What’s Next for Frankenfish? Why the FDA Should Not Rush Approving GE Salmon
Halloween may be over, but the Frankenfish—a genetically engineered salmon created by the company AquaBounty Technologies (ABT)—is still very real. Yesterday marked the end of the FDA’s public comment period, which followed the organization’s three-day hearings in late September on whether to approve the fish for consumption, and has inspired everyone from moms to senators to celebrity chefs to speak out on the issue. Technically, though the FDA insists they won’t be rubber-stamping the fish anytime soon, these comments were supposed to focus on whether GE (genetically engineered) salmon—if approved—should be labeled as genetically modified food. (Duh.) Isn’t it a little odd to zero in on package labeling before the salmon has even been deemed safe to eat? Turns out that’s just one of the many fishy things about the whole deal.
Massachusetts-based ABT has been working for the past fifteen years on their GE, or transgenic, fish, for which they’ve given the peppy name AquAdvantage. These are Atlantic salmon that have been injected with a growth hormone gene from a Chinook salmon and a genetic on-switch from the ocean pout, a distantly related fish; the resulting salmon grow year-round, which means they’re market-ready in as little time as sixteen months, compared to the three years it takes to raise normal salmon. While advocates claim that growing ABT salmon will help protect oceans from over-fishing and provide more people with an affordable source of fish, there’s good reason to fear the Frankenfish, which—if given the green light by the FDA—could start appearing in our supermarkets in just two years.
Critics, including the Center for Food Safety and Food & Water Watch, and members of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), charge that the scientific data submitted by AquaBounty Technologies to the FDA in support of their GE salmon is biased, inconclusive, and inadequate. In fact, ABT tested only six transgenic fish to determine their allergen potential—even though finfish are among the country’s most common allergenic foods and the consequences of consuming GE food are still largely unknown. What’s more, the company performed food safety tests on salmon raised at a facility in Canada, despite the fact that they plan to grow their fish in Panama. Even an elementary-school science project would be criticized for such sloppiness. Though ABT’s findings—which have not been vetted by a third-party—are full of such holes, the FDA seems ready to accept the data at face value.
And then there’s the environmental risk. When farmed fish escape into the wild, they threaten to wipe out already diminished wild fish populations. While ABT maintains that their highly contained inland tanks and commitment to raising sterile, all-female salmon preclude this from happening, the truth is that we can’t afford any margin of error. Whether it’s a severe storm that destroys an ABT facility, an employee that deliberately flouts regulations, or the existence of a fertile GE salmon (ABT admits that up to 5% of their fish could be fertile) there’s still a small chance that the salmon will eventually mix with native fish populations. In emails obtained by Food & Water Watch through the Freedom of Information Act, senior officials at the FWS reveal this exact fear. On September 28th, 2010, Allan Brown, a FWS hatchery manager, sent an email to his colleagues predicting, “No matter what precautions you take, fish escape and once they do, there is no closing that door.”
The bad news just keeps coming. ABT states that their transgenic fish will have reduced disease resistance. Does this mean that they’ll be pumped with more antibiotics than are typically fed to farmed fish? Too many serious questions remain for the FDA to continue on the path for approval. Yet, aquaculture is a $1.09 billion-dollar industry, and ABT might be just powerful enough to cinch a go-ahead by the end of the year. This is an historic moment—approval of ABT salmon would mark the first GE animal authorized for human consumption and will set a precedent for future transgenic animal applications—and one that should not be rushed. No long-term or independent studies have been conducted to measure the effects of eating transgenic fish, and ABT is fighting to keep a GE label off their salmon if the fish are eventually legalized. (In the “Myth and Fact” section on the company’s website, the statement “these fish should be labeled” is designated as a myth.)
As consumers and parents, we have the right to reject GE salmon, and—at the very least—to be clued in on whether the fish we buy has been genetically altered. -Katherine Cancila
What do you think? Should the FDA ok transgenic salmon and, if so, should it be labeled as such?
Related stories on Babble:
Thank you for this most informative article. I’ll definitely spread the word to be aware of the possibility of Frankenfish. At barest minimum, these genetically altered brands must be labled so consumers know that the “healthy” and more expensive option they are choosing may in fact pose longer term health consequences.
I look forward to shopping for it and will have no problems eating it. MOST of the food we eat today has been genetically modified … and our lifespan is the longest it has ever been in recorded history. I think that people are needlessly worried.
You are right that most of the processed food we eat today has been genetically modified in some way. But considering that the first GM food was commercialized only 16 years ago, we still have no way of determining its possible long-term health effects. (Our knowledge about trans fats only surfaced in recent years.) Plus, we’re talking about the first GE animal to enter our food supply, which worries many people—myself included— more than, say, GE corn.
This is quite concerning. Though, I guess these companies are probably going to do the best they can to not get into any lawsuits, so maybe it’s not as bad as we think it might be? I don’t know. I here there’s a company here in Canada that’s starting to do the same sort of thing but with some sort of lamb or something. It’s called Iumentec and it’s based in Ontario. One of the things I find most concerning is what goes on in the research. Who knows how many animals they’ve ‘created’ and killed or left to die? The step from fish to mammals is a little scary to me.
I am reserving judgment. There is a great deal of angst about GM foods that can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. I am reminded of an incident in Britan when a field was planted with GM corn. The local residents developed mysterious respritory complaints and skin rashes. They put it down to the GM crops. There was an official investigation in which it came out that researchers had accidentally planted the field with regular corn. No GM corn was planted at all but local residents who believed the field contained GM corn has exactly the reactions that anti-GM campaigners warned they would. In a different but interesting example people who believe they are drinking beer but are in fact drinking alcohol-free beer exhibit signs of intoxication. There is a huge social element to all this. I think that for the sake of progress we should really go out of our way to keep am open mind. Let’s address specific concerns and try not to freak out about Rumsfeldian “unknown unknowns”. We will make mistakes but if we hadn’t tried and failed in the past we wouldn’t have most of the good things in our lives. History shows time and again that as much as we make mistakes, we are pretty good at correcting them. So while we might have our concerns about any technological advance, not just GM food, we have good reason to be optimistic.