The Dangers of Genetically Modified Salmon

, by Natalie Fine,

If, as the saying goes, you are what you eat, you might want to be careful if you eat (are) salmon. In September, the Food and Drug Administration gathered an advisory panel to determine whether a genetically modified breed of salmon is suitable for consumption. While it could take a few months for the panel to reach a decision, this story is a perfect example of the large role bioengineering plays in the food we eat every day. It’s worthwhile to consider the implication of this technology on our health and our environment.

The fish, designed by AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., grows at twice the rate of a normal Atlantic salmon. According to a June 25 New York Times article, the fish has been engineered with two types of growth hormones, which enable it to reach full size in a year and a half instead of three years.

On the surface, genetically modified foods like this salmon seem like a good idea. Over-industrialization has vastly depleted the United States’ salmon population, and, as a result, most domestically produced fish are grown at industrial fish farms. The United States also imports over a billion dollars in salmon, according to a Reuters article. These imports come from countries such as China, Vietnam, and Ecuador.

Unfortunately, much is still unknown about the how the consumption of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) affects humans. Since the science behind GMOs is relatively new, it may take years to learn about the adverse effects of eating these foods. This was the case with the pesticide DDT, which was in heavy use until it was found to accumulate in fish at doses harmful to humans. Allergies are also a major concern. According to the Consumers Union, AquaBounty has not conducted enough tests on this salmon to determine if it is actually safe to eat. The Consumers Union said in a statement that it is “particularly concerned that this salmon may pose an increased risk in…life-threatening allergic reactions to sensitive individuals.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists, which has also expressed its disappointment with AquaBounty, says that there has been little opportunity for public input on the subject. Even when there are opportunities for public dialogue, many have said that there is often not enough time to analyze the data presented. In this case, the public was given just two weeks to review the data, although AquaBounty submitted their request for approval of the salmon ten years ago.

AquaBounty claims that they only manufacture fish eggs, and thus have no control over how the salmon are raised. However, it is quite likely that the salmon will be raised on industrial fish farms. This raises the larger issue of the dangers of this type of farming. These “farms” are similar to feedlots for pigs or cattle. In these feedlots, animals are kept in small, confined spaces and must be vaccinated against the diseases that breed rampantly in such close quarters. This practice also releases tons of fish waste into the ocean, where it disrupts the natural environment and makes it harder for other species to survive.

Even though it could take years before the AquaBounty salmon is available in stores, consumers may not be able to tell the difference between this salmon and regular salmon. The government has long been opposed to labeling GMO foods unless there is something that makes the products noticeably different from non-genetically-engineered food, such as its nutritional value.

Many genetically modified foods are already present in our diets, such as high-fructose corn syrup. The companies that produce these foods are extremely powerful corporations capable of dominating entire markets and forcing smaller, more environmentally-conscious farms out of business.

If you are what you eat, make sure you eat well. You have a choice when it comes to what you decide to consume. In the long run, GMOs are potentially very harmful not just to environmental and genetic diversity, but also to ourselves.

  • GAlegro

    On what scientific grounds do you state that foods which are GMOs or containing GMO ingredients and components are harmful to human health or biodiversity?. Just repeating many times a lie does not make it truth. The facts are that after 15 years of consumption of GMO food originating from accumulated harvests of 2.5 billion acres worldwide, not one single case of toxicity or allergy to humans or domestic animales has been scientifically reported anywhere. There are some 30,000 food products in a supermarket that contain GM ingredients and components. So why the scare. The same situation will apply to AquAdvantage salmon, which after thorough tests shows no reasons for concern as to the improbability of any risk in their consumption. GM food are the most thoroughly tested foods in history. No organic or conventional foods have been subjected to such rigorous scrutiny and we still consume them. So stop propagating rumors and stick to scientific proof. And by the way, DDT accumulation in human fat would take as long as 99 years, according to later research, to provoke any discernible damage. In the meantime recall of DDT produced a recurrence of malaria in 3rd world countries with 3 million casualties per year over the last 20 years.

  • Bob Amerrvile

    Ms. Fine is a hippie. Go figure.

  • AReeves

    The web is awash with information on the harmful effects of GM: not sure if it’s all truthful, but if you pick up a phone and talk to someone, as I do, you will find the real truth. Posts by those in the GM industry always purport to make Anti-GM writers into fools, but we are intelligent enough to realize their jobs are in jeopardy if they don’t respond.

    Pro-GM comments are also great proof that those in the Anti-GM movement are winning.

    Keep writing Natalie.

  • Ed Darrell

    “In the meantime recall of DDT produced a recurrence of malaria in 3rd world countries with 3 million casualties per year over the last 20 years.”

    DDT use against malaria was slowed in 1965 when it became clear that abuse of DDT by agricultural interests had bred DDT-resistant and DDT-immune mosquitoes, and some African nations could not produce the governmental discipline necessary to provide the necessary medical care to stop malaria.

    DDT was never recalled. It’s use on crops was stopped, in the U.S., in 1972.

    Malaria deaths now run about 900,000 per year, the lowest in human history. Malaria made a resurgence when the medicines to treat the disease stopped working, not when DDT use was restricted.

    DDT accumulation to dangerous levels can occur in as little as 6 months — it depends on what you call “danger,” of course.

    But in any case, DDT was banned because it kills wildlife indiscriminately. Human health issues did not motivate the restrictions on DDT.

    Keep writing, Natalie. Let us know about it at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:
    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/?s=DDT

  • Ed Darrell

    Drat. “Its use on crops,” not “It’s.”

  • gp_Idaho

    Good article… Don’t mind the ProGM dudes, they get paid a lot to propagate the “good” of GMO. But for those of us who try to find all the information out there about GMO foods and its effects on our health and environment, its seem to stand for itself that we are all pretty concerned about GMO salmon making it to the market. I guess I am fine with it there but I just want it labeled as such and non-GMO label as such so I can make a choice. Your pro-GM dudes don’t think it needs to be label but those of us who continue to stay informed on the issue want it labeled so we can make a choice to buy it or steer clear of it. Pro-GM refuses to voluntarily label their product and lobbies the FDA extremely heavy to keep it from being labeled.

    And as they say it is sterile well that is not a guarantee. Local Fish and game released supposedly sterile hatchery fish and then in one instance the next thing we know we have a breeding non0indigenous fish species in our river.
    As I scientist, I don’t trust pro-GM simply because the industry is trying to suppress all the information out there that would be negative for GMO foods. Its not propaganda, its just how you play a propaganda war. I don’t blame them, they make great money to lobby their cause but as a consumer this is another classic example of the consumer being force fed a product to the public. Its not really about what is best for human kind or the environment to the GMO industry, its about profit and benefiting from their research.

  • David Lott, ’65

    Farm raised salmon is mushy and bland compared to wild caught. It’s full of antibiotics, since the pens in which the fish are raised are subject to disease risk. If you ever see these pens, you will not have a great hankering for pen raised salmon. My guess is that salmon engineered to grow twice as fast will be worse.

    I don’t think it would much matter if these fish got out of the pens. (Almost certainly they will.) They are flabby, sheltered and pampered and won’t do well in the Darwinian contest of the ocean.

    How the problem with mushy salmon translates into an indictment of all GMO crops is beyond me. And beyond the author too, since she offers no evidence at all on this point.

  • Valentine Dyall

    “Unfortunately”, wrote Natalie Fine, “much is still unknown about the how the consumption of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) affects humans”. She failed to note that much is still unknown about how the consumption of most foods affects humans. Why pick on GMOs? Why not question “organic” products (those people who died in California after eating organic spinach) or conventional (those people who get heart disease after eating too much butter and cream). Lots of people have been eating lots of GM food for 15 years without a single confirmed case of anything going wrong; I write “confirmed” because there have indeed been scare stories but they collapse when one looks at the so-called evidnce or lack of it. Nor should Natalie bang on about the supposed environmental benefits of small farmers; in many places they make a dreadful mess. “In the long run”, to paraphrase Natalie, “GMOs are potentially very beneficial not just to environmental and genetic diversity, but also to ourselves”.

  • tommy

    this is gay

Twitter