I heard about this 5-6 years ago in Australia, and thought the government there had ordered all the fish destroyed and the reseach materiel locked away, but here it is again, and on our soil.

Fast-growing genetically engineered salmon only one of many controversial fish projects

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS


The San Diego Union-Tribune
March 18, 2004
by Terri Somers

A new creature, slick and scaly and swimming around in saltwater tanks near the Massachusetts coastline, threatens to escape into the ocean where it could propagate madly and ultimately kill off the world's wild salmon.

That's the fear of a far-flung group of individuals who oppose the creature's existence and sometimes refer to it as 'Frankenfish.'

It looks innocently enough like an Atlantic salmon. But it has been altered through biotechnology to contain the genes of an ocean pout, a fish that does not freeze in waters that would kill a meeker species. The transplanted genes trigger the salmon's growth hormones, making the fish grow five times faster than normal.

The scientists whose work created the salmon say the nightmare scenarios are greatly exaggerated. They tout the fish as affordable protein that could help feed starving nations.

But while few critics say eating the fish would be dangerous, some suggest its effect on nature could be irreversibly negative. Should it escape, the critics say, this uber-fish would beat wild salmon to the food and the mates, forever polluting the salmon gene pool and obliterating some wild species already on the endangered list.

Fish that receive transplanted genes of another organism, also called transgenic fish, are the latest genetically modified organisms at the center of a debate pitting scientist against scientist; bottom-line businessmen against environmentalists; and consumers seeking affordable, healthy food against the shopper who seeks out organic products. Genetically modified vegetables and cotton previously have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

California, home to the nation's largest number of biotechnology companies, became the first state to take a stand on the fish issue last fall by banning the introduction of transgenic fish into its waters in anticipation of products soon to hit the market. Researchers must apply for a permit to import the fish to their labs for study. Washington, Oregon and Maryland have followed California by passing their own regulations on transgenic fish.

California's ban prevented the importation and sale of the GloFish, an ornamental aquarium fish genetically altered with the genes of a sea anemone so that it fluoresces under ultraviolet light. A Texas-based company began selling the warm-water, freshwater fish in January.

'A chemical spill, as terrible as it is, can often be contained and its damage dilutes over a period of time,' said Joseph Mendelson, legal director for the pure food advocates: the Center for Food Safety. 'It's the exact opposite for these transgenic fish. They can escape and mingle with the native populations, pass on genetic traits, and their presence will just continue to grow and grow. You can't reverse it.'

That's rubbish, said Elliot Entis, chief executive of Aqua Bounty Technologies, the Waltham, Mass.-based company that is the first to ask the FDA to approve transgenic fish for market. The company's genetically altered salmon are no less healthy than the wild ones and the environmental risks are, at most, minimal, Entis said.

'For environmental groups, nothing sells like fear,' he said. 'Rather than have a rational discussion about benefits and acceptable risks, they'd rather scare the bejeezus out of the rest of us.'

If approved, the salmon, called AquAdvantage, would be the first transgenic animal approved for human consumption. Federal regulators have already ruled that ingesting the fish poses no harm to humans. The agency is still studying whether the fish pose a threat to the environment.

If the fish is approved, Entis said his company would begin selling them to fish farmers across the nation, allowing them to double their production of salmon without expanding. And the fish, which reach full size in 18 months rather than four years, would further reduce the farmers' costs because they require half the amount of feed, he said.

Theoretically, reduced cost to the farmer and increased production could mean lower prices in the supermarket. Entis and biotechnology insiders who support his technology said it could help feed the hungry of Third World nations.

'Fish farming is inescapable,' Entis said. 'If we had to rely on the wild, we wouldn't be eating fish. West Coast fish does not exist in large enough numbers to provide a significant amount of food for people.'

The science that led to the salmon, now being reviewed by the FDA, started about 20 years ago in a remote Newfoundland lab. Scientists who are now with Aqua Bounty were studying proteins in certain fish that allow them to live in deep, frigid waters without freezing.

After isolating the genes that create those proteins, the scientists began working with colleagues to inject the 'antifreeze' genes into Atlantic salmon. Not only would that help salmon survive frigid winter waters, but the gene triggers the year-round working of growth hormones. Growth hormones of wild salmon pulse only in warm seasons, when food is plentiful.

With growth turned on full time, the scientists found the salmon grew to full size about five times faster than wild salmon.

Fiddling with Mother Nature is the only feasible way to sustain the salmon supply, according to Aqua Bounty's Entis.

Demand for seafood worldwide has increased 12 percent annually in recent years and is expected to continue to grow along with the world's population.

In many areas, the demand led to unsustainable overfishing and the collapse of open-access fisheries, according to a study commissioned by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Fish farming has helped meet the demand, while allowing some natural stocks to recover, at least somewhat.

'If fish farming is inescapable, the question is how to do it better and leave a smaller footprint on the environment,' Entis said.

Biotechnology, he said, has enabled fish farms to shrink their footprint.

Besides doubling fish production, the AquAdvantage are more feed efficient, he said. Wild salmon will eat 10 pounds of other fish to get to the size where they produce one pound of fish for consumption, he said, while Aqua Bounty's salmon eat 1.3 pounds of fish to produce one pound for consumption. And less food in the front end means less waste out the tail end and into the seas, where too much can promote algae blooms and other environmental problems.

Genetic alterations are not a new concept, Entis said. Tomatoes and numerous species of flowers have all been hybridized to produce a stronger, more sustainable fruit and flowers, he said. Before scientists unraveled any secrets of the genome, cattle and chickens were improved through selective breeding. All of that is a form of genetic engineering.

Science, and the understanding of genes, now allows the process to be more specific, said Kurt Klimpel, president of Aqua Bounty Pacific in San Diego.

Genetically altered cows, pigs and livestock have been developed for scientific applications. The FDA has approved transgenic soybeans and corn for consumption, as well as milk from cows treated with growth hormones.

The environmental debate swirling around transgenic salmon echoes the controversy that still surrounds transgenic corn: Is the cross-breeding of a genetically altered organism with a wild or natural species a bell that cannot be unrung?

A study released in January by scientists at Purdue University in Indiana found that transgenic animals produced for human consumption could doom populations of wild species if they escaped.

The scientists, who studied a Japanese Mekada fish, found that the new genes make the fish grow larger, which gives them an advantage in hunting for food and a mate. However, the Purdue study also found that the offspring of these fish are less likely to survive to adulthood. As generations pass, a population of wild fish polluted by these transgenic fish would dwindle. Using a mathematical model, the scientists determined the wild salmon would die out in 50 generations.

This same arguments are being used to bolster opposition to the transgenic GloFish.

The Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., against the FDA, seeking to block the sale of the fish. The FDA declined to review the fish for regulation because they are not intended for human consumption.

'(The fact that) just because a company says that GloFish are ornamental it doesn't have to go through the (regulatory) system shows it is clearly a system that has got holes in it,' Mendelson said. 'It is not equipped to deal with these rapidly evolving scientific issues.

'Whether they're used ornamentally or in aquaculture, escapes happen. The rush to commercialize these things is way premature.'

Yorktown Technologies, the Austin, Texas-based company marketing the GloFish, said fears about its product escaping and propagating with wild species are misguided.

The fish cannot survive in salt or cold water, and its color makes it an easy target for predators, according to the company.

As for the salmon, Entis said the fish used in the studies are not comparable to his company's product. Unlike the Mekada, AquAdvantage salmon are not engineered to grow larger than wild salmon. And unlike the Mekada, size is not a factor in mate selection.

When fish are grown in pens submerged in coastal waters, Entis conceded, the containers are susceptible to storms and other elements that could create opportunities for fish to escape. So Aqua Bounty sells only salmon that have been put through a sterilization process, he said.

But a report released in January by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences cautioned that no method of containment or sterilization is foolproof.

Aqua Bounty executives and biotech industry supporters scoffed at the notion of debating their inability to make their science 100 percent foolproof.

'You can't argue the negative away 100 percent. It's like guaranteeing that martians aren't going to land in the parking lot next week,' said Joseph Panetta, president of Biocom, the San Diego biotech industry organization. 'You know it is not going to happen, but you cannot guarantee it 100 percent.

'What we look at in assessing risk is the degree to which safeguards have been built into the process so that we can assure the probability of risk is minimized to an acceptable level,' Panetta said.

Meanwhile, in Aqua Bounty's San Diego office, besides developing vaccines to protect shrimp and fish populations, scientists are developing a transgenic method of sterilizing the salmon, Klimpel said. It involves transplanting genes that would prevent the fish from developing reproductive organs, he said.

Would such a procedure, or any other, for that matter, satisfy opponents of the transgenic fish?

'We'd have to wait and see what the circumstances are before we can answer. Right now we are so far removed from even having a (proper) regulatory structure in place to consider these issues,' Mendelson said.

His group is not alone in questioning whether the nation's regulatory procedures are adequate to deal with issues posed by rapidly developing sciences.

The Pew Initiative study points out these biotech-influenced organisms are being regulated under policy established in the mid-1980s, requiring the FDA, the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency to use existing laws, agency regulations and guidelines to direct them.

'Without a clear and transparent road map for regulation, not only is it difficult for developers to bring new products to market, it is also hard for the public to trust that a careful consideration of risks and benefits is taking place before, not after, new products come to market,' wrote Michael Rodemeyer, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.

Many countries have transgenic fish research projects under way.

Location: U.S. and Europe

Project: Atlantic salmon receive a transplant of a gene that causes them to grow to full size faster and consume less food.
Purposes: Human consumption
Status: FDA review for commercial use

Location: U.S. and Canada

Project: Rainbow trout receive a growth hormone gene to increase growth and food efficiency.
Purposes: Human consumption
Status: Model for other research

Location: U.S. and U.K.

Project: A human clotting-factor gene is inserted in tilapia to produce a clotting factor.
Purposes: Pharmaceuticals
Status: Regulatory approval sought

Location: U.S.

Project: Altered genetic material from a virus is implanted in foreign DNA to improve disease resistance and growth potential in mollusks.
Purposes: Human consumption
Status: Research

Location: China

Project: A human interferon gene is inserted into a grass carp to improve disease resistance.
Purposes: Human consumption
Status: Research

Location: China and Canada

Project: The ocean pout antifreeze gene is inserted in goldfish to increase cold tolerance.
Purposes: Ornamental, feed and research
Status: Research

Location: Cuba

Project: Tilapia receive a tilapia growth hormone gene linked to a human cytolomega virus to increase growth and food efficiency.
Purposes: Human consumption
Status: Research

If the concern is that they could escape and reproduce, why can't they just sterilize the stock like triploid trout? Obviously that does nothing for introducing disease and competing for food supplies, but wouldn't that be a step in the right direction?

Transgenic salmon have been around for years. There are growth hormone enhnaced chinook, coho, and atlantic salmon that I am aware of.

It looks like a real maketing push to get these fish to market. This is the first transgenic animal to be put forward as food. I suspect if will fail, not based on its own merits or lack thereof but but because of activist hype.
IF the firs t plant put forward is any precendent this will fail. The flavr savr tomato was a brilliant product (a trangenic tomato that didn't rot) The shelf life was weeks instead of days and they were at least as good as normal tomatoes as far as flavor. It was on the market for a year and was ultimately killed by the activists. Now there are dozens of transgenic plants on the market and you eat them every day. So unless there is a dramatic paradigm shift we will have transgenic fish in the market sooner or later.

As for the science, it appears sound to me.
I am all for it. With the burgeoning population and a high and ever increasing demand for seafood, we as anglers need to be concerned that the demand can be met. It is clear that the wild supply of fish is limited at best and in decline in most places. This technology may fill the gap and take some of the pressure off of wild fish.


This will be great for aquaculture and will result in higher yields per pound of feed. These transgenic fish aren't super fish, they just grow faster.

As for the alleged threats to wild salmon. I am sure that wild salmon evovled with optimal growth rates for the environment. These transgenic fish need to eat all the time. In the wild fish have to hunt for food and can't eat at will. Transgenic fish won't be able to compete with wild fish when it comes to foraging for food. I think the reduced pressure on wild fish stocks will more than offset any potential risks to wild fish.

While the methods to create these fish are decidedly high tech, the results are bronze age animal husbandry. You want a faster growing fish, you could easily obatin the same results by conventional animal breeding (genetics) just select for the fasting growing fish for 20+ generations. But who wants to wait 20+ salmon generations (80+ years). Biotech gets the same results in 1 generation. If have enhanced growth hormone expression were really a selective advantage, salmon have had a million generations to evolve it and they haven't .

I think these growth hormone fish are safe and should be approved. That doesn't mean the next transgenic fish should be approved. They need to be studied on a case by case basis.

Here is a good link. http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/ge/fish_varieties_text.htm No I am not a tree hugger.

I'd really like to see "Peacock Chumpranah" introduced in to the Snohomish System.

That's where you cross a humpie, chum, peacock bass, and a piranah. You'd get a fish that came back in the millions, was about 30 pounds, fought like a chum, had big monsterous razor sharp teeth, a taste for flesh, super aggressive, a hump on it's back, stripes down the sides, and in general, had a really bad attitude.

You would know when the run came in, because the WDFW would have to post warning signs on the river that said "Wade at your own risk!"

All this info and no picture ??? Damn, I want to see a 500 lb salmon. I read about this a few years ago and remember that it was an Atlantic and not a Chinook.. still no picture then either.

This all sounds way too much like the plot of the book WHITE DEATH by Clive Cussler.

They need to target this on herring and anchovies. Transgenic feed fish. That way the Salmon and other species competing for feed would have plenty and larger. Ultimately they would improve the size and quantity of the salmon too!

It seems to me everyone on this thread has the mistaken impression that transgenic fish are superior to normal fish.

This is not true. It is difficult if not impossible to improve upon mother nature. Fish have had millions of years to evolve to fit their specific niches. No simple minded transgenic tinkering is going to easily improve upon that and almost all efforts will be deterimental to an overall survival in the wild. I would put forward that no transgenic creature bred so far is able to outcompete its non-transgenic wild bretheren in a natural ecosystem.

Granted transgenic fish can be bred to grow faster or bigger, but at the detriment to fitness in the wild.

The true danger of aquaculture is not transgenics, but introduction of non-native species. Non-native species have a lengthy history of causing severe ecological disruption. (ie zebra mussles, green crab, spartina, grass carp, alewives, every sunfish found in the state, japanese oyster, etc, etc, etc).


I recognize that some of you don't take this topic seriously, but transgenic animals will be coming to a table near you soon. Given the history of animal breeding, food science, and american's preference for cheap food, it is the next logical step.