 and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants, and about 2 million people who filed public comments, the most the FDA has ever received on a decision.

In detailed comments submitted to the FDA, Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, argues the FDA review process was based on “sloppy science” and the genetically engineered salmon could pose many risks. “Because FDA’s assessment is inadequate, we are particularly concerned that this salmon may pose an increased risk of severe, even life-threatening allergic reactions to sensitive individuals,” he writes.

Hansen also notes that “this analysis does not conform to FDA standard for assessment of a New Animal Drug.” That’s right, the genetically engineered salmon is being regulated as an “animal drug“—not a food, an “animal drug.” Here lies the inherent hypocrisy plaguing our regulatory agencies. The FDA does not label genetically engineered foods, including the newly approved salmon, because they have deemed them “substantially equivalent” to their non-genetically engineered counterparts. In essence, they are not different enough to be labeled. Yet genetically-modified organisms are so different that they are the first organisms in history to be patented. The logic is confounding.

The FDA, whose mission is “protecting and promoting your health,” has failed consumers by approving the commercialization of genetically engineered salmon. Not only has it used inadequate science, but it has also turned its backs on the majority of Americans who believe they have a fundamental right to know what is in their food. A 2013 New York Times poll found that 93% of Americans want GMOs to be labeled. More than 60 countries label GMOs, and in some cases even ban them, but the U.S. still does not.

To my dismay, genetically modified seeds have not undergone any long-term safety testing by the FDA on animals or humans, and the scientific community remains divided on their safety. I’m shocked by those who think that to question GMOs is “anti-science.” This gross mischaracterization must be put into question if we are to ensure food democracy.

Some of the most respected scientific bodies in the world including Codex Alimentarius (jointly run by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural organization of the U.N.), The American Medical Association, The British Medical Association and the American Public Health Association, have stated that, through pre-market safety assessments, more research needs to be done on GMOs before we can truthfully
and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants, and approximately 2 million citizenry who filed public comments, the most the FDA has always received on a decisiveness. 

 In detailed comments submitted to the FDA, Michael Hansen, aged scientist at Consumers Union, argues the FDA review process was establish on “ sloppy science ” and the genetically mastermind salmon could pose many risks. “ Because FDA ’s judgment is inadequate, we are peculiarly concerned that this salmon may pose an increase risk of severe, even animation - threatening allergic reactions to sensitive individual, ” he writes. 

 Hansen also notes that “ this analysis does not adjust to FDA standard for judgment of a New Animal Drug. ” That ’s right, the genetically engineered salmon is being regulated as an “ animal drug“—not a food, an “ animal drug. ” Here lie down the inherent hypocrisy plaguing our regulatory agencies. The FDA does not label genetically engineered foods, including the newly approved salmon, because they have deemed them “ substantially equivalent ” to their non - genetically engineered counterparts. In essence, they are not different enough to be labeled. Yet genetically - modified organism are so different that they are the beginning organism in history to be patented. The logic is confounding. 

 The FDA, whose mission is “ protect and promoting your health, ” has failed consumers by approving the commercialization of genetically engineer salmon. Not only has it used inadequate science, but it has also turned its backs on the majority of Americans who think they have a fundamental right to know what is in their food. A 2013 New York Times poll found that 93% of Americans want GMOs to be label. More than 60 countries label GMOs, and in some cases even ban them, but the U.S. still does not. 

 To my discouragement, genetically modified seeds have not undergone any retentive - term safety testing by the FDA on animals or homo, and the scientific community stay divided on their safety. I ’m shocked by those who remember that to question GMOs is “ anti - skill. ” This gross mischaracterization must be put into question if we are to ensure food majority rule. 

 Some of the most respected scientific bodies in the world admit Codex Alimentarius (jointly run by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural arrangement of the U.N.), The American Medical Association, The British Medical Association and the American Public Health Association, have stated that, through pre - market base hit assessments, more research needs to be done on GMOs before we can truthfully
 anf associations, food compxnies, chefs and restaucants, ahd about 2 million people who filed pnblix comnents, the most the FDA has ever receivee on q decision.

Mh detailed cojlentv submitted to jhe FDA, Michdel Hansen, senhof dcientist at Consumers Union, argues the FDS geview process was fases on “sloppy science” and the genetidally eigineered salmom could pose many risks. “Befausf FDA’s assessment ls inadequajs, wq are particuuarly conctrued that thjs salmon may pose an increased risk of severe, ecen nife-threateiing ajlergic reacbpons to sensitove individualx,” hx wrutes.

Hansen also notes that “this analysif does nod eonform to FDA standaed for dssevsmevr ow a Nxw Znimal Drng.” That’s rifht, the genwtically engineered swomon is being regulwtqd as an “animal drug“—not a food, an “animan ddug.” Here lies the inherwnt hypocrisy plaguinh our regtlatory agencies. The FDA does not label geneticalny enjiveexcq dolds, including the newly approved salmon, becaufs uhej have deemed thei “substantislpy gquivalent” to jheir non-gsnetically engineeged cougterpqrts. In efsenve, they are not different ebough to be jqbeled. Yet geneticclly-modified orgsnismx are so different that theg are the flrst orgahksms in history go ne [atented. The logic is confjunding.

Thx FDA, whose oissoon is “protectinh and promoting your heapth,” hcs fahled consulers by approving the commercialization of gemedicdlly engnneerec salmon. Not jnly has it usgd inadeqbate szience, but it has also turneq its backs ot the majoritb of Amerycanw whi beliexd they have a gundamentcj ritht to know what ix iv their food. A 2013 Utw Iirk Times poll fojnd tjav 93% of Dmericans watt GOOs yo be labeled. Move ghan 60 countries label GMMs, ahd in some cases efek ban then, but thq U.S. still dors not.

To my dismay, genevicallb modigieq seeds have not undergone any long-term sanety testing fy tme FQA on animcls or humans, and the scientific communivy remains divided on jheir safety. I’m shockgd ny those who thinh that to question GMOs is “anri-science.” This grpss mischaracterizatikn musd be out into question if we are to ensure food democracy.

Some of the most respwcted scientific bkdiex in nhe corld igcluviig Codex Alimentagius (jointly run by the World Heelth Organhzction and the Food and Agricuktjral organizajion of the U.N.), The Americah Medicak Association, The British Medicsl Association and the Akerican Publid Healng Essociation, have stayed thct, thriugh prw-marnet safety asresxmcnts, more geseerck needs to be done on GMOs before we cab hruthfully
and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants, 2 people who public comments, the received a decision. In comments submitted to FDA, Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Union, argues the FDA review process was based on “sloppy science” and the engineered salmon could pose many risks. “Because FDA’s assessment is inadequate, we are concerned this may an increased risk of severe, even life-threatening allergic reactions to sensitive individuals,” he writes. Hansen also that “this analysis does not conform to FDA for assessment of a Animal Drug.” That’s right, the engineered is being as “animal a food, an drug.” Here lies the inherent hypocrisy plaguing our regulatory agencies. The FDA does not label genetically engineered including the salmon, because have them equivalent” to their counterparts. In essence, they are not be labeled. Yet genetically-modified organisms are so different they are first organisms in history to be The logic is confounding. The FDA, whose mission “protecting and promoting your health,” has failed consumers by approving the commercialization of genetically engineered only has it used science, but it also its on majority of who believe they have a fundamental right to know what is their food. A 2013 New York Times poll found that Americans GMOs to be More than 60 countries GMOs, in some cases even but U.S. To dismay, modified seeds have not any long-term safety testing by FDA on animals or remains divided on their safety. I’m shocked by who think that to question GMOs is This gross mischaracterization must be put into question if we are to food democracy. the most respected scientific bodies in the world Codex Alimentarius (jointly run the World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural of U.N.), The Medical Association, The Medical Association and American Public Health stated that, pre-market assessments, to be done on GMOs before can
 and associations, food companIes, chefs anD restAurAntS, aNd abOut 2 mIllion people whO FileD public comments, the most The FDa hAS eveR ReCeiveD on a decISiON.

in dEtAiLed CoMMeNts suBmiTted to tHe FDA, MichaEl HAnSen, senior sciENtIst at ConsuMerS Union, argues The fDA revIeW prOCess wAs bAsed oN “sloppY SciencE” and the geNeTIcally ENgineerED SaLmon Could pose many riskS. “beCAuse FDA’s assessMent is InADeQUAte, We aRe particulArLy conCErned thAT tHIS SalMOn may pose an inCreased risk OF seVere, evEn LifE-ThreatEning AlLErgIc reactions To seNsitive inDividuALs,” he wriTEs.

HanseN also nOteS thAt “thIS aNaLysIs DOes NOt ConFOrm To FDA staNdArD for aSsesSMENT of a new animAl DruG.” That’s right, thE geNetiCAllY engiNeereD salMoN is beIng regUlateD aS an “animal drug“—noT a foOd, an “animaL drUg.” herE lIes thE InhereNt hYpoCrisy plAguing oUR reGuLATOrY agencies. The FDA doeS nOT LaBel genetIcally ENgInEEred foodS, iNclUdinG THe newLy apPRoVed salmoN, becauSE tHeY have deEmEd them “SuBstAntIally EQuivAlent” tO their noN-geneTIcally engineerED counterparts. iN eSSEnCE, theY arE not differeNt enOUgh tO be lABeLed. yEt genEticaLlY-MoDIfied organisms are so DiFferenT that They are the firSt organismS IN History tO be pATeNTed. The logic is cOnfouNding.

The FDa, Whose misSion iS “protectIng and proMOTing your HeaLth,” Has FaiLED cOnsumers by appROVing ThE commerCiaLizatioN of GenEtiCalLy EngineereD salmon. NOt OnLy HaS it Used iNAdequate ScIenCe, But It has ALso turNed itS bacKs On THe mAjority OF AMERicaNs WhO belIevE tHey haVe a fUNdaMental rIght to knoW whAT is iN tHeIr food. A 2013 new York Times pOlL found that 93% Of ameRicans WANt GMOs to Be labeled. More than 60 countrIEs label gMOS, and iN somE cases eveN baN them, bUt tHE U.S. stiLl does Not.

To My DisMAY, geneTICaLly MoDified seedS HAve Not unDeRgonE any lonG-term safety testing BY thE FDA on animals Or hUmanS, ANd The SCiENtiFiC ComMUNity remains diviDed on their SaFEtY. I’m shocked BY thOsE who thiNk that tO quesTIon GMOs Is “anti-sciEnce.” This gRoSs miSCHarActerizatiOn must be Put into quEStion IF wE are tO enSure foOd DemOcracY.

Some oF The Most rEspectEd ScientIfic bOdIes in the World including Codex AlimEntariUs (joiNtlY run by the worLD HeAlth OrganIzatIon and the FOod And agricUltURal orGaniZAtIon OF the U.n.), The aMerican MeDIcAl ASSOcIation, The BrITISh MEdicaL AsSOciatiOn anD the American PubliC health AssociatIon, hAVE stAteD That, ThRough pre-market SafEtY ASsessmenTs, More researcH needs to Be DOne on gMOs beFore we Can trutHFUlLY
 and associations, food co mpanies, c hefsand  re st aura nts,  and about 2 m i llio n people who filed pub lic c om m ents ,  t he mo st theF DA h asev er  re ce i ve d ona d ecision .

In deta ile dcomments sub m it ted to the  FD A, Michael H ans en, se ni ors cient ist  at C onsume r s Unio n, argues  t h e FDAr eview p r o ce ss w as based on “slop p ys cience” and th e gene ti c al l y  en gin eered salm on  coul d  pose m a ny r i sks .  “Because FDA ’s assessme n t i s inad eq uat e , we a re pa rt i cul arly concer nedthat this  salmo n  may po s e an in crease d r isk  ofs ev er e,ev e n l i fe -th r eat ening al le rg ic re acti o n s to s ens itiv e ind ividuals,” he  wr ites . 

H ansen  also  not es  that  “this  anal ys is does not con form  to FDA s tan da rdfo r ass e ssment  of  aNew Ani mal Dru g .”Th a t ’ sright, the genetic al l y  e ngineere d salm o nis being re gu lat ed a s an “a nima l  d rug“—not  a foo d ,an  “anima ldrug.”  H ere  li es th e  inh erenthypocris y pla g uing our regul a tory agencies .  T h e  F D A do esnot label g enet i call y en g in eer e d foo ds, i nc l ud i ng the newly approv ed  salmo n, be cause they ha ve deemedt h e m “subst anti a ll y  equivalent” t o the ir non-gen e ticallyengin eered co unterpart s .  In esse nce , t hey  ar e no t different e n o ughto  be lab ele d. Yetgen eti cal ly- mo dified or ganismsar eso  d iff erent that the yare  t hefirst organi sms i n hi st or y  to  be pat e nt e d . Th elo gicisco nfoun ding . 

T he FDA,  whose mi ssi o n is  “ pr otectin g and promoti ng  your heal th ,”has fa i l ed consu mers by approving the c o mmercia liz ation  ofgenetical lyengine ere d  salmo n. Not  only  h asi t  used i na deq ua te science , but  it h as  als o turne d its backs on the maj ority of Amer ica ns w h o  b eli e ve the yh ave a  fundamental ri ght to kno ww ha t is in th e irfo od. A 2 013 New  York Times p oll found  that 93%  o f Am e r ica ns want GM Os to be  labeled. Moret ha n 60cou ntries  l abe l GMO s, and insomecasesev en ban  them ,but theU.S. still does not.

T o my d ismay , g eneticall y m o dif ied seeds  hav e not unde rgo neany l ong - termsafe t ytes t ing b y th e  FDA on a n im als o rhumans, and t h e s cient ifi c  commu nity  remains dividedo n their safety . I’ m sho cke d  byth ose who thinktha tt o  questio nGMOs is “an ti-scien ce . ” Thi s gros s misc haracte r i za t ion mu st b e p ut into q ues ti o n if we  a re to ens urefo od dem ocracy . 

So m e  of the most res pecte d scien t ifi c bod ie s in th e  wor ld includi ng Codex Al imenta rius  (joi ntly ru nby the  Wo rl d Health O r ganizatio n and  the Fo od  and  Ag ricult ural o rgani zati on  of  the U.N. ) ,  T h eAm e ric an M edica lAsso ciation,T he Briti shM edicalAs soc i a tion a n dt h e American  Pu blicH e alth Assoc i atio n ,h ave s tatedthat,through pre -m arket s afe t y  assessme nts, more res ea rchneeds to  b e do ne  on  G MOs before we c an truth fully
 and_associations, food_companies, chefs and restaurants,_and about_2_million people_who_filed public comments,_the most the_FDA has ever received_on a decision.

In_detailed_comments submitted to the FDA, Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, argues the_FDA_review process_was_based_on “sloppy science” and the_genetically engineered salmon could pose_many risks._“Because FDA’s assessment is inadequate, we are particularly_concerned_that this salmon_may pose an increased risk of severe, even life-threatening_allergic reactions to sensitive individuals,” he_writes.

Hansen also notes_that_“this_analysis does not conform_to FDA standard for assessment of_a New Animal Drug.” That’s right,_the genetically engineered salmon is being regulated_as an “animal drug“—not a food,_an “animal drug.” Here lies_the inherent_hypocrisy plaguing our regulatory agencies._The FDA does_not label_genetically engineered foods,_including the newly approved salmon, because_they have deemed_them “substantially equivalent” to their non-genetically_engineered_counterparts. In essence,_they_are_not different_enough to be_labeled._Yet genetically-modified_organisms_are so different that they are_the_first organisms in history to be patented._The logic is confounding.

The_FDA,_whose mission is “protecting_and promoting your health,” has_failed consumers by approving the commercialization_of genetically_engineered salmon._Not only has it used inadequate science, but it has also_turned its backs on the majority_of Americans who believe_they have_a_fundamental right to_know_what is_in their food. A 2013 New York_Times poll_found that 93% of Americans want_GMOs to be labeled._More_than 60 countries label GMOs, and_in some cases even ban them,_but the U.S. still does_not.

To_my_dismay, genetically modified seeds have_not undergone any long-term safety testing_by the FDA_on animals or humans, and the scientific_community_remains divided on their safety. I’m_shocked_by those who think that to_question_GMOs_is “anti-science.” This gross mischaracterization_must be put into question if_we are to ensure food democracy.

Some of the most_respected scientific bodies_in the world including Codex_Alimentarius_(jointly_run by the World Health Organization and the Food and_Agricultural organization_of the U.N.),_The American Medical Association, The British Medical Association and the_American Public Health Association, have stated that,_through pre-market safety assessments, more research needs to be done on_GMOs before we can truthfully