Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
'Frankenfish' May Go on Sale in US After Public Consultation
US authorities today began the process to approve the first GM animal for human consumption.
A genetically-modified AquAdvantage salmon, top, next to a control salmon of the same age. (Photograph: AP) The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a 60-day period of consultation and public meetings over whether to permit a GM strain of salmon to be eaten by humans, even though it has been called a "frankenfish" by critics. The approval process could take less than a year, and if it gets the green light the fish could be on the market in 18 months.
Environmentalists and scientists see the decision as marking a threshold. If it is approved it is likely to open the door to a large range of GM animals being raised for consumption. If not, scientists say that will have a negative effect on research, in part because there will be no money to be made from it.
Among the considerations by the FDA is whether, if the fish is approved for consumption, it must be labelled as genetically engineered.
The AquAdvantage salmon - a modified North Atlantic salmon - has been created by AquaBounty Technologies in Boston, Massachusetts, over 14 years at a cost of $50m. The company says the salmon grows at twice the speed of similar fish, cutting costs for farmers and greatly increasing production.
On its website the company says: "This advancement provides a compelling economic benefit to farmers (reduced growing cycle) as well as enhancing the economic viability of inland operations, thereby diminishing the need for ocean pens." The fish are also sterile, which the company says would prevent interbreeding with wild salmon.
The genetic modification involves taking a growth hormone gene from a chinook salmon and joining it with a control DNA sequence (called a promoter) from an ocean pout - an eel-like creature from a different family of marine organisms. The growth hormone gene is almost identical to the equivalent gene in the North Atlantic salmon - the sequence differs by just 1% - but it operates differently because of the new control sequence. Unlike in North Atlantic salmon, which produced growth hormone only in the summer, ocean pout control sequence directs the gene to produce hormone all year round.
The genetic mash-up is then injected into the eggs of North Atlantic salmon. Here, it is taken up by the fish's genome and ultimately the DNA is present in cells throughout the body of the fish. The company uses a different genetic trick to make the fish it proposes to sell to customers sterile to prevent them interbreeding.
The explanation of the genetic modification on the company's publicity literature, aimed at reassuring the public, makes no mention of the ocean pout gene. "The chinook growth hormone is the same as the Atlantic salmon growth hormone; it is simply regulated differently. Their ability to grow faster does not change the biological make-up of the fish," the company says.
That appears to contradict the explanation of the technology from AquaBounty's chief scientific officer, Dr John Buchanan, who said the fish do incorporate DNA from the ocean pout. But he said there was no intention to mislead. "I don't think it is intentionally hidden. It has been disclosed many times and published in papers," he said, adding that the description on the website had been simplified to make it less confusing.
Because it is new ground for the FDA there are no regulations about genetically engineered animals and so it is being evaluated as if it were an animal treated with drugs.
The FDA has established an advisory committee of veterinarians to consider the evidence and public views. A public meeting will be held next month.
Among the opponents is the International Salmon Farmers Association which is concerned about the reaction of consumers and that it will undermine the popularity of salmon, which commands high prices in the US.
However, the National Fisheries Institute, a trade association of American seafood producers, backs "the use of biotechnology in the production of genetically-engineered fish" provided it has FDA approval.
If the FDA approves the fish for human consumption, AquaBounty says they will be raised in inland waters to ensure the modified salmon do not enter the oceans.
37 Comments so far
Show All'aquabounty says they will be raised in inland waters to ensure the MODIFIED salmon do not enter the ocean'.......
how considerate of them................
(why would they not want them to enter the ocean i wonder?)
yes...
from the article:
~ However, the National Fisheries Institute, a trade association of American seafood producers, backs "the use of biotechnology in the production of genetically-engineered fish" provided it has FDA approval.
If the FDA approves the fish for human consumption, AquaBounty says they will be raised in inland waters to ensure the modified salmon do not enter the oceans. ~
if they don't enter the ocean, they're not sea-food...
(maybe, given recent events, that's a positive marketing ploy, in their view...)
And some renegade employee decides to take a some fish and release them into open waters. Then the cat is out of the bag.
They said they were sterile. If they were released what would happen is sports fisherman would catch them by the boatload and steal 'em. Which is what I would do expect the inland ponds will probably be guarded by genetically modified security guards which are found in overabundance in nature already. P.S. If my neighborhood is any indication there are already way to many cats out of way to many bags. Just sayin'.
And then there were two, first post now deleted.
"(why would they not want them to enter the ocean i wonder?)" I'm assuming that this is a serious question and I think the reason might be twofold. One is that given the size of these frankenfish, they would out compete other fish for food and possibly mates. Being sterile doesn't necessarily mean they don't want it and can't mimic it, thereby failing to fertilize the eggs which would mean disaster for the next generation of salmon.
Secondly, these fish would end up as part of the food chain. There are many predators of salmon in the ocean, other fish, and marine animals. The results of ingesting these salmon are not immediately predictable. In inland water systems, there are comparatively few predators, besides humans, such as bears and eagles. Supersized bears and eagles, now there's a happy thought.
(I posted this but it didn't show up so I am going to try again. Is there a delay these days between posting and showing up so that this will end up being posted twice?)
well it was and it wasn't really a serious question.......
i was highlighting the fact that there must be something harmful in these monsters that they don't want to contaminate 'normal' fish/marine life with........
it just proves they aren't safe........
btw, some time ago off the coast of ireland, swarms of jellyfish (not previously known in that area or in such great amounts) attacked and killed a salmon farm. the company lost millions of pounds............
we can only hope the same fate for these frankenstein companies.......(although i do feel sorry for the monsters in many ways.)
Even conventional escapees are harmful to the wild environment. It the case of salmon, there is concern about the spread of parasites, including sea lice. There are also issues about the spread of viruses and disease that flourish in conferment conditions. Epidemics sourced to escaped 'product' is a distinct possibility. And, if they aren't necessarily diseased due to successful prophylactic measures taken during production, there is the problem of those same antibiotics and pesticides now contaminating the food chain. No telling what these GMO monsters will introduce.
High volume aquiculture is really nasty stuff!
"(why would they not want them to enter the ocean i wonder?)"
If they enter the ocean (the environment of the North Atlantic salmon) they will (may) be competing in the mating cycle with non-modified fertile salmon. Being infertile, they will be diluting the mating pool. (Also, being larger, they may seem to be preferable mating targets...if you can say that about salmon...for the natural fertile population.) I hope I am not garbling the idea too badly.
The March Toward SOYLENT GREEN continues ...
Movie in 1970, setting was year 2020.
Soylent green is people.
Ah ha ...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1296155071179146825#
It's getting sicker and sicker....
Scary.
why don't we just make the big leap now?
plastic fish...
When did everything get so puffed up? I see puffed up cars and trucks (we used to call them monster trucks and they were objects of curiousity at the county fair now people drive them around as thier daily vehicle!), gigantic strangely perfect and waxy vegetables, enormous servings of food at restaurants, and now these weirdly supersized fish?
I suppose the arguement is that we need bigger food to feed bigger people- oops, I mean, more people. But as the population continues to grow (in numbers I mean, exponentially!), even salmon the size of whales and shiny yellow bell peppers the size of pumpkins won't be enough. Isn't anyone looking at the real problems? Overpopulation? Resource depletion? Greed? Consumerism gone berserk?
The bigger they are the harder they fall? Sounds like bad trouble on the way.
Just another form of super-sizin; I guess, and we know what happens when you super-size...
One main concern is to notice the FDA had no problem approving roundup ready soy, toxic tomatoes (currently approved?), GE/toxic corn, GE/toxic potatoes... in fact every GE crop so far developed turns out to be toxic and dangerous to the digestive systems of humans and animals, and even invades the genes of the gut (and who knows what else) of the animal (or human) that ingests it. Current GE science tends to ignore the 95% of genetic code that is considered 'junk', but which has been discovered to control the 3-5% of known genetic code, not to mention the unpredictable effects of GE organisms released into nature (pollen already has been - as Monsanto uses it to actually legally attack nearby farmers). 'Mapped' - hardly. We don't even understand how it works - still. It appears likely that every genetically modified organism or plant will most likely have serious repercussions when introduced into an environment or ingested as food. Most who look into any of this know that the FDA is politicized. They only had 7 scientists for after-market monitoring the last I heard. Remember Olesterol? Susan Powder on camera: "Wow! My butt hurts!" - says it all (causes anal bleeding - another successful product approved by the FDA)
McGreal sez: "If not (approved), scientists say that will have a negative effect on research, in part because there will be no money to be made from it."
***
No money? In that case, it WILL be approved.
Bon appétit!
It's a great time to be vegetarian!
vegan is even better...........
Being a vegetarian won't help.
Once the door is open, or the genie is out of the bottle (as they say); it'll all be over. This is all symptomatic of the corporatization of America (and likely the world). It is about profits, pure and simple. The FDA approved Fen/Phen, too - and a host of other things which wound up in the end being exceedingly dangerous to humans.
I hate to bring up another movie reference, but it's just as Jeff Goldblum's character said in Jurrasic Park, after being told that the dinos couldn't reproduce because they were being "controlled" in a way that wouldn't permit it: "You can't control nature. Nature finds a way."
GE/GM crops WILL find their way into the wild. They WILL affect things. Look at those Salmon - do you think regular salmon will stand a chance, competing with them? Same with the GM crops - the "natural" crops don't have a prayer. not only that - just like gynormous, perfect-looking vegetables, I bet they have no flavor. (Not that that is the issue here - just sayin').
Time to start building your Earthships.
In a true free market econmomy the consumer is allowed to make an informed choice with all the relavent information available. Thus, if the consumer does'nt want to buy the franken fish, the company will go out of business. So if the FDA approves this without proper labeling(as they did with BST milk)....SMASH THE STATE AND THEIR LIES
P.S. let your views be known:November 22, 2010: No later than this date, submit written comments on the labeling of food made from AquAdvantage Salmon to Docket No: FDA-2010 -N-0385, identifying your comments by this docket number. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov, or submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Here is the link to submit your comment:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480b3b456
Here's an idea - a radical one at that. If the FDA doesn't have a division that understands, and can regulate this kind of thing, how about we put this "approval" on hold until we get one?
Congress should establish a new division - with some rules about who can be on the approval committee, give it some resources to research all the currently available information on GM crops, animals, and the like, and then after a year of study and preparation they can then accept applications for this kind of stuff. This may be the first but it certainly will not be the last time something like this will come up in the future.
Right now there's no mechanism - so we have a bunch of drug-company hacks trying to approve something they know absolutely nothing about. What a recipe for disaster.
I know, I know. Doing my idea would be rational.....sigh.
Working on becoming a Breatharian then there will be no one to buy their sick products.
What will you do after 40 days?
Now if this is not an abomination this is something the Christians could really get behind-one would think.
RR
Yes, it would make sense for the Christian Right to rail against meddling with God's creations. But, I guess that the Koch brothers and Fox News wouldn't put any money and organization behind it. And, conservative politicos are more concerned about meddling with a corporation's right to do whatever they damn please. And, Obama's FDA will probably be afraid to disapprove frankensalmon because conservatives and corporations might scream at them.
The Christian Right won't see anything wrong with it. Funny thing about the born-again Baptists and their Anabaptist brethren, the Mennonites, et al, is their notion of a god given right to 'dominion' over the animals. They honestly believe that everything they do in their animal husbandry practices is god sanctioned. They hold that animals have no sensibilities or feelings--their sole function on the planet is to serve the benefit of man, whatever their fate is god's will. Such is the commonly held interpretation of 'stewardship'. It is all part of an over-all world view that denies man made climate change, environmental responsibility, etc.
Welcome to the Heartland!
It is the hubris of biological science that they are so impressed with what they do know [in the limited context of that frame of reference] that they aren't so interested in what they DO NOT KNOW. Is it too much to ask for a little more humility and a little more concern about possible effects to the 7th generation?
Manipulating the natural cycle of growth hormones strikes me as a gambit that runs the risk of disrupting numerous systemically balanced mechanisms that took thousands, or even millions of years to perfect. Intuition would predict that this will set in motion a drift moving even further away from the marvelous rythms and cycles for which the salmon was once famous.
Remember Toxic Shock Syndrome?
Remember the marketing slogan for the the product associated with it?
That slogan was: "Remember, they named it 'Rely'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_shock_syndrome#Rely_tampons
Even if this fish was absolutely safe - both to eat and for the environment - it would open a dangerous door. This is a very very stupid idea for such ignorant beings to consider - and we can't even find out - anymore - where our food is coming from. There are no more labels identifying the source country of foods - just 'distributed by' - I find that very very disturbing. When did this law change? I'm getting to the point where I'm afraid to eat ANYTHING !!!
I want to know where my food was grown, where it was processed, and what was added (either to its genetic code or to its feed) plainly labeled in readably-sized print. We can't even save seeds anymore because we don't know what freak pollen might have fertilized them - this is beyond insanity - this is an extinction-level experiment on all of us - and the whole planet. That is INSANITY - all GE !!!
yes, you are right...
we have taken chemistry, and the power of private gain, to the point that our world is no longer as it was...
we are, now, the continual victims of our own industrial behaviors...
as you suggest, and I, too, lament...what pieces of this world are still healthy?
perhaps you saw someone reference this in a posting on CD recently:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-grossman/cancer-the-number-one-kil_b_685089.html
I like your posts, armybrat...hang in there! maybe we'll be much more connected to our food before too long...not that that will eliminate all of the chemicals, but it might go a good way...some of our shit is just plain with us for eternity...
It's a good thing we have a government to represent our will...
http://www.ryanhartman.wordpress.com
"The company says the salmon grows at twice the speed of similar fish ... "
Does that mean for those who consume this "fish" their tumors will grow at twice the speed? Genetic engineering is irreversible and the corporations and politicians who have their fingers in the pie have little regard to the possible dangers which, long term, could cause global food shortages if things go drastically wrong. Well, maybe that’s the idea.
I looked up ocean pout in Wikipedia.
No wonder "publicity literature, aimed at reassuring the public, makes no mention of the ocean pout gene."
That is one ugly, ugly sucker. We can kill this project real easy - just get all the youngsters who run the Face Book, YouTube and other networks to start circulating photos of that thing with the tag line:
"Eat me. I look like shit with fins but I taste like salmon!
(And don't worry about what your kids will look like - you won't have any.)"
G R E A T Comment !!! Great Idea !!!