Do you like eating salmon? I love it and have even had the pleasure of catching my own a couple of times. However, for the past ten years I’ve only eaten wild Pacific salmon that I buy online and have shipped. Once you’ve tasted it you’ll never want to go back to the farmed salmon. But this is actually a story about a salmon marketing strategy. It seems that our wild populations are dwindling although not everywhere. Some places are seeing growth in the wild populations.
However, farming salmon is a bit of a problem. Not only are there problems with disease but it takes 3 pounds of feed to grow 1 pound of salmon. Enter AquaBounty Technologies with a simple solution – the AquAdvantage® Salmon. Not a King, Chinook, Coho or Sockeye but an AquAdvantage.
They describe it on their website: The AquAdvantage® fish program is based upon a single, specific molecular modification in fish that results in more rapid growth in early development. This enables shorter production cycles and increased efficiency of production. In the case of AquAdvantage® Salmon, these benefits will permit the use of alternative production systems which have substantial environmental and fish health benefits which are not economical for conventional Atlantic Salmon.
Yes, you read that correctly, AquaBounty has produced a genetically engineered Atlantic Salmon. By splicing in a gene from Chinook salmon with DNA from an Ocean Pout which looks like an eel on steroids, the AquaAdvantage salmon can grow twice as fast.
Kind of sounds like the 2004 horror film Frankenfish. So what are the odds of a genetically engineered fish soon showing in your supermarket? I’d like to tell you slim and none but I’m afraid you might be seeing them very soon at a restaurant or market near you.
According to the site Frankenfish.com and Time magazine, preliminary reviews by FDA officials suggest a bias toward approving this Frankenfish for consumption in the United States. Documents released by FDA staff said the altered salmon are “as safe to eat as food from other Atlantic salmon.” The agency said it found “no biologically relevant differences” in vitamins, minerals or fatty acids.
Putting aside the vitamin, mineral and fatty acid question you should also consider that the FDA report found the genetically altered salmon had high levels of tissue inflammation suggesting a problem with their immune systems which might mean the need for more antibiotics to be fed to the fish. And, they also contain higher levels of an insulin growth hormone than wild fish. Think about that as you enjoy that salmon roll or broiled fillet.
It seems like if the FDA had their way we’d already see this in the marketplace. But, there are some large organizations and legislators who are ready to fight to stop them. The American Council on Science and Health says it is fine to eat the fish and it is an unfounded health scare. But, I’m a little dubious when in the same article they also say high fructose corn syrup is not to blame for obesity – consuming too many calories is the problem. Huh? Really! Wow!
What’s your take on genetically modified fish? Shrimp are next on the list as well as other species of fish.
I think most opposition to GMOs can be reduced to what Kevin Kelly (author of What Technology Wants) calls the Precautionary Principle: "a technology must be shown to do no harm before it can be embraced."
The thing about the Precautionary Principle is that it tends to grind innovation and improvements to a halt, because in reality every good technology, process, innovation (you name it) produces harm somewhere and in some way (just think of cell phones).
The appropriate question then is not just what harm could conceivably be produced in a worst-case scenario, but what harm could be AVOIDED by allowing the innovation. It's a question of risk management.
In the case of modified fish, it's well known that the ocean is in deep (pardon the pun) trouble – overfishing has depleted fish stocks across the globe. And people desire protein, especially in the meat-rich diets that many westerners and newly rich and middle class easterners favor. As the earth's population continues to grow, we'll need to dedicate increasingly large amounts of land and ocean to the production of meat.
Every study I've seen of this situation points to very gloomy outcomes – there simply isn't enough land and ocean to produce the meat that 8 or 9 billion hungry people crave. So, either the great majority of us drop most meat from our diet (not likely to happen), or we find more efficient and scalable ways of producing it.
Genetically modified fish (and organisms of many varieties) are a way of adapting our food stocks to better suit our needs in the 21st century and help ensure that more people get the nutrition they need.
Posted by: Rob | 01/08/2011 at 12:55 PM
I believe in strong use of the Precautionary Principle when a government agency is tasked with telling me that genetically modifying fish is safe. The Department of Agriculture continues to use an outdated food pyramid http://www.lifeclinic.com/IMAGES/food-guide-pyramid.gif that tells us to eat 11 servings of grain a day to be healthy.
There seems to be no doubt that we have a huge problem with sustainable fish stocks and technology is needed to better manage the stocks we have or find a way to grow more as my post describes.
I have a real concern though about what might happen were these modified fish get into the wild fish stocks. I don't think we know and the possibility of creating an even larger problem than dwindling salmon stocks might be created.
And, then there is the scientific fact I cited above that shows higher than normal levels of hormones and tissue inflammation.
Paleo followers love fish and we make it a major part of our diet for health and wellness reasons. That's why we prefer wild fish and grass fed beef. Will they always be available? I certainly hope so for the future health of mankind.
Thank you for your thoughtful post, Rob.
Posted by: Bob Poole | 01/08/2011 at 02:20 PM