Should Genetically Modified salmon be part of the Human Food Chain? Todd Biddle Cumberland Valley High School July 2011
Authors note: This case study is based on a real and current political upheaval amongst the United States House of Representatives, the Senate, the FDA, the consumer, and AquaBountyTechnologies®.
Photo courtesy of Living in a Modern World. Modernest. Photo courtesy of AquaBounty Technologies. Aqu Advantage Fish. AquaBounty September 2010. Technologies 2011. http://www.aquabounty.com/PressRoom/ http://blog.modernest.com/2010/09/21/an-upstream- swim-to-stop-ge-salmon/
Introduction:
What is for dinner? The choices for our dinner plate continue to evolve due to modern technologies and new information about human health. One way the “undesirable” genetics of edible plants and animals can be changed over time is through the process of artificial selection, a form of selective breeding. Artificial selection involves agriculturists selecting plants and animals that have the most desirable traits for producing our food. These plants and animals become the parent stock of future generations. In recent years, creating genetically modified crops and now animals has become an alternative to artificial selection. Even though genetically modified crops have been part of the human diet since the 1990s, genetically modified foods are often met with criticism from global consumers (Note: the European Commission has received responses from some European countries who wish to ban genetically modified organisms). There is a lack of public trust in their safety and they flag a number of environmental concerns.
Genetically modified salmon, AquAdvantage® Salmon, engineered by the company AquaBounty Technologies may become the first genetically modified animal protein approved by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. Like other genetically modified foods, these salmon are surrounded by national controversy.
According to US Catfish Industry Update in 2009, Salmon ranks third for per capita consumption of seafood choices. The consumption of fish is rising due to the high Omega‐3 Fatty acids known to reduce saturated fat in blood and reduce cancer. (Note: Wild fish tends to be higher in Omega‐3 than farm‐raised fish, due to a difference in the fishes’ diet). According to US Catfish Industry Update, twelve pounds of fish were consumed per person in 1979, whereas an average of eighteen pounds of fish was consumed per person in 2009. The FDA has completed research on both the nutrition and allergens in the AquAdvantage Salmon. After analysis of these fish, FDA noted there is no major difference in nutritional content or allergens from native salmon (Note: Native salmon is a noted allergen). The growth hormones in these fish are the same as the growth hormones in native salmon. In the market, consumers may not know if they are eating genetically modified salmon. Genetically modified products are not legally required to be labeled as genetically modified organisms unless they are substantially different from their counterparts.
AquaBounty Technologies promotes the following claims in the marketing of their fish.
AquAdvantage® Salmon include a gene from the Chinook salmon, the largest species of salmon, which genetically allows them to produce growth hormone all year long. Typically, this growth hormone is not produced all year long. An additional gene was added from the pout eel that allows the AquAdvantage® Salmon to grow in both the summer and winter (Note: Day length and water temperature both influence the growth patterns of wild Salmon). Collectively these genes give AquAdvantage® Salmon the potential to grow to market size in half the time of native salmon. This would also allow farmers to raise more fish per year with the same resources of native farm‐raised salmon and provide the market with a more uniform product that may be cheaper.
AquAdvantage® Salmon and identical to other Atlantic salmon and produce the same growth hormone as native salmon. AquAdvantage® Salmon are an environmentally sustainable alternative to current farmed salmon. AquAdvantage® Salmon are raised as all‐female populations. There is a test to ensure that these females are sterile. They cannot escape confinement and will not reproduce in the wild. These fish will be grown in FDA regulated land‐based facilities with redundant biological and physical containment. Fish farming, Aquaculture, is a systematic way to raise fish and provides the United States with over half of its edible fish supply. The regulated facilities used to raise AquAdvantage® Salmon will eliminate the threat of disease transfer from farms to native populations (Note: If the transgenic gene was passed interbreeding, only fifty percent of the resulting offspring would carry the transgenic gene) . There will be a protocol for intense biosecurity. Also, if they would escape, the likelihood for survival in the wild is low. These facilities would be close to larger metropolitan areas making the distribution of Salmon to consumers easier and more environmentally friendly (e.g. reduction of fossil fuels). This system also reduces overfishing issues which are a noted environmental concern. Additional information can be reviewed at http://www.aquabounty.com/technology/faq‐297.aspx. While these fast growing salmon will increase the efficiency of production, there are a number of environmental concerns raised by environmental activists who refer to the fish as frankenfish. These issues include:
AquaBounty Technologoes states they will raise and market sterile female fish. Are they really sterile fish? According to FDA assessments there is a five percent chance the fish could be non‐sterile. While the genetically modified salmon would be raised in an inland self contained facility, is there is a chance that an unsterile fish could escape and breed with native salmon who are already listed as endangered species? Environmentalists fear the Trojan gene theory. Transgenic larger males are more aggressive and procreate with a larger percentage of the female population. Therefore, over time their genes would dominate the population, eventually causing extinction of some species. Their acceptance could give ocean‐based fisherman an unfair advantage in the market place. By raising fish in contained tanks and facilities, the resources that go into the fish can be more closely monitored and the fish are considered to be free of environmental parasites. However, some people disagree with the practices of aquaculture as they believe it is a form of factory farming where animals are mistreated and are potentially fed additives including antibiotics that could harm humans.
Conclusion:
The controversy surrounding AquAdvantage® Salmon is no exception as many questions are asked and consumers rank their acceptability for their dinner plate. Are genetically modified organisms safe for human consumption? Would the approval of this AquAdvantage® Salmon be a precursor for the future of our food animals? If this is passed, will more food animals be genetically modified in the future? Do they influence our environment in terms of the way they are grown and growth requirements? Now it is your turn to address the ethical question Should AquAdvantage® Salmon be approved by the United States House of Representatives?
Discussion questions:
1. Who are the stake holders? How would each stakeholder respond differently to their FDA approval? 2. Why would the FDA approve the AquAdvantage ®Salmon even though the government has not approved their sale? 3. Using the justification rubric, draft an argument to justify whether you would eat the AquAdvantage® Salmon or not.
Analysis of Result Oriented Outcome Case:
Stakeholder Concerns:
Legislators It is their responsibility to make sure the food is safe to the consumer. The only group pushing the salmon acceptance is AquaTechnologies. A lot of criticism from environmental groups. No environmental research has been conducted by the FDA. Submitted a formal petition to the FDA asking for a full environmental impact statement. Food and Drug Administration There may be lobbyists fighting for their approval.
Some congressman attempting to pass legislation that would prevent FDA approval. Has considered approval and had held public meetings. However some argue not enough time was given for public argument. They have treated this product testing as a typical Environment/Native Salmon drug testing and are not a food or environmental regulatory function of the government.
Some believe this problem should be handled by AquaTechnologies environmental regulation, not the FDA. Endanger native salmon and possibly become extinct. Consumers
Monopoly in the marketplace.
Do not want their product labeled as genetically
modified.
Skepticism about genetically modified food
(particularly in some European countries.
Could potentially be a cheaper product as more
efficient production.
Product may not legally be required to be labeled as genetically modified. When is enough enough? What food animal will be genetically modified next? Will the raising of these fish be an example of factory farming? What additional practices may happen on the farm that could influence food Native Salmon fisherman quality? Activist groups such as PETA may strengthen. In other species of animals that become larger than their normal, there are noted structural malformations. Gynogenisis, the process used to create the triploid AquAdvantage® Salmon is not natural. Aquaculture industry They fear increased competition in the market. Their market may be more of a niche market as they will not be able to complete with production rate of the transgenic Salmon. Niche markets can be a good thing and might increase the value of the product; however, in hard economic times people are less apt to buy niche products.
In contract farm situations, they will be forced to buy AquAdvantage® fish to maintain a competitive edge.
Ethical Principle Pros Cons Autonomy/Respect If the transgenic Salmon is not required to be labeled and it takes the lead in Salmon sales, consumers will not have a choice over what they are eating. Beneficence Per capita If this product is consumption of fish is successful, more increasing and these transgenic food Salmon can be raised animals may become more easily. part of the human Distribution of product diet. may be greener in its The use of transgenic approach. crops in the United FDA has tested and States has been a found no unique conflict with some growth hormones or companies in Europe hormone who no longer have concentrations or faith in American allergens associated products. with the product. Possible escape or AquaTechnologies has misuse of product. a protocol for how Economic these fish will be consequences. raised. This protocol has intense biosecurity measurements. They are offering triploid females (sterile population). nonMaleficence Trojan Gene impact. Extinction of native Salmon if interbreeding occurred. Justice The House of The livelihood of fisherman Representatives have could be greatly impacted by called for a full their approval. Despite environmental impact opposition from some statement. consumers, the production of The House of AquAdvantage® Salmon is Representatives notes more predictable and can be that AquaTechnologies controlled more easily to is the only stakeholder meet supply and demand. advocating their approval. Growing fish in confinement will reduce overfishing populations. References:
Altier, Craig. Genetically Engineered Salmon Safe to Eat, but a Threat to Wild Stock. Science Daily. September, 2010.
Aqua Bounty Technologies. Aqu Advantage Fish. AquaBounty Technologies 2011.
Hanson Terry. US Catfish Industry Update. Catfish Farmers of America. February, 2011.
Living in a Modern World. Modernest. September 2010. http://blog.modernest.com/2010/09/21/an‐ upstream‐swim‐to‐stop‐ge‐salmon/
Sohn, Emily. Is Genetically modified salmon safe? Discovery News. September, 2010.
Voosen, Paul. House Moves to Ban Modified salmon. The New York Times. June 16, 2011.