Opposition to the marketing of giant salmon whose growth has been accelerated by genetic engineering
By Carol Yoon, New York Times
In the tanks at the "Aqua Bounty" farm, on the island of New Brunswick, Canada, swim hundreds of completely new fish: schools of salmon fish that have undergone a process of genetic improvement, awaiting approval for sale in the United States.
These fish look like the Atlantic salmon found in containers around the world, but relative to their age they are huge. Enriched with foreign genes that produce growth hormones, they reach a weight of 2.7 kilograms in 18 months - twice as fast as normal salmon.
Experts in the biotechnology industry predict that these fish will be the first animals that have undergone a process of genetic improvement, that will find their way to the American dinner tables. Elliot Antis, the president of the "AF Protein" company - the biotechnology company that owns the "Aqua Bounty" farm - says that the company has already received orders for 15 million salmon eggs that will be ready for shipment next year, if the approval of the American authorities is received.
Proponents of biotechnology favor genetic improvement as a means of providing cheaper and more nutritious food. But its critics and some Clinton administration officials fear damage to the environment. A recent theoretical study reveals that entire populations of wild fish may disappear completely, if individuals from them mate with certain strains of genetically modified fish that escape into the wild. In addition to this, there is a danger of unexpected disturbances in the ecological balance, as a result, for example, of foreign species invading ecosystems.
The question of the marketing of animals that have undergone genetic engineering also provokes a complicated debate against the background of the fact that there is no federal law dealing with this. "This is a very large loophole," says Dr. Rebecca Goldberg, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund - a group that harshly criticizes the biotechnology industry and federal lawmakers - "There is nothing clear about it. There are no regulations that tell you what is allowed and what is not."
Now only the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to decide the fate of the new salmon, because the foreign genes inserted into the fish and the growth hormone it produces are considered animal drugs. The Food and Drug Administration is expected to conduct a comprehensive review regarding food safety, but "it is not authorized to assess the ecological dangers of these genetically engineered fish," says Dr. Jane Rissler, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists - another group that has long criticized the field biotechnology.
John Matheson, a senior scientist at the Food and Drug Administration, defends the administration, saying it is able to conduct environmental reviews because it regularly studies the impact of new drugs on the environment.
"In fact, the levels of growth hormone in the fish are so small," says Dr. Matheson, "that no special tests will be required, as is customary with new drugs for animals." Independent researchers also believe that the growth hormone will probably not have an effect on humans, but they point out that it is important to check, for example, whether the foreign growth hormone also stimulates the production of other substances such as insulin.
In addition to salmon, scientists are currently producing other animals by borrowing genes from other productions. This is how fast growing trout are created; virus-resistant catfish and oysters; A pig with less fatty ribs and an "environmentally friendly pig" whose excrement is less harmful to the environment, because it contains less phosphorus.
{Appeared in Haaretz newspaper, 2/5/2000}
* The Hidan site was part of the IOL portal from the Haaretz group until 2002
