More

HuffPost Social Reading

Genetically Engineered Salmon Waylaid By Congress

By MARY CLARE JALONICK   09/12/11 03:26 AM ET  AP

WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress are pushing to stop the Food and Drug Administration from approving genetically engineered salmon, saying not enough is known about a fish they say could harm fishery businesses in coastal states.

It appeared last year that the FDA might approve the engineered salmon quickly. But the congressional pushback and a lack of action by the FDA could mean the fish won't be on the nation's dinner tables any time soon.

The fish, which grows twice as fast as the conventional variety, is engineered by AquaBounty, a Massachusetts-based company, but not yet allowed on the market. The company's application has been pending for more than 15 years. If the agency approves it, it would be the first time the government allows such modified animals to be marketed for people to eat.

Congressional opposition to the engineered fish is led by members of the Alaska delegation. They see the modified salmon as a threat to the state's wild salmon industry.

In June, the House adopted an amendment by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, to an agriculture spending bill that would prevent the FDA from spending any money on approving the fish. His amendment was approved by voice vote with no objections.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said last week she will attempt to add the same amendment to the Senate version of the bill.

"It kind of gives me the heebie jeebies that we are messing with what Mother Nature did a pretty good job with in terms of a king salmon," Murkowski said.

While Murkowski's opposition is rooted in concern for her state's fishing industry, other senators have expressed worries about potential food safety or environmental risks. More than a dozen senators have written the FDA with concern about the approval process and food safety and environmental risks. Bills to stop the salmon have been introduced in both chambers.

Ron Stotish, the chief executive of AquaBounty, said he was optimistic when the FDA decided to hold hearings on the company's application. But a year later, he said, he is frustrated by the delay and has lost investors in his business.

"If you had asked me a year ago if we would be having this conversation, I would have said no," he said.

The FDA is still in the process of completing their review, spokesman Doug Karas said, "although we cannot predict when that will be."

Karas said the FDA is planning on releasing a review of potential environmental impacts of growing the salmon – and soliciting public comments on that review – before reaching a decision. That means a decision could be months or even years away.

In the hearings last year, FDA officials said the fish is as safe to eat as the traditional variety. But critics call the modified salmon a "frankenfish." They say they are concerned it could cause human allergies and the eventual decimation of the wild salmon population if the engineered animals escape.

AquaBounty has maintained that the fish is safe and that there are several safeguards against environmental problems. The fish would be bred female and sterile, though a very small percentage might still be able to breed. The company said potential for escape is low. The FDA backed these assertions in documents released before these hearings last year.

Genetically engineered – or GE – animals are not clones, which the FDA has already said are safe to eat. Clones are copies of an animal. In GE animals, the DNA has been altered to produce a desirable characteristic. The process is common in plant foods like corn and soybeans.

In the case of the salmon, AquaBounty has added a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon that allows the fish to produce growth hormone all year long. The engineers were able to keep the hormone active by using another gene from an eel-like fish called an ocean pout that acts like an on switch for the hormone. Typical salmon produce the growth hormone only some of the time.

Stotish acknowledged that approval of AquaBounty's product is likely more difficult because they are the first. Approval of the company's application would open the door for a variety of other genetically engineered animals, including an "Enviropig" being developed in Canada that has less-polluting manure or cattle that are resistant to mad cow disease. Each would have to be individually approved by the FDA.

"Blocking us is the best way to block anything that would come behind us," Stotish said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST FOOD

Filed by Carey Polis  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 111
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
11:24 PM on 09/14/2011
This has nothing to do with science; this has to do with greedy fish farm owners not wanting superior competition.
05:22 PM on 09/13/2011
Personally I'd take American grown GM salmon over fish cultured in places like China full of antibiotics and chemicals known to the rest of the world to cause cancer (malachite green). It pays to know a little about what you're talking about before reacting to a general fear of genetically manipulated organisms. I would be willing to bet that a lot of the stuff most people posting here eat are genetically modified.
11:25 PM on 09/14/2011
Bingo. Anybody with a science education knows that GM organisms require LESS antibiotics and chemical growth agonists.
09:03 AM on 09/13/2011
Here is some more information about the science behind GMO animal food.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/09/frankenfish-created-with-creepy-science/
photo
HazelPethigFan
I don't know until I know
10:52 PM on 09/13/2011
yeah well...from the same website there is this:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/big-salmon-says-science-is-on-its-side/
11:54 PM on 09/13/2011
Yes it is important to look at all sides. My objection to GMO farmed salmon is that that testing is done on a very small sample of fish. The salmon may suffer deformities, may require antibiotics, and come from irradiated eggs. Farmed fish as well, may be the cause of diseases like sea lice. In Canada the scientists whose studies support this have been prevented from talking to the media in the past , highlighting their point of view. It is important to note that this will be the first GMO animal to become part of the human diet and may become a gateway for other animals (such as chickens and cows etc.) to be altered, which I believe will be unethical possibly causing great suffering and discomfort from unusual rapid growth. Have any tests on human consumption of GMO animals been conducted? The fact that it will not be labeled so people can choose not to buy it, is not acceptable to many. I am not against progress and technology . I just hope we are going in a healthy direction. We have made many mistakes.
photo
HazelPethigFan
I don't know until I know
10:55 PM on 09/13/2011
what I despise about HuffPost is how ONE-SIDED it is one everything these days. Try looking at all sides or does ideology always make people blind?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cartoon Head
Dream 2012 pres election, Condi vs.Rendel vs.Paul
01:40 AM on 09/13/2011
"Congressional opposition to the engineered fish is led by members of the Alaska delegation. They see the modified salmon as a threat to the state's wild salmon industry."

Translation = congress doesnt care about your health, only the corporate interest they represent.
photo
Parkite
Still haven't found what I'm looking for
07:49 AM on 09/13/2011
This is one case in which I may not like why they are doing something, but I do like the result. No frankenfish!
photo
HazelPethigFan
I don't know until I know
photo
Parkite
Still haven't found what I'm looking for
08:20 AM on 09/13/2011
GENETIC ENGINEERING versus Hybrids. They are completely different!
Natural breeding processes have been safely utilized for the past several thousand years. In contrast, "GE crop technology abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years."3

Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food."4 However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html (The American Academy of Environmental Medicine)
photo
HazelPethigFan
I don't know until I know
photo
HazelPethigFan
I don't know until I know
09:39 PM on 09/12/2011
You people want some real scientists talking about this?

How about this:

Norman Borlaug supported GMOs. He saved one billion people and won the Nobel Peace Prize for it! Does Borlaug have cred on genetic engineering? youbetcha

http://www­.torontogl­obalist.or­g/2010/11/­24/the-man­-that-save­d-a-billio­n-lives-no­rman-borla­ug-gmos/
photo
Parkite
Still haven't found what I'm looking for
08:51 AM on 09/13/2011
Try these REAL scientists at the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
11:27 PM on 09/14/2011
Well, every non-capitalized word is factually correct there. The capitalized word should be replaced with the word "fringe"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:32 PM on 09/12/2011
Lateral genetic transfer is common in nature. Like any technology the big question is how its applied. Look at anti-biotics - typically they are great achievement of science - but when they are misused in agriculture they create a giant health risk.

Using GM Salmon for greater yield (more growth hormone production?) sounds innocuous enough. I would have to hear the details.

Regarding the economics of protien (meat) production - I would recommend meat printing, and growing cells in the lab. You dont have to grow an entire fish (saving money). You dont have to kill animals. If some one with minimal ethics is running the business you have more options for a healthier and more hygenic product and more control over taste texture and etc.
photo
HazelPethigFan
I don't know until I know
06:55 PM on 09/12/2011
Oh look it's the antiScience/ antiGMO people posting their usually ig norant drivel yet again.

OK now...shall we do some science? Don't be afraid, I shall use 'small' words.

Here is a fact you antiGMO people don't like to talk about: Much of the medical world is already GMO. Most insulin is GMO these days. Why don't you people whine about that? It's been around for three decades, so you better get busy protesting some medical clinics

Here's the pros and cons of GMO Insulin.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/231364-the-pros-cons-of-the-use-of-gmo-insulin/
mothergrace
If they knock you down, bite 'em on the ankle.
07:12 PM on 09/12/2011
What exactly does this have to do with GM salmon?

As far as the insulin is concerned, now that animal source insulin has been phased out people have no choice and I sure hope there are no problems with this now that there are no choices.

Finally, you wouldn't know what real science is if it bit you on your sit upon.
photo
Parkite
Still haven't found what I'm looking for
08:01 AM on 09/13/2011
Fan always brings up insulin, which is a DRUG and went through a thorough HUMAN testing program before being approved by the FDA, when the topic of GMO FOOD is being discussed. It is a false equivalency! GMO plants do NOT go through any rigorous testing on animals (90 days tops) or on people (zero). We are starting to see some very untoward effects from GMOs, super weeds, sudden crop death, abnormalities in animals fed GMO feed (tumors. infertility, birth defects, etc.).
04:57 PM on 09/12/2011
It's Frankenfish.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christina-Xena
That little Voice in your Head...is mine.
08:17 PM on 09/12/2011
The idea of genetic engineering is not much different than selective breeding...to which no one is complaining about, the leap is they are able to take a gene from another specis and interject it into another to get a better product. The significant precieved harm is that these bigger better salmon is a threat to the existing market of wild salmon in Alaska...which is already on the decline from over-fishing.

But it would bes a win-win for consumers and the ocean's long-term fisheries. In reality there's a big market for both salmon sources, given many people prefer the taste of wild salmon (would be the "premium" level, and could easily sell at a premuim price). This negative reaction is typical when any leap in food production occurs, and those who might be negatively impacted want to throw up barriers to such advances in production types or methods.

If the FDA is still doing tests on humans for this enhanced salmon please count me in...I'll sign up for one fish a week....for life!

BTW, in the longer term we are all Franken-mankind. We all carry genes from the Neanderthal frommodern man was cross-breeding with them....just a matter of degree! (4-7%). So if someone calls you a Neanderthal...just reply....well some...and so are you!....LOL!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bbrecht
"pray for the dead, fight like hell for the liv
10:22 PM on 09/12/2011
Nature decides who breeds and who doesn't. Genetic modification assumes we are smarter than nature. Unfortunately we are a pin headed creature with opposable thumbs. Leave Salmons be.
12:23 AM on 09/13/2011
It was obvious to me too that this is only controversial because of potential business losses by fishing companies. It's actually a fairly sustainable solution, since some of that poor salmon we devour all the time could be left alone for a while to replenish their numbers.

I'll take the fish a week too. Maybe two, since I could live on sushi.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rcmfla
I'm not concerned about the very poor ~Mitt Romney
04:19 PM on 09/12/2011
This is about Murkowski protecting the Alaskan salmon business. The genetics is the red herring (pun intended) being used to scuttle a competitor.
mothergrace
If they knock you down, bite 'em on the ankle.
07:12 PM on 09/12/2011
No. GMO has some real problems separate and apart from any other consideration.
photo
Parkite
Still haven't found what I'm looking for
08:55 AM on 09/13/2011
I happen to like that Alaskan Fishing industry. PLEASE PROTECT IT! I like Alaskan salmon. I don't want it turned into the west coast version of Atlantic salmon.
05:19 PM on 09/13/2011
Ah, duh. Of course Pacific salmon is going the way of Atlantic salmon. It's called extinction due to overfishing, mismanagement and environmental change. All of which pacific salmon fishing lobbyists consistently and constantly deny.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:59 PM on 09/12/2011
I see an inconsistency among Republicans who normally oppose any regulation. Is this again a case of who has paid more for their re-election? I personally prefer nature to do adaptation, change making or evolution rather than forcing creatures to grow faster so that companies can make more money. Leave us natural food. If I cannot eat a nice juicy tomato in the middle of winter, I am fine with it. By the way, has anybody had a nice juicy tomato bought from a supermarket in recent years?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christina-Xena
That little Voice in your Head...is mine.
09:50 PM on 09/12/2011
No juicy tomatoe for you!.....;-))

What you're looking for is in the Heirloom tomato section...at triple the price, or at the local farmers market. And even then I prefer my own home grown tomatoes.

Frankly in terms of vegables there isn't many natural foods, that man hadn't changed over the centries, and especially the last 300 years. Bigger and more is the key factors, and flavor comes in last.

As for salmon we simply need to see it in terms of a major food source, like cows pigs and such. What is interesting is they aren't objecting in order to PROTECT the ocean fisheries, but so they can EXPLIOT them even MORE!

There is no nature-lover side to their argument.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bbrecht
"pray for the dead, fight like hell for the liv
10:25 PM on 09/12/2011
Good try. But there's a big difference between breeding for selection and genetic engineering. One works with nature and the other works against it.

Those who love salmon have been working for years to protect their natural habitat.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carmen Slade
5150 Or Fight!
03:46 PM on 09/12/2011
I would have no problem with these GE salmon if:

1. They are only raised in ponds inland so they won't somehow invade wild salmon stocks
2. The FDA requires them to be labeled as GE fish.
04:58 PM on 09/12/2011
Uh, yeah ... and studies to see what this Frankenfish does to humans. I want no part of it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bbrecht
"pray for the dead, fight like hell for the liv
10:40 PM on 09/12/2011
It would be pretty hard to contain them... or to insure they were contained.

Label the foods and then do a massive epidemiological study on the effects of GMO on the population. Monsanto should not have more rights than US citizens.
03:06 PM on 09/12/2011
"Congressional opposition to the engineered fish is led by members of the Alaska delegation. They see the modified salmon as a threat to the state's wild salmon industry."

It's amazing how flexible the fanatical drive to protect capitalism can be. When politicians, or anyone for that matter, have a direct stake in an existing company of technology, they try to prevent new and emerging technology from interfering with their ability to make as much money as possible.

I think that might be a bigger problem than any GM product (within reason, of course).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carmen Slade
5150 Or Fight!
03:48 PM on 09/12/2011
Wild salmon is not just an industry. They're part of the ecosystem. We don't need the wild fish infested with GE material, like Monsanto's vile pollen that's gotten into other people's crops.

Nobody knows what the results might be from genetically tainting our plants and animals, but hey! Onward thru the fog, cross your fingers, hope it works out, rake in the dough in the meantime.
05:52 PM on 09/12/2011
Wow...you really have a problem staying on topic, don't you. What do the ecosystems of wild Alaskan salmon and crops grown in the continental USA have to do with each other?

Oh, and there's that "fear the unknown because it just might kill us" attitude again.

You should take a few breaths between your irrational rants.
02:45 PM on 09/12/2011
Yuck, why in the world would you want to mess with salmon?!? (well I know why but still) Salmon is my husband's favorite food, I don't think he'd like it if I even touched the package of GM salmon.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carmen Slade
5150 Or Fight!
03:49 PM on 09/12/2011
You'd never know, because the FDA does not require GE food to be labeled as such.