Save Eco Destinations

Greenpeace activists write on the side of the Margiris in the Atlantic off Mauritania. Photo: Greenpeace

As problematic as Greenpeace can be sometimes, I have to say I love what its activists do.

Just today, the environmental group successfully interfered with a super-trawler leaving from the Netherlands for Australia. Activist climbers and divers sabotaged the 140-meter-long FV Margiris in the Dutch port of Ijmuiden by placing a chain around the ship’s propeller and establishing themselves on the cables between the ship and the quay.

The Lithuanian-flagged FV Margiris, one of the world’s largest fishing trawlers, will be re-flagged as Australian and sent off to catch more than 17,000 tonnes of baitfish off the southern island state of Tasmania. The ship’s operators are waiting to receive government approval to leave for Devonport.

The Margiris super-trawler. Photo: Greenpeace

“Wherever this ship has gone it has destroyed fish stocks and ruined fishermen’s livelihoods,” Greenpeace oceans campaigner Nathaniel Pelle argued. “Along with a broad cross-section of the community that has declared the Margiris unwelcome, we will be ramping up efforts to stop it doing the same in Australian waters.”

Pelle said that given its history of “plundering oceans elsewhere,” allowing the Margiris to fish in Australian waters represents a mockery of the country’s recent environmental commitments, including its immense network of new marine reserves. Just two weeks ago, Environment Minister Tony Burke announced that Australia will soon have the world’s largest network of marine parks, consisting of five main zones surrounding each of the country’s states and territories, including extending reef protection in the Coral Sea, although it does not ban all commercial fishing there. It would expand the number of protected areas from 27 to 60 and span 3.1 million square kilometers — one-third of Australia’s waters.

“The Margiris is bad news for Australia and globally irresponsible. Offering this vessel yet another fishing ground to plunder simply perpetuates an unsustainable fishing industry,” he stated.

In Tasmania, a petition against the ship’s imminent arrival has attracted thousands of signatures, including those of celebrities such as singer Guy Sebastian and surfer Kelly Slater. Moreover, Australia’s Green Party wants the vessel banned and Tasmanian independent MP Andrew Wilkie earlier this week encouraged Prime Minister Julia Gillard to do the same.

Unfortunately, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has dismissed concerns about the super-trawler, saying it would have little if any impact on the broader ecosystem in light of the strict catch limits already in place. AFMA also noted that the trawler will be allowed to catch only 10 per cent of available fish, a figure it calls highly precautionary figure because it falls well below international standards.

Seafish Tasmania assured that on-board observers will make sure it complies with the rules. I’m sure we can trust a corporation that makes its money off fishing when it tells us that it will abide by the rules and that its gigantic ship will not cause harm to the ecosystem, right?

Seafish Director Gerry Geen said the AFMA-set quota was estimated to be 5 per cent of the total Australian fishery for baitfish.

“It’s not the size of the boat that matters, it’s the size of the quota,” Geen commented. “The normal process is under way now for Margiris to be registered as an Australian vessel.”

He said his company plans to start fishing in August.

I hope Greenpeace wins this one.

Australia, Great Barrier Reef

Australia will soon have the world’s largest network of marine parks, Environment Minister Tony Burke has announced. It would expand the number of protected areas from 27 to 60 and span 3.1 million square kilometers — one-third of Australia’s waters.

The network consists of five main zones surrounding each of the country’s states and territories.

“It’s time for the world to turn a corner on protection of our oceans,” Burke affirmed. “Australia today is leading that next step.”

“This new network of marine reserves will help ensure that Australia’s diverse marine environment, and the life it supports, remain healthy, productive and resilient for future generations,” he added.

The Coral Sea

The proposed network extends reef protection in the Coral Sea and would give protection to Australia’s biggest undersea mountain range, the Diamantina fracture zone off the southwest coast, and new parts of the Coral Sea that are vital nesting grounds for green turtles and home to large predatory fish and sharks.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Australia celebrated the news, calling the plan an “important example to the world.”

Still, the plan is not as ambitious as environmental groups had hoped, as they were pushing for banning all commercial fishing in the Coral Sea.

Fishers, of course, say the plan goes too far. Meanwhile, the Greens argue it does not go far enough.

As for commercial fishers, the government will compensate them with up to AUD 100 million (USD 99.6 million) for keeping them out of some of the new marine parks.

The marine reserves network is expected to be completed before the end of the year.

Seaweed growing on rocks in California.

A team of scientists from various universities in Israel has been studying marine macroalgae, also known as common seaweed. The group has determined that these algae can be farmed more quickly than land-based crops used for bioethanol and harvested as fuel without taking up land that could be employed in more profitable or environmentally conscious ways.

In addition, although both seaweed biofuels and bioethanol from food crops are less environmentally destructive than burning fossil fuels, using seaweed to develop biofuels is much more environmentally beneficial than creating bioethanol from crops like corn and sugarcane, as applying such crops for this purpose instead of using them to feed people causes food prices to rocket and can lead to food shortages.

Avigdor Abelson, a professor of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Zoology and the new Renewable Energy Center, also believes that growing macroalgae for bioethanol production can take care of the problem of eutrophication along the country’s coasts.

Eutrophication is pollution in waterways caused by human waste, or sewage, and aquaculture or fish farming operations. The result is excessive amounts of nutrients including phosphates and nitrates as well as harmful algae, all elements that ultimately damage endangered coral reefs. Multiple coastal regions, such as the Red Sea in the south of Israel, have suffered from eutrophication.

Land Drain near Holbeach Drove. The growth in the water plants suggests heavy run-off of nitrates and other chemicals.

The scientists created an artificial “ecosystem” which they call “Combined Aquaculture Multi-Use Systems” (CAMUS). It incorporates the effects of human activity and realistically mimics the marine environment.

According to the scientists, the excess nutrients that come from man-made fish feeders, which are considered contaminants due to their harmful effects on the marine ecosystem, could be utilised by filter feeders like oysters and other shellfish and thus turned into food by these animals to sustain the growth of more seaweed.

Moreover, the seaweed can be grown along the coast unobtrusively, Abelson said.

“By employing multiple species, CAMUS can turn waste into productive resources such as biofuel, at the same time reducing pollution’s impact on the local ecosystem,” he stated.

Another advantage is that seaweed could become a renewable energy source that does not jeopardize natural habitats, biodiversity or human food sources.

Now, the scientists are collaborating to boost the carbohydrate and sugar contents of seaweed so they can efficiently ferment it into bioethanol.

The team is confident that macroalgae will be a major source for biofuel in the future. Let’s hope so!

GMO cultivation, 2009

This is Part 1 of a two-part series of blog posts on the health dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) — also known as GM (genetically modified) or GE (genetically engineered) crops – and ways we can fight back against the corporations that produce them. Part 1 talks about the emergence and spread of superweeds, the litany of problems associated with GMOs, and some steps you can take to remove genetically modified (GM) foods from your diet. Part 2 of the series discusses recent developments and some GMO trends, mentions promising anti-GMO phenomena, and lists some things you can do right now to oppose Monsanto and GMOs worldwide. Both posts contain myriad links to resources so readers can learn more about various related topics.

Farmers have been aghast to discover that their Monsanto Roundup crops are spurring Roundup-resistant superweeds. Even scarier, these plants are not only resisting Roundup but also other types and cocktails of pesticides. Nature’s fighting back against corporations’ thoughtless genetic engineering practices — and now it’s getting out of control for both farmers and Monsanto, and there will be repercussions for everyone from India to Argentina.

The problem is getting worse – and quickly — because the resistant weeds are replacing their non-resistant counterparts as well as cross-pollinating them with the resistant gene as they are carried by the wind across vast regions of the U.S.

Mother Jones reports:

“These weeds adapt faster and more vigorously than their weed cousins, choking fields and clogging irrigation ditches so badly water can’t pass through. ‘Pollen can transfer the resistant trait; that’s the problem,’ said Kevin Bradley, a weed scientist with the University of Missouri. ‘There’s not much we can do about pollen flying through the air, and that’s why we see such rapid spread of resistance.’”

Maize/Corn field in South Dakota, USA

What are the problems with GMOs?

• GM crops are dangerous on many levels, including health. GMO pesticides have been linked to cancer, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, miscarriages, birth defects, and other severe ailments.
• A study has found that GM crops causes endocrine disruption, birth defects, cancer, damage to DNA, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and neurotoxicity.
•  A 2010 study linked GM corn to organ failure in rats:

“Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. …These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.”

Monsanto of course accused the study of being “based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning” and said the findings “do not call into question the safety findings for these products.” Right, Monsanto.

As the Huffington Post reports, the study’s author, Gilles-Eric Séralini, subsequently fired back on the blog Food Freedom:

“Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data.”

• Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide has led to superweeds that grow a mind-boggling 3 inches a day. Perhaps scarier is the fact that herbicide-resistant weeds will probably have an adverse effect on food production across the globe. The outlook is grim. Superweeds are multiplying across the United States like wildfire. At least 21 weed species have thus far become resistant to Roundup. Food will become more expensive as a result and become harder to obtain for people in financial straits – often the people who are already malnourished or starving and thus in great need of nutritious, safe (read: non-toxic) foods in order for their health to recover. This will affect us everywhere in the world.

“The same selection pressure creating bacteria resistant to multiple antibiotics is leading to the rapid evolution of plants that survive modern herbicides. If the trend continues, yields could drop and food costs climb as weeds grow more difficult to uproot,” Fast Company reports.

• Hungary is incurring billions of forints in losses thanks to GM seeds.
• There is evidence suggesting that GM soy, corn, and canola colonize your gut bacteria and genetically alter it to also produce pesticide within your own cells. In other words, eating these food products transform your digestive system into a pesticide factory. Fun!
• Read about how Monsanto has refused to provide independent scientists with seeds for research or else has set restrictive conditions that severely limit outside scientists’ research. The article behind the link also includes information on potential health hazards caused by GM crops.

Spraying pesticides in California

Some ways to remove GMOs from your diet

There are excellent reasons why we should opt for organic foods, including to not just support organic and local farmers, but also to stop supporting Monsanto. If only organic foods weren’t so expensive! Most of us can’t afford them, of course. So what do you do?

A good idea is to avoid buying foods and food products containing the crops that we know are treated with a deluge of pesticides and the crops that are doused with the evil Monsanto’s Roundup chemicals – corn, soy, canola, and cotton (but you probably don’t eat cotton, so feel free to focus on corn, soy, and canola here). Roundup, by the way, is the most widely used pesticide in the world.

You should also look for “non-GMO” and similar terms on the labels of food products, from cornstarch to legumes. Unlike organic products, many GMO-free foods are only slightly more expensive than regular items.

Hold tight for Part 2 of this two-part series to learn about recent developments and things you can do right now to make an impact against the GMO threat.

Sale of shellfish at the roadside, Phu Quoc, Vietnam

(This is part two of a two-part series on a report regarding the dismal state of our oceans. Part 1 of the series discusses the report’s findings and the primary ocean stressors currently involved.)

Entire marine ecosystems could disappear within a generation — a phenomenon that would take a devastating toll on humans, not just marine animals, according to the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) report discussed in part one of this series.

You might be surprised to hear that shellfish and other marine animals comprise 15 per cent of animal protein for 3 billion people throughout the world, and another 1 billion people rely on fish stocks for their main source of protein. It’s important to remember that we need to preserve marine ecosystems, not only because they’re pretty to look at and something to explore when we’re taking a decadent beach vacation, but also because much of humanity’s food security is at stake here.

In fact, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) last December released a report called “Environmental Consequences of Ocean Acidification: A Threat to Food Security,” noting that burgeoning greenhouse gas emissions may have more widespread and complex effects on ocean health than previously anticipated, and that the chemistry of the globe’s oceans is being altered at a rate unseen for 65 million years.

Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) by Mila Zinkova, via Wikimedia Commons

The report confirms worries that corals, shellfish and other organisms may have an increasingly difficult time surviving due to weakening skeletons, and demonstrates that ocean acidification combined with ocean warming would lower the range of temperatures in which crabs and other animals can thrive.

This could powerfully affect, among other factors, catches of shellfish; species reliant on coral reefs and those such as salmon that feed on shell-building organisms lower down the food chain. – FIS

What’s more, climate change is predicted to cause big dents in coastal fisheries resources in the Pacific Islands region, potentially slashing production by as much as 50 per cent by 2100, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community’s Heads of Fisheries communicated in March. It is forecasted that higher sea temperatures, ocean acidification, and loss of important habitats like coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves will dramatically affect the inshore resources that provide myriad coastal communities in New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, and other impoverished countries with food and a livelihood. And let’s not forget that people who live off fisheries in various ways populate most countries on Earth, from the United States and Malta to Argentina and Pakistan.

Fishers near Galata bridge, Istanbul

Some 55 million years ago, 2.2 gigatonnes of CO2 were released annually for thousands of years and numerous species died out. Today, it is estimated that 2.2. gigatonnes of CO2 are shot into the atmosphere every year by deforestation alone.

“The rate of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere and the rate of change in the oceans is extraordinary — there is a very urgent need to get that under control,” stressed Alex Rogers, a professor of conservation biology at the University of Oxford and lead author of the study.

And now, the most important part of this series:

What YOU can do

To address the findings, the IPSO report gives several recommendations, such as the creation of “a global body empowered to ensure compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” and steps to improve the fish stock sustainability.

Rogers suggested that anything from choosing the right kind of fish to eat to lobbying politicians helps.

I suggest that fish eaters scan Greenpeace’s canned tuna guide to make sure they are choosing sustainably caught tuna whose harvesting is not wiping out turtles, dolphins, or other species. Also, California’s Monterey Bay Aquarium has a seafood guide that’s really nifty (available as pocket or mobile, too) and the website is rich with information on related issues. Check out their recommendations!

The folks at Sea Shepherd are amazing

Support green organizations like Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Greenpeace, who work to both spread awareness about vital issues and fight the “bad guys” (in this case, Sea Shepherd – very courageously – goes after poachers hands-on, while Greenpeace targets harvesters of destructively caught fish and the companies that sell them, fights companies that pollute egregiously, and so on).

Attend clean-up days at your local beach or park. Go to Hands Across the Sand each year. Consider volunteering and donating whatever resources you have to anyone working toward a worthy cause.

Whenever a petition appears that could help ocean health, sign it. Visit sites like Care2 and Change.org and sign up for their newsletters to stay informed on new developments, learn how to help, and to find likeminded friends.

Together, we will make a difference.

“If I look at the mass, I will never act. If I look at the one, I will.” – Mother Theresa

(This is part one of a two-part series on a report regarding the dismal state of our oceans. Part two of the series tackles the situation’s repercussions on humans and what we can do to help our oceans recover.)

A team of marine experts announced this week a new summary report arguing that climate change and other man-made factors will spur colossal levels of extinction in the world’s oceans. The catastrophe is forecasted to be “unprecedented in human history.”

The proverbial excrement, it seems, is about to hit the fan.

Not surprisingly, it appears that changes in our atmosphere, ecosystems, and habitats across the planet are accelerating too quickly for many species to adapt and be able to survive.

Dr. Alex Rogers. Photo from the University of Oxford.

“The speed of change, particularly related to climate change, is so great there simply isn’t time for marine life to adapt to these new conditions,” said Alex Rogers, a professor of conservation biology at the University of Oxford.

He explained that mass extinctions have been tied to considerable changes in the oceans’ carbon systems in the past.

“That’s what we’re bringing about through our own actions today,” he noted, reports ABC News.

Rogers and a team of 26 other researchers from various countries met earlier this year for a three-day workshop in England to study ocean stressors. Their full report is set to be published in the near future.

Ocean stressors at play

Ocean acidification is one key factor. Here’s what it’s about: carbon dioxide (CO2) (along with methane and other gasses) plays a huge role in heating up our planet and thereby causing climate change, which includes melting polar ice caps and rising ocean levels. Okay. What you might not know is that one-third of the planet’s CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, and that the more CO2 the ocean absorbs, the greater the waters’ acidity. This phenomenon is called ocean acidification and it’s noxious to our planet for many reasons. For example, rising acidity levels in our oceans have been found to:

• Impair fish hearing and smell, putting their survival in danger
• Kill off endangered species such as northern abalone
• Threaten the survival of krill, itself the basic food source of nearly all animals in the ocean

Coral reef in Papua New Guinea. By Mila Zinkova via Wikimedia Commons

Apart from ocean acidification, rising water temperatures, overfishing, pollution, and even tourism are all exacerbating the rapid decline of species such as reef-forming coral. (Go here, here, and here for more on the state of coral reefs.)

Sharks and other species may be next, warned Rogers, lead author of the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) report.

Further, he said that, in many cases, the impacts of ocean stressors were found to have a greater overall effect than any single effect when taken together. For example, the decline of coral reef ecosystems due to overfishing and reef bleaching, plus the acidification that causes bleaching, will eradicate “the most diverse marine ecosystems on the planet.”

Chilling.

“As we considered the cumulative effect of what humankind does to the ocean, the implications became far worse than we had individually realized,” Rogers said. “This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level.”

Stay tuned for part two of this 2-part series.

Blackwater River State Park, Escambia/Santa Rosa, FL

The Florida Forever Coalition is at it again this year with its annual Take a Hike, Florida! event meant to celebrate and protect public wildlife and outdoor recreation activities throughout the state. This year, the hikes will take place on Saturday, March 26^th in the morning (time may vary per county).

In an effort to support and raise awareness about the state’s Florida Forever conservation land-buying program, the Coalition will partner with local supporters this weekend to take part in a day of friendly hiking under the sun.

The event was designed to celebrate Florida’s natural resources and raise awareness of its public land spaces which everyone can enjoy on a regular basis. The hikes will take place across the state and will be open to the public. To find events in your county – choose from Brevard, Duval, Escambia/Santa Rosa, Hillsborough, Lake, Leon, Marion, Martin, Miami-Dade, Orange, Pasco, Seminole, Wakulla, and Washington – check out this link: Take a Hike, Florida!

Sand Pond at Trout Pond Recreation Area, Apalachicola National Forest, Wakulla County, FL

With highs set to hit the mid-80sF in South Florida this Saturday, spending the day outside among lush trees, singing birds, and a sweet breeze sounds like heaven to me! Plus, this year, the Coalition has made it a lot easier to collaborate in the fun compared to the form-filling they required last time, when celebrating 20 years of public land acquisition.

Remember to wear comfortable and breathable (cotton!) clothing and footwear (I love and recommend these shoes if you enjoy walking barefoot), biodegradable sunscreen that’s good for you and harmless toward the environment, and bring water in a reusable non-plastic container! Oh, and a photo camera, of course, to snap plenty of embarrassing shots of friends and strangers you can then use to blackmail … I mean, to show those who missed out what a grand ol’ time you had. Clearly.

Algae harvester

U.S. companies producing algal biofuels may soon rejoice: The U.S. House of Representatives last Tuesday (9/28/10) passed a bill meant to give tax breaks to companies working on algae feedstocks-generated biofuel.

The Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act (HR 4168) was sponsored by New Mexico Congressman Harry Teague and has a corresponding bill in the Senate that was introduced by Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) which is awaiting action after being referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

Teague’s HR 4168 modifies the Internal Revenue Coded such that algae-based fuels can qualify for benefits now going to cellulosic biofuel makers. The bill includes a USD 1.01 per gal production tax credit and 50 per cent bonus depreciation for property employed to produce algae-based biofuel.

The bill defines “algae-based biofuel” as “any liquid fuel which is produced from the biomass of an algal organism (in essence, an organism that is primarily aquatic and classified as a non-vascular plant),” said the Congressional Research Service, Feedstuffs reports.

“[…] The House sent an unmistakable message of bipartisan support to the hundreds of companies, scientists, entrepreneurs and government agencies working to accelerate the development of algae-based fuels, which will create jobs, decrease emissions and reduce our nation’s dependence on imported fossil fuels,” told Mary Rosenthal, executive director of the Algal Biomass Organisation (ABO) trade group, reports BrighterEnergy.org. “The passage of this bill is a huge first step towards our goal of creating parity for algae-based biofuels within the tax code and among various other government programmes.”

This bipartisan bill did not cause controversy and passed without objections and without a roll call vote. It also received backing from Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Dave Reichert (R-WA) and Brian Bilbray (R-CA), among others.

“Algae to produce green crude can be grown on non-arable land, in salt or brackish water and using carbon dioxide and sunlight as its primary feedstocks,” Teague’s statement said.

“Therefore, algae has not presented the same land use concerns as other biofuels and does not have any of the ‘food versus fuel’ implications that plague some other biofuels. Green crude derived from algae can be refined into drop-in transportation fuels, such as jet, gasoline and diesel, that are entirely compatible with existing infrastructure and engines. Algae can also be used to produce ethanol and biodiesel,” it noted.

His bill received endorsement from the Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO), ABO, the Southwestern Biofuels Association, Sapphire Energy, and Algenol Biofuels, Dairy Producers of New Mexico and Farm Credit Services Southwest plus various regional business, civic and economic development organisations in his district.

The bill’s passing coincided with this year’s Algal Biomass Summit in Phoenix, Arizona, last Tuesday.

Aquabounty salmon vs. normal salmon

Have you heard about the “Frankenfish” that might soon hit US supermarket shelves?

Brace yourselves.

A  Massachusetts-based aquaculture company has genetically engineered (GE) a salmon that reaches maturity twice as fast as normal Atlantic salmon. AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., has accomplished this creepy feat by injecting the fish with the genes of Pacific salmon and an eel-like fish. Tests – run by AquaBounty, ahem — have shown the salmon’s meat is safe for human consumption, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has thus far unfortunately sided with it.

“There is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food from this animal,” said AquaBounty.

Wow, that’s reassuring!

Not only this, but the FDA has consequently determined that no label is needed to tell us whether the fish we’re buying is GE or not.

But there is hope for us yet

Alarmed, 24 members of Congress are urging the FDA to stop the approval process of AquaBounty’s GE salmon. They are asking the FDA to wait until it painstakingly analyses and addresses some serious flaws in its approval process and incorporates more public input and scientific data – which it hasn’t been doing because critical information has been kept hidden from the public, such that only the FDA and AquaBounty are aware of key details regarding the fish’s approval process.

“We don’t know if it’s safe for humans to eat and the only research that has been done was done by the company,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of consumer group Food & Water Watch in Washington, D.C. “The FDA is an under-resourced agency that has had so much trouble with the regulatory system for foods – we’ve had tainted eggs, poisonous peanuts and other contaminations – and is now taking on something in a very non-transparent way.”

A major problem is that the FDA has no idea how to go about the approval process because this is an unprecedented event.

“One of the most serious concerns regarding AquaBounty’s application is the FDA has no adequate process to review a GE animal intended as a human food product,” the letter reads.

US Senator Mark Begich, who signed the letter, said it is signed by another 10 senators and is supported by 52 environmental groups, consumer groups, retailers, food businesses and commercial and recreational fisheries associations, such as the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association, the Alaska Marine Conservation Council and Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development, Medical News Today reports.

Congressman Mike Thompson, D-St Helena and the other members of the House of Representatives addressed a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg affirming that the Administration should not approve the first transgenic animal for human consumption because the review process is flawed. The government officials argue that genetically engineered (GE) fish put wild populations of fish in jeopardy, as millions of farmed fish have already escaped farms and made it into the wild.

The Consumers Union (CU) rightfully worries the salmon could prove dangerous to consumers.

“Consumers have a right to know that the FDA lacks the means to assess this fish as a genetically engineered animal intended for human consumption. If this product was approved, the resulting consumer health impact could be disastrous,” Food & Water Watch agreed.

A recent survey by consumer group Food & Water Watch showed that 78 per cent of Americans do not want the GM salmon to obtain approval. Not surprising.

Anything GE is unsafe and has the potential to be greatly disastrous to our entire planet – from the environment all the way to us, as we’re intrinsically connected! Anything that harms one part of our planet, of our ecosystem, will come bite us in the bum. You know it.

So the letter describes four grave concerns — that the review method employed is seriously deficient; a lack of data on whether the GE salmon is safe for human consumption; probable irreversible environmental impacts; and that the FDA is not fulfilling its responsibility to consumers by failing to demand a label that states the fish is GE, reports The Times-Standard.

”FDA’s move to approve GE salmon threatens fishing families across the country, native wild salmon, as well as the millions of federal and state dollars invested to restore salmon populations,” said Thompson. “Given the current lack of information, threats to human health, the environment and the livelihood of hard working fishing families, it would be irresponsible for the FDA to approve GE salmon.”

The letter continues spelling out ways in which the FDA has been irresponsibly handing the matter:

“While AquaBounty filed a New Animal Drug application for AquAdvantage salmon with FDA in 2001, the Environmental Assessment compiled by AquaBounty for the FDA is inherently flawed and does not take into account the full and broad range of impacts the approval of the GE salmon could have on the environment. The FDA should have initiated a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and consulted with other federal agencies responsible for managing federally listed Endangered Species,” the letter reads.

Take action

If you agree that this is totally nuts, go here to take action.

Let’s eat/pray/love that the FDA comes to its senses.

Can Wal-Mart be "eco-friendly" if it's not even human-friendly?

Stephen Jannise over at Software Advice has recently begun publishing a series of posts on businesses going green. He’s devised a short survey whose insightful results will be revealed in about a week. Go take the survey!

I checked it out after he got in touch with me about it and really it takes two minutes to complete. The survey results will help us all learn about consumers’ points of views regarding companies that go green, including whether they do it for the planet or to bloat their sales and which aspects of a company-going-green are most luring to green-leaning consumers.

In his post, Jannise writes about Wal-Mart, IBM, Pepsi (these three are among Gartner’s Top 10 Supply Chains of 2010), Whole Foods, and Patagonia and what these five companies are doing in their effort to go green. He sheds light on their progress and asks some provocative questions.

It’s a very interesting topic. In light of Wal-Mart’s  treacherous dealings with its own employees and their unions and Whole Foods CEO John Mackey’s assertion that climate change is a myth (excuse me?!), how green could these companies really go? We’ve got to watch out for greenwashing.

Although he doesn’t cover these points, Jannise looks at the issue from another angle and offers some encouraging words:

“Financial gains may be their real reason for going green, but their success would nevertheless encourage others to follow their lead. Many of the companies implementing these changes have reported a positive return on their green investments, which proves that you can protect the environment and your bottom line at the same time.”

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey believes climate change is a myth.

Wise words. Check it out!