Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods Won’t Sell GM Salmon

The FDA hasn’t yet weighed in on the fish’s safety—so the two foodie grocery chains have taken matters into their own hands.

An AquAdvantage salmon.<a href="http://www.aquabounty.com/PressRoom/">AquaBounty</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


This story first appeared on the Guardian website.

A number of US supermarket chains pledged on Wednesday not to sell genetically modified salmon, in a sign of growing public concern about engineered foods on the dinner table.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in the final stages of deciding whether to allow GM salmon on to the market. If approved, AquaBounty Technology’s salmon would be the first genetically engineered animal to enter the food supply.

The company combined genes from two species of salmon with a pouter eel to produce a fish it says it can bring to market twice as fast as conventional salmon.

The GM salmon is the first in some 30 other species of genetically engineered fish under development, including tilapia. Researchers are also working to bring GM cows, chickens, and pigs to market.

However, those plans could be blocked by Wednesday’s commitment not to sell genetically engineered seafood from national grocery chains including Trader Joe’s, Aldi, and Whole Foods, as well as regional retailers.

Between them, the chains control about 2,000 outlets—a fraction of supermarkets across the country. But campaigners said they represent a growing segment of the population that is concerned about GM food, and willing to pay higher prices for healthier foods.

Eric Hoffman, a campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said in a statement: “Now it’s time for other food retailers, including Walmart, Costco, and Safeway, to follow suit and let their customers know they will not be selling unlabeled, poorly studied, genetically engineered seafood.”

Trudy Bialic from PCC Natural Markets, a chain of health food stores in Washington state, said: “We won’t sell genetically engineered fish because we don’t believe it is sustainable or healthy.”

There was no immediate response from AquaBounty, a struggling biotechnology firm which has spent nearly 20 years trying to bring the fish to market. The company has hit a number of financial crisis points over the past few years, relying on research grants and investors to stay in operation.

Last year, the company turned to a former Soviet oligarch, Georgian billionaire and former economics minister Kakha Bendukidze, for a bailout.

As the FDA review process enters its final stages, campaign groups are pushing retailers not to stock the product and tapping into growing awareness in America about GM foods.

Voters in California and other states have been pushing for labels on GM foods. Meanwhile, the Whole Foods chain announced earlier this month it would begin labeling foods containing GM corn and soybean by 2018.

Critics of GM salmon say the FDA has not conducted proper oversight of the fish, which are raised from eggs hatched in a facility in Prince Edward Island, Canada, and grown to maturity in tanks in a remote area of Panama, to ensure they can not escape into the wild.

They say there is insufficient data to back up AquaBounty’s claims its salmon can grow to maturity twice as fast as wild salmon. They also dispute the company’s claims that there is no increased risk to people with allergies.

Those concerns were amplified by the FDA’s preliminary finding that there was no need to label GM salmon.

Patty Lovera of the campaign group Food and Water Watch said it was not clear what effect the supermarkets’ move would have on the FDA’s decision, which is supposed to be focused on science.

But she said she hoped the growing public opposition to GM salmon—even before its approval—would push retailers to think twice about stocking the fish or more than 30 other varieties of GM seafood currently under development.

“It reinforces that there is no demand or no need for this product, so why does the FDA need to approve it?” she said. “If this many stores are willing to say ‘no’ ahead of time, I think that is a pretty strong signal that there is not a lot of demand.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate