Despite approval, Frankenfish controversy continues

After years of debate, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November approved marketing genetically engineered salmon for human consumption. Although genetically modified foods have been on the market for several years, the salmon, which producers have engineered to grow to market size nearly twice as fast as natural Atlantic salmon, is the first genetically altered animal to receive FDA approval.

AquaBounty Technologies, the company that developed the fish, had a long upstream swim against a strong current of controversy in the approval process. They first applied for approval in the 1990s, but the FDA did not determine the fish were safe for both human consumption and the environment until 2010; even then it took an additional five years for approval.

Some politicians and environmental groups fear the FDA studies were inadequate to ensure consumer safety.

“The FDA is reviewing [genetically engineered] salmon as if it were a new animal drug, but this type of review process is obviously dead wrong for a product destined for our dinner plates,” Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said in a statement.

AquaBounty engineered the fish by adding a growth-hormone gene from the Chinook salmon and a gene from the eel-like ocean pout. In natural circumstances, salmon produce growth hormone only during the spring and summer. The modified salmon produce growth hormone all year.

Ann Gauger, molecular biologist and director of science communication at Discovery Institute, said the excess growth hormone could pose the same problem encountered with cows that were genetically modified to produce more milk. The cows produced more growth hormone, which was expressed in their milk and passed on to the consumer. It is possible there will also be excess growth hormone present in the salmon’s meat, she said.

Some opponents also raise concerns that the rapid-growing "Frankenfish," as they are called, might escape into the oceans and rivers where wild salmon would not be able to compete with them for food.

AquaBounty said those concerns were unwarranted because the engineered salmon were sterile and would be raised inland where they couldn’t escape.

“By raising our disease-free, antibiotic-free salmon away from the ocean, we eliminate the risk of escapes impacting native fish populations and the risk of pollutants or contaminants harming marine ecosystems,” AquaBounty’s website stated.

Gauger is concerned about possible unintended consequences such as the loss of genetic diversity. If the sterile, genetically engineered salmon become the main version of salmon, they will all be of one genotype, leaving them particularly vulnerable to disease. Our knowledge of the way things are designed is very limited, she said: “We don’t know what a particular change will do downstream.”

On the other hand, genetic modification of organisms has its place, Gauger said. For example, engineers have created wheat that is more drought and disease resistant, enabling farmers in Africa to produce higher yields to feed a starving population. In such a case, the benefits to the recipients outweigh any potential harm. But, genetically engineered salmon offer no benefit to the consumer, only to the commercial breeder, Gauger said.

Controversy also exists over whether the modified salmon should be labeled so that consumers can make a choice. Vermont recently passed a law requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods, and other states are considering similar legislation.