(edited)
From: The Campaign <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
Subject: Voting record on GE fish amendment
News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Health Freedom Fighters,
The Campaign has had many inquiries as to how various House
Representatives voted on the amendment to the
Agriculture Appropriations bill to delay FDA approval of genetically
engineered fish for one year.
Posted below is a state by state listing indicating how each member of
the House of Representatives voted on the Kucinich/DeFazio amendment.
Also included is the text of the Congressional Record which includes the
floor debate on the amendment.
The amendment lost by a 279 to 145 vote. The vote was largely along
party lines with 130 Democrats and only 15 Republicans voting for the
amendment. Voting against the amendment were 201 Republicans and 78
Democrats.
State by State vote results on the Kucinich/DeFazio amendment
Wednesday, July 11, 2001
IOWA
1st - James A. Leach - Republican - No
2nd - Jim Nussle - Republican - No
3rd - Leonard L. Boswell - Democrat - No
4th - Greg Ganske - Republican - No
5th - Tom Latham - Republican - No
Although the amendment was not passed, this vote acted as a good trial
balloon to determine where the support and opposition is for genetically
engineered food issues in the House of Representatives.
Our movement is growing. But we need to work harder and smarter to be
successful in our efforts. We cannot simply be observers of the battle
over genetically engineered foods. We must be active participants and
recruit other concerned citizens to join us in our efforts.
Our opposition has nearly unlimited funds with paid political lobbyists
and influence at the highest levels of government. We have the power of
grassroots activism and the Internet. We must win the battle to label
genetically engineered foods. Failure is not an option.
Craig Winters
Executive Director
The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
The Campaign
PO Box 55699
Seattle, WA 98155
Tel: 425-771-4049
Fax: 603-825-5841
E-mail: mailto:[log in to unmask]
Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org
Mission Statement: "To create a national grassroots consumer campaign
for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass
legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered
foods in the United States."
***************************************************************
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. KUCINICH:
At the end of title VII, insert after the last section (preceding
any short title) the following section:
SEC. 7__. None of the funds made available in this Act for the Food
and Drug Administration may be used for the approval or process of
approval, under section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
of an application for an animal drug for creating transgenic salmon or
any other transgenic fish.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH) and a Member opposed
each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I offer this amendment today to ensure the livelihood of commercial
fishermen and protect our oceans, lakes and streams. This amendment is a
reasonable and moderate safeguard. It will delay FDA approval of
genetically engineered fish for 1 year.
This amendment is necessary because commercial fishermen and
environmentalists have raised concerns that GE fish may pose ecological
risks that have not been carefully considered by Federal marine
agencies. This amendment corrects this situation by providing a 1-year
moratorium, giving Congress the opportunity to investigate and authorize
an agency with environmental expertise clear authority to regulate the
environmental impacts of genetically engineered fish.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that there are legitimate concerns for the
safety of genetically engineered animals, including transgenic fish.
However, I am concerned that the proposed amendment would actually delay
advancement in the state of scientific knowledge. It would prevent FDA
from reviewing any applications related to transgenic fish. The process
of consulting with sponsors and reviewing applications that advances
scientific understanding in both the public and private sectors, I do
not wish to halt this learning process.
Furthermore, in reviewing these applications, FDA addresses the
safety of the animal, the environment, and the consumer. In addition,
the sponsor must assure that the transgenic fish are contained and not
introduced into the environment or the food chain until safety is
assured. This is a responsible approach. The scientific integrity and
discipline of the drug-approval process makes it a reliable, effective,
and safe venue for advancing scientific knowledge and getting needed
products to the marketplace.
So I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would just like to say in response that what we are proposing here
is not to block research, but to block FDA final approval. Our approach
would mean that the FDA would have to actually do more research.
Scientists from Purdue University and the University of Minnesota have
raised a number of serious questions about the ecological impacts of
genetically engineered fish. These risks include genetically engineered
fish escaping from ocean pens into the environment, which would impact
wild populations of fish. Studies show that genetically engineered fish
are more aggressive, consume more food, and attract more mates than wild
fish. These studies also show that although genetically engineered fish
will attract more mates, their offspring will be less fit and less
likely to survive. As a result, some scientists predict that genetically
engineered fish will cause some species to become extinct within only a
few generations.
As a result of genetically engineered fish producing unfit offspring
that are more successful in mating, the Purdue scientists predict that
if 60, 60 genetically engineered fish were introduced into a population
of 60,000 wild fish, the species would become extinct within only 40
fish generations. They refer to these disturbing results as the trojan
gene effect.
Here we can see why a genetically engineered fish, this would be
represented as a genetically engineered fish and is, in fact, what we
are speaking about, as opposed to two conventionally developed fish, and
we see the difference in size. What happens is, if they are released
into the wild, they become much more attractive for mating; but they are
not as fit. Their offspring are not as fit to survive, and eventually we
end up with an extinct species.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
<snipped>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]
|
