World-Wide-Matel

The GE salmon, aka the frankenfish, does not represent a case of science over fear. It represents a case of the market over science.

Scientific studies are being giving short shrift, and the word and the studies of the manufacturer are being taken at face value. The frankenfish is being approved by the Food and Drug Administration as if it were a drug, without the involvement of either the NOAA or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A lot of unanswered questions remain, but the desperate financial situation of the manufacturer is driving approval, and past problems have been swept under the rug; for example, in 2008, GE salmon escaped into the ocean, and no one knows what happened as a result. No questions were even asked. The FDA and the manufacturer just pretended that didn’t happen. They don’t even know if the supposed main benefit of GE salmon- twice the normal growth rate- is true.

For my family, salmon is a basic part of our diet. We eat it once and even twice a week. In British Columbia, a small company called Creative Salmon does ‘organic’ farming that is resulting in an excellent farmed King Salmon, and this problem does not pose the risks and unknowns that accompany the frankenfish. While the organic salmon is superior to other farmed salmon, and its price is quite reasonable (typically $10.99/lb), wild caught salmon from the Columbia River, BC, and Copper River remains superior (typically $13.99/lb).

Ph

Scientists studied it and made a report. It is subject to peer review by others using scientific methods.

The FDA is not owned by the “desperate company” and presumably the Obama officials involved were not dishonest.

It is nice that you are rich enough to afford organic salmon. You are free to continue to buy it. If all the world ate organic food, however, we would have no wild land left and the environment would be much dirtier.

You have a perfect right to your opinion about the safety and environmental efficacy of organic versus other forms of food. The science doesn’t back you up, however.

In this salmon case, science can find no significant problems. You can choose to be afraid of what might be, but you cannot call that science.

Organic foods, BTW, have often been contaminated with organic pathogens like salmonella and e-coli. Recall that a few hundred years ago everything people ate was organic. Many poor people in developing countries still eat mostly organic. It didn’t always work out so well for all those people who got sick and died of food borne diseases.

BTW - if those GM salmon don’t live up to expectations, nobody will buy them and they will be gone. I always find it interesting when people who want to stand in the way of scientific or technical progress want to point out that the changes will not be worth it. If you are right, it works itself out. Let those fools who want to invest their money do it. If you are right, they will quickly learn their lessons.

There are unresolved questions with the frankenfish. Once a GE creature enters the environment, it’s too late to go back- much better to answer those questions first, resolve those issues. This fish is the first food animal to show up on our dinner plates. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable expectation to cover all the bases.

JM….good, solid retort. Agree wholeheartedly.

ph…..please be specific. What are those “unanswered” questions? What are your major concerns?

ph

There are “unresolved questions” about everything. People still worry about electricity and indeed it kills people every day.

Your organic fish farming has unresolved questions. There is lots of worry about diseases caused by the simple concentration, not to mention the crap.

Most of the GM organisms don’t survive in the wild. They are suited to particular environments. Beyond that, this is a problem with ALL plants and animals. One of the biggest problems we have is with wild pigs and horses, descendents of escaped domestic animals. I don’t underestimate these problems, but we are already in them.

As I always explain, it is balance. On the plus side, we have more and better protein available. We take pressure off depleted wild fisheries, which already is a worldwide crisis. The fact that these fish grow faster with less input means less pollution and smaller footprints.

On the deficit side, we have the possibility that these salmon could escape. This is mitigated by the habits of salmon. You recall, they return to their river of origin to spawn. Where will these salmon return? So this downside risk is small.

You may know something about farmed turkeys. They are bigger and meatier than their wild relatives and much stupider (which is an achievement, since wild turkeys are already really stupid). If they escape, they die within a few days or hours. This giant salmon sounds similar. Good to eat but not adapted to survival.

Farmed turkeys are truly stupid creatures. When I was in the USAF, we had to be especially careful not to fly the B-52 over turkey farms at low level. It panicked the turkeys, and they all ran to one corner at once, crushing themselves to death. True story. Then again, maybe the turkeys weren’t so stupid, because anyone who has ever been on the ground when a B-52 flies overhead at low altitude will not forget the experience.

And when I was little, I would visit relatives on farms in TN, just above the AL border. Sometimes I would be assigned to feed the turkeys and chickens. They were nasty, dirty creatures. It should have been fun, but it really wasn’t. Same for chickens.

Anyway… both organic salmon and GE salmon face the same issues caused by concentration. GE salmon seem to suffer an unusually high level of cancers and other problems, but that’s not a deal breaker for me. The real concern is, what happens if they do make it into the wild? That escape in 2008 wasn’t supposed to happen, but it did. GE salmon shouldn’t be able to make it in the wild, but the truth is, no one knows, and no one knows what would happen should the frankenfish breed with the wild ones.

I want to see definitive proof that does not pose a risk before putting those GE fish on a plate.

Even then, I wouldn’t eat them. But that’s just me.

Ph

We couldn’t provide absolute proof that those turkeys don’t pose a risk.

In fact, all domestic animals pose some risk to wild populations and the reverse. You may have heard stories about the return of wild bison populations and how they are spreading disease to domestic cattle.

All domestic plants and animals are genetically modified. Look at a cob of corn you eat today and compare it to the native species. In fact, wheat is so far from its natural roots that scientists are not sure exactly where it came from. And we all know that nature would never produce anything like a chihuahua or a bull dog.

J,
You’re conflating natural selection and selective breeding with genetic engineering. They are most definitely not the same.

ph

They are the same with the result. In the one, you use random mutations that change the germ lines. In the other, you are more precise in what you are doing.

I think it is a problem of what we call natural. You are assuming that humans can do better than nature, i.e. the GM creature will get out and dominate the natural ones. This is unlikely, since the GM variety is created for a particular unnatural environment.

As I wrote, it seems like a bull dog is a crime against nature. They were created the old fashioned way and they would not long survive in a natural environment.

Think of domestic animals that have gotten into wild populations. They have usually been less likely to survive. Problems with invasive species has almost always been with less or unmodified species. They can compete with wild cousins.

Think what would happen if your bulldog or even your St. Bernard got out among wolves. Are his chances good or bad?

Beyond that, we still have the nature of salmon. They spawn only in fresh water and only in their native streams. In order to breed with a wild population, the giant salmon would have to swim upstream and spawn. It would lack the homing instinct of the wild salmon, so would be unlikely to make the trip. It would probably be surprised (to the extent a fish can be) that the seas cleared out of its mates. And its larger size would make the journey through rapids and shallows more than normally hazardous. All those bears along the way would be happy to have a big, slow fish like that. The GM salmon, or any salmon cannot spawn in the open sea.

So we have conditional probabilities that make it nearly impossible. IF it escapes, IF it survives in the open sea, IF it somehow wanders up a stream where it has never been (why would it do this), IF it makes it past the rapids, shallows, otters and bears, IF the other fish accept it,IF it manages to successfully spawn, IF the sperm/eggs are fertile, it may have a chance. But unless its adaptions are beneficial, natural selection will quickly take out its progeny.

The problem with farming fish comes with concentrations and pollution. The GM salmon might make these things less a problem.

PH

You are on the wrong side of this issue. Transgenic foods represent a huge opportunity for us to dramatically reduce our ecological footprint when it comes to food production. You are correct to ask for a comprehensive study of the potential impacts of escaped salmon, but that has been done and the results seem to be that the transgenic salmon are inferior breeders http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00196.x/abstract when compared to wild salmon.

We have a tough regulatory procedure and it seems AquAdvantage Salmon has cleared all the hurdles. Now it is time for the free market to decide the future of transgenic salmon.

Warren,
Read the last line of the abstract you linked:

“Although transgenic males displayed reduced breeding performance relative to nontransgenics, both male reproductive phenotypes demonstrated the ability to participate in natural spawning events and thus have the potential to contribute genes to subsequent generations.”

What happens when these fish “contribute genes” to following generations?

It’s a dangerous game to play. In grossly general terms, I have a high degree of confidence in science and technology. I also know science and technology can go horribly wrong, even assuming everyone acts with the best of intentions.

Take Fukushima.

Take the development of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). They were not developed with evil intent, and they seemed to be nothing more than useful refrigerants, among other things. What could possibly go wrong? As it turned out, CFC’s depleted the ozone layer. Only international cooperation on a massive scale, through the Montreal Accords, kept humanity from cooking itself.

And it was even closer than most people realize. Bromine was just as effective as the fluorine in CFC’s, and the only reason bromine was not used on a wide scale instead of fluorine is that an initial decision was made to go with fluorine, simply because fluorine was just a little bit cheaper. That’s it. Had bromine been chosen, it would have been catastrophic. Bromine was a much, much more powerful agent for destroying the ozone layer. That could have been game, set and match for humanity right there. Such a small thing…

What happens when these fish “contribute genes” to following generations?

The transgenic fish are inferior breeders, so Darwin tells us that those genes will be purged.

It’s a dangerous game to play. In grossly general terms, I have a high degree of confidence in science and technology. I also know science and technology can go horribly wrong, even assuming everyone acts with the best of intentions.

Can things go wrong? Certainly they can; there are undoubtedly unknown unknowns that may manifest down the road. However, life is not a risk free endeavor. If we cannot accept a little bit of risk in our lives, then our development as a civilization will grind to a halt. Risk is essential to progress. This doesn’t mean we cannot take reasonable precautions to minimize the risk, which is why we required AquAdvantage to clear those regulatory hurdles with the FDA in the first place.

Lastly, we need to be cognizant that there are risks inherent with being to cautious. Without AquAdvantage, we will continue along the old route of overfishing and/or environmentally damaging aquaculture. Nothing we do will change the fact that people will still demand salmon at the lowest price they can get.