It’s the kind of farfetched plot you’d expect to see in a James Bond or Jason Bourne movie. You know, where the bad guys are found to be secretly coercing governments – and even entire countries – to aid corporate global domination, and where good old Felix from the CIA saves the day and helps Mr. Bond defeat the evildoers.

But in a bizarre twist to the plot, it now looks like the real-life U.S. Government officials have actually been working for the likes of Monsanto and the Big Ag lobby all along. A devastating new report by Food & Water Watch – entitled Biotech Ambassadors: How the US State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda – reveals that the U.S. State Department has been aggressively pursuing foreign food and agricultural policies that seek to benefit the vested interests of the largest biotech seed corporations – often collaborating directly with representatives from Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience and Dow Agrochemical.

If you believe in democracy and the free market, this new report will make for somber reading. Analyzing five years of State Department diplomatic cables between 2005 to 2009, the Food & Water Watch report exposes a concerted and coordinated global strategy by the U.S. State Department to promote genetically engineered (GE) crop technology and corporate interests in other countries of the world, often against the overwhelming opposition of the public and governments, and to the near exclusion of other potentially more sustainable – and more appropriate – alternatives. Remember, too, that the U.S. State Department’s work to promote Monsanto and GE crops outlined in this new report would have all been funded by us – the U.S. taxpayer. As if Monsanto was short of a few dollars for its own publicity work…

It’s fair to say that agricultural biotechnology dominates U.S. corn, soybean and cotton production. According to Food & Water Watch, by 2009, nearly all (93 percent) of U.S. soybeans and four-fifths (80 percent) of U.S. corn cultivated were grown from GE seeds covered by Monsanto patents. Whether or not the public is actually aware they’re consuming GE products on a daily basis is another question entirely: Despite the fact that over 60 other countries require the labeling of GE foods, Big Ag is doing all it can to ensure that U.S. consumers remain completely in the dark over what they’re eating.

But while GE seeds dominate U.S. commodity crop production, it might surprise you to know that most of the world actually remains steadfastly GE-free. Although the first GE crops were introduced in the U.S. almost 20 years ago, just five countries – the US, Brazil, Argentina, Canada and India – accounted for almost 90 percent of all GE crops sown in 2012. The fact is that the rest of the world is right to be suspicious, because GE is a failing technology. Despite all the golden promises of feeding the world, the only major GE crops on the market are designed to either resist proprietary herbicides or produce their own pesticides. As was predicted, both technologies are now experiencing significant problems in the countries where they are grown, with the widespread emergence of resistant weeds and pests. Mounting calls in the U.S. for the labeling of GE foods also represents a huge problem for the likes of Monsanto: What will happen to demand for GE seeds once consumers actually have a real choice over whether or not they consume GE food?

In light of such challenges, the corporate biotech giants need the power of the U.S. State Department to help develop new markets – and thus ensure continued profit – by forcing more countries, more farmers and more consumers to accept, cultivate and eat their products. Biotech Ambassadors reveals that the U.S. State Department has lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-GE policies and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology, and challenged commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules –a including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods in other countries. It’s fascinating insight into the tactics and goals of the State Department and its closely coordinated efforts with the biotech industry to undermine the rights of other nations to determine their own food and agricultural policies and objectives.

Highlights – or should that be lowlights? – of Food & Water Watch’s new report include evidence that the U.S. State Department has actively targeted foreign reporters, hosted and coordinated lavish pro-biotech conferences and public events, and paid for foreign opinion-makers to visit the U.S. on high-profile and extravagant trips in an effort to improve the image of GE crops overseas – and overcome widespread public opposition to GE food and crops in other countries. The report reveals that the U.S. State Department has coordinated efforts to lobby countries in the developing world to pass legislation and implement regulations which would benefit the biotech seed industry, including in Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria, and that the U.S. State Department has worked with the U.S. Trade Representative to promote the export of biotech crops and to force nations that do not want these imports to accept U.S. biotech foods and crops, using bullying tactics and threats. You just couldn’t make some of this stuff up.

For example, the cables reveal that the U.S. embassy in Paris advised Washington in 2007 to start a military-style trade war against any European Union country that opposed GE crops. One of cables is from Craig Stapleton, the U.S. ambassador to France from 2005-2009. He expresses his concern that France might soon pass laws that could hamper the expansion of GE crops in Europe, and calls on Washington to punish the EU – particularly countries not supporting the use of GE crops. The language used is the kind of stuff you’d expect in a James Bond movie:

“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits… The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory… Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”

The Wikileaks cables also reveal that U.S. diplomats have been working directly for GE companies such as Monsanto, with one of the cables from the U.S. Embassy in Madrid even warning that: “If Spain falls, the rest of Europe will follow.” Is it just me, or does this sound like the paranoid Cold War rhetoric of the 1950s? It’s hard to believe that these are recent communications from senior U.S. diplomats are simply about the possible EU public rejection of GE crops – what about the freedom of choice?

No one can ignore the immense challenges we now face in our efforts to feed future global populations, particularly in a world of ever-diminishing natural resources and the looming threat of climate change. We are going to need all available technology, as well as diverse agricultural strategies to feed ourselves sustainably. But despite the fact that Big Ag is doing everything it can to convince us that the widespread adoption of GE crops is our only chance to stave off worldwide hunger, it’s now widely acknowledged that GE technology is not the panacea we’ve been led to believe.

Indeed, numerous reports and policy documents are now singing from the same hymn sheet, calling for a wholesale shift in food production and consumption. For example, the increasingly influential International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) published the findings of a three-year project involving 400 independent scientists and development experts from across the world. It’s the one report that Big Ag doesn’t want you to read. The IAASTD report makes fascinating reading and concludes that small-scale farming and so-called agro-ecological practices, such as organic farming, have a vital role to play in feeding the world in the future. The IAASTD also questioned the role of GE crops in feeding the world, concluding that the high costs for seeds and chemicals, uncertain yields, and the potential to undermine local food security – and place control over food production in the hands of a few powerful global corporations – makes GE technology a poor choice for the developing world.

In March 2011, the United Nations’ Agro-ecology and The Right to Food report stated that small-scale farmers can double food production within 10 years in critical regions by using agro-ecological methods. Based on an extensive review of the recent scientific literature, the study called for a fundamental shift towards agroecology and supporting independent farms as a way to boost food production and improve the situation of the world’s poorest. Similarly, the UN’s Dead Planet, Living Planet: Biodiversity and ecosystem restoration for sustainable development recommends a blend of the new and the old: pest management using natural predators, intercropping agroforestry and green manures.

Forget Monsanto’s claims of “feeding the world,” or “sustainable agriculture,” or “protecting the environment.” The Food & Water Report reveals once again that corporate interests are the driving force behind GE technology. The reality is that GE crops were developed by corporate giants like Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta to maximize profits for their shareholders – nothing more, nothing less. And before the usual trolls start discrediting me as a Luddite, let me say that I have no problem with the science of biotechnology per se. Indeed, I am aware that this science can help us to select and breed better crops through non-risk technologies like Marker Assisted Selection, which does not produce GE organisms. Only last week, the BBC reported that UK scientists have developed a new “superwheat” which has the potential to increase yields by 30 percent – all without the use of GE technology.

No, my problem with biotechnology is that the science has been hijacked by corporate interests, and that the subsequent wholesale rush to patent plant genes as the intellectual property of a handful of multi-national corporations is placing the control of global food production directly into their hands. Food & Water Watch’s report reveals that even our own Government officials are now acting like Big Ag’s hired hoods, coercing, threatening and bullying other countries that have been so-far unwilling to adopt this failing technology. At a time of rising global food insecurity and environmental concern, do we really want the future direction of global food production to be influenced and manipulated by what is essentially corporate bullying and short-term greed?

Within hours of the report, Monsanto issued a petulant post, attempting to somehow dismiss the new report as “old news.” Yet Monsanto failed to address the real issues which will once again reignite public concerns. The Food & Water Report is very real news: It provides a thorough and highly detailed analysis of the Wikileaks cables, exposing the unhealthy relationship between Monsanto and our government, and how our tax money is being used to promote the special interests of the multi-billion-dollar biotech industry above all other alternatives. It also reveals just how far these corporations are willing to go to secure their global interests. Old news?! Who are they trying to fool…

Hot on the heels of a damning report by the Environmental Working Group, which revealed high levels of potentially life-threatening antibiotic-resistant bacteria on raw supermarket meat, the respected Consumer Reports has found potential disease-causing organisms in 90 percent of ground turkey samples purchased from stores nationwide. What’s more, many of the bacteria they identified were resistant to more than three antibiotic drug classes.

In their first-ever lab analysis of ground turkey products, Consumer Reports researchers carried out tests on 257 samples purchased at retail stores nationwide for the presence of five key food poisoning bacteria: enterococcus, E. coli, staphylococcus aureus, salmonella, and campylobacter. The results are of grave concern to us all.

Consumer Reports found at least one of these five food poisoning bacteria in 90 percent of the samples tested. Strains of enterococcus and E. coli bacteria – both commonly associated with fecal waste contamination – were identified on 69 percent and 60 percent respectively of the ground turkey samples tested. In addition, more than half of the enterococcus and the E. coli bacteria were resistant to three or more groups of closely related antibiotics. Three samples of ground turkey were contaminated with the life-threatening methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), while 12 of the samples harbored Salmonella bacteria, one of the most common causes of foodborne illness in the U.S. Again, it is worrying to note that two-thirds of the Salmonella bacteria were resistant to three or more important antibiotics.

“Our findings strongly suggest that there is a direct relationship between the routine use of antibiotics in animal production and increased antibiotic resistance in bacteria on ground turkey,” says Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Director of the Consumer Safety and Sustainability Group at Consumer Reports. “It’s very concerning that antibiotics fed to turkeys are creating resistance to antibiotics used in human medicine.”

The problem is that most consumers are still not aware that virtually all intensively farmed animals in the U.S. now routinely receive low, sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics in their feed and water. In fact, we use more antibiotics per pound of meat produced than any other nation in the world and a staggering 80 percent of all the antibiotics produced in the U.S. are used on food-producing animals. The reason? Feeding regular doses of sub-therapeutic antibiotics helps to maximize production of meat, milk or eggs by improving feed efficiency or by suppressing diseases that would inevitably spread in the confined, dirty, and stressful conditions of intensive livestock operations. But while the likes of Cargill, Purdue and Tyson will claim that the routine use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics is necessary for (sic) maintaining animal health and welfare, and enables them to maximize the production of cheap meat, milk and eggs (and to maximize their profits), we now know that there are some very serious costs.

Scientists from around the world now emphatically suggest that the misuse of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming is one of the key causes for the dramatic rise in life-threatening antibiotic-resistant bacteria over recent years. By allowing intensive livestock farms to routinely expose bacteria to sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics, we are providing the perfect conditions for some very dangerous bacteria to mutate and become resistant to their effects.

As Consumer Reports point out, we are all only human and common slip-ups while handling or cooking meat can sometimes put us all at risk of food poisoning. I suspect that most readers have had food poisoning at some point in their lives. In most cases, the illness is relatively mild (if rather unpleasant) and passes in a few days. But some of the nastier food poisoning bugs such as Salmonella can cause more serious disease and potential complications, particularly for the sick, the elderly or the young. As a result, antibiotics continue to have a vital role to play in treating these more serious cases of food poisoning and other resistant infections.

Yet the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is changing everything. Today, the danger is that if you do happen to contract a multi-resistant bug you may well find the normal antibiotics simply do not work. In some cases, we are running out of options altogether. This is precisely why the UK Government’s Chief Medical Officer recently said that the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria risks a global health catastrophe that ranks alongside the threat of climate change or terrorism.

So is it right that consumers are unwittingly putting themselves and their loved ones at increasing risk of contracting what were previously treatable food poisoning and other bacterial infections simply for the sake of cheaper meat, milk and eggs? Is it acceptable that an accidental spillage in the kitchen refrigerator or the incorrect handling or cooking of meat at a restaurant can now result in a life-threatening – yet entirely preventable – antibiotic-resistant disease? Well, Big Ag seems to think so.

I’ve warned before that the intensive meat industry is actively trying to wash its hands of any responsibility for the emergence of dangerous antibiotic-resistant food poisoning bacteria. Following the infamous 2011 outbreak of antibiotic-resistant salmonella food poisoning, which left one person dead and sickened at least 136 people across 31 states after consuming Cargill’s tainted ground turkey, the company’s hollow public apology contained a chilling caveat. “We go to great lengths to ensure the food we produce is safe and we fully understand that people expect to be able to consume safe food, each serving, every time,” Cargill wrote. But the company then attempted to deflect any responsibility for the outbreak by implicitly blaming the sickened customers involved. “We all need to remember bacteria is everywhere, and we must properly handle and prepare fresh foods wherever they are served.” In other words, if people handled meat properly and cooked it thoroughly, says the industry, it doesn’t matter if there a few antibiotic-resistant pathogens in it.

Since when did safe handling instructions for food become an excuse for the intensive meat industry to not only continue (mis)using precious antibiotics in a way which actively encourages antibiotic-resistance, but also to absolve themselves of any responsibility for subsequent illnesses or deaths that result? If that’s the way Big Ag wants to play it, maybe it’s time to demand that packs of intensively-raised meat are labeled with a public health warning of “This Meat May Contain Life-Threatening Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria”. At least this would allow consumers to decide whether or not eating tainted meat is actually worth the risk?

I want to stress that good food hygiene practices are essential whenever we handle and cook raw meat. But it doesn’t matter how good our hygiene practices are: accidents will inevitably happen. So we all need to do our best to ensure that these inevitable mishaps don’t result in a life-threatening disease. If Big Ag isn’t going to act responsibly and do all it can to minimize the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the first place, then we all need to take matters into our own hands.

The good news is that Consumer Reports found that ground turkey samples from production systems where antibiotics are strictly controlled contained fewer antibiotic-resistant bacteria than intensively-raised ground turkey products. To minimize the risk, Consumer Reports advises consumers to not only adopt good food hygiene practices, but to choose meat which is produced according to meaningful standards, such as Animal Welfare Approved (see Consumer Reports’ online guide to what food labels really mean at www.eco-labels.org).

At Animal Welfare Approved, we believe that sick animals may sometimes need a course of antibiotics to treat disease and to alleviate pain or suffering. Our standards permit the targeted use of antibiotics on individual animals when alternative treatments are not suitable or not effective, or if a veterinarian has specifically recommended antibiotic treatment. We know that if antibiotics are used appropriately and judiciously in this way to treat only individual sick animals – and not as a routine sub-therapeutic dose to prevent disease – then the risk of the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is absolutely minimal. The result? Pain and suffering in farm animals is minimized, the risk of disease is minimized, and the efficacy of antibiotics—for both humans and livestock—is protected.

Consumer Reports is calling on the US Food and Drug Administration to phase out the use of antibiotics in livestock production except for the treatment of veterinarian-diagnosed sick animals. At Animal Welfare Approved, we couldn’t agree more, which is why I implore you to contact your representatives and demand they support Congresswoman Louise Slaughter’s introduction of The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), which seeks to limit the overuse of antibiotics in livestock farming so these lifesaving drugs will remain effective in the treatment of human illnesses. In light of the mounting scientific evidence of the link between intensive farming systems and the emergence of antibiotic bacteria, the importance of PAMTA cannot be overstated. We wouldn’t dream of lacing our morning breakfast cereal with low doses of antibiotics just to keep us “healthy,” so why on earth should we allow intensive livestock farming operations to continue such unsustainable, irresponsible, and potentially life-threatening practices?

This is the kind of contemptible retort we can expect from the intensive meat industry lobby and its many trolls in response to new research by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which reveals high levels of life-threatening antibiotic-resistant bacteria on raw supermarket meat. Yet the “cook it properly and everything will be OK” spin is just Big Ag’s latest attempt to absolve itself of any responsibility for squandering one of the most important medical innovations of our time– and putting American lives at risk.

The EWG analyzed data from the government’s National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), which was established to routinely test raw supermarket meat for antibiotic-resistant bacteria as a way of informing public health regulatory policy on the use of drugs in food-producing animals. Using the latest NARMS data, the EWG researchers detected antibiotic-resistant bacteria in a staggering 81% of ground turkey; 69% of pork chops; 55% of ground beef; and 39% of chicken breast, wings or thighs samples tested. The EWG’s researchers also found “significant amounts” of antibiotic-resistant strains of Salmonella and Campylobacter, which together cause over 3.6 million cases of food poisoning a year. In addition, the researchers found that 53% of the raw chicken samples were contaminated with antibiotic-resistant strains of E. coli, some of which can cause severe diarrhea, urinary tract infections and pneumonia – and even death.

I’ve written before that scientists from around the world now emphatically link the misuse of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming as one of the key causes for the dramatic rise in life-threatening antibiotic-resistant bacteria over recent years. Today, a staggering 80% of all the antibiotics produced in the U.S. are used on food-producing animals. In fact, we use more antibiotics per pound of meat produced than any other nation in the world. Virtually all intensively farmed animals in the U.S. receive regular sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics in their feed and water to maximize production of meat, milk or eggs by improving feed efficiency or by suppressing diseases that would otherwise spread like wildfire in the confined, dirty, and stressful conditions of intensive livestock operations. The problem for humans is that by allowing intensive livestock farms to routinely expose bacteria to sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics, we are actually providing the perfect conditions for some very dangerous bacteria to mutate and become resistant to their effects. This means that when we get infected with these antibiotic-resistant diseases, there are fewer and fewer options for treatment. For some particularly nasty disease, we are fast running out of options altogether.

But if people handled meat properly and cooked it thoroughly, says the industry, it doesn’t matter if there a few pathogens in it. So what if they’re antibiotic-resistant? It goes without saying that food poisoning is nothing new: Anyone who has had even mild food poisoning will know that it’s not exactly a pleasant experience. I am the first to acknowledge that good food hygiene is important when handling raw meat – at home and in the hospitality industry. But accidents inevitably happen. The difference is that, in the not too distant past, if you did accidentally get seriously sick with a nasty food poisoning bug such as Salmonella you could generally rely on a quick course of antibiotics to make you better. Today, however, it’s becoming increasingly likely that a bout of severe food poisoning may lead to serious illness, complications or even death as a result of a bacterial infection that’s become resistant to not just one but often multiple antibiotics.

Of course, Big Ag knows only too well that handling and eating contaminated food isn’t the only way that we can get sick from antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It’s widely accepted that these antibiotic-resistant bacteria spread easily from animal to animal in the closely confined conditions of our factory farms, and then from farm to farm. And new research from Denmark has now confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that some strains of the dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria MRSA (Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus) can be transmitted from farm animals to people, such as farm workers and meat processing operatives, and eventually into the wider community.

But it doesn’t end there. Bacteria are ubiquitous: they are everywhere in our living environment. Scientists have known for some time that bacteria can easily share genetic information – it’s one of the reasons that they can mutate so rapidly. So even if bacteria have not been directly exposed to certain antibiotics themselves, they can pick up genetic information from other bacteria in the wider environment that are resistant. So when factory farms spread the millions of gallons of putrid toxic feces held in their open-air lagoons on to the land around their operations, and it leaches into the soils and water networks, the antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the feces can pass on their resistance to other bacteria species in the wider environment.

This is why the “cook it properly and everything will be OK” advice from Big Ag just doesn’t cut it. Even if we were all to adopt the most stringent hygiene practices found in today’s hospitals– a completely unrealistic, unpalatable and wholly unacceptable scenario – the threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the human population will still exist. But Big Ag is already fully aware of this fact: Remember when the tobacco lobby fought tooth and nail to protect its market, despite overwhelming evidence that they were in fact killing their customers?

In 2011, food giant Cargill voluntarily recalled 36 million pounds of fresh and frozen ground turkey. This was one of the largest Class I recalls of tainted meat in U.S. history, following an outbreak of antibiotic-resistant salmonella food poisoning. The outbreak left one person dead and sickened at least 136 people across 31 states. “It is regrettable that people may have become ill from eating one of our ground turkey products and, for anyone who did, we are truly sorry,” Cargill said in a chillingly-worded public statement. “We go to great lengths to ensure the food we produce is safe and we fully understand that people expect to be able to consume safe food, each serving, every time.” Yet Cargill then appeared to abdicate any responsibility whatsoever and placed the blame of the outbreak well and truly on the shoulders of the public: “We all need to remember bacteria is everywhere, and we must properly handle and prepare fresh foods wherever they are served.” The message? It’s now our fault when the antibiotics don’t work. We say don’t blame us when your system breeds mutant bacteria and you cannot control them!

Safe handling instructions for food should exist to protect consumers from the risk of catching treatable food poisoning bugs. It should NOT be seen as an excuse for the intensive meat industry to continue to misuse these vital medicines in a way which is actively encouraging antibiotic-resistance, nor as a means of absolving itself of all responsibility for any illnesses or deaths that result. It’s exactly the same kind of asinine mentality that thinks it’s OK for industrial farms to continue to pollute our waterways with fecal waste, pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals: “Our drinking water is treated to ensure it’s safe for consumption, so where’s the problem?”

No one wants food poisoning and every individual should take care over how they handle and cook meat. But we all know that accidents will inevitably happen. The big question is: does anyone really think it’s acceptable that an accidental spill in the refrigerator or a mistake in the restaurant kitchen could now result in a potentially untreatable – but entirely preventable – life-threatening antibiotic-resistant disease? Is cheap meat really worth it?

For some time now some groups have been campaigning for retailers to only sell “antibiotic-free” meat and poultry. But while I wholeheartedly support current efforts to regulate the use of antibiotics in farming to ensure that these most vital medicines remain as effective as possible for treating human illness, I’m afraid that I cannot support their calls. Although the simple “antibiotic free” message may resonate with the public at large, the truth is that an all or nothing approach to antibiotic use in farming won’t actually fix anything. In fact, it’s more likely to make things a whole lot worse.

Those of you who follow my blog will know that exposing the ongoing abuse of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming is a passion of mine. Virtually all intensively farmed animals in the U.S. now routinely receive regular low levels of antibiotics in their feed and water. These low levels of antibiotics are commonly known as “sub-therapeutic” treatments: in other words, the amount given is less than would be fed or injected if the animal was actually sick. That’s because this sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics isn’t designed to treat actual sickness: It’s designed to maximize production of meat, milk or eggs by improving the feed efficiency of the animals or by suppressing diseases that would otherwise spread like wildfire in the confined, dirty, and stressful conditions so typical of intensive livestock operations.

The problem for humans is that by allowing intensive livestock farms to routinely expose bacteria to regular sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics in this way we are actually providing the ideal conditions for bacteria to mutate and become resistant to their effects. These antibiotic-resistant bacteria can then spread from animal to animal, and then farm to farm, and eventually infect human hosts. Indeed, scientists from around the world now emphatically link the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming to the dramatic rise in life-threatening antibiotic-resistant bacteria, some of which are now resistant to several types of antibiotics. According to Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization, “In the absence of urgent corrective and protective actions, the world is heading towards a post-antibiotic era in which many common infections will no longer have a cure and, once again, kill unabated.”

The squandering of these precious medicines for the production of cheap animal protein (and profit) is even more galling when you consider that Alexander Fleming, the man credited with discovering penicillin back in the 1920s, used his Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1945 to caution that the misuse of penicillin in this way would inevitably lead to resistance:

But I would like to sound one note of warning… There may be a danger, though, in under dosage. It is not difficult to make microbes resistant to penicillin in the laboratory by exposing them to concentrations not sufficient to kill them, and the same thing has occasionally happened in the body. The time may come when penicillin can be bought by anyone in the shops. Then there is the danger that the ignorant man may easily underdose himself and by exposing his microbes to non-lethal quantities of the drug make them resistant.

Well, the dramatic expansion of sub-therapeutic antibiotic use in industrial farming since the 1950s would no doubt have Fleming spinning in his grave. In the U.S., we now use more antibiotics per pound of meat produced than any other nation in the world. But if antibiotic resistance represents such a serious threat to human health in the U.S., why don’t I support the emerging calls for an outright ban on antibiotics in farming and the marketing of antibiotic-free products?

First, let’s make it clear that this whole debate has nothing to do with antibiotic residues in our food. When antibiotics are used appropriately, the risk of antibiotic residues remaining in our meat, milk, or eggs is absolutely negligible. No, the threat we are facing is the rise of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, leading to a situation where we can no longer treat many common diseases. We know that one of the ways that antibiotic resistance develops is when low or sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics are routinely given to farmed livestock. Antibiotic resistance does NOT occur when antibiotics are used appropriately and judiciously to treat individual sick animals. But when you have a system that by default keeps an environment where infection is almost inevitable and profit the only driver then you must have a chemical crutch.  The point I am trying to make is that the antibiotics themselves are not the problem: It is the ongoing misuse and abuse of antibiotics in industrial livestock farming systems which is directly resulting in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This is a very important distinction.

At best, the antibiotic free campaign is a naïve, ill-conceived, knee-jerk reaction to the problems we’re now facing from the appalling misuse of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming. At worst, it’s nothing more than an elitist marketing ploy. If you take the antibiotic free campaign position at face value then sick animals must never be treated with antibiotics. You’d be forgiven for assuming that any animal that does get sick must either be left to (hopefully) recover naturally, with the inherent risk of spreading disease among their companions and other welfare issues this may entail, or be euthanized once they become too ill to recover. Clearly, such a position would be neither ethically acceptable nor sustainable.

But challenge the antibiotic free campaigners on the potential welfare issues that may arise from an outright ban on antibiotics in farming and you soon find that this isn’t actually the position they hold. “Of course we would allow farmers to treat individual sick animals with antibiotics,” they proclaim. Indeed, once you look behind the “antibiotic free” rhetoric you find that most of the so-called antibiotic free programs actually dictate that their farmers must treat sick animals with antibiotics if it’s the only way to avoid pain and suffering. The problem is that they also dictate that if antibiotics are used the farmer can no longer sell the meat, milk or eggs from the treated animal(s) into the antibiotic-free supply chain.

Let’s get this straight: On the one hand the antibiotic free campaigners are publicly demanding that retailers must only source meat, milk and eggs from animals certified by an antibiotic free program. Yet on the other they’re saying that it’s acceptable for farmers in these programs to treat their animals with antibiotics on welfare grounds, just as long as they “dispose” of this second class meat, milk or eggs elsewhere. So exactly where do they think this (perfectly acceptable) food should go?

What we’re actually talking about here is establishing a two-tiered livestock system: One where those who can afford to can buy antibiotic-free meat, milk and eggs from animals that have never been treated with antibiotics, and where those who can’t must make do with the “second class” products from animals that were treated with antibiotics—and thus can no longer enter the upper-tier antibiotic-free supply chain. It’s outrageous, particularly when the issue isn’t the threat of antibiotic residues in food or the use of antibiotics per se, but specifically the continuing misuse and abuse of antibiotics by industrial farming systems which is encouraging the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The real irony, however, is that by agreeing that it may occasionally be necessary to treat individual sick animals or whole industrial flocks of poultry with antibiotics for welfare reasons, these so-called antibiotic free programs have implicitly accepted that antibiotics can be used in a safe and responsible manner to treat individual sick animals. By allowing antibiotics in this way—and yet deeming any resulting meat, milk and eggs as only fit for consumption by others—the position of the antibiotic free campaigners actually becomes completely untenable.

At Animal Welfare Approved, we believe that a sick animal must always be treated based on its individual needs, and that sometimes antibiotics may be required to alleviate pain or suffering. We also know that if antibiotics are used appropriately and judiciously to treat individual sick animals then the risk of the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is absolutely minimal. There must never be any financial or other imperative for a farmer to withhold any specific medication when considering the most appropriate treatment of a sick or injured animal, which is precisely why the AWA standards permit the targeted therapeutic use of antibiotics on individual animals when alternative treatments are not suitable or not effective, or if a veterinarian has specifically recommended antibiotic treatment.

But we also know that if the farmer observes an appropriate withdrawal period (the legal minimum between antibiotic use and the consumption of meat, milk or eggs from the treated animal to avoid antibiotic residues) then the risk of there being any antibiotic residues (Not actually the issue) in the meat, milk and eggs is almost non-existent. Rest assured that farmers in the AWA program must observe a period that is twice the legal minimum withdrawal period stated for the antibiotic used before they can market its meat, milk or eggs. The result? Pain and suffering in farm animals is minimized, the risk of disease is minimized, and the efficacy of antibiotics—for both humans and livestock—is protected. My point is that when antibiotics are used appropriately to treat individual sickness, and where the correct withdrawal period is fully observed, there is no justification whatsoever to reject the meat, milk or eggs as second class.

So what exactly are the antibiotic free campaigners hoping to achieve? Because the fundamental failings of intensive livestock farming will never be resolved by simply banning antibiotics—particularly if those antibiotics are then replaced by ionophores, sodium chlorate, citric acid or other antimicrobial drugs, which not only benefit the marketers who profit from the hype, but introduce new problems. No, we believe that reliance on routine antibiotics and in these new systems other antimicrobials, is a symptom of the fundamental problems of intensive livestock farming systems – and NOT the problem itself.

To make this point more clearly, think carefully about the following scenarios: Would you drop your opposition to the confinement of animals by the thousand on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) if the intensive farming industry simply promised to replace routine sub-therapeutic antibiotics with so-called “safer” non-antibiotic alternatives? Would you be happy for farmers to continue using cages, gestation and farrowing crates, or to beak trim their caged chickens if antibiotics were banned? Would you permit intensive farming to continue with its appalling record on greenhouse gas emissions and its toxic, polluting lakes of liquid waste just so long as antibiotics are prohibited? Neither would we.

At AWA, we have long argued that high welfare, sustainable farming is so much more than the presence or absence of antibiotics. At the risk of stating the obvious, if you buy meat or dairy products labeled simply as “antibiotic free” you will have ABSOLUTELY NO ASSURANCE WHATSOEVER that:

• Other forms of superbug-spawning antimicrobials weren’t used
• The animals were raised according to ANY specific welfare standards
• The animals were raised out on pasture—or even if they had ANY outdoor access at all
• The animals weren’t confined to slatted floors, crates, cages, or dirt feedlots
• The animals were not fed soy from clear-cut rainforests
• The farm didn’t store manure in vast open-air toxic lagoons
• The farmer was not simply an indentured servant to a multinational corporation, such as Perdue, Cargill or JBS
• The food came from an independent family farm
• The animals weren’t fed a diet unsuitable for their digestive systems
• The food wasn’t produced using other routine drugs or hormones
• The farmer undertook any steps to protect or enhance the local environment or to minimize their farm’s carbon footprint.

What’s more, the unrealistic and impractical calls from the antibiotic free campaigners could actually undermine the credibility (certainly in the eyes of the farming community) of those who are working diligently to introduce regulations and practices that really would ensure the judicious and responsible use of antibiotics in farming into the future. By polarizing the debate, and arguably fueling speculation among the farming community that they are somehow under attack from people who have little or no understanding of real farming issues, the antibiotic free campaign could drive more moderate farmers and ranchers away from their current position of supporting the responsible use of antibiotics in farming. And we need their help and support more than ever to show that judicious and appropriate antibiotic use really does work in practice.

This is why AWA has welcomed Congresswoman Louise Slaughter’s recent introduction of The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), which seeks to limit the overuse of antibiotics in livestock farming so these lifesaving drugs will remain effective in the treatment of human illnesses. Congresswoman Slaughter has introduced this important bill four times since 2009, but the issues have been routinely dismissed by the intensive farming lobby and its paid-off politicians. Slaughter’s announcement comes just two weeks after Dr. Tom Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, declared—in reference to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, a lethal bacteria that is spreading in U.S. hospitals—that on such bacteria “our strongest antibiotics don’t work and patients are left with potentially untreatable infections.” In light of the mounting scientific evidence of the link between intensive farming systems and the emergence of antibiotic bacteria, the importance of PAMTA cannot be overstated.

While I understand the concerns that people have about the misuse of antibiotics in industrial farming systems, the truth is that a single issue campaign for antibiotic-free meat, milk or eggs will fail to bring about the far-reaching changes to our food and livestock industry we so desperately need. But please don’t think for one second that I wish to maintain the status quo, or that I will accept the continuing indiscriminant waste of these vital medicines for the sake of the over-production of cheap animal protein. We got into this mess by treating farm animal as “widgets” and by arrogantly assuming we could get away with a quick fix whenever things went wrong, so we’re not going to solve the problems we now face by using the same reductionist “band aid” mentality that got us here in the first place. The stakes are now way too high. The solution isn’t to simply erase antibiotics from the picture: When it comes to our broken food and farming system, we need to go back to the start and repaint the entire canvas.

The Harrals raise AWA-certified grassfed Angus, Limousin and Corriente beef cattle without reliance on antibiotics or hormones. The cattle roam freely across 64,000 acres of rangeland that lie within the Stockton Plateau along the foothills of the Glass and Davis Mountains. Jessica explains that they selected the cattle breeds specifically for their ability to thrive in the arid, rocky terrain of these foothills, and for their ability to efficiently convert forage to meat without any supplemental feed. “We believe nature has a way of knowing the right way, and that is how we base our operation, in the most natural way possible,” says Jessica. “We respect the land and the animals in our care, and believe treating the animals with dignity allows them to exhibit their natural behaviors, which yields the most sustainable, healthful product. If you have healthy animals, everything else takes care of itself.”

Harral Livestock Company is proud to be part of the AWA program. They know that the AWA logo verifies that the livestock management practices employed by Harral Livestock Company for well over 150 years also meet the most stringent welfare standards in the industry.

For more information about Harral Livestock Company, visit www.harrallivestock.com or contact them by phone at (432) 290-3155 or email at harrallivestock@hotmail.com.

Jason and his family originally raised cattle primarily for the commodity market, but had the foresight to focus on meat quality even before they knew their end customers. Jason’s cattle are bred from some of the best stock in the nation, and his Katahdin sheep are hardy, adaptable, low-maintenance animals that produce superior lamb with lean, meaty carcasses. “Even before I was direct marketing and we sold our cattle into the commodity market, I knew the animals would eventually end up on someone’s plate and it became my mission to make it a good experience,” Jason says. “I feel even more fulfilled now that I get to meet and talk to the people who are the end consumer and see how happy they are with what I produce.”

Jason says that this ability to communicate directly with his customers is the most important aspect of the family business. “They love to hear our story and learn about what we do,” he explains. “I post at least three times a week on Facebook to give people an idea of what we do, and to help them understand what it takes to bring our beef and lamb to their plate. Our business motto is, ‘From conception to consumption.’”

The Butlers’ long-term goals are to increase their market presence to the point where they can market everything they produce directly to the consumer. Jason’s customers appreciate his product and he knows why: “Our animals are pasture-raised and finished on grass, and have never been given any animal byproducts, steroids, or growth hormones. Our meats are minimally processed and dry aged for a flavorful and tender eating experience.”

On his decision to become AWA-certified, Jason explains that it reflects the farm’s credibility: “AWA is a trusted source that people can see and understand that we have gone through certain qualifications to use the label. Knowing that we’ve achieved these standards, they can have confidence in our practices, and in our product.”

AWA-certified beef and lamb from Butler Angus Ranch is available through area farmers’ markets and directly from the farm (please call in advance to make an appointment). For more information about the farm, visit www.butlerangusranch.com or follow their Facebook page at www.facebook.com/ButlerAngus.

Brad still splits his time between working as a sustainable architect, specializing in designing environmentally-friendly building projects, and managing the ranch. While some people might see this as an unusual mix, Brad says that he sees pasture-raising cattle as “just another sustainable project with a very different solution.” He explains that the two roles actually complement each other perfectly: “The design work informs the planning and sustainable approach of the ranch and has significantly informed our grassfed operation, approach, and processes, while the hands-on work of the ranch lends guidance to every conversation, meeting, design and project in town. I couldn’t do either one without the other.”

The Buchanans manage 1,300 acres in the Koiwa Creek Bottom where they have increased their herd to 130 head of cattle. They chose to breed Wagyu bulls with Angus cows because the Wagyu breed, also known as “American Kobe,” is well-suited to pasture-based management, efficiently turning forage into high-quality, marbled meat. Their small stature also makes calving easy so that heifers can give birth without aid.

From birth through slaughter, the livestock management practices at Flying B Bar Ranch focuses on respecting the animals, the land, and the ranchers themselves. Cattle are never fed grain and slaughter is performed on the farm so that animals don’t have to be transported long distances. Protecting the local environment is also a key focus and Flying B Bar Ranch is home to a diverse range of wildlife, including wild deer, turkeys, coyotes, ducks, geese, Sand Hill Cranes and three bald eagles. With respect for the land and all its residents, the Buchanans employ sustainable farming practices, including reducing their carbon footprint by growing all their own feed and employing no-tillage (no ploughing or soil cultivation) and no spray strategies.

“This is a lifestyle choice, but we knew we needed to do it right or not at all,” says Brad. “Pasture-raising cattle offers real benefits to the pastures, the animals, and the environment, while the improved flavor and health benefits to the meat are truly significant.” Brad pursued Animal Welfare Approved certification because of the advantages it provides in educating their customers. “Education about sustainability and welfare is important to us—for consumers and other producers,” says Brad. “Animal Welfare Approved certification is a way to communicate what’s important to us—it’s the gold standard.”

Flying B Bar Ranch grassfed beef is available in eighths, quarters, halves and wholes. For more information, or to place an order, visit www.FlyingBBar.com.

The 50 Angus cross cattle at KDL Ranch rotationally graze 400 acres of dry-farmed pastureland.. The Bredesons believe that caring for their cattle on pasture according to AWA’s high welfare standards is important both for the cattle’s health – and their own. They also benefit from their participation in the USDA’s National Conservation Services Environmental Quality Incentives Program, a voluntary program which has provided them with technical and financial support to implement conservation practices on the ranch. They grow alfalfa and Sudan grass to supplement their cattle’s forage, when necessary, and never feed any grain. “Grass and forage is what cattle are meant to eat,” Debi explains. “It just makes sense—after all, you are what you eat eats.”

Kevin’s goal is to continue improving the quality of the beef, rather than the quantity produced, through improved genetics and handling. KDL Ranch’s pasture-raised, grassfed beef is available in wholes, halves, and quarters direct from the farm. Call 7202920152 or email kdlranch@gmail.com for availability.

John and Kris strive to use the best sustainable methods and high-welfare practices on their organic farm, both for raising cattle from birth through to slaughter, and growing grains. But this has not always been the case: although their ancestors raised cow/calf pairs on grass pasture, John and Kris started raising stocker cattle. They would purchase weaned calves through a sales ring, graze them on wheat pasture, before selling them to feedlot settings for finishing.

However, this all began to change in 1996 when John was asked to farm some land belonging to a neighbor—the only catch being that it had to be managed organically. In the three years that followed, John and Kris became completely convinced that sustainable farming was what they were meant to do and they transitioned every acre they operated to organic production, focusing on the welfare of their animals. “John knows every calf from beginning to end,” says Kris. “When cattle are born on the farm, they’re like a member of our farm family.”

Putting their animals’ welfare at the center of their operation allows Kris and John to carefully monitor livestock health and wellbeing, and this produces delicious and healthy beef. In addition to the quality of the beef, John and Kris have observed that animal welfare is also an important consideration in their customers’ purchasing decisions. John and Kris believe that having AWA certification gives their customers the assurance that they are seeking: AWA certification and food label lets consumers know that these animals were raised in accordance with the highest animal welfare standards in the U.S., using sustainable agriculture methods on an independent family farm.

“We are humbled to be certified by an organization such as AWA,” says Kris. “Having an animal welfare expert tour the farm was a really neat and beneficial experience, too.”

John and Kris run the farm with help from their two daughters, their spouses and children, who all frequently visit the farm and help out at busy times. John and Kris hope to instill in their grandchildren the importance and value of their Oklahoma farm heritage and that one day they will leave their children a family farm that is in even better condition than when they began farming and raising livestock.

In addition to Cattle Tracks Organic Beef, Kris and John produce Fairview’s Best Organic Flour, Fairview’s Best Organic Wheat, Fairview’s Best Pancake/Waffle Mix, and Behind the Barn spices and mixes.  Cattle Tracks Beef and the other products from John’s Farm are available at farmers’ markets, on-line farmer’s markets for Edmond and Tulsa, the Oklahoma Food Coop, and retail locations in OKC, Stillwater, and Fairview, as well as direct from the farm. Visit www.JohnsFarm.com for more information.

Following significant public pressure, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just announced that it is extending the public comment period for AquaBounty Technologies’ application for AquAdvantage Salmon for a further 60 days. Originally slated to end on February 25, 2013, the comment period will remain open until April 26, 2013. It’s more important than ever that we raise our concerns and make sure our voices are heard – see end of article for further details.

It’s a well-known PR tactic to release bad or potentially unpopular news during the Holiday Season. So I always keep my eyes peeled to catch any news releases that might otherwise slip the net. I didn’t have to wait long.

On December 21, when most people were focusing on their upcoming festivities, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quietly released its draft environmental assessment on the highly controversial genetically engineered (GE) salmon, created by AquaBounty Technologies Inc.

The decision effectively gives the public less until February 25, 2013 to stop the commercial release of the world’s first GE animal intended for human consumption.

Dubbed the “Frankenstein fish” by its critics, AquaBounty state that their AquaAdvantage Salmon is genetically engineered to “include a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon that provides the fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon.” Introducing the new genetic material results in “shorter production cycles and increased efficiency of production.” AquaBounty already has plans for GE trout and GE tilapia.

According to the company’s proposals, the production of GE salmon eggs would take place on Canada’s Prince Edward Island. From here, the eggs would be shipped to the Panama highlands, where the GE salmon would be raised to maturity in inland tanks (not at sea in nets), minimizing any risk of escape. Once they reach maturity, the fish would be slaughtered in Panama and processed into cuts, before being exported back to the U.S. for sale for human consumption.

I first wrote about AquaBounty’s proposal to introduce GE salmon back in 2010 when it was still pending FDA approval. At the time, it looked like the “Frankenstein Fish” would stay in the lab where it belongs. But the FDA’s recent decision could now signal a green light for the global production of GE salmon, and arguably open the floodgates for a range of other genetically engineered animals, including pigs, cattle and poultry.

As someone who puts animal welfare and the environment front and center in my food choices, AquaBounty’s claim that their GE salmon will reach a marketable weight in half the time immediately set alarm bells ringing. You don’t get such unnatural growth rates without some kind of cost – whether that’s to the animal, to the environment, or to the consumer. Indeed, an expert panel from the Royal Society of Canada was set up in 2001 to look at the potential impacts of genetically engineered animals. They documented “deleterious consequences to fish morphology, respiratory capacity, and locomotion associated with the introduction of growth hormone (GH) gene constructs in some transgenic variants of salmonids, notably Pacific and Atlantic salmon…” and concluded that significant health and welfare problems are “the rule rather than the exception in fish… [and are] manifested by changes to enzyme activity, gross anatomy, behavior and, in all likelihood, hormonal activity.”

We already know that our drive to produce ever-greater quantities of cheaper animal protein has led to significant welfare problems through intensive breeding programs and hybridization across all farmed species. You only have to look at the wretched breeds favored by the intensive poultry industry to see the extreme suffering they experience to fuel our demand for cheap chicken meat. The Cornish Cross breed has not (yet) been genetically engineered, but it’s been bred to put on weight so quickly that its body cannot physically cope. If you could (legally) walk among the tens of thousands of birds that are cooped up in just one intensive poultry house, you’d see that most birds cannot walk more than a few steps without having to slump down in exhaustion. Many can’t even move at all. These birds can suffer from heart strain and are prone to bone, joint and ligament problems. The point I am making is that the drive to constantly increase growth rates and shorten the time these animals need to reach a marketable weight has led to significant associated welfare problems that the industry would prefer us not to know about. So we should all take AquaBounty’s claims that their GE salmon will bring about “fish health benefits” with a (very) large pinch of salt.

We also know that intensive fish farming already has a similarly appalling animal welfare and environmental record as, say, intensive broiler production. Both systems involve large numbers of animals packed together in a confined space, where they’re pushed to grow as fast as possible; there is a high risk of disease and parasitism, leading to routine use of medication; and we know that the environmental pollution from intensively farmed fish feces is a huge cause of concern – whether it’s an inland operation, as proposed here, or out at sea in cages.

As an environmentalist, I am extremely concerned about the impact that these GE salmon will have on wild salmon populations when they inevitably escape into the wild. Forgive me if I don’t swallow AquaBountry’s promises about the environmental safety of their operations hook, line and sinker, but we’ve heard all these safety claims before.  According to the environmental campaigning groups, Friends of the Earth, “the FDA’s decision to approve the GE salmon without a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement under federal law is irresponsible and inexcusable.” Friends of the Earth claim that FDA’s assessment relies heavily on data provided by AquaBounty and, worryingly, ignores the fact that up to five percent of the fish may be fertile at a commercial scale. When we’re potentially talking about millions of fish, just five percent becomes a pretty big figure: “This opens the possibility that fertile, genetically engineered fish could escape into local waterways and wreak havoc on the ecosystem and already threatened wild salmon populations,” warn Friends of the Earth. Despite promises from the likes of Monsanto and the biotech industry that GE crops were an environmental panacea, less than two decades after they first went on sale we’re now seeing the widespread emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds and massively increased applications of ever-more toxic herbicide combinations – problems which we were also told would either never happen or which were nothing to worry about.

Some critics have wrongly claimed that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service weren’t involved in the recent environmental assessment. While internal emails and documents from the FWS (received by Food & Water Watch) sent in 2010 reveal significant concern among FWS staff about AquaBounty’s GE salmon and the limitations of the FDA’s expertise to undertake the assessment, both agencies have now officially provided supportive comments to the FDA (see pages 135-136 of the FDA’s draft environmental assessment). But although the official FWS statement effectively concurs with the FDA’s overall assessment on environmental risk, they did note this was only based on Aquabounty’s current plans. In other words, if AquaBounty was intending to modify its production systems in any way or wanted to sell eggs to other fish farming facilities they would have to apply to the FDA for each and every instance.

The problem is that we know that Panama is just the start: AquaBounty is hoping its facility there will demonstrate the profitability of inland GE fish farming to other interested players. Indeed, the company’s processing facilities at Panama are far too small to ensure its future viability – particularly when you take into account the multi-million dollar “debts” AquaBounty now built up over the years to fund its research. No, AquaBounty is hoping the real money will come from selling millions upon millions of GE salmon eggs to fish farms across the world.

And therein lays the risk. As production of GE salmon increases across the world, accidents will happen. In the pursuit of profit, corners will be cut and risks will be taken. Regulations will be ignored or not enforced, and “best practice” advice will not be followed. It’s inevitable. Indeed, the earlier internal emails from the FWS reveal that one of AquaBounty’s initial proposals included plans to grow the GE fish in an area where they could be discharged into the ocean off the coast of Maine. Although the FDA has ruled out any ocean-based production of GE salmon in the U.S., who’s to say that this won’t happen elsewhere in the world?

Which is probably why there is still significant concern among FWS staff about AquaBounty’s proposals: James Geiger, FWS assistant regional director in the Northeast region, recently spoke to the Boston Herald. “Although AquaBounty claims their fish are sterile, that sterilization process is not 100 percent,” he said. “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.”

As someone who enjoys eating sustainably-sourced salmon, I’m also concerned that the FDA’s decision could jeopardize my health and the health of my family – as well as the livelihoods of sustainable fishing businesses. Friends of the Earth claim that the FDA has ignored the potential risks to human health posed by the GE salmon, as research shows that GE salmon has higher levels of IGF-1, a growth hormone that, according to the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, may increase the risk of several types of cancer. Consumers Union have also raised concerns about the potential allergic reactions from the fish, claiming that the FDA “has allowed this fish to move forward based on tests of allergenicity of only six engineered fish – tests that actually did show an increase in allergy-causing potential.” Yet despite these health concerns, current labeling laws mean that it’s likely we won’t even know if we’re eating GE salmon. In this great nation of ours it seems that we no longer have the right to know how the food we are eating is produced, let alone the freedom of choice over whether or not we actually eat it. As a result, t some people may simply choose to avoid eating salmon altogether, to the detriment of countless U.S.-based sustainable salmon businesses.

Food & Water Watch claim the FDA recently came under intense fire at a Senate hearing last December for lacking the necessary expertise to properly assess the full range of risks GE fish pose to marine ecosystems. Over 40 members of Congress and scientists at other federal agencies have voiced strong opposition to GE salmon, citing the lack of scientific rigor and expertise at the FDA as a key concern. We already know that the regulatory regime for the approval of all GE crops is founded on selected information provided by the GE companies themselves and that there is little, if any, truly independent or long-term assessment of their safety. Worryingly, the process for approving the world’s first genetically engineered animal destined for our plates appears to be equally negligent: The FDA’s draft environmental assessment for AquaBounty’s GE salmon is almost entirely reliant on data provided by the very company which stands to profit most from its commercial release.

We now have less than 20 days to stop GE fish from reaching our plates. Please contact your member of Congress now by using Food & Water Watch’s online petition.

Alternatively, you can submit your comments directly to the FDA on their website. For the required field “Organization Name,” just enter “Citizen.” Please send all comments to the FDA no later than February 25, 2013.