Should the UK demand a voice on Transgenic Salmon?

TrueFoodNow.org released a report last Friday (27th August 2010) that commented on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announcement that it may approve the first genetically engineered animal intended for human consumption – transgenic salmon.

They state that “the engineered Atlantic salmon being considered was developed by AquaBounty Technologies, which artificially combined growth hormone genes from an unrelated Pacific salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) with DNA from the anti-freeze genes of an eelpout (Zoarces americanus).  This modification causes production of growth-hormone year-round, creating a fish the company claims grows at twice the normal rate. This could allow factory fish farms to crowd fish into pens and still get high production rates.”

The TrueFoodNow article goes on to argue that following a ten year period of stasis the decision now appears to be being rushed through with a lack of proper public consultation.  There appears to have been no decision yet regarding labelling requirements.

In addition to the potential risk to human health, the article also argues that a particular challenge associated with salmon farming is that the fish have a real knack of escaping.  This in turn puts existing wild salmon populations at risk of being outcompeted or simply bred out to extinction. 

Call4 Comment:

So the obvious question revolves around whether granting approval is the right thing to do. 

The problem with biological leakage is that impacts cannot be easily measured or seen immediately, rather effects are amplified over time, with potential costs measured in terms of extinction events.  According to the article that quotes research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences just 60 escaped Salmon have the potential to completely wipe out a wild population of 60,000 salmon in just 40 generations.  Equivalent industrial contamination can usually be contained and cleared up with comparative ease (with some obvious and notable exceptions and still at some cost).  Biological catastrophes have the potential to be truly massive and may be unpredictable in nature.  Are we really satisfied that the long term risk to humans and to the environment has been negated?

However, there is also an important set of questions concerning communication of, and debate around, these issues. 

America, do you realise what’s going on here?  Have you been properly informed about the risks and are you comfortable that you will have complete visibility over what ends up on your plate?

Just as importantly (given the nature of the risk), how comfortable is the rest of the world about the decision making process?  Biological outbreaks are notorious for failing to respect political boundaries.  This decision to grant or restrict approval in this case is being taken by the US FDA, but the risk is shared with any country that has a stake in wild salmon fishing.  Is the rest of the world OK about this and if not, what are the options available? 

Finally, there is the question about accountability.  How much responsibility should rest with the organisation that has been “developing” the “technology” (ie the fish)?  Do they have adequate insurance?  What was really interesting about the BP disaster was that a non – American company was (rightly) made to pay for the damage caused abroad.  Perhaps it is time for global agreement that corporates who operate internationally start accepting financial responsibility for the harm their actions cause to other nations and peoples. 

A lot of unanswered questions and only a matter of days to debate before a decision is made on the 19^th September.  If you are US based, are concerned about this issue and want to present oral comments you need to let the FDA know (in writing) by 7^th September.

• VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
  Rate This Post:

  please wait...
• Like this?
  VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
  +1 (from 1 vote)

Related Posts