FDA Closer To Approving Biotech Salmon

An anonymous reader writes with a story about the possibility of genetically engineered salmon showing up on your table. "A controversial genetically engineered salmon has moved a step closer to the consumer's dining table after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Friday the fish didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it. AquAdvantage salmon eggs would produce fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon. If it gets a final go-ahead, it would be the first food from a transgenic animal - one whose genome has been altered - to be approved by the FDA."

Comments

"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[sugarmotor]

"... didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it" --- what kind of standard is that?

Then the article states "In a draft environmental assessment, the FDA affirmed earlier findings that the biotech salmon was not likely to be harmful. It said it would take comments from the public on its report for 60 days before making a final decision on approval."

So first poke a bit here and there, find no problems. Then ask the public if they have an idea what could go wrong !!??

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[jedidiah]

The very concept is just wrongful. It's already a species that doesn't do well farmed. You end up with an inferior product. Taking that a step further and introducing genetic meddling just seems silly.

Compound one bit of stupidity with another...

What happens when the patented fish contaminates the wild stock? Will fishermen be subject to the Monsanto effect? Will fishermen need a patent license to fish? Will fish farmers be stuck not able to breed their own fish?

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[meerling]

It's pretty much the only scientific standard available for food. Nothing is absolute, including your existence, and science recognizes that. Additionally, 'food safety' is a pretty nebulous thing once you've excluded all known toxins. Well, those fish aren't toxic, and the tests haven't found anything else more dangerous than any other salmon. As to long term effect, well, we don't really have long term effects on human consumption of any salmon other than anecdotal stuff, and on the level we interact with the salmon, it's the same as other salmon. If I gave you 10 salmon steaks and one was from a genetically modified salmon, you couldn't tell which one it was. (That's if they were raised in the same environment on the same food. Different water temps and foods can change the texture and taste of salmon, but that's environment, not genetics.)

As a side note, I like mentioning corn. Do you really think our corn is 'natural'? Have you seen corn from a thousand years ago? I have, it looks like wheat. What we call corn now is a fast growing freakishly huge form that was created by the form of genetic manipulation techniques known as hybridization and selective breeding.

If you're afraid of eating something just because it's genetics have been changed, you had better stop eating commercial food because pretty much everything we grow and raise has been genetically modified. It's just those were done by slower and less accurate means in the past. It was a method that has even more unintended alterations than genetic engineering and also has to be repeated many many times in an attempt to target the specific change desired while attempting to weed out some of the unintended ones that were introduced at the same time. If you don't believe me, that's fine, go look up breeding and hybridization, you'll find haphazard and unregulated it actually is.
Now if you have a problem with something specific, like a pesticide being produced by the crop, then you might have something worth looking into. Of course, does it express in the part we eat? How do the quantities compare to 'normal' food we buy? (They get pesticide too, and in larger quantities. How much is still there after you take the food home and have washed it?) Of course, if you are just afraid because something is a 'frankenfood', your fears are baseless and I have to wonder if you enjoyed dying in your zombie apocalypse a few days ago?

Sorry about my post being a bit disorganized and rushed, I have to hurry up and get some last minute stuff done that just came up. Have fun, and don't have a staring contest with your food, even if the food started it. :)

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[crmarvin42]

FUD

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Fastolfe]

The very concept is just wrongful. It's already a species that doesn't do well farmed. You end up with an inferior product.

What do you mean by "inferior"? Even assuming that the resulting salmon will be less tasty than the unfarmed, wild salmon, if the modified salmon is considerably cheaper, then people may still find that it's a better value. If the product is truly inferior and not worth the price, it will fail on the market and the problem will be solved that way.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[SuricouRaven]

Caught salmon is expensive, and fish stocks are already in a state of near-crisis. If the choice is between inferior salmon or no salmon at all, make do.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[ColdWetDog]

The patented fish is infertile.

I seem to remember that GMO soy beans and corn supposed to be infertile too.

Hopefully, nobody used any frog DNA ....

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[ne0n]

There's damned good reason for fear, uncertainty and doubt in this case. Precedent set by Monsanto should be a clear warning that these things cannot possibly go as planned. I just hope the FDA gets eaten by a resurrected pack of gender-switching velociraptors before this travesty can grow legs.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[sneakyimp]

[sarcasm] Let the market handle it [/sarcasm]

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[ThatsMyNick]

The difference is thousand years of testing and a few days of testing.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[uncqual]

This always intrigued me.

The neighboring farmer didn't sign a license agreement with Monsanto.

Perhaps Monsanto should go after the farmer who didn't control their "Monsanto Pollen and Seed" properly (that, of course, will never happen because they are Monsanto's customer!) if the license requires that the licensee exercises such control over the product.

It seems to me that the farmer whose crop got cross pollinated has no obligation to return or avoid use of that which someone distributed onto their property voluntarily -- much as if I leave a flyer on your front door, it's yours to do with as you like. This is not a case of "lost" property -- the distribution is expected, predictable, well known, and the actual item being distributed has no direct economic value.

It seems to me that the "cross pollinated" farmer has more of a cause of action against Monsanto (for knowingly distributing a manipulated organism that interferes with the farmer's ability to grow premium valued organic, non-GMO crops).

I'd be tempted to make an offer to Monsanto if I was a neighboring farmer whose crops had gotten cross pollinated: 'Monsanto, get every last bit of your pollution off my property. Access to do so will be granted at the rate of $x/acre per day until you return the land in an "as found" condition with the exception of getting your crap off it'

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[SuricouRaven]

Tried it. That's why fish stocks are in near-crisis.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[crmarvin42]

As I've pointed out many times before. The farmer in this case intentionally collected seeds only from the field closest to and down wind from a neighbor that he knew for certain had planted Monsanto corn. He is not as innocent as commonly portrayed. That being said, I am in full agreement that the patent system needs revision on the point. Doesn't change the fact that the OP is FUD.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[crmarvin42]

It is not the FDA's bailiwick to consider the legal framework under which these fish might be marketed. They can only comment and decide based on the biology. Therefore, it IS FUD, since the only concerns raised relate to policy outside of their preview or their control.

Furthermore, despite all of the hand-wringing by /. and others not directly connected to large scale agriculture, farmers have the choice of which seed to buy every year. They consistently vote with their wallets FOR Monsanto's seeds. There are alternatives, my parent company has a seed division, and Monsanto is the clear market leader because their customers (farmers) believe that Monsanto creates more value for them at the end of the year than the competition.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[climb_no_fear]

The patented fish are diploid and fertile. Female triploid salmon are sterile and cannot cross-breed with wildtype stocks. They are produced by heat shock and other methods (they have to be produced, as they are sterile). The female triploids are produced from the diploids for production purposes, so that if they escape, they cannot reproduce. Triploids even occur naturally but rarely (0.6%) in natural salmon populations.

However, several questions come to my mind:
1.What if someone, sometime, accidentally releases the diploid GMO fish? These fish grow faster than the normal salmon and therefore might have introduce a selective advantage to the introduced genes, even if the original GMO fish are reportedly less fecund.
2. Is the triploid production method 100% effective or might you have 0.1% diploids in there, capable of reproduction?
3. Male triploid salmon do have gonads and are are potentially (even if at a very low rate) slightly fertile. How long until a male escapes? I know that the males appear obviously different than the females (I used to fish for salmon in Canada as a youth) nevertheless, I cite Murphy's Law ...

A bit of reading for the interested:

A simple, clear presentation:
http://www.salmotrip.stir.ac.uk/downloads/SSPOpresentation.pdf

More hardcore molecular biology:
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v104/n2/full/hdy2009108a.html

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[ChromeAeonium]

what fucking good can come from patented (or copyrighted?) organisms?

This. That is Snowsweet, my all time favorite apple. I would choose it over any other variety. Notice the royalty fee and patent? It is a patented organism. It was produced by the same people who developed Honey Crisp, which was also patented (was, the patent has expired). It was produced after Honey Crisp, using the royalties form the Honey Crisp patent. I doubt my favorite apple would exist without patents. What good does patented food do? It generates income for the people who make food better, enabling future development. There's nothing wrong with that.

Do the biggest corporations not yet have enough control over our lives that now they need to get money out of us for the "idea" of a fish? Or the "idea" of corn?

Not even close to what happens. Just like Snowsweet's patent doesn't affect Red Delicious, those patents don't affect any other fish or corn, just the varieties covered by the respective patents.

Don't be surprised when future generations look back on the first decades of the rise of biotech food in the same way we look back on putting radioactive paint on wristwatch hands and asbestos in home insulation and lead in house paint

Or look back on the opposition to it like we look back on people who futilely opposed every other technology.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[murphtall]

I volunteered to said company to consume their product for a year to prove is safe. I'm not scared. Here is their quick response!! Thank you for your email. It is refreshing to receive positive and encouraging emails from people like you (who clearly understand that our salmon is safe to eat; we (in the company) have been eating it for years), rather than the insane rants from the clueless people who do not realize that they have been eating genetically modified food (plants) for the past 15 years, and that it is all safe to eat. If our salmon were FDA approved (hopefully sometime soon), then it would be a pleasure to send you some to eat, but for now, I am afraid you must wait patiently (we have been patiently waiting for more than 15 years !!) Hang in there, and your patience will be rewarded. Best regards, Henry Clifford

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[climb_no_fear]

Actually, natural plants often have higher levels of toxins than cultivated ones but you can easily select for nasty genes with genetic engineering. Nature's chemicals and synthetic chemicals: Comparative toxicology*

Two examples from the paper:

A new potato cultivar had to be withdrawn from the market because of its acute toxicity to humans-a consequence of higher levels of two natural toxins, solanine and chaconine.

Also cassava root, a major food crop in Africa and South America, is quite resistant to pests and disease; however,it contains cyanide at such high levels that only a laborious process of washing, grinding, fermenting, and heating can make it edible.

Did you notice the legalese?

[bogaboga]

after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Friday the fish didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it.

...the fish didn't appear likely to pose a threat ...

Emphasis mine...

Not appearing likely doesn't mean "will not!" And these people are playing with tax payers' tax dollars.

My hope is that they'll label the Biotech products as such at the point of sale, so that the consumer can choose. But the fellas on the other side and their supporters will oppose any such motion. After all they are about making money, Not serving interests of consumers.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[Attila Dimedici]

You do know that many foods that humans have eaten for centuries have been discovered to pose a threat in recent years? I have no objection to labeling foods that have been genetically engineered by modern techniques, but exactly how are you going to define that? I take it you do not eat corn? That is a "Biotech" food by certain definitions of the term "Biotech" (including some of the definitions used by those opposing "Biotech" foods).

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[crmarvin42]

How, pray tell, do you prove a negative? I.e. how do you prove that "GM salmon will never cause harm". If you set the bar impossibly high, then progress will never be made.

As to the labeling, the USDA guidelines for food labeling are designed to keep people honest about the differences in what are essentially commodities. If the USDA believed that there was a significant difference between GM crops and Conventional crops, then they would approve of a labeling initiative. However, one of the requirements for regulatory approval, is demonstrating that the GM crop is substantially similar to the conventional. Therefore, there is no need for a label, unless the label also makes it clear that the implied difference is insignificant. For example, Milk in the US frequently has a label indicating that no rBST was used in its production, but at the bottom of the label is a footnote indicating that their is no difference between milk produced with or without rBST. It is about battling FUD.

I'm currently involved in some FDA filings, and the hurdles for getting a new use approved for something already on the market and GRAS are prodigious, I can only imagine the hurdles that they've forced these GM salmon to jump through to show that the salmon do not appear likely to pose a threat.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[crmarvin42]

I realize that it is very stylish on /. to be cunical about both big business and the government, and to some extent i agree on both counts. However, when it comes to regulatory filings, neither side wants to be liable for anything going wrong for obvious reasons. As I said, I'm involved in several regulatory filings at the moment, and I can assure you that bribery isn't in it. If it were, then they wouldn't need me. Or my more expensive coleagues (PhD biochemists carrying law degrees are not exacly a dime a dozen) The high cost of regulatory filings is due to the close scrutiny, bureaucrats fear of blame if things go wrong, and the high cost of research used in assuaging their fears.

No problem with the product

[__aaltlg1547]

This should not be a big deal for the FDA. It's clearly a safe food product, although I would be a little put off by a "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS GENETICALLY MODIFIED FISH" label that I think should be mandated.

The FDA isn't really even competent to judge whether the animals are safe to introduce into the environment. It's not their area of expertise. All they can tell us is if it's safe for people to eat them. It's the EPA that should be concerned about people making frankenfish. And since if they get loose they'd be in international waters, it's a subject for the whole world to decide, or at least every country that fishes in waters where these modified salmon can survive and reproduce.

What happens if they get released and hybridize with wild salmon? Will hybrid fish be off limits to fishermen? Will the fast-growth genes be weeded out in the wild, or will they spread across the whole wild population? (The former is more likely. If it were advantageous to the species to grow faster, they probably would grow faster.) Is this company going to come after salmon fishers the way Monsanto comes after farmers?

Re:No problem with the product

[nbauman]

It hasn't been a quick decision. The FDA has been considering their application since 1995.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503891676987232.html

The critics have raised every conceivable objection to GM food, and none of them has held up. I've talked with scientists on both sides of the issue, including the Natural Resources Defense Council. The critics have made their case. Good for them. That's their job. Every point has been answered. If they can come up with something new, I'd like to hear it. But they haven't.

I'm no fan of greedy businessmen, but I do believe in scientific progress. They have to overcome the burden of proof to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it's safe, and they've done so.

People who are several generations away from American (or any) agriculture don't realize that breeding and improvement of animals and plants has been going on for ten thousand years. They've done the same kind of thing with conventional breeding.

To answer your question, they can't reproduce with wild salmon because they're triploid; they have an extra set of chromosomes.

Even if they did -- maybe 1 out of a billion -- you'd have nothing more than the normal genetic variations in fish. Growth hormones are evolved to turn on and off in different cycles according to the environment in all kinds of animals. There are already animals with extra growth genes from conventional breeding, like Belgian bulls. It doesn't do any harm.

Hybrid seed corn, developed by Henry A. Wallace, revolutionized American agriculture.

It's a small improvement, and not that important by itself, but the problem with the anti-GM movement is that it's anti-science. They're in there with the anti-vaccine people. It comes down to, they don't trust corporations. I don't trust corporations either, but get your arguments right.

stop complaining

[Iamthecheese]

A hundred years ago it was said miracles of science would feed the world with an unbelievable array of giant, hearty and delicious foods. We're almost there. And we'll get there a lot faster without you kneejerk "anything with altered genes must be bad for you" reactionary luddites.

Stop complaining and take a moment to marvel at all science has wrought.

Re:stop complaining

[TubeSteak]

A hundred years ago it was said miracles of science would feed the world with an unbelievable array of giant, hearty and delicious foods. We're almost there. And we'll get there a lot faster without you kneejerk "anything with altered genes must be bad for you" reactionary luddites.

They could have made these bio-engineered fish grow bigger than their natural size, but they were more or less forced to genetically cap the growth at "market size" so that escaped fish would not outcompete natural stocks.

Re:stop complaining

[bill_mcgonigle]

miracles of science would feed the world with an unbelievable array of giant, hearty and delicious foods. We're almost there.

I was just talking about this with my daughter at the grocery store. We picked up some Polaner instead of the Smuckers because of their GMO positions.

The first GMO's were things like rice that grew Vitamin A so rural Asian children wouldn't go blind. That was good.

The logical next steps were to make all sorts of food that was healthy, tasty, vigorous, and efficient (able to grow in poor soils).

But instead, we got crops that are resistant to pesticides that are applied by the tanker load and vegetables that express their own pesticides, which, we're kinda-maybe-sure don't effect humans (but it hasn't really been studied).

Making fast-growing salmon is more like it's supposed to be, but the experience of the past decades shows that the critical vulnerability is the governments' Imaginary-Property system that their corporations are using to seize control of the food supply.

You're right about the science, but the governments have fucked it up (like pretty much everything else people ask them to save us from).

Re:stop complaining

[manu0601]

Stop complaining and take a moment to marvel at all science has wrought.

The problem is that science came with a wicked little brother called intellectual property. And now we get patented food.

Just label it

[Fuzzums]

If it's clear to me what king of food it it, it's fine with me.
If you want your future kids to have super human powers or gills, take the chance. Eat it!

There are numerous examples where commercial interest was greater than common sense. If anyone wants to gamble, PLEASE go ahead, but leave me out of it.

Re:Just label it

[slew]

FWIW, quite a bit of the fish sold in the US is mislabled already. Nobody seems to be doing much about it.

This report details how grim the situation is with non GM fish. There is probably no hope for labeling fish in general.

* 58 percent of the 81 retail outlets sampled sold mislabeled fish (three in five).
* Small markets had significantly higher fraud (40 percent) than national chain grocery stores (12 percent).
* 100 percent of the 16 sushi bars tested sold mislabeled fish.
* Tilefish, on the FDA’s do-not-eat list because of its high mercury content,1 was substituted for red snapper and halibut in a small market.
* 94 percent of the “white tuna” was not tuna at all, but escolar, a snake mackerel that has a toxin with purgative effects for people who eat more than a small amount of the fish.
* Thirteen different types of fish were sold as “red snapper,” including tilapia, white bass, goldbanded jobfish, tilefish, porgy/seabream, ocean perch and other less valuable snappers.

It won't be approved

[ohnocitizen]

They are opening it up for public comment. Americans distrust science when there is no risk at all. If people get riled up over vaccines, genetically modified fish ought to start quite the fire.

Sea lice from farmed salmon kill wild salmon

[kawabago]

Sea lice from farmed salmon are killing wild stocks off. Just imagine what frankenfish could do to the environment. Giant sea lice that attack swimmers. Overgrown sand sharks now man eaters. Pacific octopus, the worlds largest, could grow into something from Jules Verne imagination. Of course, none of these things are likely to occur. It is the things we can't think of that worry me.

FrankenFish!

[swschrad]

do NOT cook in an electric oven. you have been warned.

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[NIK282000]

I see the tinfoil hat lobby is here. Where does this cancer threat come from? Is it because the media equates anything with "DNA" to cancer? If you are that concerned about the effects of GM foods on your health or the health of your kids then STOP BEING SCARED OF IT and DO SOME RESEARCH. Yelling "its going to kill us all" isn't going to help any one, sit down and do some serious google work. Read everything you find on GM foods and not just the alarmist knee jerk reactions of the uninformed. Just because it's not natural doesn't mean its bad.

Re:We can already feed the world just fine

[BanHammor]

And if you eat an apple, you will inherit apple genes.
Your ideas are wildly intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

when is the correct term

[dutchwhizzman]

When is the correct term, because it will happen, soon more likely than later. Practice has proven that all genetically modified species we have created for human consumption, have moved into the wild and started breeding there. No exceptions. What happens to the wild population, what happens to the species that prey upon salmon, what happens to the rest of the eco system? If those things aren't thoroughly researched, I'd say don't approve (yet). Lets have wildlife conservationists pick a renown research facility and let them do a counter study to the study chosen for and paid by the company applying for the admission. The the company pay for that as well. Only accept results that are in both studies, to get any bias or disagreement amongst scientists out of this. Then see what to do.