Meet the AquAdvantage salmon. After undergoing two decades of research, the lab-created fish may soon swim its way onto our dinner tables. But before it does, many are concerned about the unforeseen consequences the bio-engineered animal might have on our environment.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is in the midst of considering a landmark decision: Whether to allow the first genetically engineered animal to be sold for human consumption. And the choice seems clear: the FDA has stated that, aside from its unique ability to grow twice as fast on less feed, the transgenic salmon is virtually indistinguishable from its natural counterpart.
But critics say the regulatory agency hasn’t effectively evaluated a scenario where a fish engineered with the genes of three different species escapes into the wild.
On Dec. 15, a U.S. Senate subcommittee held a hearing to discuss the environmental dangers this new fish might pose.
The hearing was led by a man who has dubbed this bio-engineered creation the “frankenfish”—U.S. Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. Begich has been a staunch opponent of the gene-altered salmon and has even introduced legislation to stop it.
“We'll leave it to the FDA to assess the food safety aspects, but I’m not convinced that this agency has the scientific expertise to adequately assess the environmental aspects,” said Begich in his opening remarks. “Looking at the available scientific information, there is no guarantee that these genetically engineered fish won’t ever escape into the wild. And there is an alarming degree of scientific uncertainty of the environmental risk of these fish if they do escape.”
Dr. Ronald Stotish, president and CEO of AquaBounty Technologies, contributed a 34-page testimony detailing the safety precautions his company has taken. He stated that the likelihood of escape, establishment, and spread of his special salmon was “as low as can be reasonably expected” due to a seemingly exhaustive series of containment measures that prevent escape at every life stage.
But the unintentional spread of laboratory-derived salmon isn’t just mitigated by physical barriers. Stotish also noted that his bio-engineered fish is designed with a reproductive method that generates an all-female population. AquaBounty breeds sex-reversed neomales with non-transgenic females to produce fertilized egg populations.
Stotish said that even if the mostly sterile altered salmon made its way to the outside world, it “would demonstrate life history characteristics associated with enhanced growth that would reduce survival in natural environments, and have demonstrated deficiencies in spawning behavior and securing mates.”
But critics aren’t convinced. “History shows that no aquaculture containment measures are foolproof or immune from human error,” said committee chairman and U.S. Sen. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) in a majority statement. “It’s clear to me that we need to operate under the assumption that these fish will escape, and that warrants a thorough examination of the harm this could cause. Ultimately, I’m very concerned that these fish haven’t received the scrutiny that’s due.
Recounting the enormous ecological problems associated with the emergence of non-native species, such as the various Asian carp intent on invading the Great Lakes, fish conservation geneticist Dr. John Epifanio asked the committee to consider the additional consequences wrought by a species designed via human-directed mutation.
“Based on many decades of study on salmon in particular, the fish genetics community has discovered that even subtle genetic differences between previously isolated groups can seriously disrupt survival and reproduction in future generations,” said Epifanio, discussing the possibility of interbreeding.
“Whereas in nature the vast majority of random mutations are not expected to alter populations because they are generally deleterious and quickly removed from a population, human-mediated mutations may have lingering effects because they are designed for traits that are not subjected to natural selection in the wild,” observed Epifanio.
Epifanio (part of the subcommittee’s advisory panel of experts) recommended that an approval of genetically modified salmon also include the input of regulatory agencies that have experience evaluating the environmental impact of introducing new species.
U.S. senator and ranking committee member Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) further commented on the regulatory limits of the FDA in its ability to effectively evaluate environmental concerns.
“The FDA is using an approval process originally created to approve new animal drugs that the agency has interpreted to include genetically engineered or modified fish,” said Snowe. “This is an outdated and inadequate approach to evaluating a technology of this magnitude.”
Snowe pushed for a more rigorous approval process that is better tailored to examining a bio-engineered creature, and calls on the FDA to halt its approval until the agency establishes a “transparent and comprehensive review process for genetically engineered animals.”
“The FDA has a procedure that is not designed for this type of product in its public review,” said Sen. Begich. “It’s a different ballgame.”
“I know Dr. Stotish has struggled through years of review, but Congress has had very little conversation about this,” said Begich in his closing comments. “I will tell you as chair of this subcommittee and someone who comes from a state that produces 60 percent of the wild stock of this country: we are going to be interested in this.”
Friends Read Free