OT: Frankenfish

Gman · Since 11 Feb 2006 4911 Posts Portland Unstrapped

Why do I have the feeling this isn't going to end well...

From WSJ:

WASHINGTON—Federal food regulators pondered Monday whether to say, for the first time, that it is permissible to market a genetically engineered animal as safe for people to eat.

The Food and Drug Administration is holding two days of hearings on a request to market genetically modified salmon. Ron Stotish, CEO of AquaBounty, the Massachusetts company that made the marketing request, said at the meeting Monday that his company's fish product is safe and environmentally sustainable.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Ron Stotish, chief executive officer of AquaBounty, the company that applied with the FDA to market genetically modified salmon.
.Critics, however, call the modified salmon "frankenfish" that could cause allergies in humans and the eventual decimation of the wild-salmon population. An FDA advisory committee is reviewing the science of the genetically engineered fish this week and hearing such criticisms as the agency ponders approval.

The FDA has already said that the fish, which grows twice as fast as conventional salmon, is as safe to eat as the traditional variety.

Whether the public will have an appetite for it is another matter. Genetic engineering is already widely used for crops, but the government until now hasn't considered allowing the consumption of modified animals. Although the potential benefits—and profits—are huge, many individuals have qualms about manipulating the genetic code of other living creatures.

Part of the two-day hearing will focus on labeling of the fish. It is possible that if the modified salmon is approved, consumers wouldn't even know they were eating it. Current FDA regulations only require modified foods to be labeled as such if the food is substantially different from the conventional version, and the agency has said that the modified salmon is essentially the same as the Atlantic salmon.

Approval of the salmon would open the door for a variety of other genetically engineered animals, including an environmentally friendly pig that is being developed in Canada or cattle that are resistant to mad-cow disease.

"For future applications out there, the sky's the limit," said David Edwards of the Biotechnology Industry Association. "If you can imagine it, scientists can try to do it."

AquaBounty submitted its first application for FDA approval in 1995, but the agency didn't decide until two years ago to consider applications for genetically engineered animals—a move seen as a breakthrough by the biotechnology industry.

Genetically engineered animals aren't clones, which the FDA has already said are safe to eat. Clones are copies of an animal. With genetically engineered animals, their DNA has been altered to produce a desirable characteristic.

In the case of the salmon, AquaBounty has added a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon that allows the fish to produce their growth hormone all year long. Conventional salmon only produce the growth hormone some of the time.

In documents released ahead of the hearing, the FDA said there were no biologically relevant differences between the engineered salmon and conventional salmon, and there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from its consumption. FDA scientists speaking Monday said there are very few differences between the modified and conventional fish.

Critics have two main concerns: The safety of the food to humans and the salmon's effect on the environment.

Because the altered fish has never been eaten before, they say, it could include dangerous allergens, especially because seafood is highly allergenic. They also worry that the fish will escape and intermingle with the wild-salmon population, which is already endangered.They would grow fast and consume more food to the detriment of the conventional wild salmon, the critics fear.

A wide range of environmental, food-safety and consumer groups have argued that more public studies are needed and the current FDA process is inadequate because it allows the company to keep some proprietary information private.

"It is outrageous to keep this vital information secret," said Wenonah Hauter, director of the advocacy group Food&Water Watch. "Consumers have a right to know what FDA is trying to allow into our food supply."

Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, said the agency is relying on too little data, much of which is supplied by the company itself.

Mr. Stotish countered that the company has more than addressed the concerns and that his product has come under much more scrutiny than most food.

"This is perhaps the most studied fish in history," he said. "Environmentally, this is a very sustainable technology."

The company has several safeguards in place to allay concerns. All the fish would be bred female and sterile, though a small percentage may be able to breed. They would be bred in confined pools where the potential for escape would be very low.

In its environmental analysis released this month, the FDA agreed with the company that there are enough safeguards in place.

Mr. Stotish says the fish would be bred in better conditions than many of the world's farmed salmon and could be located closer to population centers to help feed more people. The company has also said the increase in engineered-salmon production could help relieve endangered wild-salmon populations.

The company is also arguing that the fish don't need to be labeled as genetically engineered, so the average customer wouldn't know if they were eating the modified product or the conventional product.

"This fish is identical to the traditional food," said Mr. Stotish. "The label could even be misleading because it implies a difference that doesn't exist."

If approved, the fish could be in grocery stores in two years, the company estimates.

Write to Gautam Naik at gautam.naik@wsj.com

genek · Since 21 Jul 2006 2165 Posts East Po KGB

I want a genetically engineered pig that ALL tastes like bacon Smile

. Is that what they're working on in Canada?

I think not labeling it seems kinda messed up, but then again we already have no fucking idea what we're eating so what's one more thing?

Nak · Mon Sep 20, 10 5:29 pm

Here's the deal. There is no possible way to know what damage this thing is going to cause native fish stocks. I think the odds of nothing bad happening is slim to none. Just my opinion. The worst thing that COULD happen could be catastrophic. So keep it out of the damn rivers/ocean. Someone wants to breed this thing in captivity, great. But something that possibly poses this great a threat to the public resources is not worth the risk.

This fish is clearly not native. Recent history is full of instances where well meaning scientists/idiots destroyed native ecosystems by introducing non-native fish. I'm not aware of a single instance where such introduction turned out well. Possibly introduction of European trout somewhere? I don't know. But even if that's the case, this falls a long way from such a scenario.

pjc · Since 06 Mar 2005 649 Posts Addicted

Even more worrisome is this genetically engineered wolf people are trying to introduce as a pet. Can you imagine the crazy science that would turn a wolf into this!? It's going to end badly. It will wreak the ecosystem. This is science gone mad.

http://communities.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/blogs/ollie/archive/2009/02/01/ollie-the-pug-s-first-party.aspx

WINDUDE · Since 10 Jun 2010 558 Posts GORGE! Addicted

boardrider · Since 05 Apr 2006 1034 Posts Ventura, CA XTreme Poster

jackZ · Since 13 Apr 2008 355 Posts Devon Alberta ca. Obsessed

This is Madness !
There are known problems with fish farms and now you wanna let some minute piece of the universe play Mr Evolution or God , however that story goes .
Or what if .....

Gman · Since 11 Feb 2006 4911 Posts Portland Unstrapped

could be cool if salmon eating great whites get 2X

- wait think i saw that movie with LL cool J