Environmental News

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Groups Sue FDA Over 'Unlawful and Irresponsible' Approval of Frankenfish
'This case is about protecting our fisheries and ocean ecosystems from the foreseeable harms of the first-ever GE fish.'

A coalition of environmental, consumer, and fishing organizations on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approving the first-ever genetically engineered (GE) animal for commercial sale and consumption—an Atlantic salmon, known colloquially as the "Frankenfish."

The lawsuit (pdf), filed by the Center for Food Safety, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Earthjustice, and other groups, states that the FDA does not have the authority to regulate GE animals and that approving the salmon paves the way for other GE fish, as well as farm animals like chickens, cows, and pigs, which the coalition says are currently in development.

The administration has previously claimed it did have the power, under the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was crafted to ensure safety of veterinary drugs administered to treat disease in livestock.

"FDA's decision is as unlawful as it is irresponsible," said George Kimbrell, senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety and one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. "This case is about protecting our fisheries and ocean ecosystems from the foreseeable harms of the first-ever GE fish, harms FDA refused to even consider, let alone prevent."

The salmon, which is being engineered by the biotechnology firm AquaBounty, was approved in November despite widespread outcry from advocates who said the fish pose too many risks to public health and the environment to authorize. The company plans to manufacture the eggs on Prince Edward Island in Canada, then ship them to laboratories in Panama, where they will be grown to full size.

From there, they will be sent to the U.S. for sale and consumption.

The journey in total comprises about 5,000 miles.

The Center for Food Safety and other groups threatened at the time to file an "emergency lawsuit" against the FDA for the move.

As Common Dreams reported:
For years, critics have warned that GMO salmon threaten wildlife populations, particularly through the potential for cross-breeding. Indeed, just a day before the FDA's announcement, a coalition of environmental groups sued the Canadian government for approving AquaBounty's request to manufacture the salmon eggs on Prince Edward Island (PEI) and ship them to laboratories in Panama, where they will be grown to adult size.

The plaintiffs in that case said the government ignored its own scientific findings to approve the bid, after the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans reported in May that GMO salmon were more susceptible to disease-causing bacteria and had other inconsistent performance issues.

"FDA has not answered crucial questions about the environmental risks posed by these fish or what can happen when these fish escape," Brettny Hardy, an attorney for Earthjustice and another of the coalition's counsels, said Thursday. "We need these answers now and the FDA must be held to a higher standard."

"We are talking about the mass production of a highly migratory GE fish that could threaten some of the last remaining wild salmon on the planet," Hardy said. "This isn't the time to skimp on analysis and simply hope for the best."

http://commondreams.org/news/2016/03...al-frankenfish

This freaks me out.

I pay more for wild salmon than buying farm-raised after I read why the color in farm-raised salmon looks different than wild salmon. I am sure that it is just as good for you (hopefully) but sometimes when I find out the truth of things; I can't get it past my gag reflex.

I won't be buying the frankenfish either.


So why is wild salmon a deeper red than farmed salmon?

Unlike beef, which acquires its distinct red hue from contact with oxygen in the air, salmon meat gains its color through the fish’s diet. Out in the ocean, salmon eat lots of small free-floating crustaceans, such as tiny shrimp.

These crustaceans are filled with molecules called carotenoids, which show up as pigments all over the tree of life. In fact, if you’ve ever known a kid who turned orange from eating too many carrots, you’ve seen carotenoids in action. It’s these carotenoids that account for the reddish color of the salmon, as well as the pink color of flamingoes and the red of a boiled lobster.

Farmed salmon, however, aren’t fed crustaceans. Instead, they eat dry pellets that look like dog food. According to the Atlantic Canada Fish Farmers Association, salmon chow includes ingredients such as “soybean meal, corn gluten meal, canola meal, wheat gluten and poultry by-products.” Carotenoids, which are also essential for regular growth, can also be added to help give the fish its distinctive color.

http://scienceline.org/2013/09/ever-...farmed-salmon/

[Cin]

Originally Posted by *Anya*

This freaks me out.

I won't be buying the frankenfish either.

Unfortunately you might not know. In approving the GE salmon, FDA determined it would not require labeling of the GE fish to let consumers know what they are buying, so a grocery store could be selling it or a restaurant could be serving it and would not have to disclose that information. Congress attached something to the 2016 omnibus spending bill that will allow states to require labeling so in time your state might require stores to tell you, but right now it's a secret.

What really worries me is how different these genetically altered salmon are from real salmon. They interact differently, they stay apart and they eat a lot more because of the added other fish DNA to stimulate growth. Also they are not good at fighting disease and are more susceptible to bacteria. If, or should I say when, they enter the wild they will cause much damage. This breach could occur where they will be grown in Panama or perhaps the eggs in PEI or in the US, but it is pretty much a guarantee that it will happen. They will enter the ocean at some point. It is just a bad idea all around. And it's not even necessary. There is no real idea what will be the result of this invasive species on wild salmon and the ocean.

[Kätzchen]

Water, as an environmental issue is an huge concern for all of humanity and sentient beings.

A few years ago, during my final semester in graduate school, Maude Barlow was on campus to deliver an timely message on water. I even created an thread here on the boards about it.

Back then, Canadian activist Maude Barlow message centered on the idea that five years from 2009, water diversity would perilously be near toxic levels of pollution. She claimed that water should be protected as an human right. To have laws drawn and policy created to protect the last bastion of earth's precious life saving element --- water.

LINK:

http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/foru...805#post109805


This year marks the huge environmental disaster that has ruled the lives of people living in Flint, Michigan. A few years ago, the little heard story of the city of Spokane, Washington finally recognized the way the Spokane river and surrounding watersheds of the Palouse was filled with toxins (PCBs, et al). The city of Spokane filed suit against Monsanto. But nothing much had been done to restore the river or watersheds of the northeast sector of Washington. The Spokane river, the Snake river, and other rivers flow into the mighty Columbia river... which the Willamette river and the Columbia River empty into the Pacific ocean........

Insecticides by Monsanto, toxic waste from industrial belts in Northeast sectors of the US, fracking wastes and toxins in the heart of the Midwest and southwest, and all kinds of other environmental issues are affecting the way humans barely stay alive.

Will there be any life in the year 2525 (if 'man' is still alive)?

We need people to rise up and come together to take action.

Before it's too late.

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by *Anya*

This freaks me out.

I pay more for wild salmon than buying farm-raised after I read why the color in farm-raised salmon looks different than wild salmon. I am sure that it is just as good for you (hopefully) but sometimes when I find out the truth of things; I can't get it past my gag reflex.

I won't be buying the frankenfish either.


So why is wild salmon a deeper red than farmed salmon?

Unlike beef, which acquires its distinct red hue from contact with oxygen in the air, salmon meat gains its color through the fish’s diet. Out in the ocean, salmon eat lots of small free-floating crustaceans, such as tiny shrimp.

These crustaceans are filled with molecules called carotenoids, which show up as pigments all over the tree of life. In fact, if you’ve ever known a kid who turned orange from eating too many carrots, you’ve seen carotenoids in action. It’s these carotenoids that account for the reddish color of the salmon, as well as the pink color of flamingoes and the red of a boiled lobster.

Farmed salmon, however, aren’t fed crustaceans. Instead, they eat dry pellets that look like dog food. According to the Atlantic Canada Fish Farmers Association, salmon chow includes ingredients such as “soybean meal, corn gluten meal, canola meal, wheat gluten and poultry by-products.” Carotenoids, which are also essential for regular growth, can also be added to help give the fish its distinctive color.

http://scienceline.org/2013/09/ever-...farmed-salmon/

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Unfortunately you might not know. In approving the GE salmon, FDA determined it would not require labeling of the GE fish to let consumers know what they are buying, so a grocery store could be selling it or a restaurant could be serving it and would not have to disclose that information. Congress attached something to the 2016 omnibus spending bill that will allow states to require labeling so in time your state might require stores to tell you, but right now it's a secret.

What really worries me is how different these genetically altered salmon are from real salmon. They interact differently, they stay apart and they eat a lot more because of the added other fish DNA to stimulate growth. Also they are not good at fighting disease and are more susceptible to bacteria. If, or should I say when, they enter the wild they will cause much damage. This breach could occur where they will be grown in Panama or perhaps the eggs in PEI or in the US, but it is pretty much a guarantee that it will happen. They will enter the ocean at some point. It is just a bad idea all around. And it's not even necessary. There is no real idea what will be the result of this invasive species on wild salmon and the ocean.

The frankenfish, fish found to contain horse estrogen from water run-off into lakes, fish containing hormones from human birth control pills, as well as BPA's and don't even get me started on antibiotics used in cows and chickens (contributing to antibiotic resistance): WTF is left to eat?

You might say vegetables but there are issues there too. I won't get into that!

The more I research, the less I want to know but we have to know, don't we?

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.o...active-in-fish

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...cientists-say/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-s...eat-1449238059

[Cin]

Five Pacific Islands Officially Lost to Rising Seas

Five Pacific Islands have been swallowed by rising seas and coastal erosion, in what Australian researchers say is the first confirmation of what climate change will bring.

The submerged region, which was part of the Solomon Islands archipelago and was above water as recently as 2014, was not inhabited by humans.

However, a further six islands are also experiencing "severe shoreline recession," which is forcing the populations in those settlements—some of which have existed since at least 1935—to flee, according to a study published last week in Environmental Research Letters.

Researchers used aerial and satellite images dating back to 1947 to track coastal erosion across 33 islands. At least 11 islands across the northern region of the archipelago "have either totally disappeared over recent decades or are currently experiencing severe erosion," the study found.

"This is the first scientific evidence...that confirms the numerous anecdotal accounts from across the Pacific of the dramatic impacts of climate change on coastlines and people," the researchers wrote at Scientific American on Monday.

Lead author Dr. Simon Albert, a senior research fellow at the University of Queensland, told Agence France-Presse that rates of sea level rise in the Solomons are almost three times higher than the global average.

The five that sank ranged in size from one to five hectares (roughly two to 12 acres) and supported "dense tropical vegetation that was at least 300 years old," the researchers wrote for Scientific American, calling the event "a warning for the world."

Rates of sea level rise were substantially greater in areas exposed to high wave energy, the researchers found, "indicating a synergistic interaction between sea-level rise and waves."

That means islands exposed to higher wave energy in addition to sea level rise face faster and more widespread loss than sheltered islands.

They wrote:

"These higher rates are in line with what we can expect across much of the Pacific in the second half of this century as a result of human-induced sea-level rise. Many areas will experience long-term rates of sea-level rise similar to that already experienced in Solomon Islands in all but the very lowest-emission scenarios."

Understanding the factors that put certain regions at greater risk for coastal erosion is vital to help frontline communities adapt, the study concluded.

The families that have already been forced to relocate did so using their own limited resources and received little to no assistance from their government or international climate funds, the researchers noted. The exodus had the additional impact of fragmenting established communities of hundreds of people.

Melchior Mataki, who chairs the Solomon Islands' Natural Disaster Council, told the researchers, "This ultimately calls for support from development partners and international financial mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund. This support should include nationally driven scientific studies to inform adaptation planning to address the impacts of climate change in Solomon Islands."

The Solomon Islands were among the 175 nations that signed the Paris climate agreement in New York last month.

http://commondreams.org/news/2016/05...st-rising-seas

[Cin]

http://commondreams.org/news/2016/05...o-latest-spill

'Status Quo': Shell Spews Nearly 90,000 Gallons of Oil into Gulf of Mexico in Latest Spill

Royal Dutch Shell's offshore drilling operations were pouring oil into the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday, ultimately releasing nearly 90,000 gallons of oil into the water off the Louisiana coast.

"We have allowed the [Gulf] to be perpetually treated as a sacrifice zone—a place where we tolerate pollution and disasters to continue our dependence on fossil fuels."—Michael Brune, Sierra Club

The company said the spill was spotted above an underwater pipeline system, although specific details regarding the leak's cause were not made public.

The spill left a 13-by 2-mile sheen on the water, NBC reports. While the company assured reporters and government agencies that wells in the area had been shut off and the spill was being contained, local observers expressed deep skepticism.

"What we usually see in oil industry accidents like this is a gross understatement of the amount released and an immediate assurance that everything is under control, even if it's not," said Anne Rolfes, founding director of anti-offshore drilling group the Louisiana Bucket Brigade. "This spill shows why there is a new and vibrant movement in the Gulf of Mexico for no new drilling."

Locals opposed to offshore drilling argue that oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico have become tragically commonplace. "According to the federal National Response Center, the oil industry has thousands of accidents in the Gulf of Mexico every year," the Louisiana Bucket Brigade said.

This latest disaster occurred mere weeks after the six-year anniversary of BP's catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf and on the very same day that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) held a hearing on the agency's next Five Year Plan for the Gulf of Mexico.

Thursday's BOEM hearing focused on the environmental impact statement of oil drilling in the Gulf. The Louisiana Bucket Brigade reported that locals discovered and collected tarballs in the Gulf's Grand Isle last month—demonstrating that "BOEM's environmental impact assessment is inadequate."

"It's unacceptable that oil spills have been permitted to become the status quo in the Gulf," said Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune in response to this latest disaster. "From Deepwater Horizon to the Taylor Well to Shell's latest disaster, we have allowed the region to be perpetually treated as a sacrifice zone—a place where we tolerate pollution and disasters to continue our dependence on fossil fuels."

Activists nationwide are urging President Obama to put a stop to all oil and gas leases in the Gulf to prevent such disasters from continuing.

Indeed, the global environmental campaign Break Free from Fossil Fuels has planned a march in Washington, D.C. on Sunday to call for an end to offshore drilling.

"This practice must end now," Brune said. "Hundreds of thousands of people have mobilized across the country, and thousands more will march in Washington, D.C. this Sunday calling for President Obama to protect our waters and coastal communities from offshore drilling."

[Cin]

'If We Don't Lead This Fight, Who Will?' Tribal Leaders Demand Army Corps Stop Pipeline
Indigenous people and supporters hand-deliver letters of protest to Army Corps of Engineers in Nebraska

Native Americans are fighting not only on their own behalf, but for the rights of all people to clean water: "The thousands of Indians who are camping to prevent the pipeline from being built—they are fighting not only for their safety and their protection of their water supply. They are also fighting to protect the water supply of the entire region, for the farmers and ranchers who live along the river."

The battle between corporate interests and activists is heating up: currently, dueling lawsuits regarding the pipeline are wending their way through the courts. "The main company behind the Dakota Access pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners, is set to make its case in a North Dakota court today against the thousands of protesters," Politico notes, while water protectors await a Friday decision from a federal judge in response to their request for an injunction against the pipeline's construction.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...-stop-pipeline


Dakota Pipeline Was Approved by Army Corps Over Objections of Three Federal Agencies

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/3...al-environment