<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";">Super-salmon:
Something could be fishy</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";">L.A.
Times-9/23/10 </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";">Editorial</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Salmon that have been genetically engineered to
grow twice
as fast as wild salmon are not ready for an appearance on the
American dinner
plate. An advisory panel of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
was wise to
push back this week against what looked like fast-track approval
of the first
genetically altered animal for human consumption, saying more
research is
needed.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Most of the debate has centered on whether the
super-salmon
proposed by AquaBounty Technologies Inc. are safe to eat. They
might well be,
despite the just criticisms of poorly designed studies on hormone
levels in
their flesh and whether they might have lower resistance to
disease.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That discussion has unfortunately overshadowed
the even more
troubling question of whether the fish are safe for the
environment. There's a
big difference between genetically altering domesticated animals —
cattle, for example, which might be designed to resist mad cow
disease —
and creating an animal with a possible evolutionary advantage in
the wild.
Cheaper salmon that can be farmed with less of a carbon footprint
might be a
tempting idea, but does the modern world really need such salmon?
Not enough to
merit environmental risk. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It would take many more years of research, and
far more
information than the public has so far been given, to determine
whether it's
possible to fully guard the world's waters from harm — such as the
possibility that the super-salmon could breed with wild salmon or
outcompete
wild fish for available food, endangering the survival of the
species and
possibly harming other aquatic life.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In any case, the FDA is the wrong agency to
make the
environmental decision. It was given authority over such animals
because the
genes inserted into the animals' DNA are considered a drug. But
the FDA isn't
where the federal government's top environmental, wildlife and
fisheries
experts work. Multiple agencies should have responsibility for
reviewing these
applications, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National
Marine Fisheries Service.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In order to avoid escapes of super-salmon into
rivers or the
ocean, AquaBounty has developed an impressive set of safeguards.
It plans to
rear the fish in tanks on land rather than in the usual ocean
pens. As an added
precaution, it would render the fish sterile so they could not
mate with wild
salmon. But the sterilization process is not perfect; up to 5% of
treated
salmon could still reproduce. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The company has said that the facility in the
Panama
highlands where the fish would be reared is adjacent to a river,
probably
because copious amounts of water are needed to flush the tanks.
But the
specific location has not been revealed, and the public has the
right to know
more about it. Where is the river exactly? How close to it will
the tanks be?
Further, even if the FDA approves the process, it's unclear that
the agency
would be able to ensure compliance.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">AquaBounty's two small facilities — it would
also run
a hatchery on Prince Edward Island in Canada — probably would
offer
little chance of escape. But federal regulators must look at the
bigger
picture. This is a first-phase proposal. If more and larger
super-salmon farms
come into play, the chances of sloppier facilities and the escape
of
non-sterile salmon would increase.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What would happen then? Possibly nothing. The
salmon might
be less able to live in a natural environment than their wild
counterparts. But
we don't know. The environmental assessments so far haven't
adequately looked
at this question or what kind of environmental response might be
needed.
Instead, they have mainly been limited to preventing escapes, on
the assumption
that a serious problem is so unlikely to occur, there's little
need for a
well-researched plan beyond that point. We all know how well that
kind of
thinking worked with the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.#</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</body>
</html>