Try this recipe for your next dinner party: Begin with eggs from a genetically engineered (GE) female Atlantic salmon with DNA from both Chinook salmon and Ocean Pout (an eel-like fish). Add irradiated sperm from an Arctic Char (a different fish species), mix, and put under pressure to produce a generation of all-female GE salmon with two sets of chromosomes from their mother and none from the Arctic Char. Then add 17-methyltestosterone to turn the GE salmon females into "neomales" -- genetically female fish that produce milt (sperm). Combine their milt with the eggs of non-GE Atlantic salmon females, place under pressure, and -- voila! -- you've got a batch of all-female, triploid (having three complete sets of chromosomes instead of two) GE Atlantic salmon. Yum! Smoke that up and put it on your bagel.
Doesn't sound appealing? Well, that describes the new GE salmon AquaBounty Technologies seeks to commercialize as the AquAdvantage salmon -- the first genetically engineered animal to directly enter the U.S. food supply. They claim it grows to market size in 16 to 18 months instead of the usual 30. And, just before Labor Day, the FDA ruled that it is safe.
Despite the obvious gross-out factor of the "neomales," the truly important thing to focus on is the quality of AquaBounty's science ensuring us that their GE salmon are safe. They tested the fish for physical and behavioral problems, hormone levels, several chemistry and hematology components, and allergenicity to humans. Unfortunately, the science behind many of these tests was so sloppy that it's hard to determine from them whether the GE fish are safe or not.
For example, in many tests, they used sample sizes as low as six (far less than the 30 one would need to establish statistical significance). In other cases, they disregarded the most unfavorable results as "outliers" and instead focused on only the data that made the GE fish look as good as possible and simultaneously made the non-GE control group of fish look as bad as possible. And then there's the test of 73 fish for hormone levels, in which none of the fish had levels of growth hormone above the detection limit. In that case, AquaBounty concluded that there was no detectable difference in growth hormone levels in its GE fish compared to the non-GE controls.
It's not terribly shocking that a corporation would fudge its own safety data to try and convince government regulators that it was safe (BP, anyone?). But it's wholly unacceptable that the FDA accepted the sloppy and misleading science behind the GE salmon to rule on its safety. Now the FDA is gearing up for a series of meetings September 19-21 for the next step in the GE salmon approval process.
The significance of this issue extends far beyond the GE salmon. This is the first time the FDA has given its regulatory process for GE animals a test drive. The case of AquAdvantage salmon will set a precedent, for better or for worse. It's certainly possible that, despite the shoddy science used to "prove" the safety of GE salmon, that people will be able to eat GE salmon without any problems. But what happens when we allow the next GE animal to go to market without solid science proving its safety? And then next? And the next? We need to start insisting on solid science now, sending a signal to all biotech companies that sloppy science is not enough.
You can see the actual data behind the FDA's determination that AquAdvantage GE salmon are safe here (or you can check out a longer piece I wrote on it based on an interview with Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers' Union, here) -- and you can tell the FDA that we need better science before we allow a precedent-setting GE animal into our food supply here.
Follow Jill Richardson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LocavoreBlog
Reminder of wild salmon from Roderick Haig-Brown’s Fisherman’s Fall: “They come to the spawning gravels in all their brilliant colors – reds, browns, greens, gray and black and golden. Like the autumn leaves above them, they have their time of fierce glory. Then the frosts and the rains and the winds come. The leaves become torn and sodden and dulled and in their time they fall, covering the ground, drifting with the stream currents, piling against the rocks and shallows. But within the trees life is still strong and self- renewing. [ . . . .] Under those gravels life is strong and secret and protected in the buried eggs, the real life of the race. Fungus grows on the emptied bodies, as it grows among the fallen leaves; they collect in the eddies and strand on the gravel bars and the bacteria of change work in them to make a new fertility. In spring life will burst from the gravel as it bursts again from the trees, into the massive yield of the new cycle. Death is seldom more fleeting or more fertile than this.”
Contrast spawner AquAdvantage salmon which, according to Dylan Bobby Storey, “are in land locked feeding pools and apparently can't even forage for themselves and require hand feeding - domestication at its finest.”
Dr. Stephen Best said, “We fail to realize that what we do to the animals we do to ourselves.” Life is more than what we know about science.
Contrast with farmed AquAdvantage salmon which, according to Dylan Bobby Storey, “are in land locked feeding pools and apparently can't even forage for themselves and require hand feeding - domestication at its finest.”
Dr. Stephen Best said, “We fail to realize that what we do to the animals we do to ourselves.” Life is more than what we know about science.
First of all, I do not have the same faith in the FDA I used to have. Gone is the entity that held back on approving drugs such as thalidomide which had such devastating effects. Now, it is impossible to get through 30 minutes of TV without an ad asking people to call in if they have suffered liver, kidney, etc. damage from taking an FDA approved drug.
Common sense tells me not to trust industry science without other science to confirm. After all, they are in business to make money and since AquaBounty will be in financial trouble if this fish is not approved, I do not trust them.
http://corporatecrime.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/another-gmo-fish-tale-from-aqua-bounty/
The science is sloppy. After reading this,(from the link in the article) I am even less inclined to accept the industry science.
http://www.alternet.org/story/148156/the_creepy_science_behind_genetically_engineered_%22frankenfish%22_about_to_enter_our_food_supply_unlabeled/?page=entire
Even in the industry science results, IGF-1 levels were elevated compared to non-GMO fish. Since IGF-1 can play a role in cancer development and progression, a decidedly undesirable trait, their inability to mask this means, to me, it could be an even bigger problem.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/18/1472.short
I keep seeing this statement and I'd like to hear where they got this golden number of 30 from. The fact of the matter is 6 may ( and probably is ) sufficient for the statistical power required in the test.
As for fudging the safety data - the fish haven't shown positive allergen reactions and don't show a statistically different level of hormones when tested .
The "questionable" measurement deal with the fishes size and behavior. I don't think anyone can argue removing outliers from size measurement data and behavior is a trait that is difficult to quantify and even more difficult to explain its significance even when dealing with human subjects who can EXPLAIN why they're doing what they're doing.
My main concern is that this should be a level playing field... neither scientists NOR campaigners, public etc should be able to "fudge" their data and commentary. Until I see justification that number "30" is just as mis-informative as the outlier problem.
Also - the authors of the report come right out and say that they in fact removed this outlier ( it was a single point) - it would have been un-ethical if they simply did and not reported that it had been done. Seeing as they did they're being incredibly transparent about their analysis and I applaud that.
this data WOULDNT cause an issue with safety.
"Six Sigma" (you can Wikipedia it to find out more) is a system of statistical methods dumbed down to be applied to business processes. Because they don't want to overpower MBA's with statistics, they have "rules of thumb" like: "you should use 30 as your N for continuous data, and 100 as your N for discrete data". They assume (probably correctly) that calculating Power is beyond most business executives.
According to standard parametric statistics (normally distributed) significance can generally be reached with a sample size of 18 for [alpha] = 0.05 and power of 80%. But this number can be drastically lower or higher if a) the variability in the population is low or high, b) the sensitivity of the tests is low or high c) the effect size being investigated is high or low ... etc.
I don't particularly care either way in this debate, but I do strongly feel that the use of pseudo science, unexplained figures, incorrect math etc should not be allowed by EITHER side of this debate ... not the scientists & businesspeople NOR the campaigners, public or other commentators.
In that case, the testing is rock solid.
I'm sure this dramatically simplifies the task of actually examining a situation rationally.
Fanned.
"Six Sigma" (you can Wikipedia it to find out more) is a system of statistical methods dumbed down to be applied to business processes. Because they don't want to overpower MBA's with statistics, they have "rules of thumb" like: "you should use 30 as your N for continuous data, and 100 as your N for discrete data". They assume (probably correctly) that calculating Power is beyond most business executives.
Thanks for that.
I've been more than a little confused (and beginning to edge towards annoyed) with the whole "30 is what you need" being bandied about endlessly. Basic 400-level Stats course (or maybe 600-level in some places I guess) would give them what they need and be faaaaar better than this "30" thing. Also, ONE HUNDRED for discrete data sets - you're kidding right? What's the rationale for that, it implies that discrete data in business has SDs 30-50% of the geometric mean or more (?? not very diagnostic of anything).
That's what I would work on, you will not be able to ban them.
This is farmed salmon, no different from other farmed salmon.
Perhaps the label should say "mercury-free salmon."
Would that suffice?
Besides, we desperately need ways to reduce the pressure on our overfished oceans and to find a source of mercury-free salmon.
Finally! A voice of reason in the wilderness!
Remember that lots of foods - like peanuts, shellfish and tomatoes - cause actual problems in actual people.
Why are there so many complaints about imaginary problems while actual problems are ignored? Shouldn't we have labeling on peanuts, shellfish and tomatoes?
Indeed, are we sure these dangerous foods should be allowed to be offered for sale.
AquaBounty began as A/F Protein; by licensing Land Grant University research done at UC Berkley that makes a GMO fish blood protein act as an antifreeze for creamier low fat ice cream for the American consumers who have no right to know what ingredients they swallow.
With the Unilever ice cream success they went public. With millions in the pockets of the founders AquaBounty is aiming to lock up a chunk of the fee based food market Monsanto doesn't own.
Thanks for the tireless research Jill, fantastic work as always!!
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMPIIC.php
http://www.aquabounty.com/company/company-292.aspx
The ones who oppose the label are the ones who either sell GMO food or who don't want to be burdened with another regulation that does nothing to actually benefit the consumer. In addition, it has to be acknowledged that a percentage of the American public is dumb as a box of rocks. They believe in crazy things from astrology and quack medicine to the bizarre false claims about GMO food.
Stupid people spend money, too. Nobody wants to lose customers that are too dumb to think rationally about this topic.
Remember that 50 percent of the public falls in the dumb half.
Now, that said, this is probably not a good idea from an environmental standpoint. Farm raised fish have problems because they are fed corn and highly pollute the environment. Having fish that grow faster will probably just make environmental matters worse.
But, we are doomed no matter which way we go. Native stocks are decreasing, and farm -raised fish are bad for the environment. Meanwhile, seafood is probably the most important animal protein on the planet.
And they should keep them far away from natural environments. The Jurassic Park mantra holds true - life will find a way. Some supposedly sterile, triploid fishes have somehow started to breed (some salmon in the Great Lakes and Grass Carp). So, we don't want these things having access to the environment.
They're kinda slipping this into the mainstream rather quietly.
A previous poster stated that these GE fish would be "bred in entirely terrestrially based environments - one would hope miles and miles away from the ocean" - IDK if that is true or not. I did not find that information in this article and wonder if it's correct.
Introducing a GE species into the food chain seems like a serious risk. A lot like playing God.
If it pays off, great.
I think the potential risks of introducing this species into the wild would be beyond calculation.
Do a Google search for "genetic salmon." You get 5 million hits.
Is this how you describe "rather quietly"?
This is just about as quiet as the World Series.
Angelina Jolie gets 36.5 million hits.
Try genetic salmon food supply 117,000 hits
Genetic salmon American food supply 91k
News reports genetic salmon American food supply 36k.
AquAdvantage genetic salmon American food supply 4.6k
I could go on I suppose, but that seems as pointless as your post.
To clarify, I was simply indicating that the " first genetically engineered animal to directly enter the U.S. food supply". Might be worthy of more attention.
very random. 90% die. 1% thrive, but each with different genetic changes.
then these are bred.
They should be treated as totally new species.
I'm not making an argument for their safety or edibility here - simply informing about the science behind it.
As for the technique they used it really doesn't matter , ballistic transformation ( your Gold gun- they also use tungsten for the particle ) / electroporation / transfection, you get the same results new DNA inserted into the genome.
As for "being treated as a totally new species " : which definition of species would you like to use there are multiple and all of them arise from humans wish to classify everything. The identity of a species is a very amorphous and ill-defined idea.
They are NOT a new species. They are the same old species with an infinitesimally small bit of new DNA added. The actual amount of different DNA is smaller than the change made from plain old cross breeding of salmon.
Should salmon produced by cross breeding be treated as a totally new species?
And while we are on the subject - how exactly does the treatment of one species of fish differ from that of others? When I go into the supermarket, all fish are sold in pretty much the same way regardless of species.
When you say "treated" as different, what exactly would that mean?
The most tested food product in history is GMO corn.
I'm baffled by the continual repetition of this "new and untested" nonsense. We've been growing and testing GMO foods for 23 years. GMO corn has been tested, and tested, and tested. We've had 12 generations of cattle raised on GMO grains.
The idea that this stuff hasn't been exhaustively tested in just wrong. This salmon has been tested thoroughly, too.
Finding a way to grow salmon inland, with much less food and energy, is a much-needed effort to reduce the strain on our overfished oceans. In addition, it provides a mercury-free source of seafood.