|
The News
|
Will FDA Approve Genetically Modified Salmon? |
|
Written by National Public Radio
|
|
9/7/10 Transcript: MELISSA BLOCK, host: Will the Food and Drug Administration approve the first genetically modified animal for human consumption? The animal is a genetically engineered salmon that grows to market size twice as fast as conventional salmon. And the FDA will be holding public meetings about that fish starting on September 19th. The company behind the salmon, AquaBounty Technologies, got a thumbs-up last week from a panel of FDA scientists. They concluded there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food from this animal. So what should we know about this fish and its future? Professor Anne Kapuscinski is a fisheries biologist at Dartmouth College. She has studied both endangered salmon and genetically modified fish. Welcome to the program. Professor ANNE KAPUSCINSKI (Professor of Sustainability Science, Dartmouth College): Thank you for having me. BLOCK: And why don't you explain first how this salmon has been genetically modified to grow faster? Prof. KAPUSCINSKI: The company that's developed these fish has inserted two genes. One gene is for growth hormone, and it's almost identical to the growth hormone gene that's already in these salmon. And then the other gene acts like a little switch. It's a piece of DNA that comes from another fish, from the ocean pout, and it's normally connected to the gene that produces antifreeze protein in that fish. In the case of these salmon, they've just taken the part of the DNA that acts like a switch, and that switch turns on the gene that produces the growth hormone so that the salmon will produce growth hormone in its tissues throughout the year, whereas a conventional salmon only produces growth hormone during the warmer times of the year, when the water temperatures are warmer. BLOCK: So they end up growing to market size in, what, 18 months instead of three years. Prof. KAPUSCINSKI: I think that's about right. It's about half the time. BLOCK: When the FDA studies this genetically modified salmon to see whether it's safe to eat, what are they looking at? How do they make that decision? Prof. KAPUSCINSKI: The FDA asked the company to present data on several issues. First of all, is the inserted gene safe for the health of the animal? Is the inserted gene and the growth hormone it's producing safe for humans to eat the fish? And third, will the farming of these fish have any effects on the environment? They are not required to conclude that they're environmentally safe, and that's the only condition under which to approve them. That law just requires an environmental assessment, basically figuring out what would be the effect on the quality of the human environment. Read Full Transcript or Play the Audio |
|
|
Dead zones a coastal threat |
|
Written by Mike Lee, San Diego Union-Tribune
|
|
9/3/10 Dead zones increased dramatically in U.S. waters over the past 50 years, threatening ecosystems and fisheries nationwide, according to a sweeping report Friday by the federal Office of Science and Technology Policy. The multiagency assessment said that incidents of hypoxia — a condition in which oxygen levels drop so low that fish and other animals are stressed or killed — have risen nearly 30-fold since 1960 due in part to man-made pollutants. It called for renewed efforts to reduce water pollutants that lead to low levels of dissolved oxygen and improve strategies to protect marine food sources. A dead zone in San Diego Bay, first documented in the 1980s, was part of the analysis. Scientists have used it for years as an example of an oxygen-starved area where runoff from cities contributes to hypoxic conditions. “There are reasons to worry about San Diego Bay, but hypoxia hasn’t been studied as rigorously here as it has in other places like the Chesapeake Bay, where it is a much bigger problem,” said Brian Hentschel, a biology professor at San Diego State University who studies bottom-dwelling organisms such as worms, clams and shrimps. He hopes Friday’s national assessment spurs more funding for local research that tracks dissolved oxygen and related factors across San Diego Bay over time. “That report should trigger some alarm bells because it’s pretty clear that the human impacts that create hypoxic conditions have been increasing,” Hentschel said. “More detailed data now will make it easier 15 or 20 years from now to know how the bay is changing.” Dead zones were detected in nearly half of the 647 waterways assessed. On the West Coast, federal researchers found a sixfold increase in the number of dead zones over the past 20 years, with 37 areas now suffering from low oxygen. A region off the coast of Oregon and Washington has become the second-largest seasonal hypoxic region in the United States and third largest in the world. Friday’s report said work to study and control pollutants are advancing but management efforts to stem the tide of hypoxia “have not made significant headway” in part due to increased development and population growth in coastal watersheds. “If current practices are continued, the expansion of hypoxia in coastal waters will continue and increase in severity, leading to further impacts on marine habitats, living resources, economies, and coastal communities,” the report’s authors said. Read Full Article |
|
California Plastic Bag Ban Rejected By State Lawmakers |
|
Written by Robin Hindery, Huffington Post
|
|
9/1/10 California lawmakers have rejected a bill seeking to ban plastic shopping bags after a contentious debate over whether the state was going too far in trying to regulate personal choice.
The Democratic bill, which failed late Tuesday, would have been the first statewide ban, although a few California cities already prohibit their use.
The measure offered California an opportunity to emerge at the forefront of a global trend, said Sen. Gil Cedillo, who carried the measure on the Senate floor.
"If we don't solve this problem today, if we don't create a statewide standard, if we don't provide the leadership that is being called for, others will," the Los Angeles Democrat said during Tuesday evening's debate.
Discouraging plastic bag use through fees or bans first gained traction outside of the U.S. in nations such as South Africa, Ireland, China and Bangladesh. In January, Washington, D.C., implemented a 5-cent surcharge on disposable paper and plastic bags.
A handful of California cities already ban single-use plastic bags, after San Francisco became the first to do so in 2007.
Palo Alto, Malibu and Fairfax in Marin County have since followed, while a ban approved in Manhattan Beach is tied up in litigation, said Matthew King, a spokesman for Heal the Bay, the Santa Monica-based nonprofit that sponsored AB1998.
Supporters of the bill said the 19 billion plastic bags state residents use every year harm the environment and cost the state $25 million annually to collect and transport to landfills. It had been the subject of a furious lobbying campaign by the plastic bag manufacturing industry, which called it a job killer.
The bill's author, Democratic Assemblywoman Julia Brownley of Santa Monica, said lawmakers had failed Californians by defeating the measure. But she said the movement to ban plastic bags would continue despite the setback.
The bill's main opponent, the Virginia-based American Chemistry Council, spent millions in lobbying fees, radio ads and even a prime-time television ad attacking the measure. The organization represents plastic bag manufacturers such as Dow Chemical Co. and ExxonMobil Corp.
Last year, it helped defeat an effort by Seattle to impose a 20-cent fee on the use of plastic or paper grocery bags. Read Full Article |
|
|
MLPA Stakeholders Develop Unified Proposal For North Coast |
|
Written by Dan Bacher, IndyBay
|
|
9/1/10 The development of a unified marine protected area (MLPA) proposal on the North Coast is a great victory for fishermen, Tribes, seaweed harvesters, environmentalists and other stakeholders in the MLPA process. Rather than being “divided and conquered” by the Schwarzenegger administration as has happened elsewhere in the MLPA study regions, they chose to work together and overcome their differences to develop a consensus proposal.
In a great show of unity between Tribal members, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen and environmentalists, the 33 members of the Regional Stakeholder Group for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative on August 31 adopted one unified proposal for marine protected areas (MPAs) stretching from Point Arena in Mendocino County to the Oregon border.
The North Coast stakeholders were the first ever to develop a single consensus proposal under the controversial, privately funded process. In the Central Coast, North Central Coast and South Coast regions, environmental NGOs and fishing groups supported separate proposals.
The proposal will be submitted to the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for review at before their October 25-27 meeting at the Fortuna River Lodge. The final proposal will then go to the Fish and Game Commission for final approval at their meeting in Sacramento in December.
"Everyone talked about a unified community proposal at the beginning of the MLPA process, but I wasn't expecting to pull it off,” said Adam Wagschal, Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreational and Conservation District Conservation Director, in a news release from Cal Oceans, a coalition of three environmental NGOs. “Sure enough though, everyone came together and we did it. It's a great accomplishment.”
Tribal representatives also applauded the adoption of a unified proposal that allows for traditional tribal fishing and gathering rights. The stakeholders meeting was preceded by a historic protest in Fort Bragg on July 21 where over 300 Tribal members from 50 Indian nations, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, immigrant seafood industry workers and environmentalists peacefully took over an MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting in defense of tribal fishing and gathering rights.
“There was significant progress by the stakeholders in coming together to create a unified proposal that protects tribal rights,” said Megan Rocha, Acting Self-Governance Officer of the Yurok Tribe. “The stakeholders did the best they could in respecting tribal gathering and fishing rights. Now this issue will go to the state of California and tribes to work it out at the next level.”
Rocha emphasized that every MPA proposal includes language to allow continued tribal uses in marine protected areas. In certain areas, the stakeholders also included language allowing for co-management between the tribes and the state.
Over the past few months, the initial set of MPA eight proposals was whittled down to four. The Regional Stakeholder Group (RSG), including Tribal leaders, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, harbormasters, divers, seaweed harvesters, business leaders and conservation representatives found enough common ground to develop one final proposal.
“The stakeholders took a strong position affirming tribal rights,” said Rocha. “It was unbelievable how committed the stakeholders were to making sure that tribal rights were respected. All of the tribes really appreciated that support.”
The proposal will result in about 13 percent of the North Coast region being restricted or closed to fishing and gathering, versus 16 to 20 percent in other regions of the state.
Representatives of conservation groups applauded the effort, despite some concerns that the plan may not fully meet the scientific guidelines laid out for the MLPA process.
“Everyone made sacrifices to get to this point,” said Jennifer Savage, Ocean Conservancy’s North Coast Program Coordinator. “We started out with a number of significant differences regarding needs and desires, but ultimately our respect for each other and willingness to work together enabled us to develop a plan we can all send forward.”’
The plan includes three “State Marine Reserves,” zones completely closed to all fishing, just south of Cape Mendocino, about a mile offshore of the Mattole River and along an area west of Petrolia. Another MPA along Samoa allows for Dungeness crab, chinook salmon and smelt fishing. The MPAs include two areas to the south of Redding Rock, one allowing fishing and the other a no-take zone.
Recreational and commercial fishermen also praised the development of a single proposal.
“I'm happy that we came up with a single proposal,” Tim Klassen, captain of the Reel Steel charter boat out of Humboldt Bay, told the Eureka Times Standard on August 31, “and hopefully we'll keep our fate in our own hands.”
Despite the adoption of a unified proposal for the North Coast, significant concerns about the overall MLPA process remain.
Fishermen, Tribal members and environmentalists are concerned that the MLPA process under Schwarzenegger has taken oil drilling, water pollution, wave energy development, habitat destruction and other human uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table. The MLPA would do nothing to stop another Exxon Valdez or Deepwater Horizon oil disaster from devastating the California coast.
MLPA critics have also blasted the Governor for appointing an oil industry lobbyist, a marina developer, a real estate executive and people with conflicts of interest on the Blue Ribbon Task Forces that develop the marine reserves. Read Full Article |
|
United -- but not without cost; Marine Protected Area proposal finds consensus in North Coast group |
|
Written by John Driscoll, Times Standard
|
|
9/1/10 Representatives of North Coast fishing, environmental and tribal interests on Tuesday did what no other group has done: Come up with a single proposal to put certain areas along the coast off limits to fishing and gathering as part of the 1999 Marine Life Protection Act.
The regional stakeholders group hashed out the final details of the proposal that will be sent along to a Blue Ribbon Task Force and on to the Fish and Game Commission for final approval in December.
”Single proposal -- we did it,” said Adam Wagschal, conservation director for the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District.
As the public-private partnership called the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative brought the controversial process to other areas of the state, regional groups developed numerous different proposals for their areas -- and got what most described as profoundly disappointing results. As the initiative approached the North Coast, local interests pushed for a united proposal that would be less vulnerable to change in the Blue Ribbon Task Force and the Fish and Game Commission.
In the end, the North Coast regional stakeholders group found consensus, consensus that will result in about 12 percent of the coast from the Albion River to the Oregon border restricted or closed to fishing and gathering. The Marine Protected Areas -- MPAs -- include two areas to the south of Redding Rock, one allowing fishing and the other a no-take zone.
Another, less restrictive zone along Samoa allows for salmon, Dungeness crab and smelt fishing. Three State Marine Reserves -- the most restrictive zones -- were placed just south of Cape Mendocino, about a mile offshore of the Mattole River and along an area west of Petrolia.
”I'm happy that we came up with a single proposal,” said Tim Klassen, who runs the charter fishing boat Reel Steel out of Humboldt Bay, “and hopefully we'll keep our fate in our own hands.”
While the single proposal presents a united front to Blue Ribbon Task Force members and the Fish and Game Commission, it may not be invulnerable. While the proposal meets most of the MLPA's guidelines, there are some areas that are slightly deficient, which most believe is due to applying the guidelines to the unique North Coast region. The task force could recommend changes to the proposal as it's presented to the Fish and Game Commission, though local interests believe substantial changes are far less likely to occur after such a show of consensus.
”We've got a unified proposal,” said Humboldt Baykeeper Executive Director Pete Nichols. “It's never been done before.”
On Monday and Tuesday, the regional stakeholder group argued over minute changes to the boundaries of the various MPAs, which apply in state waters out to 3 miles. Areas off Point Cabrillo and Ten Mile River were haggled over for more than two hours Tuesday, until the majority of the group urged holdouts to compromise on a few hundred yards of shoreline they were concerned could limit public access and mussel and urchin gathering.
The complex process has spanned months, with the 33 local representatives and the large staff of the MLPA Initiative meeting for hours to craft MPAs.
Greg Dale with Coast Seafood Co., the largest oyster grower on Humboldt Bay, credited the tight-knit group of local people with coming up with a unified proposal. He said that it appears that the group ended up with MPAs it can live with, but said that there were substantial compromises made to get there.
”Like everybody says, the train left the station,” Dale said.
The Blue Ribbon Task Force is scheduled to meet Oct. 25 to Oct. 27 at the Fortuna River Lodge. It will then hold a joint meeting with the California Fish and Game Commission on Dec. 15 in Sacramento, where a final plan is expected to be adopted. Read Full Article |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 12 |
Copyright © 2010 Humboldt Baykeeper. All Rights Reserved.
|
The News
