nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

14. Perspectives and Predicaments of GMO Salmon

verfasst von : Nicole Negowetti, M.A.; J.D.

Erschienen in: International Farm Animal, Wildlife and Food Safety Law

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

AquAdvantage Salmon, produced by AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., is the first genetically engineered (GE) fish to be considered for commercial production and human consumption in the United States. Its application is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although private companies around the world are working on developing at least 35 species of GE fish and shellfish—including catfish, carp, oysters, and trout—no country has yet approved any of them for commercial production or human consumption.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Overfishing and Bycatch

Nächstes Kapitel Textbox: FDA Approval of GE Salmon

Although transgenic and genetically modified are other terms used interchangeably, this chapter refers only to genetically engineered (GE) animals.

Center for Food Safety (2015a).

AquaBounty Technologies (2010), p. 13 [noting that AquAdvantage salmon have an “enhanced growth rate compared to non-transgenic Atlantic salmon”].

AquaBounty Technologies (2010), p. 12.

See Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2010), p. 110.

AquaBounty Technologies (2010), p. 12.

Bratspies (2008), p. 5.

FAO (2014) and United Nations (2010).

FAO (2014), p. iii.

Ibid., pp. iii–iv.

Ibid., p. 7.

National Research Council (2002), p. 16.

Logar and Pollock (2005), p. 17.

www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000930/index.html, accessed 11/10/2010.

Logar and Pollock (2005), p. 18.

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2010), p. 128.

Pew Initiative on Food & Biotechnology (2004), preface.

Ibid.

21 U.S.C.A. §§ 360(a)(1), 360(a)(3).

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2012).

Food and Drug Administration (2012), p. 3.

Ibid., p. 4.

Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 13 citing U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Protecting the Public Health: Examining FDA’s Initiatives and Priorities, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., March 13, 2014.

Voosen (2010).

Bratspies (2008), p. 6.

Ibid., p. 10.

McEvilly (2013), pp. 415–416.

Bratspies (2008), p. 10.

Bratspies (2008), p. 11.

Van Eenennaam et al. (2013).

Ibid.

AquaBounty Technologies (2014c).

Schwab (2013), p. 13; See Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2012), pp. 3, 4, 23–24.

AquaBounty Technologies (2010), p. 15.

Based on a 2012 inspection Panama recently fined AquaBounty for failing to secure necessary permits, particularly around its use of water and pollution of the local environment. See Biron (2014).

Schwab (2013), p. 12.

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000), p. 3.

Ibid., p. 4.

Ibid., p. 1.

Ibid., pp. 1–19.

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000), p. 14.

Ibid., p. 4.

Ibid., p. 14.

Ibid., p. 1.

Bratspies (2008), p. 5.

GMO Compass (2015).

Bratspies (2008), p. 5.

EUROPA (2006) (explaining the European Union’s approach).

Ibid.

Codex Alimentarius, (2015), http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/about-codex/en/

Food and Drug Administration (2009) (“[t]he information needed to establish food safety for food from GE animals under an NADA is consistent with that described in the Codex Guidelines.”)

World Health Organization & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009), p. 60.

Ibid., p. 70.

World Health Organization & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009), p. 67.

Food and Water Watch, Consumers Union, and The Center for Food Safety (2012), p. 7.

“The food and feed safety step of the hierarchical review process addresses the issue of whether food or feed from the GE animal poses any risk to humans or animals consuming edible products from GE animals compared with the appropriate non-transgenic comparators.” Food and Drug Administration (2010d), p. 5.

Food and Water Watch, Consumers Union, and The Center for Food Safety (2012), p. 8; See World Health Organization & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009), p. 57.

European Union Deliberate Release Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation 1829/2003.

Commn. Reg. 641/2004/EC on genetically modified food and feed, OJ L 102/1 (2004); Reg. 1829/2003/EC on genetically modified food and feed, OJ L 268/6-7 (2003); Reg. 1830/2003/EC concerning the traceability and labeling of genetically modified organisms, OJ L 268/24–25 (2003).

Center for Food Safety (2015a, b).

Austrl. N.Z. Food Stands. Code—Stand. 1.5.2 (2011), http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011C00118.

Ibid., p. 1.

Ibid., pp. 1–2.

Ibid., p. 9.

Carter and Gruere (2003), p. 2 (see discussion on labeling guidelines for GM foods in Japan, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, European Union, Canada, Argentina, South Korea, and Indonesia).

Varela (2013), p. 526.

National Research Council (2002), p. 4.

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2009). Note that the FDA’s definition is similar to the Cartagena Protocol’s definition of an living modified organism is any “living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology.” Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000), p. 4.

Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 5.

Cowx et al. (2010), p. 3.

Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 5.

Ibid.

51 Fed. Reg. 23302.

The EPA reviews the potential effects on human health and the environment of pesticidal substances produced by plants, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 USC § 136 et seq.) and the pesticide residue provisions of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA; 21 USC § 346a). The role of the EPA, although relevant to the regulation of GE plants, is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, the FDA’s 2009 Guidance recognized that the EPA may also assert jurisdiction over certain GE animals, such as insects, and that FDA was discussing with it “the best approach for oversight.” Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2009), p. 5, fn. 1.

See Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, 51 Fed. Reg. at 23,304 (stating that the agencies involved have “extensive experience with products that involve living organisms” and that new developments will be reviewed by the FDA, USDA, and EPA in the same manner for safety).

Pew Initiative on Food & Biotechnology (2001), p. 6 (“[T]he application of existing statutes to biotechnology led to significant questions about overlapping authorities among the agencies, as well as uncertainties about whether the agencies would follow consistent approaches in using these authorities.”).

Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, 51 Fed. Reg. at 23,303.

See Pew Initiative on Food & Biotechnology (2004), pp. 10–11.

Ibid.

National Research Council (2002).

21 U.S.C. §301 et seq.

42 U.S.C. §201 et seq.

21 U.S.C. §321; Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2009), p. 5.

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2009), p. 4.

Ibid., pp. 4 and 6.

21 U.S.C.A. §§ 360(a)(1), 360(a)(3).

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2009), pp. 20–25.

Ibid., p. 24.

Ibid.

42 U.S.C. 4321.

Section 514.1(b)(14).

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2009), p. 12.

Actions that, based on an agency’s past experience with similar actions, have no significant impacts are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an EA or EIS. 21 C.F.R. §514.1(b)(14). Because approval of GE salmon is unprecedented, the FDA was required to prepare an EA.

2009 Guidance, p. 18. The EA becomes public when the animal is approved.

In cases where significant impacts are anticipated, the federal agency may decide to prepare an EIS without first preparing an EA. CFR at 4.

100

See 21 U.S.C. § 331(j) (2006) (prohibiting information acquired under the authority of several sections related to the Animal Drug approval process from being revealed).

101

21 C.F.R. § 514.11 (2012).

102

Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 5.

103

7 U.S.C. §8301 et seq.

104

Food and Drug Administration (2008), p. 54408.

105

21 U.S.C. §151–159.

106

7 U.S.C. §2131 et seq.

107

United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General (2011), pp. 10–11.

108

Food and Drug Administration (2008), p. 54408.

109

United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General (2011), p. 11.

110

Ibid.

111

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2009), p. 6, fn 1.

112

United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General (2011), pp. 12 and 14.

113

AquaBounty Technologies (2010), p. 10.

114

Ibid.

115

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2010), p. 117.

116

AquaBounty Technologies (2010), p. 46.

117

Ibid., p. 63.

118

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2010), p. 123.

119

Ibid.

120

See Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2009), p. 5.

121

Ibid., p. 12.

122

Ibid.

123

Food and Drug Administration (2010d). See Food and Drug Administration (2010b), asking the VMAC to address four questions: (1) Do the data and information demonstrate that the rDNA construct is safe to AquAdvantage salmon? (2) Do the data and information demonstrate that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of foods derived from AquAdvantage salmon? (3) Do the data indicate that AquAdvantage Salmon grow faster than their conventional counterparts? (4) Are any potential environmental impacts from AquAdvantage Salmon production adequately mitigated by AquaBounty Technologies’ proposed conditions of use?

124

Opponents of the AquaBounty application have argued that more experts in fisheries and ecology should have been included on the committee. Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 14.

125

Food and Drug Administration (2010) Background Document.

126

Senior (2010).

127

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2012).

128

Food and Drug Administration (2012).

129

Ibid.

130

In 2007, legislation was passed to require the FDA to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service and to produce a report on any environmental risks associated with genetically engineered seafood products, including the impact on wild fish stocks.21 U.S.C. §2106. According to FDA, the two agencies have consulted on this matter, but this report has not been developed and no target date for its completion has been specified.

131

16 U.S.C.1531 et seq.

132

78 Federal Register 10620–10621 (February 14, 2013).

133

Goldenberg (2013a, b). Two Canadian environmental groups—Ecology Action Centre (NS) and Living Oceans Society (BC)—filed a judicial review application with the Federal Court on Dec. 23, 2013 to decide if the federal government violated its own law when it permitted the manufacture of the AquAdvantage salmon. The legal challenge asserts that the approval is unlawful because it failed to assess whether the GE salmon could become invasive, potentially putting ecosystems and species such as wild salmon at risk. Ecology Action Centre (2014).

134

135

AquaBounty Technologies (2014a).

136

National Research Council (2004).

137

Food and Water Watch, Consumers Union, and The Center for Food Safety (2012), p. 3.

138

Ibid.

139

Senior (2010).

140

Food and Drug Administration (2013).

141

Ibid. (2012).

142

Food and Water Watch, Consumers Union, and The Center for Food Safety (2012).

143

21 U.S.C. §201(s), 21 U.S.C. §321.

144

Food and Water Watch, Consumers Union, and The Center for Food Safety (2012), p. 16.

145

Ibid., p. 6.

146

Ibid., p. 4.

147

Food and Drug Administration (2010d), pp. 290–291 (noting that risk of potential allergenicity was 20 % higher in AquAdvantage Salmon, but that this figure was not statistically significant because the sample size was only six fish).

148

Food and Drug Administration (2010d), p. 293 (noting that the analysis of IGF levels looked at only two studies—a peer-reviewed publication from 1992 and an AquaBounty study from 2004—and the analysis of allergen potency focused on a 2006 study furnished by AquaBounty).

149

Food and Drug Administration (2010d), p. 366.

150

National Research Council (2004).

151

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2012).

152

Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 15.

153

Schwab (2013), p. 9; see Hauter et al. (2014), p. 1 asking the FDA “to deny the new animal drug application (NADA) for AquaBounty Technonlogies’ AquAdvantage Salmon in light of the disastrous environmental record of AquaBounty.” Because “AquaBounty has admitted fault in breaching environmental regulations in Panama and has experienced at least one major security accident involving “lost” salmon. It is also now public record that AquaBounty’s production platform in Panama has changed dramatically from the production platform described by AquaBounty and the FDA in the NADA and draft Environmental Assessments (EA), which presents another basis for FDA abandoning AquaBounty’s NADA.” AquaBounty (2014b) responded to the letter and press release by stating that they are “appalled at the irresponsible and untruthful attacks contained in the activists’ press release and letter. The Company has been in complete control of its Panama facility and at no time was the safety of the fish or the environment at risk.”

154

Goldenberg (2013b) and Rossiter (2013).

155

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2012), p. 142.

156

Ibid.

157

Varela (2013), p. 525.

158

Wodder et al. (2010).

159

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2012), p. 91.

160

Ibid.

161

Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 19.

162

See Center for Food Safety (2015a).

163

Wodder et al. (2010). In 2011, these groups filed a formal citizen petition urging FDA to withhold approval until an EIS has been completed. Ocean Conservancy et al. (2011).

164

See Food and Drug Administration (2010d), p. 383. See Kapuscinski and Sundstrom (2010a, b); Kapuscinski and Sundstrom (2013).

165

See, e.g., Schwab (2013).

166

Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 16.

167

Consumers Union (2008), p. 1; McEvilly (2013), p. 421.

168

See 21 U.S.C. § 331(j) (2006) (prohibiting information acquired under the authority of several sections related to the Animal Drug approval process from being revealed).

169

21 C.F.R. § 514.11 (2012).

170

21 C.F.R. § 514.11(d).

171

Ibid.

172

Consumers Union (2008), p. 2.

173

Ibid.

174

Food and Drug Administration (2010c).

175

Food and Drug Administration (2010d), p. 282.

176

Ibid., pp. 297 and 311 (“Until the release of the [environmental assessment] two weeks ago, the public has had no opportunity to learn more about, assess, or raise questions about potential impacts.”).

177

O’Halloran (2013).

178

See, e.g., Logar and Pollock (2005) (citing data that “Americans’ attitudes towards genetic engineering and biotechnology generally show a decline in support for such technologies over past 5–15 years”).

179

Pew Initiative on Food & Biotechnology (2001), p. 2.

180

Kopicki (2013).

181

Ibid.; See also Thomson Reuters (2010).

182

Food Safety News (2014).

183

Van Eenennaam et al. (2013), quoting Gemma Arjo, Manuel Portero, Carme Pinol, Juan Vinas, Xavier Matias-Guiu, Teresa Capell, Andrew Bartholomaeus, Wayne Parrott & Paul Christou, Plurality of Opinion, Scientific Discourse and Pseudoscience: An In Depth Analysis of the Séralini et al. Study Claiming that Roundup Ready Corn or the Herbicide Roundup Cause Cancer in Rats, Transgenic Reseach, 2013 (22), pp. 255–267.

184

21 U.S.C. §§301 et seq.

185

P.L. 89-755;15 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-535; 21 U.S.C. §343), which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, requires most foods to carry nutrition labeling and requires food labels with claims about nutrient content or certain health messages to comply with specific requirements.

186

Food and Drug Administration (2010a). Companies may label their foods as not containing bioengineered products, if they can definitively show that the foods do not contain GE products.

187

Food and Drug Administration (1992).

188

Ibid., (2010a).

189

See Thomson Reuters (2010) and Kopicki (2013).

190

See Nature Biotechnology (2014), p. 1169.

191

AK Food & Drug Code §17.20.040 (2005).

192

Kimbrell and Tomaselli (2011), pp. 100–101.

193

Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 20.

194

AquaBounty Technologies (2011).

195

Kimbrell and Tomaselli (2011), p. 100.

196

21 C.F.R. § 514.8(b)(2).

197

Ibid.

198

Kimbrell and Tomaselli (2011), p. 100.

199

See Center for Food Safety (2013).

200

Cal. Fish & Game Code § 15007.

201

Wash. Admin. Code § 220-76-100 (2012).

202

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §671.1 (2013).

203

Fla. Admin Code r. 5 L-3.004 (2013).

204

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 324.41301-41325.

205

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 324.45901-45908.

206

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 324.48701-48740.

207

16-2 R.I. Code R. § 300.11 (2012).

208

Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 23 citing Letter from Don Young et al. to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner, FDA, April 24, 2013, and Letter from Senator Mark Begich et al. to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, April 24, 2014.

209

Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 24. Such a report was required under Section 1007 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. 21 U.S.C. 2106.

210

Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 24, citing H.R. 584, H.R. 1699, S. 248, and S. 809.

211

Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 24.

212

Ibid.

213

Center for Food Safety (2015a).

214

See, e.g., Pew Initiative on Food & Biotechnology (2004), p. 125.

215

Bratspies (2005), pp. 503–504.

216

Mandel (2004), p. 2243.

217

See Mandel (2004), p. 2243 (noting that as a result of the Framework’s flawed paradigm, there have been “multiple failures on the part of regulatory agencies to recognize that genetically modified products sometimes do create new and different issues than those raised by the conventional products they routinely regulate”).

218

Van Eenennaam et al. (2013).

219

Ibid.

220

Food and Water Watch, Consumers Union, and The Center for Food Safety (2012).

221

FFDCA, Section 201(s).

222

21 U.S.C. § 348(a) (2006).

223

21 U.S.C. §321.

224

Food and Water Watch, Consumers Union, and The Center for Food Safety (2012).

225

Ibid., p. 22.

226

Food and Drug Administration (2011).

227

McEvilly (2013), pp. 413 and 427–428.

228

Van Eenennaam et al. (2013).

229

Ibid.

230

Ibid.

231

See Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 17.

232

Upton and Cowan (2014), p. 26.

AquaBounty Technologies (2010) Environmental assessment for AquAdvantage Salmon. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224760.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

AquaBounty Technologies (2011) Interim results for the six months ended 30 June 2011. http://aquabounty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2011-09.23-Interim-Results.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2015

AquaBounty Technologies (2014a) AquAdvantage® Salmon DNA Animations. http://aquabounty.com/press-room/video-b-roll-animation/. Accessed 16 Jan 2015

AquaBounty Technologies (2014b) AquaBounty responds to anti-gm organizations’ letter and press release. http://aquabounty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-11.20-AquaBounty-responds-to-anti-GM-organizations-letter-and-press-release-Finalx.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2015

AquaBounty Technologies (2014c) First edible genetically engineered fish still awaiting approval. http://aquabounty.com/first-edible-genetically-engineered-fish-still-awaiting-approval/. Accessed 16 Jan 2015

Biron C (2014) GM salmon company Aquabounty fined by Panama. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/29/panama-regulators-could-slow-us-approval-of-gm-salmon

Bratspies R (2005) Glowing in the dark: how America’s first transgenic animal escaped regulation. Minn J Law Sci Technol 6:457

Bratspies R (2008) Farming the genetically modified seas—the perils and promise of transgenic Salmon. American Fisheries Society Symposium. http://www.bioeng.fisheries.org/proofs/igfe/bratspies.pdf. Accessed 2 Jan 2015

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000) http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2015

Carter C, Gruere G (2003) International approaches to the labeling of genetically modified foods. http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/cartergruere_929BEB69BA4EE.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2015

Center for Food Safety (2013) GE fish and the environment. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/309/ge-fish/ge-fish-state-regulations#. Accessed 16 Jan 2015

Center for Food Safety (2015a) Genetically engineered fish. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/309/ge-fish. Accessed 16 Jan 2015

Center for Food Safety (2015b) International labeling laws. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/international-labeling-laws. Accessed 16 Jan 2015

Consumers Union (2008) Comments on Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0394, “Draft Guidance for Industry: Regulation of Engineered Animals Containing Heritable rDNA Constructs”. http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/pdf/FDA-comm-DNA-1108.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2015

Cowx IG et al (2010) Environmental risk assessment criteria for genetically modified fishes to be placed in the EU market. European Food Safety Authority. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/doc/69e.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2015

Ecology Action Centre (2014) Salmon trials. https://www.ecologyaction.ca/content/GM-Salmon-Trial-Release. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

EUROPA (2006) Europe’s rules on GMOs and the WTO. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/61&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. Accessed 7 Jan 2015

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2014) State of world fisheries and aquaculture. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3720e.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

Food and Drug Administration (1992) Statement of policy: foods derived from new plant varieties. 57 Federal Register 22984

Food and Drug Administration (2008) Guidance for industry: regulation of genetically engineered animals containing heritable rDNA constructs; Availability, 73 Federal Register 54407, September 19, 2008, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-21917.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

Food and Drug Administration (2010a) Background document: public hearing on the labeling of food made from the AquAdvantage Salmon. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm222608.htm

Food and Drug Administration (2010b) Charge to the VMAC for the AquAdvantage Salmon Meeting. http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/ucm226083.htm. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

Food and Drug Administration (2010c) Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee, Notice of Meeting, 75 Fed. Reg. 52,605 (Aug. 26, 2010)

Food and Drug Administration (2010d) VMAC Meeting: AquAdvantage Salmon. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM230469.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

Food and Drug Administration (2011) FDA’s response to public comments. http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm113612.htm. Accessed 20 Jan 2015

Food and Drug Administration (2012) Preliminary finding of no significant impact, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/UCM333105.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2015

Food and Drug Administration (2013) Key facts commonly misunderstood. http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/ucm226223.htm. Accessed 16 Jan 2015

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2009) Guidance 187, Guidance for industry regulation of genetically engineered animals containing heritable recombinant DNA constructs, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM113903.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2015

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2010) Briefing packet. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224762.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2012) AquAdvantage Salmon, Draft Environmental Assessment. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/UCM333102.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

Food and Water Watch, Consumers Union, and The Center for Food Safety (2012) Petition to deem ABT technologies’ genetically engineered AquaAdvantage Salmon an unsafe food additive. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/fdafoodadditivepetitiongesalmon.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

Food Safety News (2014) Kroger, safeway will Nix GMO Salmon regardless of FDA decision. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/03/kroger-safeway-turn-down-gmo-salmon-regardless-of-fda/#.VLleyCvF_eI. Accessed 10 Jan 2015

Goldenberg S (2013a) Canada approves production of GM salmon eggs on commercial scale. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/25/canada-genetically-modified-salmon-commercial. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

Goldenberg S (2013b) GM salmon global HQ – 1,500 m high in the Panamanian rainforest. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/24/genetically-modified-salmon-aquabounty-panama-united-states. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

GMO Compass (2015) Cartagena protocol. http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/glossary/. Accessed 7 Jan 2015

Hauter W, Hanson J, Perls D (2014) Letter to Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, FDA Commissioner. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/abt_fda_sec_ciam_final_16457.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2015

Kapuscinski A, Sundstrom F (2010a) Actual oral comments delivered on environmental assessment for AquAdvantage Salmon and briefing packet on AquAdvantage Salmon for the Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee. https://www.dartmouth.edu/~ark/images/stories/actualoral.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

Kapuscinski A, Sundstrom F (2010b) Comments on environmental assessment for AquAdvantage Salmon and briefing packet on AquAdvantage Salmon for the Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ark/images/stories/kapuscinski_sundstrom_comments_sent16sept10.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

Kapuscinski A, Sundstrom F (2013) Comments on Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0899, draft environmental assessment for AquAdvantage Salmon and preliminary finding of no significant impact. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ark/images/stories/kapuscinski_sundstrom_comments_2012draftea_aas.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

Kimbrell G, Tomaselli P (2011) A “Fisheye” lens on the technological dilemma: the specter of genetically engineered animals. Animal Law 18:75

Kopicki A (2013) Strong support for labeling modified foods. NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html?_r=1&. Accessed 10 Jan 2015

Mandel G (2004) Gaps, inexperience, inconsistencies, and overlaps: crisis in the regulation of genetically modified plants and animals. William Mary Law Rev 45:2216

Logar N, Pollock L (2005) Transgenic fish: is a new policy framework necessary for a new technology? Environ Sci Policy 8:17–27CrossRef

Ocean Conservancy et al (2011) Citizen petition regarding AquaBounty Technologies’ application for approval of genetically engineered Salmon, citizen petition before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/FinalGESalmonCitizenPetition.pdf

O’Halloran S (2013) Consumers not interested in genetically modified salmon. Food Engineering. http://www.foodengineeringmag.com/articles/90611-consumers-not-interested-in-genetically-modified-salmon. Accessed 16 Jan 2015

McEvilly M (2013) Lack of transparency in the premarket approval process for Aquadvantage Salmon. Duke Law Technol Rev 11:413–433

National Research Council (2002) Animal biotechnology: science-based concerns. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10418/animal-biotechnology-science-based-concerns. Accessed 10 Jan 2015

National Research Council (2004) Safety of genetically engineered foods: approaches to assessing unintended health effects. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=R1. Accessed 10 Jan 2015

Nature Biotechnology (2014) Label without a cause. Nat Biotechnol 32:1169. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v32/n12/pdf/nbt.3094.pdf

Pew Initiative on Food & Biotechnology (2001) Guide to U.S. regulation of genetically modified food and agricultural biotechnology products. www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Food_and_Biotechnology/hhs_biotech_0901.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2015

Pew Initiative on Food & Biotechnology (2004) Issues in the regulation of genetically engineered plants and animals. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/issues-in-the-regulation-of-genetically-engineered-plants-and-animals. Accessed 10 Jan 2015

Rossiter S (2013) See inside a genetically modified salmon farm in Panama. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2013/apr/25/gm-salmon-panama-video

Schwab T (2013) Is FDA ready to regulate the world’s first biotech food animal? Food Drug Policy Forum 3

Senior D (2010) VMAC, Chairman’s Report, Food and Drug Administration, VMAC Meeting, September 20, 2010. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM230467.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2015

Thomson Reuters (2010) National Survey of Healthcare consumers: genetically engineered food, PULSETM Healthcare Survey. http://www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/NPR_report_GeneticEngineeredFood-1.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2015

United Nations (2010) Resumed review conference on the agreement relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/reviewconf/FishStocks_EN_A.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General (2011) Controls over genetically engineered animal and insect research. http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-16-TE.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

Upton H, Cowan T (2014) Genetically engineered Salmon, congressional research service. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43518.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2015

Van Eenennaam A, Muir W, Hallerman E (2013) Is unaccountable regulatory delay and political interference undermining the FDA and hurting American competitiveness? Food Policy Forum 3(13). http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2013/Nov/FDLI.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2015

Varela J (2013) FDA is ready to authorize GM Salmons but is the market ready for them? Eur J Risk Regul 4:521–526

Voosen P (2010) Panel advises more aggressive FDA analysis of engineered Salmon. N.Y. TIMES, September 21. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/09/21/21greenwire-panel-advises-more-aggressive-fda-analysis-of-71171.html?pagewanted=all

World Health Organization & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009) Codex Alimentarius Commission: Foods derived from modern biotechnology. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/a1554e/a1554e00.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2015

Wodder R et al (2010) Letter to Margaret Hamburg, M.D., Commissioner, FDA. http://www.foe.org/sites/default/files/EnvironmentalGroupLettertoFDA-GESalmonEnvironmentalReview.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015

Titel: Perspectives and Predicaments of GMO Salmon
verfasst von: Nicole Negowetti, M.A.; J.D.
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: International Farm Animal, Wildlife and Food Safety Law
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18001-4

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-18002-1

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18002-1_14

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"