"Aquabounty is the only U.S. company publicly seeking approval for a genetically modified animal that's raised to be eaten by humans. And scientists worry that its experience with the FDA's lengthy review process could discourage other U.S. companies from investing in animal biotechnology, or the science of manipulating animal DNA to produce a desirable trait. That would put the U.S. at a disadvantage at a time when China, India and other foreign governments are pouring millions of dollars each year into the potentially lucrative field that could help reduce food costs and improve food safety.
Already, biotech scientists are changing their plans to avoid getting stuck in FDA-related regulatory limbo. Researchers at the University of California, Davis have transferred an experimental herd of genetically engineered goats that produce protein-enriched milk to Brazil, due to concerns about delays at the FDA. And after investors raised concerns about the slow pace of the FDA's Aquabounty review, Canadian researchers in April pulled their FDA application for a biotech pig that would produce environmentally friendly waste.
"The story of Aquabounty is disappointing because everyone was hoping the company would be a clear signal that genetic modification in animals is now acceptable in the U.S.," said Professor Helen Sang, a geneticist at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland who is working to develop genetically modified chickens that are resistant to bird flu. "Because it's gotten so bogged down — and presumably cost AquaBounty a huge amount of money — I think people will be put off."
The science behind genetic modification is not new. Biotech scientists say that genetic manipulation is a proven way to reduce disease and enrich plants and animals, raising productivity and increasing the global food supply. Genetically modified corn, cotton and soybeans account for more than four-fifths of those crops grown in the U.S., according to the National Academies of Sciences.
(No mention of the the scientists and research that refutes biotech assertions about genetic modification?)
Using gene-manipulating technology, Aquabounty adds a growth hormone to the Atlantic salmon from another type of salmon called the Chinook. The process, company executives say, causes its salmon to reach maturity in about two years, compared with three to four years for a conventional salmon.
(Thinking of beef and chicken, I feel that growth hormones in animals seem more popular with food producers than food consumers...)
This article below is from October 2 2010 by Ira Zunin in the Star Advertiser
Approval of GM salmon for eating is premature
The Food and Drug Administration is about to grant approval for salmon to be the first genetically engineered animal available for human consumption. Why not? Knowingly or unknowingly, we already consume multiple GM plants. GM salmon, which contain a gene from the pout fish, grow at twice the size. That sounds good. Farmed salmon, not wild, already comprise more than 90 percent of all salmon eaten.
Genetically modified salmon, according to the American Medical Association, are "substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts and no long-term side effects have yet been detected." The AMA statement is not only supportive of the pending FDA decision; it further indicates that there is no duty to inform consumers when the salmon they eat is genetically modified.
Anyone who has taken a science course in middle school can tell you about natural selection, the balance of nature and how little it takes to upset an ecosystem. The first salmon ancestors lived in the primeval lakes of Canada 40 to 50 million years ago. The truth is we have no
idea how a genetically modified salmon, with a pout gene that makes it grow twice as fast, will affect human health or the environment.
AquaBounty, the small biotech company that developed the GM salmon, assures us that 98 percent of its eggs produce fish that cannot reproduce. Still, if GM salmon escape as farmed fish have in the past, those 2 percent fertile supersalmon could out-compete our wild salmon populations in no time.
It would be recklessly premature to approve genetically engineered salmon for human consumption. To open a Pandora's box to GM animals, especially one prized for its health benefits, would begin a slippery slope for which the FDA is unprepared.
For now, we should continue efforts
to:
» Monitor GM plant foods and study both
health and environmental impacts.
» Monitor health impacts of existing non-GM
farmed salmon.
» Effectively protect and preserve our wild fisheries.
» Address world hunger with known, safe food products.
If GM salmon do slip through the FDA's net, they should at the least be labeled as such in the marketplace. If not, those averse to GM foods would have to give up this fish altogether.