|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The benefits of wild caught salmon compared
to the health and environmental risks of farmed fish was presented
in "Wild Salmon Don't
Do Drugs" (TLfDP #235/236, Feb/March
2003 issue). This discussion
will highlight additional threats from biotechnology in the fishing
industry
and the need for consumer advocacy.
The American food supply is currently bombarded with genetically engineered
soy, corn, potatoes, dairy products, and more, with no labels informing the
consumer of these controversial experimental foods. The fish industry is now
pushing for approval of transgenic or genetically engineered (GE) fish.
After decades of carelessly polluting the oceans with toxic run-off, oil spills,
and global warming, man is now purposefully seeking to alter the aquaculture
in a way that could have devastating consequences for generations to come.
Fishing companies want to market GE salmon capable of growing faster and larger
than wild fish, claiming this will help feed the world's burgeoning
population. Critics and conservatives fear this scientific experiment could
backfire and actually wipe out all the native stock, with dire consequences
to the entire aquaculture.
Accidental Discovery
Genetically engineering salmon came
about by accident 20 years ago when a Newfoundland researcher froze
a tank full of flounder, and surprisingly the fish survived.
Flounder and other fish from the icy waters of Canada have genetically adapted
to thrive in their cold environment. Researchers found a protein that prevents
these fish from freezing, and it became known as the "antifreeze" gene.1
Canadian scientists attempted to splice the antifreeze gene into Atlantic
salmon with the idea that salmon farms could be developed in colder waters.
The antifreeze
splicing was not successful. However, scientists learned this gene also controls
growth. The genetic material is injected into salmon eggs and alters the fish's
growth hormones, enabling those hormones to be produced by the liver and pituitary
gland. That change greatly accelerates growth, causing GE fish to grow two
to three times faster and much larger than normal, which has led some critics
to coin the term, "Frankenfish." Critics emphasize that no testing
of transgenic foods has been done.1,2
In addition to salmon, transgenic tilapia, trout, and carp are now being experimented
with for the commercial market.2
Safety Factor
Are genetically engineered fish safe
to eat? No one is sure. It is known that excessive growth results in
deformities of the head and jaw that could easily
be passed on to wild stock during breeding. The FDA is limiting its review
of GE fish as a "New Animal Drug," and not as a "food" product
for humans.2
The technology is so new there are no laws, regulations, or guidelines in place
to protect public health. Once approved, there is no turning back. Contrary
to industry promises of containment, real life situations have proven containment
is a fantasy, not a reality. Escapes from fish farms have become routine and
impossible to prevent. Another doubtful promise from industry is that GE fish
will be sterile and pose no problem to wild stock. Cautious scientists believe
there is no such thing as a 100% guarantee of sterility given the great possibility
for human error and natural variation.2
The A/F Protein Company of Massachusetts claims to have back orders for 15
million eggs. It would only take a handful of those to be fertile to potentially
destroy natural populations of wild stock. The stakes are high. At present
there are no national or international regulations in place to protect the
environment and human health from potential risks associated with transgenic
fish.2
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the first regulatory agency in
the world to receive an application to approve the commercial development of
GE fish. Environmental advocates feel this is entirely inappropriate because
the FDA has no relevant environmental experience and should not be deciding
on international issues that affect the world's oceans and a major food
source.2 It is also possible that another country would permit GE fish farms
even if the US does not. Threats to the environment and food supply would still
remain.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) warns that using genetic engineering
to alter animal production and growth could negatively impact the food supply
and create new risks for public health and the environment. The FDA has asked
the authors of the NAS report, "Animal Biotechnology: Identifying Science-Based
Concerns," to identify issues of concern associated with the new field
of genetic engineering.2
GE salmon that grow faster and larger than normal fish were found by Purdue
scientists to have mating advantages over wild species. But their offspring
suffer one-third greater mortality rate because of the impact of added genetic
material. The Purdue scientists predict the introduction of GE fish could cause
extinction of native species within only a few generations.3
Designed for rapid growth, transgenic fish have voracious appetites that scientists
believe will out-compete wild stock for food when GE fish escape from their
contained environment.2 Scientists from the Royal Society of Canada say such
rapid growth could increase insulin and other chemical compounds in GE fish.
No one knows how the constant production of growth hormone might affect the
fish, or the people who eat them.4
The technology has already produced GE (or cloned) dairy cows, chickens, pigs,
and beef cattle, though not yet on a commercial scale. The NAS study specifies
that GE fish may present the greatest environmental threat since penned fish
cannot be fully contained and frequently break out, mixing with wild stock.2
Transgenic fish have been genetically engineered to contain certain desired
traits. Biotechnologists have transferred genetic material from other fish,
humans, and insects. Besides health and safety issues, there are moral issues
to consider. Industry scientists appear to be in a frenzy with more than 35
species of GE fish being developed around the world.3
It brings to mind the post-WWII "atoms for peace" campaign to
construct nuclear power plants with no thought to the health risks associated
with living downwind from an operating plant and the as yet unresolved problem
of nuclear waste disposal that eminent scientists promised would be in place
long ago. Just like the nuclear issue, the technology for creating genetically
engineered foods greatly exceeds man's ability to understand the long-term
consequences to human health and the environment, or the ability to undo potential
damage caused by the new technology.
Meticulous multi-generational, multi-species lab studies need to be performed
to discern even the subtlest effects on growth and development from consuming
GE foods. It is irresponsible for industry to make unsubstantiated claims that
GE foods are essentially no different than non-GE foods.
Who's Regulating the Regulators?
The FDA is the only regulatory agency currently reviewing the licensing of
GE fish, however, the FDA is woefully lacking in expertise to recognize potential
impacts on human health and the marine ecosystems that may be irrevocably
ruined by the introduction of GE fish into commercial aquaculture.5
Because there are no federal laws designed to govern the regulation of genetically
engineered animals grown for human consumption, the FDA decided to review transgenic
fish under "new animal drugs." To receive FDA approval, producers
must complete a New Animal Drug Application (NADA), and demonstrate the safety
and effectiveness of these fish.5
The Washington DC-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) revealed
that companies producing GE crops avoided answering questions and submitted
erroneous data on federal applications aimed at ensuring the safety of bio-engineered
foods before they are marketed. CSPI learned that FDA requests for additional
information were frequently ignored, and even more startling, that the FDA
overlooked factual and scientific errors in applications for GE tomatoes and
cantaloupes.6
The unsuspecting consumer may be surprised to learn that industry determines
how to conduct its own safety reviews and what information will be submitted.
Since the FDA doesn't tell companies what to test for, many applications
avoid including information on potential allergic or toxic reactions and nutrient
content of the transgenic product.6
The FDA is continually giving approval for drugs that are later recalled for
harming or killing hundreds of patients, however, attempts to recall transgenic
fish that break loose from their pens and nets will be impossible. Einstein
said, "Smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them." This is
a problem that requires great wisdom.
With the revolving door policy of industry experts finding temporary employment
at governmental regulatory agencies in order to facilitate approval for any
number of industry demands, can we really trust our regulatory agencies to
protect public health? With all due respect to the many honorable government
representatives who do their best to fulfill their obligations, the sad reality
is that the powerful influence of big business often overrides the noble efforts
of honest men and women. Therefore, the responsibility falls to us as consumers
to speak up on our own behalf, or suffer the consequences.
Greenpeace has initiated a protest at the development facility of the A/F Protein
Co., and requested the FDA deny applications for the commercial sale of genetically
modified fish. A moratorium on GE fish has been signed by dozens of scientists
and fishing organizations including the American Society of Ichthyologists
and Herpetologists; Canada's leading scientific body, the Royal Society;
and Jean-Michel Cousteau, president of Ocean Futures.
Maryland was the first state to pass its own moratorium on the production of
GE fish, followed by the state of Washington, which adopted sweeping new regulations
to permanently ban GE salmon from fish farms in all its marine waters.2,7
On May 9, 2001, a coalition of more than 60 petitioners, including environmental
protection organizations, fishing companies and fishermen filed legal petitions
with the FDA, Dept. of the Interior (DOI), Dept. of Commerce (DOC), Dept. of
Defense (DOD), and Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), demanding a moratorium on the
domestic marketing and importation of transgenic fish until the impacts to
human safety and the environment have been adequately addressed.5
Canada's expert panel on the regulation of food biotechnology reviewed
the ecological risks associated with the commercialization of GE fish that
escape from net pens, and found there were significant uncertainties regarding
threats to wild fish. The Royal Society has endorsed a moratorium on raising
GE fish in aquatic net pens.8
Labeling Controversy
The labeling controversy began over
a decade ago with the distribution of milk from cows treated with bovine
growth hormone (BGH). The majority of consumers
wanted BGH dairy products to be labeled. Industry won out and even sued a
few small dairy farmers that dared to label their products "BGH Free." Hundreds
of processed food items now contain by-products from GE corn and soy. The
FDA has ignored consumer requests for adequate labeling of GE products, and
given in to industry's refusal to do so.
Promoters of GE fish also refuse to label any such products. Another Washington
based consumer advocacy group, Center for Food Safety (CFS), has filed a legal
petition with the FDA demanding that all transgenic foods undergo independent
human health and environmental testing. More than 600,000 consumers have sent
comments to the FDA, the largest public response ever on a food issue. Comments
can be submitted via www.foodsafetynow.org.4
Consumer Action
The Center for Food Safety has joined Clean Water Action and Friends of the
Earth in taking legal action to prevent the environmental and health threats
posed by GE fish. A legal petition has been filed demanding a moratorium
on the sale or importation of GE fish into open waters, including ponds and
net pens.4
A grassroots effort has been undertaken to encourage restaurants, grocers,
and fish distributors to pledge their refusal to purchase or sell transgenic
fish. As of February 20, 2003, a pledge to protect consumers and marine ecosystems
from GE fish has been signed by 270 grocers, 173 restaurants, and 26 fish distributors
from around the country. Consumer advocates who wish to join the campaign against
transgenic fish can do several things:
1. Visit www.gefish.org to learn more about the issue
2. Write or call the FDA in support of the GE Fish Petition (a sample
letter can be requested by calling 1-800-600-6664)
3. Encourage local chefs, restaurants, fish markets, and grocers to
sign the petition which can be downloaded from www.gefish.org
4. Contact state representatives and senators about the need to ban
GE fish from open waters
5. Call the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine to express concern over
approval of GE fish (301-827-3797). Check their website periodically
for regional public meetings and attend if possible — www.fda.gov/cvm (in
Hot Topics, click Biotechnology)
References
1. Genetic Engineering creates supersalmon — and
controversy, Ecoglobe News, 12/2/99, http://www.ecoglobe.org.nz/news1999/d029news.htm. (02/04:
Story no longer at this link. However, site has a wealth of information.)
2. Genetically Engineered Salmon: Q&A: Genetic Engineering: Greenpeace
USA 10/30/02, http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/ge/fish_qa_text.htm.
3. Protect Our Waters from GE Fish! a consumer advisory from the Center
for Food Safety.
4. Food Safety Now, a Publication of the Center for Food Safety, Summer
2002, Vol. One, No.1.
5. Executive Summary of The Center for Food Safety's Genetically
Engineered Fish Legal Petitions, Campaign on GE Fish, http://www.stopgefish.org.(02/04,
Web address now redirects to a porn site.)
6. Abboud, L., Makers of Modified Crops Faulted On Safety Data Submitted
to FDA, Wall Street Journal, 1/7/03.
7. Genetically Engineered Fish Ban in Washington State Waters, Wild
Matters (formerly Food & Water), Feb 2003.
8. Scientific Studies on Genetically Engineered Fish, The Center for
Food Safety.
Health Risks and Environmental Issues
by Rose Marie Williams, MA
156 Sparkling Ridge Road • New Paltz, New York 12561 USA
845-255-0836 • Fax 845-255-5101
|
|