion on its fisheries. Both dams and tunnel are old and in questionable condition, putting downstream homeowners at risk. It is imperative that PG& E's PVP diversion be removed so that water necessary for the health of the mainstem of the Eel River can be returned. We the undersigned insist on the return of the Eel River water to its natural system. A 100-year-old mistake must not be allowed to continue.
Powered by Fast Secure Contact Form
If you represent an organization please use the Resolution Form (8.5×11 printed page).
Resolution Form
This form is a resource to be used by organizations in support of FOER’s efforts to remove two antiquated dams and restore hundreds of miles of prime spawning grounds. Any organization is invited to sign this resolution and join this effort to restore the Eel River.
When signed please mail back to:
Friends of the Eel River
2346 Marinship Way, Suite 102
Sausalito, CA 94965
PO Box 2039
Sausalito, CA 94966
________________________________________________________________
Hi Friends, please read the following and take action.You can copy and paste the letter on to your own letterhead.
The Food and Drug Adminstration is rushing ahead with the approval of genetically engineered salmon. I encourage everyone to sign onto the following letter showing our fishing industry disapproval. The contact for this letter is Heather Whitehead; True Food Network Director, the Center for Food Safety
hwhitehead@icta.org, and the letter will be finalized by Sept. 15th since the hearings are Sept 19-21. This is the nightmare we feared would come…. will keep you posted as we learn more.
Group letterhead
September XX, 2010
Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV3)
Food and Drug Administration
7519 Standish Place
Rockville, MD 20855
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm 1061
Rockville, MD 20852
RE: Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001 and Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0385, VMAC Meeting on approval of AquAdvantage genetically engineered salmon; Labeling of AquAdvantage genetically engineered salmon
CC:
The undersigned ____ fishing and salmon organizations, representing over _______ fishermen and women across the United States, are writing to express our opposition to the approval of AquaBounty’s genetically engineered, AquAdvantage salmon.
On August 25, 2010, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials announced their process for making a decision on an application relating to the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption, the AquAdvantage Salmon produced by AquaBounty Technologies (Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001). The genetically engineered Atlantic salmon being considered was developed by artificially combining growth hormone genes from an unrelated Pacific salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) with DNA from the anti-freeze genes of an eelpout (Zoarces americanus). This modification causes production of growth-hormone year-round, creating a fish the company claims grows at twice the rate of conventional farmed salmon, allowing factory fish farms to crowd fish into pens and still get high production rates.
Genetically engineered fish pose serious risks to wild populations of fish. Approving genetically engineered salmon is a sharp contradiction to the agreements the United States has signed at NASCO, where transgenic salmonids are considered a serious threat to wild salmon. Each year millions of farmed salmon escape from open-water net pens, outcompeting wild populations for resources and straining ecosystems. We believe any approval of GE salmon would represent a serious threat to the survival of native salmon populations, many of which have already suffered severe declines related to salmon farms and other man-made impacts.
Escaped GE salmon can pose an additional threat – genetic pollution resulting from what scientists call the “Trojan gene” effect. Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences notes that a release of just sixty GE fish into a wild population of 60,000 would lead to the extinction of the wild population in less than 40 fish generations.
If the FDA opens this door, GE fish will likely be among the millions of salmon that currently escape from open ocean pens every year. This could be the last blow to wild salmon stocks, and in turn the thousands of men and women who depend on fishing for their livelihoods. Additionally, if the GE fish is approved, Agency officials are undecided as to whether they will require any product labeling. Unlabeled GE salmon may force many people to fear all types of salmon, further hindering an already strained fisheries industry.
According to the application submitted to the FDA, AquaBounty will raise the engineered eggs in a facility on Prince Edward Island in Canada, and then it will ship those fish to a land-based facility in Panama where the fish will be grown out and processed before being shipped worldwide for commercial sale. However, these GE fish are intended for use on a global scale, and a reliable containment regime following commercialization is just not conceivable. For example, according to a 2001 report, the Environmental Risk Management Authority in New Zealand identified flaws in the safety system of the GE salmon tanks of the private company King Salmon where GE salmon eggs could have come into contact with sperm before escaping into the environment. This example highlights the difficulties in designing safety measures which are 100% effective.
Moreover, most salmon farmers in the real world ply their trade in low-lying coastal areas and competing corporations will no doubt race to produce GE fish in crowded open ocean facilities already in use for fish production. While FDA may place initial restrictions on the farming of GE fish, it is merely a matter of time before FDA is bombarded by pressure from corporations wishing to replace conventional fish in open ocean farms with the GE variety.
Even if grown in contained, land-based facilities, the “farming” of fish is already harming salmon fishermen. In addition to the threat of these GE salmon displacing native salmon populations, such fish farming encourages the propagation of deadly fish diseases, the concentration of harmful wastes and industrial drugs and chemicals escaping into open waters, and the over-fishing of vast quantities of non-commercial fish to feed carnivorous farmed fish, such as salmon it generally takes three pounds of wild fish to grow one pound of farmed salmon[1]. Since these salmon have been engineered for fast growth, it stands to reason that their feed requirements will be even higher. Wild Atlantic salmon are already on the Endangered Species List in the U.S.; approving these GE Atlantic salmon will undoubtedly add to the burden on wild stocks.
AquaBounty also says that it will only produce sterile females; however fish are known to change sex and there is no guaranteed method to produce 100% sterility. FDA has difficulty tracking salmonella in hen eggs; to believe that the FDA can track whether salmon eggs are sterile or not is ludicrous. Moreover, the company will need to keep stocks of fertile fish to produce additional offspring. AquaBounty is also reportedly developing GE tilapia and trout, so this decision also sets a precedent for future GE fish approvals.
FDA’s decision to go ahead with this approval process is misguided and dangerous, and is exacerbated by the lack of any publicly available data. Though this process includes two public meetings as well as a 60-day public comment period on labeling, FDA has failed to provide data on the food safety and environmental risks that this GE fish may pose. The promise that the FDA would provide the data before the hearing is not good enough, in that it affords precious little time to assess the data the FDA is reviewing. FDA has been sitting on this application for 10 years and yet it chose not to disclose any data about its decision until just a few days before the public meeting. While the lack of transparency by FDA prevents the public from submitting informed public comments at the meetings, the absence of a public comment period on the approval of GE salmon following the VMA Committee meetings prevents the public from providing the Committee with relevant scientific studies and data as well as additional stakeholder comment following the meetings and additional release of available data. Holding a comment period solely on labeling presupposes the GE salmon will be approved, without proper public comment solicitation or review.
We all know there is a great appetite for salmon, but the solution is not to “farm” genetically engineered versions to put more on our dinner tables; the solution is to work to bring our wild salmon populations back. The approval of these transgenic fish will only exacerbate the problems facing our wild fisheries.
We strongly oppose the approval of these genetically engineered salmon and urge FDA to reject GE salmon. Should FDA decide to approve the AquAdvantage GE salmon despite our opposition, clear, mandatory labeling is an absolute must to allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.
Signed:
[1] Naylor et al, Effect of Aquaculture on World Fish Supplies. Nature, Vol.405, June 29, 2000, pg.1017-1024 and Dr. Rebecca Goldberg, Murky Waters: Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in the United States. Environmental Defense Fund, October 1997.