Sci-Tech -   

1
This Aug. 7, 2007 photo provided by Trout Unlimited shows sockeye salmon in a river in the Bristol Bay, Alaska watershed. (AP Photo/Trout Unlimited, Ben Knight)

U.S. to rule on genetically modified 'frankenfish'

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV National News: Joy Malbon on the debate
Genetically engineered fish is sparking debate south of the border. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will be holding a hearing to decide if genetically modify fish should be approved for human consumption.
CTV News Channel: Christine Cushing, TV host
The host of 'Fearless in the Kitchen' explains why she would not serve genetically modified fish even though the FDA and Aqua Bounty say it's safe for human consumption. She says it's all about money.
CTV News Channel: Tracie Potts, NBC
An NBC correspondent says proponents of the debate are led by the company making the salmon, who say it is perfectly safe and identical to Atlantic salmon. She explains environmental and food safety groups are concerned there is little data to prove the genetically engineered fish is safe.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (35) Facebook   

This Aug. 7, 2007 photo provided by Trout Unlimited shows sockeye salmon in a river in the Bristol Bay, Alaska watershed. (AP Photo/Trout Unlimited, Ben Knight)

Photos

This Aug. 7, 2007 photo provided by Trout Unlimited shows sockeye salmon in a river in the Bristol Bay, Alaska watershed. (AP Photo/Trout Unlimited, Ben Knight)

View Larger Image

Date: Mon. Sep. 20 2010 9:12 PM ET

Food regulators in the United States are considering whether restaurants and grocery stores will be allowed to sell a genetically modified animal for the first time.

Two days of public hearings got underway in Washington Monday to analyze a U.S. company's proposal to create genetically engineered salmon -- the so-called Frankenfish.

Ron Stotish, CEO of AquaBounty, told Food and Drug Administration officials at the hearings that his company's fish is both safe to eat and environmentally sustainable.

But critics of genetically modified fish will also speak at the hearings. They are expected to argue that selling modified salmon could lead to allergies in humans and cripple wild salmon stocks.

Consumer and environmental groups from Canada and the U.S. have rallied against the proposal by AquaBounty, worried a favourable ruling would open the floodgates to the genetic modification of many food products destined for dinner tables.

The company -- which intends to make a similar request in Canada -- argues that its product will reduce pressure on wild salmon stocks.

The FDA has already said the salmon is healthy to eat. And while genetically modified crops are widely used in the U.S., the agency hasn't yet approved the sale of modified animals.

On Tuesday, the FDA hearings will examine the food labelling issues surrounding the potential approval of the modified fish. It is also expected to consider whether the government should allow the salmon to be sold on the market.

Approving Aqua Bounty's application could pave the way for genetically engineered animals, such as an environmentally friendly pig being developed here in Canada, and cattle that are resistant to mad cow disease.

"For future applications out there the sky's the limit," said David Edwards with the Biotechnology Industry Association. "If you can imagine it, scientists can try to do it."

AquaBounty, which has a large production facility in Bay Fortune, P.E.I., has faced challenges from opponents who say there are "gaps in the science" around whether the fish is safe to eat.

"We're really concerned that the U.S. government is not seriously looking at the health risks of eating (genetically engineered) fish," Mary Boyd of the PEI Health Coalition said in a statement last week.

"Certainly Health Canada should not even consider approving (genetically engineered) fish," she added.

Aqua Bounty intends to produce all the genetically modified fish eggs at the Bay Fortune facility.

The eggs would then be shipped to Panama to grow the fish to a sellable size and process them before they enter the U.S. market.

Salmon produced by Aqua Bounty is said to grow twice as fast as its natural counterparts due to the addition of genes from Pacific salmon and ocean pout to Atlantic salmon.

The fish, which are 99 per cent sterile, would be kept in tanks on land -- protective measures that Aqua Bounty says ensure the safety of its product.

The company first applied for FDA approval in 1995. However, the FDA only began to consider applications for genetically modified animals two years ago.

The genetic engineering process involved altering a creature's DNA to create any number of desirable traits.

AquaBounty's salmon contain a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon and a gene from an ocean pout fish that allow them to grow much more quickly than naturally occurring salmon.

With files from The Associated Press

Comments are now closed for this story

hostone
said

wait till the kids hit 7 feet tall with the growth hormones


Doug in BC
said

.The scariest part about this gene is if it encourages the fish to escape from their tank and then walk the 20 km to the ocean, jump into the ocean and breed with wild fish.. Now that would be one scary mutant gene splice.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

@ Don K: I wish that I could genetically engineer your type to be less politically sensitive and lacking in a sense of humor. ...Oh, well.


BombTech
said

Yes this can be scary for some people, but come on......., this could feed millions of 3rd world country people, just like the modified corn they are eating now. There is NO issues with health with the modified corn, it has just been altered to grow in a different climate. I don't know, maybe being to WAR 4 times makes me love life and to feed these people would solve some problems. I have risked my life, and should have lost it more times than 10 people can count on their fingers and toes, that the importance of feeding people is greater than the risk. It is easy to sit here in Canada, where there are lots of fresh, safe supermarket food around, but the people in 3rd world countries would kill for this. Hell, I would eat it, looks plump and meaty to me! Bottom line.....all you Canadian's who have never endangered your life for your country and have never seen REAL death and poverty, after going to the grocery store being able to pick from LOTS of "organic" or fresh food and to go home and sit on your BUTT and complain about this....screw you!!!!! For everyone who commented on this, articile and doesn't have a truly starving member in their family will know what I am talking about!


Jim McB
said

If you believe in evolution or even science you would have to agree that everything we eat has been genetically modified. The only difference is the time it took and the features that are being targetted.Fringe groups are always opposed to something, so it might as well be this.


viclau
said

So should we stop test tube baby? As it is UN-natural and science can't tell the future thing...


ZacHfx
said

Nico the FDA has already said it is safe to eat, so if they are going to disagree with what the FDA says then they should have something to back up what they are saying


Don K
said

Another needless partisan comment from Prof. Pye Chartt despite the fact that this story didn't even mention Liberals or Conservatives.... I wish I had time to read and comment on every story written on this website. As for the story itself, it's completely terrifying especially since long term effects are unknown.


MiggsVer2.0
said

We've all been eating genetically modified animals for quite some time now. It's called "selective breeding". If anyone thinks the genes of an average beef cow are the same as they were 100 years ago then you're sadly mistaken.


Abdula from Gatineau
said

I wonder if anyone has considered the fact that a 99% sterile fish might pose a threat if a number of male fish (which can fertilize many eggs) are accidentally released. The 1% element could introduce a problem. 1% could fertilize a large number of fish with the genetic propensity to be sterile and 1% of these could do the same. Over time Salmon stocks would be reduced. How could this occur? Well they are going to ship them to Panama let's say the ship sinks or the plane crashes? this sounds so unsafe. Oh and BTW Prof Pye Chart the only political element here is what input the industry has on the FDA Ignatief is no more a "Frankenleader" than you are a real Prof.


Patrick Champion - Atlanta
said

It would seem that everyone is sticking their heads in the sand here. A basic reality is being forgotten. Genetically modified animals WILL happen. Very likely not in Canada, and maybe/maybe not isn US, but it will almost certainly happen several times in the next 20 years whether in China, India, middle east or somewhere where business and government actions are not transparent and there is a strong incentive (possibly even ecological incentive because we are overharvesting our planet's species). People also forget about viral mutation (or lack of mutation - I'm thinking of the white nose bat plague here that is wiping out bat's by the millions) of species which could cause similarly potent changes to a species. The biggest problem in GM looks to be companies that splice in genes from radically different species (slug genes put into a corn plant for instance). Here there is a genetic migration between salmon species - a small leap. Still, one should do a chemical analysis of the modified salmon for any spikes in hormones and like chemicals that exceed normal variation in the sum of the species involved. Perhaps somewhat costly to run, but it would go a long way to revealing any principal dangers.


Stinks...
said

Why do these people have to tamper with nature? It's always about the money god$.


Nico
said

To ZacHfx:The onus should be on the company to prove that their product is safe, not the other way around.


Pippin Roosevelt II, Lancastershirevilletown, UK
said

Does it really matter what we eat? In a few years we will all be eating food in pill form anyways.


Havelock Heavy
said

Such a waste of time and resources. Who gave these people authority to tinker with nature? We don't need frankenfish. Let's ensure responsible harvest of the naturally occurring fish in the ocean. Let's not create problems for our kids and grandkids generation by tinkering with things that we are unsure about.


Margaret Taylor
said

Genetic engineering has been practiced for decades! What's the big deal??? I remember when the development of "Winter Wheat" was a big deal! It meant another crop for grain producers in our colder climate.I remember when "selective" breeding was used to create better producing dairy cattle. So WHAT'S the big deal??? Much ado about nothing, methinks!Margaret Taylor


Travis
said

Can we send some of that genetically modified salmon to starving countries?Just remember folks, it's easy to shun genetically modified food when you aren't starving.I'd rather eat genetically modified food, than some of the garbage at the grocery store that passes off as food.Reducing pressure on fish stocks by creating a genetic variation (something that could have happened naturally if mother nature got back to working her mojo) is all about feeding the future.Scientists are working hard to solve the worlds crises (current, and emerging). What have the rest of us done to better mankind? Procreating doesn't count.It's not like scientists are assembling DNA from the fiddly bits of completely unrelated animals, and creating a true Frankenstein. They are using close genetic variants. What do you think happens when people from different races decide to procreate?Evolution is evolution. Sometimes it's evolution through de-evolution. Get used to it - this is how the world works.


kestral
said

don't want the need for the world to have frankenfish? it's simple, limit human breeding. we have to feed the people of the earth, and wild stocks simply won't survive our rampant growth.


Science
said

"frankenfish" has to be one of the most irritating terms i have ever heard. GMOs can be hugely beneficial for human beings. They can also have negative consequences, but with intelligent management we will be better off. Unfounded fears come from a lack of understanding of genetics and science in general. It is highly unlikely that ingesting these fish will have detrimental effects on humans. All they have done is add a promoter to the genome, so nothing new is being made in the fish, the targeted gene just stays "on" for longer. The things that must really be a cause for concern are the ecological effects of these fish, but if they are made sterile I see no problem with them. BTW domestication is engineering, you think cows could live with out humans? They were domesticated by early humans, AKA controlling the contents of their genome through selective breeding... same with corn, and lettuce, and broccoli, and potatoes, and pretty much every major plant food source.


Justin
said

Most people above are taking the view that as their are potential unknowns we should not do this. But what is the alternative?The world population has increased 2.7X in the last 50 years (2.4 billion to 6.5 billion) and will continue to grow. That requires more food. Most 1st world arable land is now employed and standard fertliziers and cross-breeding have pretty much been fully utliized. GMOs offer a possible respite so that people don't starve in the near future. The alternative is a $50 loaf of bread at the local grocer or, in this case, a $500 pound of fish.Don't believe me? Last year wheat (a stable of the world) had the largest recorded harvest ever. Ending supplies still fell slightly! Check the facts on that one yourself.So for all you people against this please indicate an alternative foord source with the same potential as these so called "greedy" corporations are the ones that will feed you throughout the 21st century.From the dawn of time till the 1930's a family spent 40-70% of ites budget on food. Modern society is built around food costing less than 10% of a families costs. Without new "improvements" to food beyond what is currently available that will again become the norm.


Mike the Patriot
said

WE have new weeds and other genetic mutations appearing from GMO seeds and crops. Not that Monsanto will ever let it be published. Nor will they let a non-GMO farmer alone. Law suit after law suit shutting down farmer after farmer. We can not let anything stand in the way of profit! Now comes geneticly modified fish that will no doubt one day be a number one concern and problem. But today it is all about profit. Monsanto and the large corporations have made it very clear! They do not care about you or the environment you try to live in if it gets in the way of their profit. Profit is all that matters!


Keith in Brampton
said

No frankenfoods on my dinner plate please! ALL such foods should be banned, or barring that, should be clearly labelled - including processed food containing such items as ingredients.


Mike
said

No idea what might grow out of this. Super virus, new parasite, something unthought of and equally disturbing I am sure. But no one knows for sure. We do know for sure there is profits in genetic mutations. There is money to be made today and who cares about the future? Damn the torpedoes full steam ahead.


Chuck
said

The FDA is compelled to make their decision based on sound science - not politics and not consumer impressions. Contrary to other comments here, food safety is one of the things that FDA will evaluate. Let them do their job. If people have non-scientific reasons for avoiding GM salmon, e.g. religious or moral reasons, then that is their individual right but it is not an opinion to be forced on the rest of society.


W.R.Fries,Sr.
said

The fish 'looks' safe enough, but what does that prove... If they are injecting 'growth hormones' would they like the cattle,chicken, and pork meats,,, transfer the excess hormones to the human consumer,,,, complicating it's growth and maturity cycles.... But if these fish are 'sterile' and raised in tanks not in ocean 'pens' They what they '**ll' couldn't they be matured in tanks on the 'Great Plains' of the US??????? That would guarantee that no fish would enter the ocean environment ????


Mike J.
said

"It will reduce pressure on wild salmon stocks," [ translation ] we will reduce the pressure by making wild salmon extinct in 20-30 years. FDA is all about protecting Drug and Chemical company's profits,thats the way it has always been and always will be...Health Canada is truly a public owned company and doesn't take direction from Food,Drug and Chemical companys,so i hope they will make a truly common sense decision on protecting the health of Canadians and not the health of Food,Drug and Chemical companys.


Mick Patriot
said

We do not even have the gnome mapped out yet. We do not understand the long term potential. We do not understand genetics to even begin to grasp all the potential pitfalls. Safety is not the issue though. Genetic mutations, new viruses, new parasites and all the other genetic potential issues are unknown but likely deadly. The issue here is GREED. Let us make money! We may wipe out the enitre human race but that is umimportant next to me making a billion dollars today. Let the world die tomorrow ir I get my millions today! If it gets in the way of profit it was not important anyway. Like the Gulf of Mexico and the rush for profits in the oil industry. To hell with safety if it interferes with my profits. Way to go BP! How is it working out for you anyway. Pushing to open that well when it wasn't safe, need to make money on that well, WE (BP) have already spent millions it must come in now. We must make profit. How is that descision working out for you anyway BP? So let us not learn from the past and charge blindly into this profit machine!


Niagara George
said

When the hearings were held to determine if funding should be given to MS treatments following Dr. Zamboni's procedures, it was determined there wasn't sufficient scientific proof the technique worked. That was done in spite of the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of people have benefited from it. Now they want to feed us unproven Frankenfish. I'll bet we can all guess how this attempt at approval will turn out. Suddenly 'unproven' will not be a problem.


SmarterThanYall
said

So, these fish are 99% sterile and will be kept in tanks on land. Swell. So what happens if even one non-sterile Frankenfish escapes to the wild and is able to introduce it's genes to the world? The answer to that has to be an unqualified, "We don't know." Given that, and given that some of possible answers are nothing less than terrifying, the whole enterprise is a dangerous folly.


jostmey
said

I would be afraid of eating Genetically modified fish if the fish showed higher levels of growth hormone. But that is not how these fish work. Natural salmon only grow for a few months out of the year. This is because the growth hormone is expressed for only a few months.The genetically modified salmon have been modified to contain the gene of another fish that grows all year round. Thus, the salmon express growth hormone all year round... but not at greater levels.


my take on this
said

Preserve fish stocks my a$$.Let's create another Monsanto, put tens of thousands of fishermen out of work and create another way for big business to control our food supply.


ZacHfx
said

"We're really concerned that the U.S. government is not seriously looking at the health risks of eating (genetically engineered) fish," Mary Boyd of the PEI Health Coalition said in a statement last week.Do they actually have any science to back up their concerns? Or are they just basing these concerns on their personal beliefs that gm food is bad without any real evidence. A lot of our food has been genetically modified over time, only it was done through the low tech and slow method of selective breading. It would be nice for once if one of these groups that is raising “concerns†would give the public so hard facts to back up what they are saying, instead of just fear mongering.


Matty
said

Who is Mary Boyd and what is the PEI Health Coalition, and what make them “really concerned that the US govt is not looking at the health risks of eating genetically engineered fish”. Doesn’t the FDA exist for the purpose of determining whether food is safe for consumption or not? I’m guessing they have top notch scientists on staff with tons of state of the art federally funded testing equipment while the PEI Health Coalition has a lot of people with nothing better to do.


virgo
said

what a disaster. why don't we ever learnf rom our mistakes. we went from a time where everything was grown locally and organically to this push where food is shipped froma ll parts of the world and covered in pesticides. to another push where organic is best BUT you have to pay more for it now). Now we are repeating the cycle with genetically modified fodo. This is too much of a bad idea. Teh long term consequences are not known no matter what the FDA or this company says. You can't possibly know whats going to happen 5, 10, 15 , 20 50, 100 yrs from now other you would be considered a psychic. SCIENCE can't predict the future.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

Stomaching a "Frankenleader" (Liberal Michael Ignatieff) is hard enough on your gastrointestinal tract, and contravenes respectable political science. Consumption of "Frankenfish" should rest only on in-depth scientific analysis and thorough health-related study. As we've regretfully discovered in Canadian politics, the risks associated with genetic engineering (modification) can be significant.


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Sci-Tech Stories

Models display a Samsung Galaxy S III, the latest smartphone in the company's Galaxy lineups, during its launching for media in Jakarta, Indonesia, Tuesday, May 22, 2012. Samsung said the phone, that has emerged as the biggest competitor to the iPhone, will go on sale in 145 countries with 296 phone companies, making it the company's biggest launch so far. (AP Photo/Dita Alangkara)

Samsung releases latest Galaxy smartphone in Europe

More

Cows are shown grazing on an organic dairy farm in Jordan, Minn., in a May 31, 2006 file photo. (AP / Jim Mone)

Massages and waterbeds boost milk output in cows

More

Surgery

Scientists, doctors use snake robots for surgery

More