The Food and Drug Administration has reportedly finished its evaluation of the environmental and health impacts for the first genetically modified animal food source proposed for sale in the U.S. market.
Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies has spent over $60 million and almost 20 years developing the AquAdvantage Salmon. Scientists transplanted DNA from two other fish species that will enable the salmon to reach maturity in 18 months rather than the usual 36 months. The FDA has found no major issues with the genetically modified salmon. However, the report is not yet public. The findings are now under review by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.
In 2010, the FDA issued a preliminary finding that declared the bioengineered salmon to be safe to humans and the environment. In response, Congressmen Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Mike Thompson (D-CA) led other members of Congress in halting its approval based on, in their opinion, a flawed approval process. A congressional letter recommended that the FDA perform a more thorough review regarding the salmon’s possible effects on the environment and human health.
On behalf of a coalition of over 50 organizations consisting of consumer and environmental groups, the Center for Food Safety is opposing final FDA approval and has led a campaign to stop the fish from entering U.S. markets.
It’s not genetic engineering, a process of recombining DNA from two different species, that concerns the activists. Currently, over 80 percent of corn and 90 percent of soybeans in the U.S. are genetically modified. Genetic engineering has also led to many life-saving drugs and is extremely important in medical research, especially for combating deadly influenza viruses. Rather, consumer activists are concerned that the bioengineered salmon could have novel expressed proteins that are allergenic to humans.
Environmental groups are concerned that the genetically engineered salmon might escape and breed with wild populations, leading to the native populations’ extinction.
To address the mixing issue, AquaBounty has created females with three sets of chromosomes, making them sterile. Also, the company plans to raise the fish in isolated tanks that are double-barricaded, to minimize the chance that some of the genetically modified salmon will escape into the wild.
James Greenwood, the president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, would like to see an equal emphasis on risks and benefits of GMOs in the approval process. Besides providing a boost to the biotechnology industry and reducing its carbon footprint, GMOs provide a solution to the over-fishing that inevitably arises from a burgeoning population.
Over the years, genetically modified plants have eased food shortages, addressed nutritional deficiencies and generally helped mankind. Yet, because of irrational public opposition to GMOs, the European Union banned imports of all genetically modified foods and feed products between June 1998 and August 2003. This ban cost American farmers roughly $300,000,000 a year.
Society is willing to tolerate some technologies despite the dangers they pose. For instance, each year 40,000 people die in automobile accidents and 106,000 people die as the result of side effects from medications. But biotechnology has never killed anyone. Clearly, political activists are holding biotechnology to a higher standard.
Randall Mayes is a senior fellow with STATS at George Mason University. He covers science as it relates to business, politics, and culture and is a technology policy analyst specializing in issues related to genomics, nanotechnology, and synthetic biology. His new book Revolutions: Paving the Way for the Bioeconomy is scheduled for release with Logos Press in 2012.
