|
Genetic Modification
With diminishing ocean fishery resources, increasing demand for
food from a growing human population, and projected increases
in aquaculture yields (FAO 2004), it is no surprise that multinational
biotechnology and aquaculture corporations are funding research
and development into genetic modification of finfish, shellfish,
crustaceans (shrimps) and other marine organisms, including algae
(phytoplankton and seaweeds), in order to increase the performance-
and profitability-enhancing traits of farmed aquatic resources.
This recent push by some in the industry, however,
poses significant risks to the environment, and — potentially
— to human health. In addition, there are serious questions
regarding the credibility of claims about increased food security
through genetic modification of aquatic animals, especially when
much of the primary focus of aquaculture biotechnology is largely
on luxury products for supplying high-end markets.
SeaWeb
Genetically modified (GM) fish and shellfish are bred for traits
to improve their commercial viability, such as enhanced growth
rates, tolerance for specific environmental conditions, and feed
conversion efficiency. However, such enhanced characteristics
may have potentially negative consequences. For example, improved
growth rates and cold tolerance traits of GM salmon could mean
that escaped fish could potentially out-compete wild fish. GM
fish and shellfish may contain new substances or high levels of
substances that could be detrimental to human health. For example,
altering the genetic makeup of an organism may induce the production
of new proteins, or possibly even toxins, which can potentially
cause allergic reactions in consumers (SeaWeb 2006).
Genetically modified organisms are produced by
inserting the genes of one organism into the genetic code of another.
In the case of genetically modified Atlantic salmon, a growth
hormone gene from Chinook salmon and an antifreeze-protein gene
promoter from ocean pout are injected into fertilized eggs and
become part of the genetic makeup of the Atlantic salmon.
Transfers of small segments of genetic information across species
through genetic modification make the resulting organisms inherently
more unstable in their behavior than counterparts that are the
product of selective breeding, which entails the transfer of much
larger, but also much more stable segments of genetic information
between individuals of the same species.
SeaWeb
issue briefing
Patent GM salmon
In July 2003, US company Aqua
Bounty Technologies announced it had received funding to complete
the remaining human food safety and related studies required by
the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve the company's
AquAdvantage™ salmon. The company is hoping to become the
first to market transgenic [1] salmon. Business
Week (2006) reported that Aqua Bounty is in the final stages of
a five-year battle to get the product approved by the FDA. If
the company succeeds, AquAdvantage™ salmon could be on the
market by 2008.
AquAdvantage™ Broodstock Program
Aqua Bounty is also developing advanced-hybrid salmon, trout,
and tilapia broodstock engineered to grow faster than traditional
broodstock. AquAdvantage™ fish reach market size twice as fast
and convert feed into body mass 10-30% more efficiently than traditional
broodstock. These improvements provide both a highly compelling
economic benefit to farmers (reduced growing cycle, better feed
efficiency) as well as benefits to the environment from reduced
release of waste products, faster fallowing cycles and potential
improvement of the economic viability of inland operations, thereby
mitigating the need for more environmentally consequential ocean
pens. The fish are also neutered so the threat of interbreeding
with native populations, a major recent concern in salmon farming,
is avoided.
…the AquAdvantage™ fish grow faster and reach mature size
earlier than standard fish, but they do not grow to be larger.
Mature AquAdvantage™ fish are effectively identical and indistinguishable
by the consumer in all respects to their conventional counterparts.
Ongoing research is expanding the application of the AquAdvantage™
technology to other finfish and crustaceans and is focused on
identifying other desirable traits such as disease resistance
and cold tolerance. In shrimp, for example, a "forced-selection"
technique has enabled the Company to identify specific genetic
markers that correlate with increased growth rates and good health
of P. stylirostris, a popular white shrimp.
Aqua
Bounty website
"Less feed will be required to grow these fish, and with
a dramatically shorter harvest cycle, more fish can be grown without
increasing the amount of coastal areas dedicated to marine farming.
Lower costs of production will also allow a greater number of
fish to be grown in inland facilities, away from costal waters
altogether," said Elliot Entis, president and CEO of Aqua
Bounty Technologies (IntraFish 2003).
GM salmon in Ireland?
In 2001, the IntraFish news agency reported that National University
of Ireland, Galway denied it was or had "ever carried out
research on GM fish in the past". According to the report,
however, while actual GM fish may not have been grown in Ireland,
research on genetic material to be inserted in transgenic salmon
was definitely carried out by the National Diagnostic Centre (NDC),
part of NUI Galway.
Dr Terry Smith, the general manager of the NDC, stated in the
Galway Advertiser that: "The National Diagnostics Centre
at NUI, Galway is not carrying out any research on genetically
modified fish, nor has it ever carried out research on GM fish
in the past…The centre has an active research programme —
and has had for over a decade — which aims to investigate
the basic biology and molecular genetics of fish, in particular
Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout."
However, Bertrand Charron of IntraFish had spoken and interviewed
Dr Smith on two occasions in February and March 1995 in relation
to transgenic salmon research and Dr Smith at the time (on the
record) acknowledged his and his team's part in a EU-sponsored
study looking at reversible sterility in transgenic salmon.
NUI Galway has been named in several EU-funded projects bearing
the title "The development of transgenic animals (including
fish) with novel characteristics" (Project references: BAP*0179,
BAP*0147, BAP*0124 and BAP*0125; in the latter NUI Galway was
the prime contractor). These projects' objectives are defined
as follows: "The possibility to alter the genetics of domestic
animals and fish in a predictable manner is clearly very attractive:
— scientifically, this research should contribute to a better
understanding of a foreign gene line of animals; — technically,
it should improve the practical methods of transfer; — economically
it should provide a short cut for the improvement of the genetics
of animals, for instance in obtaining animals growing at a faster
rate."
Dr Smith is named as the "prime contractor" of the
study entitled "Biological containment of transgenic fish
and risk assessment of inter-species gene transfer" (Project
reference: BIO2942039). The EU document stated that: "the
first and major objective is to produce fish which are transgenically
sterile…" Another project in which Dr Smith is the prime
contractor is entitled "Assessment of biological containment
and gene flow in transgenic sterile fish" (Project reference:
BIO4970554), completed in 2000. "The ultimate goal of this
project is to develop molecular methods leading to integration
and expression of new beneficial transgenes in fish and biological
containment of these fish, with the ability to transmit these
trait under controlled conditions," states the EU Cordis
document.
Meanwhile, the Bord Iascaigh Mhara denied at the time that there
was any GM fish farming projects in Ireland and a spokesperson
told IntraFish, "the fish farming industry and the State
are totally against the introduction of GM fish in Ireland because
we don't need it and because of the risks" (IntraFish 2001).
UK scientists warn of GM fish
risks
In September 2002 the UK Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology
Commission advised the UK Government that GM fish should not be
farmed in pens set in rivers or the sea, due to the risk that
the fish might escape into the environment with unforeseeable
consequences. "Once the fish has escaped, there's virtually
nothing that can be done to recall it," said Commission chairman,
Malcolm Grant (New Scientist 2002).
EU policy on GM fish
In its Communication A
strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture
COM(2002)511, the European Commission states that "the
potential deliberate release of transgenic fish without containment
measures raises public concern in terms of risk to the environment".
The Commission proposes developing instruments to tackle the impact
of GMOs [2] as part of the EU Aquaculture Strategy
and states that it "has funded some research projects on
the potential risks of transgenic fish in containment facilities,
which ensures that Europe has the expertise available to address
the safety issues. However, the Commission is also examining the
need for specific legislation on transgenic fish."
Voluntary Codes concerning
GM fish
Aquaculture industry self-regulation and environmental safeguards
through voluntary Codes of Conduct are effectively worthless forms
of governance in the absence of binding legal obligations to enforce
rules (See Regulation of Aquaculture).
In July 2003, Bord
Iascaigh Mhara introduced its Environmental
Code of Practice for Aquaculture Companies and Traders (ECOPACT)
(pdf 6Mb). Although ECOPACT does not directly address GM salmon
or other GMOs as an environmental aspect of aquaculture operations,
the ECOPACT document annexes the Federation
of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP) Code
of Conduct for European Aquaculture, which addresses GMOs
as follows:
"The FEAP does not endorse the use of genetically modified
fish in aquaculture since it is concerned about the maintenance
of the natural characteristics of the products, in addition
to the environmental qualities of biodiversity. However, the
results of genetic research may play an important part in the
future development of global food production.
The FEAP may review its position on this topic if such developments
are acceptable to the consumer and do not pose any safety or
environmental problems."
|
