Frankenfish Worried About the Future of GMOceans (cartoon)

Take action to keep GE salmon (“Frankenfish”) off your plate, because as Food and Water Watch state:

Genetically engineered salmon are on a fast track to being the first GE Animal approved for human consumption. The FDA is trying to approve GE salmon as a new animal drug, but the truth is U.S. Food agencies don’t have a way to fully evaluate the impacts of GE salmon on human health or the environment. Worst of all, if these GE salmon are introduced into our food system, they won’t be labeled, so consumers won’t know what they’re buying.

As Beth Buczynski shares in her Care2 article “3 Reasons Federal Scientists Fear Genetically Engineered Salmon” the public comment period ends November 22, so take action NOW!
And tell others. The more “Lambastards” the better!

View all of Joe’s political/environmental cartoonery at
Updates on Twitter at @GreenCartoons

2 thoughts on “Frankenfish Worried About the Future of GMOceans (cartoon)”

  1. I believe that these GE salmon are farmed salmon. There’s no indication that they are going to be released into the wild. Unlike plants that disperse pollen, GE salmon, if kept contained, should not endanger wild populations as they do not indiscriminately spread their genes. They should of course be labeled (the fact that they are not to be labeled as such is a reflection of industry coziness with regulatory agencies and legislators).

    I advocate informed consent when it comes to foods. We should be urging the FDA (or congress) to require (under penalty) the labeling of all such foods.

    I’m not sure I get the reference to “ruining the land”…how has biotech “ruined” the land? apart from a few early attempts by big chemical Corps. to control GM seed supplies, there have been a only few documented cases of GM crop genes spreading to wild populations, but none of these, while important events (for research, especially), have quite “ruined” any land, or ecosystems (that we know of).

    As a naturalist, I am obviously concerned with testing of GE animals/plants and GMOs in general. But as a scholar of science, I am not afraid of everything genetic (and I am no purist, extremist or reactionary when it comes to manipulating genes for human benefit).

    And yes, much of this bio-tech innovation is spurred on by profit interests.

    But we should be cautious about reactionism (putting ourselves in the same mindset as those on the Right who react against Climate Change warnings and climate science), just as much as we are about GE foods.

    GE/GM plants and animals hold great promise for the world’s poor, hungry and those lacking access to vaccines. As environmentally concerned folks, we should be urging more study (long term) on these animals and plants.

    But as humanitarians who are concerned about poverty, hunger, disease, and climate change-induced droughts/floods, we should resist the urge to label all such GMOs as dangerous or “bad”, especially when they may be humanity’s “saving grace” in the decades to come.

    1. I think you made many of my points for me in your comment–and I am at fault certainly, for grouping (in my reactions to most GMO/GE work) all GMO/GE work with the work of Monsanto. They are the biotech giants and have a horrible track record of negatively impacting the earth. I hate to think that biotech (led by Monsanto–because they are the industry leaders) will be humanity’s saving grace when our saving grace has long been and will continue to be good land stewardship.

      I am pro-science. Yet, I am anti GE Foods. And I will be until proven otherwise…AND I WOULD LOVE TO BE PROVEN OTHERWISE (but will bet all I own that I will not be proven otherwise by the likes of Monsanto or Bayer…)

      And by “ruining” I meant the soil depletion and toxicity (and resulting freshwater toxicity) brought on by GMO crops and pesticides/herbicides.

      Thanks for your thoughtful comment.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top