Genetically Modified Salmon on Cusp of Approval

Forget genetically engineered crops; the F.D.A. will soon decide whether genetically modified salmon, which grow at twice the rate of normal salmon, will be allowed into our supermarkets. The salmon has been in development for about 10 years but only now has all the required testing been done and all of the proper paperwork submitted.

AquaBounty Technologies developed the fish, an Atlantic salmon with a Chinook growth hormone plus a gene from the ocean pout that allows it keep producing growth hormone even in winter months, unlike non-genetically modified salmon.

The company insists it is safe, as quoted by the New York Times:

AquaBounty, which is based in Waltham, Mass., and publicly traded in London, said last week that the F.D.A. had signed off on five of the seven sets of data required to demonstrate that the fish was safe for consumption and for the environment. It said it demonstrated, for instance, that the inserted gene did not change through multiple generations and that the genetic engineering did not harm the animals.

Scientists and consumer groups are obviously concerned. Genetically modified corn doesn't seem to create the same anxieties as genetically modified animals. For one, if the salmon ever escape, they could outcompete native species for resources thanks to their unique genetic advantage. AquaBounty claims that the salmon will be grown in contained tanks, not in ocean pens, and that all of them will be female and sterile. Still, the company is only selling eggs to fish farms, not raising the salmon themselves, creating opportunities for misuse by the farms. Nature and human error could take care of the sterility problem.

AquaBounty insists that the salmon will be ultimately more environmentally friendly than other farmed fish, as they will require less feed to reach optimal size. The most environmentally friendly solution to this problem, of course, will be for the world to just eat less salmon, replacing it with tilapia, sardines, oysters and other types of sustainable seafood. Technology as panacea is a tempting option, but in the end self-control and responsible eating are safer solutions.

Then there is the issue of labeling. Technically the salmon don't have to be labeled as genetically modified if tests can prove that there is no nutritional difference between it and traditional salmon and, as the genetically modified salmon will be grown and sold by multiple fish farms, it seems unlikely that voluntary labels will be universal.

That means you won't know if your salmon is genetically modified if the F.D.A. approves it, and there hasn't exactly been transparency in the certification process.

"There is no opportunity for anyone from the outside to see the data or criticize it," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. When consumer groups were invited to discuss biotechnology policy with top F.D.A. officials last month, Ms. Mellon said she warned the officials that approval of the salmon would generate "a firestorm of negative response."

Ultimately, this seems like a short-sighted way of trying to solve our problems. Imagine it: Instead of moving towards grass-fed beef we simply modify cows to be able to digest corn sans antibiotics. Pigs being modified not to panic when packed tight in crowded pens. We could go down this road, but a more predictable and natural alternative is already fairly apparent. It's called eating less meat, and making sure the meat we do eat is sustainably raised. A lot simpler than trusting our future food supply to biotech companies.