News

Worst bee die-off in 40 years

Lisa Archer — Tue, 14 May 2013 14:05:00 -0400

Updated May 2013: Take action here to tell Home Depot, Lowe's and other stores not to carry products containing bee-killing neonicotinoids.

Spring is in the air, and as we plant our vegetable gardens and enjoy the blossoming flowers, it’s easy to forget the small creatures that keep many of our spring favorites alive and are essential to our food supply: bees.

One out of every three bites of food you and I eat is pollinated by honeybees. In fact, bees and other pollinators are necessary for about 75 percent of our global food crops. From nuts and soybeans, to squash and cucumbers, from apples, oranges, cherries and blueberries, to avocados, peaches and melons, bees play a critical role in producing the food we eat. Honey bees also contribute over $15 billion to the U.S. economy. Bees are a keystone species and with roughly 80 percent of all flowering plants on the earth reliant on pollinators to reproduce, if we lose bees we will likely lose a host of other important species.

As you may have read in the news, these critical pollinators are in trouble, victims of Colony Collapse Disorder -- or CCD, a phenomenon in which bee colonies have been mysteriously collapsing when adult bees seemingly abandon their hives. This last winter, beekeepers reported bee die-offs of more than 50 percent -- the worst loss in more than 40 years. CCD has pushed the beekeeping industry in the U.S. to the verge of collapse, and this could spell trouble for a variety of our favorite foods from almonds to blueberries.

For years, the cause of CCD was a scientific mystery, but a growing body of scientific evidence is pointing to a key factor, a class of neurotoxic pesticides called neonicotinoids, or neonics. In fact, a January 2013 European Food Safety Authority report labeled neonicotinoids as an 'unacceptable' danger to bees. And a new report from the American Bird Conservancy provides compelling evidence that neonics are also harming birds.

Neonics are the fastest-growing class of synthetic pesticides in history, and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid (Bayer Crop Science's top-selling product), is currently the most widely used insecticide in the world. Neonics are used as seed treatments on more than 140 crop varieties, as well as on termites, cat and dog flea treatments, lawns, landscapes and gardens. Neonics are persistent and last for years in the soil. They permeate the entire plant and are expressed in pollen, nectar and guttation droplets (dew). And, they can’t be washed off food, meaning that we are all eating them.

What’s worse, neonics aren’t just in use in commercial agriculture. Many of the plants and seeds we buy in nurseries across the U.S. have been pre-treated with the pesticides and at much higher doses than is used on farms -- so when we plant our gardens we may unwittingly be harming bees!

The EPA approved Bayer's products based on the companies own studies and despite mounting evidence – including a memo by the EPA’s own scientists discrediting Bayer’s original study – and 1.25 million public comments, the EPA has delayed action on neonics until 2018. Other governments haven’t been so slow to act. Governments in Italy, Germany, France and elsewhere have already taken action to limit neonics, and beekeepers there are reporting recovery.

The 2013 EFSA study has prompted the EU Parliament to consider a two-year ban on three popular neonics. And, due to a successful campaign by our sister organization Friends of the Earth England, Wales, Northern Ireland, many of the major home and garden retailers in the UK have pledged to stop selling neonics.

Bees really are the “canary in the coal mine” when it comes to our food, telling us that the way we produce our food is unhealthy and unsustainable and needs a rapid transition to sustainable, just, ecological agriculture. A new USDA study shows that we could move away from chemically intensive industrial agriculture toward a system of ecologically friendly agriculture and continue to produce enough food for us all.

Friends of the Earth has some exciting actions coming up to save the bees and other pollinators. You’ll have an important role to play, so check back soon.

And in the meantime, choose to buy organic food as much as possible, and, as you plant your spring gardens, be sure to say no to the neonics and choose certified organic seeds and plants to help protect bees and other pollinators!

Photo credit: Maciej Czyżewsk, Wikimedia Commons via Creative Commons

Free trade in frankenfish? Trans Atlantic free trade agreement could be a monster

Bill Waren — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:22:12 -0400

“Frankenfish is a 2004 monster movie dealing with genetically engineered fish in the bayou.”

-Wikipedia

“European Union… measures governing the importation and use of GE (genetically engineered) products have resulted in substantial barriers to trade.”

U.S. Trade Representative, 2013 report on sanitary measures

In his 2013 State of the Union message, President Obama announced that the U.S. would move forward on negotiations with the European Union for the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a trade deal that raises a raft of serious environmental concerns.

Based on the model of past U.S. trade agreements, statements by officials, and published documents including a U.S.-E.U. “High Level Working Group” report outlining the objectives for negotiations, it appears that the goal is to grant transnational corporations and governments expanded “rights” under the Trans Atlantic agreement to challenge government regulations before international tribunals. In its short report, the working group proposes a deal that would focus on environmental and other regulations alleged to interfere with free market efficiency, rather than traditional trade issues such as lowering tariffs. The HLWG report explicitly recommends going beyond even World Trade Organization standards in the areas of intellectual property rights, sanitary measures, and so-called “technical barriers to trade” that already vitiate environmental protections.

The U.S. Trade Representative is widely expected to use U.S.-E.U. negotiations to subvert regulations on genetically engineered products, food safety, and synthetic biology, among many others. At the same time, USTR is expected to push for provisions in the agreement that encourage patents on human, plant and animal genes and use of cost-benefit analysis rather than the precautionary principle when setting environmental regulatory standards.

GE products: intellectual property and sanitary measures provisions

If based on the HLWG report, this Trans Atlantic free trade agreement (TAFTA) could open the door wide for gene patents, as well as trade in genetically engineered food and even products based on synthetic biology. This could threaten ecosystems, public health, and the livelihoods of small farmers, among other unintended and even frightening consequences.

The history of successful U.S. suits in the WTO challenging European policies on genetically engineered organisms and food safety under the sanitary measures agreement should be a warning. The working group’s report suggests establishing an even more rigorous review of sanitary measures in TAFTA than that currently employed under WTO rules. This could put GE and food safety regulations at even greater risk in TAFTA litigation.

Friends of the Earth believes that governments on both sides of the Atlantic should have more, not less freedom to regulate in this area. Genetic engineering of commercial products presents many known and more suspected risks to people and nature. GE products should be subject to government regulation based on the precautionary principle: in other words, the burden of proof for demonstrating a new product or technology’s safety should fall on those who would introduce it into the marketplace.

Food safety: sanitary measures provisions

Similarly, Friends of the Earth is concerned about how other food safety disputes would be treated under a WTO-plus regime for sanitary measures. Among the many areas of concern are EU food safety measures targeted as trade barriers in a 2013 USTR report, including restrictions on imports of beef treated with growth hormones, chicken washed in chlorine, and meat produced with growth stimulants (rectopamine). Another 2013 report also targets France in particular for its 2012 ban on use of materials produced using BPA in contact surfaces for food for infants and pregnant women. .

Cost-benefit analysis & the precautionary principle: regulatory coherence provisions

The HLWG report calls for the U.S.-E.U. deal to include a cross-cutting discipline on regulatory coherence “for the development and implementation of efficient, cost-effective, and more compatible regulations for goods and services.” In all probability, this recommendation by the HLWG contemplates something similar to the draft regulatory coherence chapter of the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement, a proposal that greatly concerns Friends of the Earth.

The leaked draft of the regulatory coherence chapter of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement encourages countries joining the pact to conduct regulatory impact assessments or RIAs when developing regulations, including environmental measures, which have more than a minimal cost burden on business and the economy. Cost-benefit analysis to determine the net benefit of environmental regulations, specifically, is encouraged.

In the view of Friends of the Earth the cost of environmental and other government regulations should not be ignored, but it ought to be looked at with a wider perspective. Calculations of seemingly definitive “ratios of benefit to costs” should be considered with balanced skepticism. Identifying and quantifying the costs of environmental regulation can be inflated by assumptions, bias of the analyst, and flaws in data gathering. Quantifying the benefits of environmental regulation can be difficult, for example because public health data is not as comprehensively collected as economic data. Or, it can be impossible: an attempt to attribute a price to the intrinsic value of human life, living things and nature itself. In our view, cost-benefit analysis, in many circumstances, can be at odds with a fundamental principle of environmental regulation: application of the precautionary principle in the face of an immeasurable environmental risk and inescapably uncertain outcomes.

An excellent example of an environmental issue involving uncertain outcomes that requires application of the precautionary principle, not cost-benefit analysis, is regulation of synthetic biology. While genetic engineering involves the exchange of genes between species, synthetic biology involves artificially creating new genetic code and inserting it into organisms. Synthetic organisms self-replicate. No one knows how they will interact with naturally occurring organisms or the consequences for the ecosystem as a whole. Standard forms of risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses used by current biotechnology regulatory approaches are inadequate to guarantee protection of the public and the environment.

Friends of the Earth concerns about TAFTA, more generally

The issues discussed in this first blog post regarding GE products, gene patents, food safety and synthetic biology are only a few of the environmental concerns raised by TAFTA negotiations. Follow-up blog posts will detail many other threats. Friends of the Earth is in the process of producing a comprehensive analysis of issues raised by the launch of TAFTA negotiations, and we will report to you, our readers, in blog posts as we finalize our research findings. To give you a preview of the breadth of environmental issues raised by these negotiations, here are several thematic concerns that Friends of the Earth has about upcoming TAFTA negotiations. In our view:

Environment and labor obligations in TAFTA should be treated in a similar manner to commercial obligations: they should be enforceable through dispute resolution.
In response to climate change, TAFTA should provide governments with policy space, free from the threat of trade litigation, to adopt climate change measures, such as a carbon tax, other tax measures and subsidies to encourage renewable energy, carbon and pollution regulations, and energy efficiency standards, among others.
TAFTA should not facilitate the “commoditization of the commons” -- our natural resources, water, and animal, plant and human genes.
TAFTA should not drive a harmonization down to the lowest common regulatory denominator, especially with respect to regulation of toxic chemicals, food safety, and GE organisms.
Investment disputes, such those related to mining, oil production, water, and energy services, should be adjudicated not before arbitral tribunals biased in favor of multinational corporations, but before domestic courts and administrative bodies.
TAFTA should not be negotiated in secret. A public debate will either make it a better agreement or sink a bad deal.

Human genes belong to human beings

Erich Pica — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:58:35 -0400

Today, I stood with women’s health activists, BRCA-positive women and activists and organizations from across the country in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to express Friends of the Earth’s support and solidarity with Breast Cancer Action, the Association for Molecular Pathology, and the other plaintiffs in their arguments to invalidate the patents that Myriad Genetics holds on the Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes 1 and 2 (collectively BRCA or BRCA1-2).

As we argued in our amici curiae brief, prepared by the International Center for Technology Assessment, we believe that these patents are illegal and the Supreme Court should rule to invalidate the BRCA 1-2 patents. The patents that Myriad Genetics hold are preventing important scientific research into breast cancer prevention and treatment by essentially creating a monopoly owned by Myriad Genetics. Scientists and researchers cannot research the BRCA 1-2 genes for fear of being sued by Myriad Genetics. This has a tremendous chilling effect on research on a disease that impacts approximately 290,000 women annually, accounting for 40,000 deaths.

Unfortunately, Myriad Genetics’ patents on BRCA1-2 are just two of the more 20 percent of the patents held on the human genome. This case is about much more than Myriad Genetics. This case is about whether companies, through the U.S. Patent office, can own life or the information needed to create life.

Friends of the Earth’s support for the invalidation of the Myriads Genetics is simple: you shouldn't be able to patent life or the building blocks of life.

Genetic material is the basis for all life, existing in nature since the beginning of the living world. The human genome is shared by all human beings, varying by only a fraction of a percent between people. This makes the human genome a common good and outside the realm of private property. These patents violate more than 150 years of patent law which dictates that you cannot patent naturally occurring things. What is more natural than DNA, the very building block of all life on the planet?

By commercializing genetic material, we have turned living beings into economic goods. Friends of the Earth is working to stop the patenting of all life forms, including our DNA, and to stop the commercialization and privatization of nature. For Friends of the Earth sister groups around the world, this is an important point. Currently, researchers, scientists and corporations are traveling the world seeking to understand the genetic code of indigenous peoples. These researchers are seeking traditional knowledge stored in the genetic code to make medical advances or to understand various diseases. They are also patenting and privatizing their discoveries, turning traditional genetic knowledge into a global commodity, essentially undertaking acts of biopiracy to create a monopoly and violating international law.

Finally, our knowledge of genetic information is still in its infancy. Theories about one for one genetic trait transmission and the theory of the uselessness of junk DNA is going through a radical rethink. The genetic code and the interactions between genetic materials are a vibrant ecosystem that we are just beginning to understand. Gene patents chill the ability of researchers to deepen our understanding of this genetic ecosystem and will ultimately be harmful to patients, scientists, researchers and the environment. By severely limiting scientific advances in the field of medicine and other areas, such as agriculture, we are limiting our ability to create a sustainable and just world where people and our environment are put before corporate profits.

I want to thank Breast Cancer Action, the Association for Molecular Pathology and the American Civil Liberties Union for challenging Myriad Genetics BRCA 1-2 gene patents, and believe that there is a preponderance of legal opinions for the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate these patents.

Top grocery stores: We won’t sell genetically engineered seafood

Lisa Matthes — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:01:00 -0400

Trader Joe’s, Aldi, Whole Foods, Marsh among stores that will reject GE fish

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A coalition of consumer, health, food safety and fishing groups today launched the “Campaign for Genetically Engineered (GE)-Free Seafood” by announcing that several major grocery retailers representing more than 2,000 stores across the United States have already committed not to sell genetically engineered seafood if it is allowed onto the market.

The growing market rejection of GE fish comes as the FDA conducts its final review of a genetically engineered salmon. If approved, the salmon would be the first-ever genetically engineered animal allowed to enter the human food supply.

Stores that have committed to not offer the salmon or other genetically engineered seafood include the national retailers Trader Joe’s (367 stores), Aldi (1,230 stores), Whole Foods (325 stores in US); regional chains such as Marsh Supermarkets (93 stores in Indiana and Ohio), PCC Natural Markets (9 stores in Washington State); and co-ops in Minnesota, New York, California and Kansas.

“We applaud these retailers for listening to the vast majority of their customers who want sustainable, natural seafood for their families. Now it’s time for other food retailers, including Walmart, Costco and Safeway, to follow suit and let their customers know they will not be selling unlabeled, poorly studied genetically engineered seafood,” said Eric Hoffman, food & technology policy campaigner with Friends of the Earth.

"Consumers Union has serious concerns about the safety of the first genetically engineered fish, a salmon engineered to grow to maturity twice as fast as wild salmon. FDA decided based on data from just six fish that there was no increased risk to people with fish allergies. However, even these meager data suggest that these fish show increased allergic potential," says Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist with Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports.

Consumer opposition to genetically engineered animals is strong. The majority of Americans say they won’t eat genetically engineered seafood, and 91 percent of Americans say the FDA should not allow it onto the market (Lake Research poll). (1) Eighty percent of Americans who regularly eat fish say that sustainable practices are "important" or "very important" to them, according to a 2013 NPR poll. (2)

“We won't sell genetically engineered fish because we don’t believe it is sustainable or healthy. It is troubling that the FDA is recommending approval of AquaBounty’s salmon as a ‘new animal drug,’ subjecting these engineered creatures to less rigorous safety standards than food additives. That’s not a credible safety assessment,” said Trudy Bialic from PCC Natural Markets in Washington State.

“Simply put, this genetically engineered fish is unnecessary and is a problem masquerading as a solution,” said Heather Whitehead, online campaigns director at Center for Food Safety. “We’re excited to see that grocery retailers agree that there is no need to introduce an unnecessary, unpopular and risky new technology to the marketplace without adequate assessment, posing risks to human health, the environment, wild salmon, and the sustainable fishing industry.”

The FDA has stated it will likely not label genetically engineered salmon, providing consumers no way of knowing if the fish they are feeding their families is genetically engineered. At least 35 other species of genetically engineered fish are currently under development, and the FDA’s decision on this genetically engineered salmon application will set a precedent for other genetically engineered fish and animals (including cows, chickens and pigs) to enter the global food market. (3)

To avoid confusion in the marketplace and ensure sustainable seafood, a coalition of 30 groups led by Friends of the Earth -- including the Center for Food Safety, Food & Water Watch, Consumers Union and Healthy Child Healthy World -- are asking grocery stores, seafood restaurants, chefs, and seafood companies to join the Pledge for GE-Free Seafood and publicly commit to not knowingly purchase or sell genetically engineered salmon or other genetically engineered seafood. The Pledge for GE-Free Seafood is another way for grocery stores to let their customers know about their purchasing policies.

“Parents are busy enough without having to worry if they're feeding their kids genetically engineered seafood. That's why we're excited about the Pledge for GE-Free Seafood," said Alexandra Zissu, editorial director of Healthy Child Healthy World, a family advocacy group. "Since the FDA will likely not label genetically engineered fish, this pledge will help parents -- and all of us -- know where we can safely shop to avoid eating the unknown. Then the focus can return to family meal fun, not risk management."

“Most consumers don't want to eat genetically engineered salmon, but without mandatory labeling it will be hard for them to avoid. That's why the stores who have committed to not to sell genetically engineered seafood are making a smart move and giving their customers what they want -- a way to avoid this controversial, unnecessary biotech fish,” said Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch.

###

Contact:
Eric Hoffman, 443-465-2219, ehoffman@foe.org;
Adam Russell, 202-222-0722, arussell@foe.org;
Stacy Malkan, 510-542-9224, stacydmalkan@gmail.com

NOTE: Stores named in this release as having a GE-free fish policy have communicated their policies to not source or sell genetically engineered seafood in at least one of the following ways: by signing and returning the Pledge for GE-Free Seafood, direct email communication with Friends of the Earth, or through public statements or public corporate policies.

For additional comment: PCC Markets, Trudy Bialic, 206-547-1222, trudy.bialic@pccsea.com;
Center for Food Safety, Heather Whitehead, 415-826-2770, Abigail Seiler, pr@centerforfoodsafety.org;
Food & Water Watch, 202-547-9359, Patty Lovera, 202-683-2465, plover@fwwatch.org;
Healthy Child, Healthy World, Alexandra Zissu, 646-486-2287, alexandra@healthychild.org;
Consumers Union, Michael Hansen, 914-378-2452, mhansen@consumer.org

*More on the health and environmental risks of genetically engineered salmon.

*More information on the Pledge for GE-Free Seafood, including a directory of stores committed to not knowingly sourcing or selling genetically engineered seafood, can be found online at www.gefreeseafood.org.

*Grocery stores, restaurants and chefs can add their name to the Pledge for GE-Free Seafood by emailing gefreeseafood@foe.org.

*The letter sent to retailers asking them to make this commitment was signed by 30 consumer, food safety, fishing, environmental, sustainable agriculture, parent, public health and animal health and welfare organizations, representing millions of supporters, can be found here.

Notes: (1) Lake Research Partners, Commissioned by Food and Water Watch, 9/20/10. “Americans in near unanimity on their disapproval of genetically engineered fish and meat in the marketplace.” http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2010/docs/fish_survey.pdf
(2) Barclay, Eliza. “Most Americans Eager To Buy Seafood That’s ‘Sustainable.’” National Public Radio, 12 Feb. 2013. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/02/11/171743185/most-americans-eager-to-buy-seafood-thats-sustainable
(3) Genetically Engineered Fish. Center for Food Safety, Jan. 2013. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ge-salmon-fact-sheet.pdf

Coming to a grocery store near you: The Campaign for GE-Free Seafood!

Eric Hoffman — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:01:00 -0400

Friends of the Earth is excited to announce our new campaign to prevent genetically engineered fish from hitting our dinner plates: the Campaign for Genetically Engineered (GE)-Free Seafood.

As we recently reported, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration is in the final stages of approving genetically engineered salmon for human consumption. If approved, it would be the first-ever genetically engineered animal allowed to enter the U.S. food supply. To make matters worse, the FDA has stated that it will likely not require genetically engineered fish to be labeled, providing consumers no way of avoiding it at the market. Without a label, consumers wouldn’t even be able to “vote with their wallets” for natural fish over the genetically engineered option.

Now for the good news: Through the Campaign for GE-Free Seafood, we’re identifying companies that have policies to not sell genetically engineered seafood, providing a way for consumers to safely buy seafood without unknowingly purchasing genetically engineered fish.

As part of our campaign, we’ve asked the nation’s top grocery stores to commit to not selling genetically engineered seafood and we are already seeing amazing results. Some of the biggest grocery stores in the U.S. have stated that they will not sell genetically engineered seafood, including Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Aldi, Marsh Supermarkets and PCC Natural Markets.

This is huge news! These stores represent a significant portion of the U.S. market and, by agreeing to not sell genetically engineered seafood, they are showing their staunch support for consumers’ rights. But our work is not done yet.

There are still many grocery stores – including Walmart, Costco and Safeway – that may soon be selling unlabeled genetically engineered fish to their customers. It’s essential that, as consumers, we speak up for our right to know what foods we feed our families by encouraging these stores to not carry genetically engineered seafood.

Don’t see your favorite grocery store on the list of signers? Click here to sign a petition to other grocery stores and make it clear that consumers do not want genetically engineered salmon or other genetically engineered seafood in their neighborhood markets.

Our campaign is just ramping up, so be sure to check out our website at www.gefreeseafood.org for updates as we continue to add more stores, restaurants and chefs to the list. And take action today to tell your favorite grocery stores you don’t want to purchase genetically engineered seafood by asking them to Sign the Pledge for GE-Free Seafood.

Thanks to our partners: Alaska Marine Conservation Council, Alliance for Natural Health USA, American Anti-Vivisection Society, Animal Welfare Institute, Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Food Democracy Now!, Food & Water Watch, Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture, Gloucester fishermen’s Wives Association, Go Wild Campaign, Healthy Child Healthy World, Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Institute for Responsible Technology, Mangrove Action Project, Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership, National Family Farm Coalition, National Organic Coalition, Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance, Organic Consumers Association, Sierra Club, Waikiki Hawaiian Civic Club, Wild Salmon First

And thanks to the stores for taking a lead on this important issue!

Here’s to a future with real seafood and a safe, sustainable food system.

Tests reveal potentially toxic titanium dioxide in sunscreen and cosmetics

Lisa Matthes — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:57:21 -0500

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, Friends of the Earth U.S. and Australia revealed new testing results from the Australian Government’s National Measurement Institute, which found that many popular sunscreen and cosmetic products are using a potentially hazardous form of a common ingredient -- anatase titanium dioxide. Six of the eight products tested, including well-known brands such as Nivea (Beiersdorf AG (BEIG.DE)), L'Oreal SA (OREP.PA), and CoverGirl (Procter & Gamble Co (NYSE:PG)), were found to contain this ingredient.

"The product we are most concerned about is Nivea Sun 'Kids Swim and Play' sunscreen, since independent analysis of the test results by Uniquest found that more than 90 percent of the particles extracted from the product were nanoparticles. (note 1) Due to their large relative surface area, nanoparticles of anatase titanium dioxide are much more reactive than larger particles of the chemical. Protecting our skin from the sun is no joke, and sunscreens are an important part of staying safe from harmful UV rays. On the other hand, some sunscreens may not be as effective and safe as we think,” said Ian Illuminato, health and environment campaigner at Friends of the Earth U.S.

Some skin cancers are linked to UV-induced free radical damage to the skin, which is why wearing sunscreens with strong broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection is recommended by medical authorities. However, recent studies have shown that the anatase form of titanium dioxide (and in particular nano-scale anatase titanium dioxide) can increase the formation of free radicals when exposed to sunlight and water and a number of scientists have questioned the safety of their use in sunscreens and other skin products. Anatase is an aggressive free radical producer compared to rutile, another less reactive form of titanium dioxide used in sunscreens, cosmetics and other products.

In 2008, a peer reviewed study found that nano anatase titanium dioxide in sunscreen was reacting with sunlight and breaking down the coating on steel roofing in a matter of weeks. This study was prompted by reports that coatings on roofs were breaking down in places where workers had inadvertently transferred sunscreen to roofs via skin contact. Researchers from the 2008 study found that this sunscreen ingredient increased the normal rate of sun damage to the roofs by 100 times. (note 2) The study raised serious concerns about the impact these ingredients may be having on our skin. In 2010, Italian scientists warned that anatase titanium dioxide is “capable of destroying virtually any organic matter.” (note 3)

While the products tested by NMI are sold in Australia, several of these brands are also sold in the United States and other global markets and therefore may use similar ingredients in their formulations. The sunscreen and cosmetic products that were found to include anatase titanium dioxide include Nivea Kid’s Swim and Play Sunscreen, Coco Island White Zinc Sunscreen, Key Sun White Zinke Sunscreen, L’Oreal Infallible Advanced Never Fail Make-up, CoverGirl Natureluxe Liquid Silk Foundation and Australis Powder Cream Make-up. KeySun Zinke and Coco Island Sunscreens were also found to contain nanoparticles, although the NMI was unable to confirm whether these nanoparticles were anatase titanium dioxide or zinc oxide.

Friends of the Earth is calling for an immediate ban on the use of anatase titanium dioxide in sunscreen and cosmetics and for safety testing and labeling of nano-ingredients in sunscreen and other body care products. Europe will require the safety testing and labeling of nano-ingredients in sunscreens starting in July 2013. (note 4) However, the U.S. government continues to reject calls for adequate safety testing and labeling.

“We know that companies in the United States are incorporating nano-scale titanium dioxide in sunscreens and cosmetics, the question is, are they using it in anatase form?” said Janet Nudelman, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “We encourage the FDA to give this serious public health issue the attention it deserves. Moreover, all nano-scale ingredients need to be adequately tested for safety before being used. Congress urgently needs to enact legislation that would more strictly regulate the cosmetics industry to ensure that nano-scale ingredients are labeled and to guarantee the personal care products we use every day are free from harmful chemicals in the first place. In the meantime, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has been specifically calling on Procter & Gamble, L’Oreal, and other major brands to remove carcinogens and other harmful chemicals from their personal care products; the laboratory findings on sunscreens reaffirm that immediate action by these companies to ensure product safety is critical.”

Contact:
In North America: Adam Russell, 202-222-0751, arussell@foe.org; Ian Illuminato, 604-737-2282, iilluminato@foe.org
In Australia: Louise Sales, +61 0435 589 579, louise.sales@foe.org.au

To arrange an interview with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to discuss the issue of cosmetics safety in the United States, please contact Margie Kelly, 541-222-9699, mkelly@breastcancerfund.org.

Additional resources:

Summary of findings and frequently asked questions.

Full test results from NMI: Sunscreens that contain anatase.

Full test results from NMI: Sunscreens that contain nano-ingredients.

Read more about the risks of nanosunscreens in the report Nano-ingredients in Sunscreen: The need for regulation.

Additional resources and information on nanotechnology and nanomaterials in sunscreens and other products.

Notes:

1. UniQuest report commissioned by Friends of the Earth Australia. http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/15/3/2814/UniQuest-Report-C01161.pdf

2. Other research articles demonstrating that anatase titanium dioxide is an aggressive free radical producer compared to rutile titanium dioxide:

a. Barker P. & Branch A. (2008). The interaction of modern sunscreen formulations with surface coatings. Prog Org Coatings 62: 313–320. (study done on Colorbond roofs mentioned in press release)

b. Rampaul A., Parkin I. P. & Cramer L. P. (2007). Damaging and protective properties of inorganic components of sunscreens applied to cultured human skin cells. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 191: 138-148.

3. 2010 study by Italian scientists: Tiano L., Armeni T., Venditti E., Barucca G., Laura Mincarelli L. & Damiani E. (2010). Modified TiO2 particles differentially affect human skin fibroblasts exposed to UVA light. Free Radical Biology & Medicine 49:408–415.

4. Europe will require the safety testing and labeling of nano-ingredients in sunscreens starting in July 2013, see European Commission - Public health guidance (05-07-2012). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/dyna/enews/enews.cfm?al_id=1276

###

Friends of the Earth U.S. fights to defend the environment and create a more healthy and just world. Our current campaigns focus on promoting clean energy and solutions to climate change, keeping toxic and risky technologies out of the food we eat and products we use, and protecting marine ecosystems and the people who live and work near them.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is a coalition of public health, educational, religious, labor, women’s, environmental and consumer groups. Our goal is to protect the health of consumers and workers by requiring the health and beauty industry to phase out the use of chemicals that are known or suspected carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins.

Test summary: Potentially toxic titanium dioxide in sunscreen and cosmetics

Ian Illuminato — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:56:35 -0500

Friends of the Earth has released new testing results from the Australian Government’s National Measurement Institute , which has found that many popular sunscreen and cosmetic products are using potentially hazardous forms of a common ingredient -- anatase titanium dioxide and nano anatase titanium dioxide. Six of the eight products tested, including well-known brands such as Nivea (Beiersdorf AG (BEIG.DE)), L'Oreal SA (OREP.PA), and CoverGirl (Procter & Gamble Co (NYSE:PG)), were found to contain this ingredient.

Test results and resources:

Press release.

Summary of the test results.

Full test results from NMI: Sunscreens that contain anatase.

Full test results from NMI: Sunscreens that contain nano-ingredients.

Read more about the risks of nanosunscreens in the report Nano-ingredients in Sunscreen: The need for regulation.

Additional resources and information on nanotechnology and nanomaterials in sunscreens and other products.

Frequently asked questions:

What did the recent tests find?

Why should we be concerned about anatase titanium dioxide?

Why should we be concerned about nanomaterials in sunscreen?

Can nanoparticles penetrate the skin?

Why aren’t nano ingredients labeled as such?

How can I avoid nano-ingredients in sunscreen? What about anatase and nano anatase ingredients?

What can we do to make sunscreen and cosmetics safer?

Other ways to protect yourself from the sun’s rays.

What did the recent tests find?

Sunscreens are an essential ingredient for fun in the sun. On the other hand, some sunscreens may not be as effective and safe as we think. On March 5, Friends of the Earth U.S. and Friends of the Earth Australia released new test results from the Australian Government’s National Measurement Institute showing many popular sunscreen and cosmetic products, made by companies including Nivea, L’Oreal and CoverGirl, contain a potentially hazardous form of a common sunscreen and cosmetics ingredient -- anatase titanium dioxide. See the summary of the results. While the products tested are sold in Australia, several of these brands are also sold in the United States and other markets globally and may use similar formulations.

Why should we be concerned about anatase titanium dioxide?

Some skin cancers are linked to UV-induced free radical damage of DNA and skin cells, which is why wearing sunscreens with strong broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection is a good idea. However, recent peer reviewed studies have shown that the anatase form of titanium dioxide, found in sunscreens, is a potent photocatylist and can greatly increase the formation of free radicals when exposed to sunlight and water. Studies have shown that nano anatase titanium dioxide (1-100 nm) is even more reactive and therefore hazardous, and a number of scientists have questioned the safety of the use of this ingredient in sunscreens and other skin products.¹

For example, in 2008, an Australian study found that nano anatase titanium dioxide in sunscreen was reacting with sunlight and breaking down the coating on steel roofs in a matter of weeks. This study was prompted by reports that coatings on painted roofs were breaking down in places where workers had inadvertently transferred sunscreen to roofs via skin contact. Researchers from the 2008 study found that this sunscreen ingredient increased the normal rate of sun damage to the roofs by 100 times.¹In 2010, Italian scientists warned that anatase titanium dioxide is “capable of destroying virtually any organic matter.”² These studies raise serious concerns about the effect these ingredients may be having on our skin. This is of particular concern for infants and children who have thinner, developing skin and individuals likely to have broken skin due to contact dermatitis, eczema, acne or other skin conditions, which could potentially allow more particles to have contact with living cells.

Why should we be concerned about nanomaterials in sunscreen?

You may be surprised (and concerned) to know that many sunscreen products contain potentially hazardous nano-ingredients. Nanotechnology involves the manipulation of materials and the creation of structures and systems that exist at the scale of atoms and molecules. This is seriously tiny stuff: a human hair is about 80,000 nanometers (nm) in diameter.

Because of their size, the properties of nanoscale materials (measuring <100 nm) differ significantly from larger scales of the same materials, introducing new and potentially heightened risks of toxicity that remain poorly understood. Learn more about nanomaterials.

Can nanoparticles penetrate the skin?

We do not yet know the extent to which nanomaterials in sunscreens penetrate intact, healthy skin, although it seems likely they could have greater penetration through damaged skin. If nano titanium dioxide particles are absorbed into the skin, they could make sun damage worse. This could especially a problem for people with skin conditions such as eczema that may make them more vulnerable to skin penetration by nanomaterials.

Friends of the Earth Australia’s recent report Nano Ingredients in Sunscreen: the need for regulation outlines evidence that skin penetration by nanoparticles may occur.

Why aren’t nano ingredients labeled as such?

You won't find nano-ingredients listed on the label, because many product manufacturers would prefer that you didn't know about them. And because they're not legally required to list them on the label, they don't.

Nanomaterials are currently in a variety of cosmetics and sunscreens without being adequately assessed for safety. Nano-ingredients are not necessary to manufacture effective sunscreens and there is no need to put their commercial use ahead of appropriate health and environmental safety assessments.

Scientists around the world are increasingly concerned that the addition of nano-ingredients to a whole range of consumer goods like food, clothing and cosmetics may cause serious health problems. Because of this, regulators in Europe are introducing legislation to ensure that nano-ingredients used in sunscreens are labeled, and undergo safety testing. But the U.S. government refuses to take similar action. Tell the FDA we need safe sunscreens and cosmetics now.

How can I avoid nano-ingredients in sunscreen? What about anatase and nano anatase ingredients?

Sunscreens that contain the active ingredients zinc oxide or titanium dioxide and also rub on clear with no white residue may contain nano-ingredients. Also, it is possible that the use of anatase titanium dioxide is widespread in sunscreens in Australia and possibly in other markets, including the U.S. Without proper labeling it is impossible to know.

What can we do to make sunscreen and cosmetics safer?

Until better regulations are in place, consumers should contact their sunscreen manufacturer and ask whether its ingredients are nano- and anatase titanium dioxide-free. If either ingredient is found in a product you use, demand that the company stop using it or risk losing your business.

However, we can’t shop our way out of this problem -- what we really need are health protective safety assessments that aim to protect our most vulnerable populations and labeling of nanomaterials (and of all sunscreen and cosmetic ingredients) and for our government to ban the use of anatase titanium dioxide and other hazardous ingredients in sunscreens and cosmetics.

Beyond pressuring individual manufacturers, you can sign our petition asking the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to test the safety of nano- and anatase-ingredients, and demand that products with these ingredients be labeled so consumers can make informed purchasing decisions. Europe will require the safety testing and labeling of nano-ingredients in sunscreens starting in July 2013; the U.S. should do the same.

You can also urge your Member of Congress to support the Safe Cosmetics Act when it is introduced in the new Congress to ensure that all cosmetics ingredients undergo health protective safety assessments before they end up in our products and on our bodies.

Other ways to protect yourself from the sun’s rays:

• Stay in the shade, especially between the sun’s peak hours (10 a.m.- 4 p.m.).

• Cover up with clothing, a brimmed hat and UV-blocking sunglasses.

• Avoid tanning and UV tanning booths.

• Examine your skin, head-to-toe, every month.

• See your physician every year for a professional skin exam.

Notes:

1. Other research articles demonstrating that anatase titanium dioxide is an aggressive free radical producer compared to rutile:

a. Barker P. & Branch A. (2008). The interaction of modern sunscreen formulations with surface coatings. Prog Org Coatings 62: 313–320. (study done on Colorbond roofs mentioned in press release)

2. 2010 study by Italian scientists: Tiano L., Armeni T., Venditti E., Barucca G., Laura Mincarelli L. & Damiani E. (2010). Modified TiO2 particles differentially affect human skin fibroblasts exposed to UVA light. Free Radical Biology & Medicine 49:408–415.

3. Europe will require the safety testing and labeling of nano-ingredients in sunscreens from July 2013, see European Commission - Public health guidance (05-07-2012). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/dyna/enews/enews.cfm?al_id=1276

4. UniQuest report commissioned by Friends of the Earth Australia. http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/15/3/2814/UniQuest-Report-C01161.pdf

Synthetic biology and the “bioeconomy”: Feeding fuel to the fire of landgrabs and biodiversity loss

Jeff Conant and Eric Hoffman — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:08:00 -0500

When our friends at Global Forest Coalition asked us to write an article examining the links between the synthetic biology industry and trends in the forest sector, we were happy to put together the following article, a version of which has just run in their magazine, Forest Cover. -- Eric Hoffman and Jeff Conant

One of the driving factors in the first industrial revolution was the large-scale substitution of fossil fuels for wood, which had been the primary source of energy for millennia: when it came to energy production, trees took a back seat to oil and coal. Now, after our fossil fuel addiction has ravaged the global ecosystem, a second industrial revolution is underway which promises to reverse this paradigm – but not necessarily for the better.

With the rapid development of a set of new technologies collectively known as ‘synthetic biology’, industry groups and the US Department of Energy are celebrating the advent of a new ‘bioeconomy’ — an energy and materials economy being promoted in the US, the EU and other countries, in which products and processes previously derived from petroleum will be produced by using biotechnology. By employing the rapidly expanding techniques of synthetic biology, the new industrialists want to turn microbes into ‘living chemical factories’. These genetically-altered microbes — yeasts, e-coli, algae and other living organisms — are now being engineered to break down biomass — living plants — to produce substances they would not produce naturally, such as biofuels, bio-plastics, industrial chemicals and oils, and even medicines.

There is of course a great need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, and a great imperative to employ the best science at our disposal to enable the transition. However, early indications show that simply swapping out petrochemicals for biomass-based fuels likely harbors all of the ill-effects of the fossil fuel economy, and brings the additional threat of ramping up the assault on biodiversity brought on by biotechnologies such as genetic engineering of crops.

Humans have already caused a state-shift in the global ecosystem, bringing the planet into a new geological era - the Anthropocene – where the collective impact of human technology has outstripped nature as the most potent force driving ecological cycles. So what happens when we turn to biomass and synthetic biology to run our industrial energy, food, and materials production systems?

These new ‘synthetic biology’ technologies push the limits of what was previously possible with ‘conventional’ genetic engineering. Rather than moving one or two genes between different organisms, as conventional genetic engineering does, synthetic biology is enabling the writing and re-writing of genetic code on a computer, working with hundreds and thousands of DNA sequences at a time, and even trying to re-engineer entire biological systems. Synthetic biology’s technique, scale, and its use of entirely new, artificial genetic sequences make it, in essence, an extreme and highly unpredictable form of genetic engineering.

Synthetic biology is a nascent but rapidly growing field, worth over US$1.6 billion in annual global sales today and expected to grow to US$10.8 billion by 2016. Many of the largest energy, chemical, forestry, pharmaceutical, food and agribusiness corporations are investing in synthetic biology research and development, or establishing joint ventures, in a race for this holy grail of biotech. A handful of products derived from synthetic biology have already reached the commercial market. Many others are in pre-commercial stages.

Critically, all these microbial production processes depend on the availability of industrial-scale supplies of feedstocks for fermentation tanks and bio-refineries. These include sugars derived from agricultural and forest biomass (both from natural forests and from monoculture tree plantations). This could have enormous impacts on biodiversity, and the livelihoods and food security of local and indigenous communities. With an estimated 86% of global biomass stored in the tropics or subtropics, developing countries are already being tapped as the major source of biomass.

But as the first signs of this biomass- and forest-grabbing begin to emerge, the temperate forests of the North are not off the hook either. A company called Mascoma, for example, has patented a technology it calls Consolidated Bioprocessing (CBP) in which “genetically modified yeast and bacteria convert cellulosic biomass into high-value end-products in a single step that combines hydrolysis and fermentation.” In 2011, ethanol producer Valero Energy offered US$50 million to build a refinery that would use Mascoma’s CBP process to turn wood into ethanol. The plant, in northern Michigan, is expected to produce 20 million gallons of ethanol a year to begin with, but eventually expand production to 80 million gallons per year.

According to the environmental assessment of the Mascoma plant, its mid-range production, 40 million gallons of ethanol a year, would require 71,000 acres of timber annually (given that it takes roughly one acre of forest to produce 563 gallons of ethanol).

What does this look like at scale? The US renewable fuel standard calls for no less than 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuel by 2022. At 563 gallons per acre, that would require 28,419,182 acres of forest per year — an area of forest just shy of the entire state of New York, to be eaten by synthetic bugs and burned up as fuel every year — hardly what you’d think of as ‘sustainable.’ And, as Rachel Smolker of Biofuelwatch has pointed out, that is just for a portion of liquid transport fuels, on top of rapidly expanding plans to burn biomass for electricity and to manufacture a wide range of industrial products.

The dream of cellulosic biofuels is that they will (or so goes the theory) avoid the food-for-fuel conundrum that was a major factor in the world food crisis of 2007. In fact, so-called ‘next generation’ fuels will only exacerbate this problem, by transforming ‘low-value’ forest and agricultural ‘wastes’ such as straw, leaves and branches into high-value feedstocks. The chemical and energy companies boosting synthetic biology and biofuels argue that they will grow biomass on unused ‘marginal’ lands. But, for land-based people in the global South, no lands are ‘marginal’; and for the complex dynamics of forests and agro-ecosystems, what industry posits as ‘wastes’ are important components the recycling of nutrients in soil, promoting biodiversity, and sequestering CO².

Furthermore, the innovation of using synthetic microbes to break down cellulose makes all biomass potential fodder for fuel-production. While this may sound desirable from an industrial growth perspective, it will further incentivize the expansion of existing ethanol feedstocks, such as sugar and eucalyptus, into sensitive areas like the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado, accompanied by huge demands for water, fertilizer, and cheap labor. It will also put the entire terrestrial biosphere up for grabs as a fuel source.

While Mascoma is preparing to transform America’s northern woods into chips with its cellulose-eating microbes, another company leading the bioeconomy land rush, ArborGen, is genetically engineering trees to grow with less lignin – the woody stuff that makes trees stand up – so that they can be more easily converted into sugar for biofuels. Through their work sequencing the genomes of eucalyptus, pine, and poplar, ArborGen is tied to the US Department of Energy’s National Laboratories and to the Joint Bioenergy Institute, a public-private venture whose primary mission is to develop the next generation of biofuels.

With the advent of the bioeconomy, our approach to energy, manufacturing and consumption is poised to wreak havoc on the planet’s remaining biodiversity. Yet despite these technologies’ rapid growth, there are no national or international regulations to insulate biodiversity and livelihoods from the potential ravages of synthetic biology and biomass energy and production. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity has started to look at these issues, but failed to implement a moratorium at its recent negotiations in October 2012.

In the face of this new bio-industrial revolution, civil society, social movements, NGOs and governments must come together to bring an end to all forms of land and biomass grabbing. In addition, there must be a moratorium on synthetic biology – something Friends of the Earth is pushing for internationally – to ensure this emerging technology is properly regulated and does not threaten the environment, biodiversity, human health, or social justice.

Synthetic biology on Dan Rather Reports tonight

Eric Hoffman — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 07:00:00 -0500

Tonight, Dan Rather Reports will run an hour-long special on synthetic biology. Friends of the Earth has been leading the charge for the proper oversight of this emerging technology and was interviewed for this investigative piece and we highlight our concerns with the rapid developments in synthetic biology in the absence of proper regulation:

Synthetic biology is an extreme form of genetic engineering, an emerging technology that is developing rapidly yet is largely unregulated. With synthetic biology, instead of swapping genes from one species to another (as in “conventional” genetic engineering), scientists can now write and re-write novel genetic code on a computer, "printing" it out and then inserting it into organisms, or even trying to create life from scratch, creating new organisms that have never existed before in nature.

While synthetic biology holds many promises, it also creates many new risks. The ways in which synthetic organisms will interact with the natural environment are unknown, unpredictable and potentially devastating and permanent. While other types of pollution can be cleaned up and do not breed, synthetic biological creations are designed to self-replicate and, once released into the environment, they will be impossible to recall. A synthetic organism designed for a specific task, such as eating up oil from oil spills in the ocean, could swap genes with naturally occurring organisms and outcompete them, potentially disrupting entire ecosystems as a new class of invasive species

Unfortunately, this field is largely unregulated in the U.S. and internationally. Friends of the Earth has been working to promote the responsible oversight of synthetic biology, including advocacy at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity for a moratorium on the environmental release and commercial use of synthetic biology until proper regulations and safety mechanism are in place to ensure the field’s safe and responsible development.

To learn more about synthetic biology, its promises, and its risks check out Dan Rather Reports tonight at 8:00pm and 11pm EDT on AXS TV. For a quick intro to the program, check out the promo video above.

Image and video courtesy of Dan Rather Reports

Genetically engineered salmon one step away from approval – take action now!

Eric Hoffman — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:09:37 -0500

Right before the holidays, while most of us were spending time with our families and friends, the Food and Drug Administration was busy giving the biotechnology industry a big, fat, genetically engineered gift. On December 21, the FDA quietly released its long-awaited draft Environmental Assessment on genetically engineered salmon -- the last step before it can approve GE salmon for human consumption. This fish, which has been genetically engineered to grow twice as fast as other farmed salmon, would be the first-ever GE animal that could end up on our dinner plates.

The FDA is nearing its final approval of GE salmon despite the fact that poll after poll shows that the public doesn’t want to eat genetically engineered fish or other animals. To make matters worse, the GE salmon will most likely not be labeled—making it difficult for people to avoid when shopping or dining out. The approval of GE salmon will also open the floodgates for other genetically engineered animals, including pigs and cows, to enter the food supply.

Friends of the Earth, along with our allies, has called on the FDA to complete an Environmental Impact Statement – a much more thorough review of risks than a shorter Environmental Assessment, which was just released. An EIS would look at the environmental impacts of full-scale commercialization of GE salmon, for example, and would also look at the economic impacts posed to fishermen and fishing communities around the country. We are confident that once the FDA has done its due diligence, it will have no choice but to deny approval of GE salmon.

FDA’s assessment is fatally flawed and fails to take into account the very real risk that these fish pose to endangered wild salmon, the environment, public healthand our fishing communities on both coasts. The Environmental Assessment fails to:

Take into account the impacts full-scale commercialization of GE fish will pose to the environment. AquaBounty, the developer of GE salmon, admits it has plans to raise GE salmon around the world, yet the FDA has intentionally limited the scope of its review to the company’s initial stage of production in Canada and Panama.
Fully asses the risks GE fish pose to the environment if they were to escape confinement. According to the assistant regional director for fisheries for the Fish & Wildlife Service’s Northeast region, James Geiger, “Although AquaBounty claims their fish are sterile, that sterilization process is not 100 percent. There is the possibility that some of these fish could escape and reproductively interact with wild native salmon…Any potential offspring could reduce the biological and ecological fitness of the native wild salmon…any potential escape, no matter how little,” Geiger states, has the potential to harm endangered wild salmon populations. The FDA on the other hand, assumes no fish will escape so there is no risk despite the fact that upwards of 5% of the fish may be fertile and can mate with wild salmon populations.
Look at the risk of spreading disease to wild salmon populations. The EA concludes that GE salmon are no more susceptible to disease than other farmed salmon but then assumes that the GE fish will not transmit any disease to wild fish. We have learned from conventional salmon farming that these fish regularly spread viruses and parasites to wild fish populations. Even more troubling is the fact that AquaBounty had a case of the deadly Infectious Salmon Anemia virus, a fact that was not mentioned at the FDA’s public hearing in 2010. This EA fails to look at where the virus came from and does not discuss any plans to prevent ISA from infecting these facilities again in the future.

Take action now!

The FDA is accepting comments until February 25. We need your help to tell the FDA to no to this risky “Frankenfish”.

Click here to tell them that this is a bad deal for both consumers and the environment. We must let President Obama and his FDA know that we do not want genetically engineered salmon to threaten our environment, wild fisheries, our health or the livelihood of fishing communities on our coasts.