Frankenfish?

I find myself in a somewhat awkward position here.  I really look forward to genetic engineering’s potential to improve human health.  But why do the same techniques applied to my food make be nervous, if not squeamish?  I’ll have to keep working on that.  Right now I just want to draw attention to a development that makes me very nervous -- and squeamish.

Yesterday, the New York Times reported the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) finding that genetically engineered salmon would have “no significant impact” on the environment and that the fish is “as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon.”  The fish have been engineered to grow to full size in 18 months, about half the time it takes for natural Atlantic salmon.  I read this and then I think, how many times have we heard similar reassurances about other technologies, nuclear power for example, and then learned of risks ignored or downplayed.  Especially when it comes to messing with animals and natural habitats, it seems like the very highest standard of care should be required.

Last Friday, the agency published the finding in a draft environmental assessment.  The assessment will be open for public comment during the next 60 days and it’s likely to draw lots of them.  I talked about the FDA action with a friend whose work at another federal agency involves fish.  She raised questions about the FDA’s use of the shorter, less comprehensive “environmental assessment” as the basis for the finding, instead of the stricter “environmental impact statement.”  She indicated this could likely be one of the bases for legal challenges to the FDA’s action.  I hope so.

AquABounty, the company that developed the fish, assures that it poses no threat to wild salmon.  The AquAdvantage salmon, as they’ve been branded, would be raised in secure tanks away from the ocean and would be sterilized.  The FDA seems to have accepted this, although critics have questioned both the security of the tanks and the reliability of the sterilization. 

The Center for Food Safety severely criticized the FDA action, declaring that “The GE [genetically engineered] salmon has no socially redeeming value; it’s bad for the consumer, bad for the salmon industry and bad for the environment.”
The Center also charged that the FDA had ignored concerns from more than 40 members of Congress, 300 environmental, consumer, and animal welfare organizations, and 400,000 public comments.