[inquieto] GM Salmon

From: Iron
To: Ca Fa mlist

GM SALMON

Giant salmon will be first GM animal available for eating
By Louise Gray
A salmon that grows at twice the normal rate is set to be the first genetically modified (GM) animal available for human consumption.
Usually Atlantic salmon do not grow during the winter and take three years to fully mature.
But by implanting genetic material from an eel-like species called ocean pout that grows all year round, US scientists have managed to make the fish grow to full size in 18 months.
They hope that the sterile GM salmon can offer an efficient and safe way to breed salmon in fish farms, so that the wild fish can be left in the oceans.
US watchdog the Food and Drug Administration is currently considering whether the GM Atlantic salmon, called AquAdvantage, is safe to eat. The fish could be on supermarket shelves within a year.
But environmental campaigners question whether the GM material is safe for humans to consume and fear the sterile salmon will mutate in the wild and be able to breed.
At the moment only GM crops like corn or soy are available for human consumption. Also the Daily Telegraph revealed recently that most animal products available in supermarkets, like meat, eggs or dairy, are from livestock fed GM.
But despite the creation of a GM mouse as early as the 1980s, the idea of eating modified animals does not appeal to the public.
AquaBounty, the Massachusetts company behind the GM salmon, say the fish will be sterile and therefore poses no risk to the wild.
The AquAdvantage would also be a much more energy efficient way to produce a nutritional food source, they claim.
Another project at the University of Guelph in Canada is developing a pig bred to digest food more effectively.
But Lord Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, said the new technology is not worth the risk.
"Once you have bombarded an animal with other genes, the DNA is unstable, and there is no guarantee these fish remain sterile. It poses far too great a risk to wild salmon. A fish that grows that quickly is likely to lose some of its environmental benefits. There is no such thing as a free salmon lunch and we will pay the price," he said.
It will be a huge victory for the biotechnology industry if a GM animal becomes available for human consumption.
But in the UK, the public remains suspicious of 'Frankenfoods'. A Food Standards Agency survey to find out what the public think of the new technology is currently stalling after two leading academics resigned in protest at the government body's 'pro-GM' stance.


Genetically Altered Salmon Set to Move Closer to Your Table
By Andrew Pollack
The Food and Drug Administration is seriously considering whether to approve the first genetically engineered animal that people would eat - salmon that can grow at twice the normal rate.

The developer of the salmon has been trying to get approval for a decade. But the company now seems to have submitted most or all of the data the F.D.A. needs to analyze whether the salmon are safe to eat, nutritionally equivalent to other salmon and safe for the environment, according to government and biotechnology industry officials. A public meeting to discuss the salmon may be held as early as this fall.

Some consumer and environmental groups are likely to raise objections to approval. Even within the F.D.A., there has been a debate about whether the salmon should be labeled as genetically engineered (genetically engineered crops are not labeled).

The salmon's approval would help open a path for companies and academic scientists developing other genetically engineered animals, like cattle resistant to mad cow disease or pigs that could supply healthier bacon. Next in line behind the salmon for possible approval would probably be the "enviropig," developed at a Canadian university, which has less phosphorus pollution in its manure.


10 Freakiest things about Frankenfish
by Ronnie Cummins

10. Frankenfish Aren't Animals, They're "Animal Drugs"
Obama's FDA is regulating genetically engineered salmon, a genetically modified organism (GMO) that is the first of its kind, not as an animal, but as an animal drug.
Normally, a veterinary drug would be used for health purposes, but there's no therapeutic benefit associated with jacking up an Atlantic salmon with the genes of a Chinook salmon and the eel-like ocean pout to make it grow twice as fast. On the contrary, genetic engineering increases the salmon's mortality, disease and deformity.
So, why would the FDA treat a the first genetically engineered animal for human consumption like a drug? The idea came from the biotech industry. They knew that the FDA's animal drug process would keep companies' "proprietary" information secret, while limiting public participation and downplaying food safety concerns. Genius.

9. The GMO Part of the GMO Salmon Isn't Being Safety Tested
Since 1992, the FDA has operated under the legal fiction created by the Bush-Quayle Administration that there is no risk associated with the human consumption of genetically engineered plants and animals. The FDA explains that DNA is Generally Recognized as Safe, so genetically engineered DNA is safe, too, and it doesn't have to be safety tested.

8. Frankenfish DNA Could Change the Bacteria of Your Gut
A human study conducted by the UK's Food Standards Agency found that consuming genetically engineered soy can result in "horizontal gene transfer," where the bacteria of the gut takes up the soy's modified DNA. With GMO salmon, the bacteria of our digestive tracks could take up the engineered salmon genes, but the FDA isn't looking into whether this would happen or how it might effect our health.

7. If It Swims Like a Salmon, FDA Says It's Safe to Eat
Instead of reviewing the safety of consuming genetically engineered salmon DNA, the FDA food safety review is a simple quacks-like-a-duck-style comparison of genetically engineered and normal salmon for hormone levels, nutrition, and allergenic potency.

6. FDA Lets the Frankenfish Company Test Its Own Product's Safety
The FDA's food safety review of GMO salmon consists of collecting data produced by AquaBounty, the company that wants to sell it. Not surprisingly, that data is seriously flawed.
* AquaBounty did not always segregate, or even collect, data specific to their AquAdvantage GMO Salmon. And, FDA did not require AquaBounty to produce data in the actual conditions under which the salmon will be commercially produced, so we don't have food safety data on the Panama-raised, triploid, monosex AquAdvantage Salmon that people will be actually be eating if the FDA grants approval.
* FDA did not require AquaBounty to show that AquAdvantage and normal salmon were similar when raised under the same conditions. AquaBounty's food safety data for genetically engineered salmon did not have to match data for its control salmon. FDA compared AquaBounty's data for genetically engineered salmon to data for farmed salmon raised under unknown conditions and data for salmon from other scientific studies.
* AquaBounty only tested a few fish, making it less likely that its food safety studies would reveal statistically significant differences between genetically engineered and normal salmon.
* AquaBounty's detection levels were often set too low to produce food safety data for comparison.
* AquaBounty selected which fish to test, and unblinded samples.
But, even with all of the flaws and biases that likely hid differences between GMO and normal salmon, it's clear that Frankenfish isn't same.

5. Frankenfish Is More Carcinogenic
GMO salmon has 40% more IGF1, a hormone linked to prostate, breast and colon cancers in humans.

4. Frankenfish Is Less Nutritious
GE salmon is less nutritious than normal salmon. It has the lowest omega-3 to omega-6 ratio of all the salmon in the studies FDA reviewed

3. Frankenfish Is More Allergenic
GE salmon have mean allergenic potencies that are 20% and 52% higher than normal salmon, increasing the risk of potentially deadly allergic reactions.

2. GMOs Can Mess a Fish Up!
The FDA notes evidence of "increased frequency of skeletal malformations, and increased prevalence of jaw erosions and multisystemic, focal inflammation" in the tissues of GMO salmon.
Most people wouldn't be too surprised to learn that genetic engineering can mess a fish up. What might shock you is that the FDA dismisses these findings as "within the range observed in rapid growth phenotypes of non-genetically engineered Atlantic salmon."
The abnormalities FDA found weren't much worse than those currently plaguing the factory farmed salmon selected for rapid growth and subjected to the physiological stress of intensive production. "Screamer disease" deforms 80% of Chilean salmon and "humpback" spinal compression is found in 70% of Norwegian salmon operations.

1. The Government Wants More Transgenic Fish and Less Wild Fish
The main justification for GMO salmon is that it could "reduce the pressure on wild fish stocks". But, consumption isn't the primary pressure on wild Alaskan salmon, which gets a "best choice" rating from the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program. The biggest threat to wild Alaskan salmon is the destruction of their habitat.
Ironically, as Paul Greenberg, author of the new book "Four Fish," explains, "While the government seeks to boost farmed salmon supplies through transgenics, it is simultaneously letting wild salmon go to pot."
The spawning grounds of wild salmon in Bristol Bay, Alaska, are threatened by the international mining giant, Anglo-American, which plans to construct Pebble Mine, the largest open-pit copper and gold mine in the US. Two months ago, a copper mine failure in China's TingRiver killed millions of fish. A similar disaster at Pebble Mine could mean the destruction of a quarter of a billion pounds of salmon, curiously, about the same amount of GMO salmon Aqua Bounty hopes to produce. The EPA could stop Pebble Mine through the Clean Water Act but has failed to act.
Greenberg writes, "More transgenic fish, less wild fish. You have to scratch your head at a government that's planning that kind of seafood menu for its citizens. Instead of endorsing a risky experiment in genetic salmon modification wouldn't it be better if our leaders protected wild salmon habitat? In the end we'd have just as much fish on our plates and a safer environment to boot."