Final Paper
Genetically Engineered Salmon: Do We Really Need Its Existence?
After fifteen years of exhaustive review, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the amendment that included approval from U.S. Food and Drug Administration on AquaBounty Technologies’ AquAdvantage salmon eggs on June 29, 2011. Compared to wild Atlantic salmon’s limit of reproducing in warm temperatures, genetically engineered salmon is not only able to grow in cold temperatures, but can reproduce faster as well. “The Majority of us will think and live very differently tomorrow because of the technologies assimilated into our culture today” (Yount 11). As Young states, this new development on the genetically engineered animal is new technology that might change the market and people’s life and views. On the surface, the new fish seems like an advantage, but is this new technology really benefitting the company, or the general population on a personal level?
AquaBounty Technologies, a Canadian-based company incorporated in 1991, is known for its AquAdvantage genetically engineered salmon. While farmers in the United States have been growing and producing genetically engineered crops since the late nineties, genetically engineered animals are a relatively recent phenomenon. According to the company, not only does their salmon hold similar genes to other Atlantic salmon, it also holds a growth hormone from Chinook salmon that allows the fish to grow faster. The new salmon is able to grow to market size in sixteen to eighteen months instead of the thirty months required for regular-farmed Atlantic salmon. Because of the new antifreeze gene from the Chinook salmon and gene-switched ocean pout, the fish is also able to grow in cold weathers whereas Atlantic salmon can only produce in warm weather.
AquaBounty Technologies’s purpose of creating this new gene was simply to sell the engineered eggs to fish farms. With some exceptions, fish farms generally raise fish in a tank or enclosed space. As fish farming is very economically beneficial, the benefits often outweigh negatives. First, fish farming has a less harmful impact to the natural ecosystem as fishing techniques, such as ocean trawling, can catch and kill unintended species from the bycatch. Secondly, because of fish farms, there is less competition amongst wild fisheries as all the targeted species are all in one area.
However many benefits fish farms may provide, there are also important disadvantages to note. Because fishes are raised in close quarters and not in the ocean, contamination rates are high. Secondly, in chef and food activist Dan Barber’s TedTalk,“How I fell in love with a fish,” Barber questions the means behind fish farming. Although he was pleased at how fish-farmed fish tasted exceptionally good, he later discovered that specific fish was actually fed chicken scraps. “What is sustainable feeding chicken to fish?” (Barber). While not all fish farms feed their fishes this kind of ‘sustainable’ protein, Barber identifies the deception that some fish farms might use to decrease spending costs while increasing profit. However, Barber also provides viewers with a second fish farm that is a better alternative. This natural fish farm, located in the southwestern part of Spain, Veta La Palma tip of the Guadalquivir River, uses an intricate series of canals with channels to pull water in. As a result, the fish does not consume ‘sustainable proteins,’ but instead lives in a twenty-seven thousand acres of natural fish farm filled with bass, mullet, shrimp, and eel, it consumes of all the rich phytoplankton’s and algae’s underwater. Instead of destroying the local environment, this fish farm works with the ecology. In turn, this fish farm not only retains the local ecology, but is also demonstrates how efficient the system could be.
However, the increasing world population also includes an increase demand for food. In order to sustain the world population, as a Time article states, “There’s nothing wrong with modifying food to make it easier for us to grow” (Ozerky). Furthermore, because wild populations of fish are being wiped out by overfishing, fish farms are a better alternative; especially since fish farms have been changing and improving along the way to set higher standards regarding contamination and such. Furthermore, with AquaBounty’s new genetically engineered salmon, can this addition to the aquaculture form an even better environment?
First of all, AquAdvantage salmon does not grow larger than other salmon, they specifically grow faster in their earlier life stages than other salmon. This leads to the question, why did the company come up with this technology? The only problem with wild fishing is the risk of damaging the ecosystem hence the reason why more fish farms are created as it has less harmful impact to the natural ecosystem. One important factor to keep in mind is there are still plenty of wild salmon out there. The 2011 wild Alaska salmon harvest anticipated 203 million fish to be caught. Plus the restrictions on fishing in Alaska to prevent overfishing, and at the same time, is a way to handle and get these fish even under strict supervision of the State of Alaska’s Department of Fish if the United States is in need of salmon. “As much as 50 percent of the United States’ wild salmon catch is shipped abroad in canned or frozen form, leaving one with the question: Why are we sending the cleanest, most omega-3 rich protein abroad when it could be a key source of nutrition here in the United States, particularly for children?” (Greenberg). Going back to Barber’s idea of a ‘good’ fish farm, it is possible to still create a good population of fish that tastes good and does not harm the environment in any way. In other words, why do we need a new genetically engineered salmon when we can raise and increase the population of wild salmon through better farming tactics? Even without a nature-based farm like the channels in Guadalquivir River, it is possible to use commercial tanks that do not need the large load of food supply to grow a decent number of salmon. There are now vegetable-based salmon diets that require no wild fish feeding as it benefits the ecosystem as some fishes are being fed from recycled agricultural byproduct that might otherwise go unused.
Back in September of 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a set of guidelines regarding the development of genetically engineered animals. These guidelines were to: Enhance food quality; improve animal health with higher resistance to disease; create animals that is able to produce insulin, clotting factors, and tissues for human transplantation; reduce human animal interaction; and improve production of industrial or consumer products such as fiber. Looking at the AquaBounty Technologies’ company goals, they appear to meet these standards, as their fish not only grows faster compared to wild salmon, but can also reproduce in cold temperatures. AquaBounty Technologies also touches on the creation of animals, as they are able to produce therapeutic products as the fish contains a very high level of insulin hormone. However, the other four categories have been barely addressed. “The FDA proposal that GE animals be regulated as drugs no doubt will create certain patent issues, such that GE animal “inventions” could lead manufacturers to claim control over whole herds – or “new” species – of animals, as is now the case with GE crop seeds” (Gluck and Holdsworth 400). With this being said, it seems like genetic modifications made on animals is to benefit human health, improve accessibility, and increase nutrients. On the other side, the company’s purpose and goal is not only earning profit, but also monopolize the regulation of production. This scenario is not a new one as seen in the case of the Monsanto Corporation with genetically engineered crop seeds.
Today, Monsanto controls almost all of United States’ genetically modified crops, corn and soybeans in particular. In local supermarkets, majority of foods are genetically modified, but people do not even know they are consuming genetically engineered foods. While other countries have been labeling restrictions and bans on certain genetically engineered foods, the United States and Canada do not have such restrictions. In fact, there are no labeling rules required for genetically engineered foods. For example, genetically modified corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an insecticide, but it is sold to consumers unlabeled. With AquaBounty Technologies’ genetically engineered salmon, it will be treated without any labeling because there are currently no restrictions. The only state that does not fall under this category is California, as a recent state legislature requires labeling on genetically modified foods. According to online polls, if labeling rules were enforced, consumers more likely to not purchase the genetically modified foods. “Online polls by the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal showed that only about 36 percent of consumers would willingly eat genetically modified salmon if it were labeled as such” (Greenberg). Who wants to eat fake, alternated salmon that has unknown gene inserted even if it is FDA approved?
Prior to the approval of AquAdvantage salmon, people’s attention on the engineered salmon was raised, as it tends to have a higher level of insulin growth factor. This brings the possibility of a higher cancer risk factor as higher levels of insulin like hormone in the bloodstream is associated to this disease. FDA did state that even consuming a good amount of fish, the hormone is just a tiny amount as it won’t make a difference or change to the body. Since it took fifteen years to finally approve this engineered salmon, it is safe to say that the FDA’s approval process for animals is stricter compared to process for crops approval. Furthermore, the FDA has to join with the Advisory Panel prior to review a specific animal. However, Greg Jaffe, biotechnology project director at the center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group in Washington, DC stated that “The FDA doesn’t control completely the transparency of its regulatory process” and for that reason, also states, “I don’t think it goes far enough” (Taylor A384). This means that the company trying to get approval can conclude information without providing all the necessary data. With this being said, the priority concern at the moment would be the possible flaws the engineered fish might contain.
Although the fish is now approved and can be sold to local fish farms, there are still dangers that relates to genetically engineered salmon. Even on the company’s website, concerns are asked by researchers regarding how the wild salmon might be endangered by the genetically engineered salmon. There are possibilities for the salmon to escape from fish farms and infest the natural environment of the ocean. The company stated that not only would their fish be grown inland; all of them will be sterile, and female fishes with almost no ability to produce. A commentary paper from the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) reported that regulatory uncertainties “have essentially halted commercial and public investment in the development of genetically engineered animals for agricultural application in the United States” (Beardsley 651). This conclusion was based on a small sample that were tested, the process of sterilization is not perfect and in the future, if farms do decide to grow and raise the fish out in nature fish farms, there holds a possibility for the tiny amount of non-sterilized fish to have contact with and harm harm the wild salmon population. “Predator-prey dynamics could be disrupted both through lethal and nonlethal means” (Madin 6). The engineered salmon might be predators to other fish as it is “larger-at age” and might cause damage in marine system that might change the patterned structure. “Such ecosystem alterations could potentially have unanticipated repercussions throughout the food web” (Madin 6).
While it seems like the disadvantages are more prominent; but, needless to say, the few benefits of genetically engineered foods are extremely advantageous to society. At the moment, the advantages of genetically engineered foods are only currently on the crops’ side. This might be due to the factor that genetically engineered animals are still a relatively new idea, and all the benefits have not yet fully discovered. But both are somewhat on the same track. For example, one of the top reasons for the development of genetically engineered crops would be to reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides. Growing crops without the ‘good’ genes might cause the usage of heavy hand of chemicals to reduce insect interaction of the crops. The engineered crops definitely play an influential role as consumers are not consuming so much of the unnecessary pesticides and herbicides when they consume engineered crops. Also, technology allows the creation of bigger crops, easier to grow crops, and possibility of more nutritious crops. A tiny factor such as crops that are able to grow faster is a huge plus to producers as they can increase their profits. As much as Monsanto Company operates to produce most of the corn and soybeans in the United States, their technology allows these crops to grow with less water is an invention that possibly leads to the domination of corn and soybeans. The FDA approval of AquaBounty’s genetically engineered salmon, the first genetically engineered animal, plays a similar role. It created a head start for the possible future genetically engineered animals. For example, researchers are trying to develop dairy cows that are resistant to mad cow disease, chickens resistant to avian flu, and even hens to lay genetically low-cholesterol eggs. While there is a likely market for these genetically engineered animals, it cannot be helped but to think that there are still more risks than benefits regarding the possible future of genetically engineered foods.
The National Research Council has found that “assessing the potential allergenicity of transferred proteins remains one of the most difficult aspects in the overall safety assessment of transgenic foods” (Homer 93). The new genetic engineering technology of creating and adding genes into food that are not natural foods to begin with brings up the issue of possible allergic reactions. Also, the toxins that are used in genetic engineered crops to fight insects might bring toxicity concerns of the human body. Even if the crop itself is approved and proven safe to consume, it is not a guarantee in the long run. Last, but not least, because genetically engineered foods contain new resistance genes that are antibiotic, when consumed, the antibiotic bacteria might be transferred to the human body and enter organs like the gastrointestinal tract. However, since the FDA has approved the AquAdvantage salmon, this means it is safe for consumption. According to the FDA, the consumption of a large amount of this fish is safe, as the hormones from the fish would not affect human health. But this statement is unreliable as the long-term effects have yet to be determined.
Even so, out of all the possible animals, it is quite interesting to see a fish being the first one to enter the genetically engineered market. In the Monsanto Company’s case, corn is heavily used in United States; food for livestocks, ethanol, co-products, for bio plastics, and even as an export to foreign countries; the brilliant technology was invented so that corn can be produced faster and used more efficiently. Therefore, it would seem logical to continue the trend genetically engineered animals. The average U.S. population consumes way more meat compared to seafood, so why do we need a new salmon? There are plenty of wild salmon out there. If there is a need to prevent damaging of the natural ecosystem, there are fish farms that allow the maintenance of salmon to be grown indoors. Ironically, the number one concern in the United States regarding salmon at the moment would be the amount of mercury that is in salmon. Seafood is higher in certain nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids that is good for human health, eating an average of eight ounces per week can actually reduce and prevent heart diseases. If AquaBounty came up with the idea of targeting nutritional values, where their genetically engineered salmon is fully packed with omega-3 fatty acids and is lower in mercury compared to wild salmon, then it has a decent reason to stay in the market. Furthermore, unless the U.S. population changes their eating habit and actually consumes the recommended amount of fish per week, there is no need whatsoever for genetically engineered salmon with the only benefit being the ability to grow faster, and even in cold weathers. Consumers are better off with hens to lay genetically low-cholesterol eggs as we consume way more eggs than fish. Second, if AquaBounty was able to create a fish that taste better than regular wild salmon, it can be another reason for this new fish to enter the market. It is a domino effect because when food taste good, and with promotion of its high nutrition value and distinct taste, consumers will definitely be attracted as it is different than wild salmon.
In conclusion, because there is no definite reason why AquaBounty Technologies created this new salmon, other than the fact that it is able to grow faster, even in cold weathers due to the new antifreeze gene, there is honestly no need for it to exist on the market. There are always positive and negative sides regarding genetic engineered foods, but fish is not corn, it is not used in so many aspects. Unless the demand for salmon rises within few years, there is no need to raise AquAdvantage salmon. Due to the fact that corn is used in so many areas, human health risks such as allergenicity, toxicity, and the transfer of antibiotic issues are often over looked. Not to mention the environmental impacts, where adding genetically engineered foods might disrupt the nature cycle of biodiversity. For example, genetically engineered crops will develop immunity against the often-used pesticides. Also, if the new salmon escapes, it might disrupt the marine system and change the patterned structure, as the process of sterilization performed on the fish might not be perfect. Last but not least, according to the National Research Council, “the introduction of any type of biological novelty can have unintended and unpredicted effects on the recipient community and ecosystem” (Homer 98). New genetic engineering always withholds unpredictable risks that we simply do not know of yet. Not to mention, with the first genetically engineered animal approved and entered the market; it is safe to say there will be more coming. Let us just hope that this business tactic will not turn out like the Monsanto Company. The last thing we want is to have another company controlling a portion of our food supply chain. Because of this, the only benefit coming from this new technology is the company itself. Unless daily eating habits are altered, this new fish would not benefit the general population. If sometime in the future, the United States population improves their eating habits and consumes the standard amount of fish recommended, this new technology might just be a plus. When demand goes up, supply needs to go up as well to maintain a good system.
Draft 2
After fifteen years of exhaustive review, the U.S. House of Representatives finally passed the amendment that includes approval from U.S. Food and Drug Administration on AquaBounty Technologies’ AquAdvantage salmon eggs on June 29, 2011. This new invention of genetically engineered salmon is a improvement compared to wild Atlantic salmon as it is able to not only reproduce faster, but can even grow in cold weathers where as salmon usually can only be produced in warm temperatures. With this new development on the genetically engineered animal, does it serve as a positive or negative?
AquaBounty Technologies is a Canadian based company that was incorporated back in 1991. Today, the company is known for its AquAdvantage genetically engineered salmon. Farmers in the United States have been growing and producing genetically engineered crops since the late nineties where as genetically engineered animals were brought to the table just fifteen years ago. According to the company, not only their AquAdvantage salmon hold similar genes to other Atlantic salmon, it holds a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon that allows the fish to grow faster. The new salmon is able to grow to market size in 16 to 18 months instead of the 30 months required for a normal farmed Atlantic salmon. Also, because of the new antifreeze gene from the Chinook salmon and gene-switched ocean pout, the fish is able to make growth hormone in cold weathers too whereas Atlantic salmon can only produce in warm weather.
AquaBounty Technologies created this new gene simply to sell the engineered eggs to fish farms to grow. Fish farms are a type of commercial farming as it raises fish from eggs to a grown fish in a tank or enclosed space, with some exceptions. The benefits of fish farming do tend to outweigh negatives, as it is very economically beneficial. Fish farming have less harmful impact to the natural ecosystem as fishing techniques such as ocean trawling can catch unintended species and create deaths from the bycatch. In other words, it decreases pressure on wild fisheries as all the targeted species are all in one area. However, because fishes are commercially raised, it can be inefficient and contains a high rate of contamination. Dan Barber’s TedTalk on “How I fell in love with a fish” gives the possible scenarios of fish farms. As a chef with a great philosophical background regarding agriculture and stewardship of the earth, he was pleased how a fish farm grown, sustainable fish tasted exceptionally good. It later came to the conclusion that specific fish was actually fed chicken scraps. He said, “What is sustainable feeing chicken to fish?” (Barber). Good news is that not all fish farms feed their fishes this kind of ‘sustainable’ protein. The second fish farm Barber talked about serves as a better example. This fish farm located in the South Western part of Spain, Veta La Palma tip of the Guadalquivir River is a natural fish farm. The farm itself is an intricate series of canals with channels that pulls water in. So instead of creating ecological destructions, as it is a natural farm, not man made, it is more of an improvement as how efficient the system is. The delicious fish not only does not consume and feed ‘sustainable proteins’ in this case, instead lives in a twenty-seven thousand acres of natural fish farm filled with bass, mullet, shrimp, and eel, it consumes of all the rich phytoplankton’s and algae’s underwater.
In a Time article, it states, “There’s nothing wrong with modifying food to make it easier for us to grow” (Ozerky). Because wild populations of fish are being wiped out by overfishing, fish farms are a better alternative; especially how fish farms have been changing and improving along the way to set higher standards regarding contamination and such. With AquaBounty’s new technology, the genetically engineered salmon, does it add to the aquaculture to form an even better environment? First of all, AquAdvantage salmon does not grow larger than other salmon, they specifically grow faster in their earlier life stages than other salmon. This leads to the question, why did the company come up with this technology? The only problem with wild fishing is the possibilities of damaging the ecosystem hence the reason why more fish farms are created as it has less harmful impact to the natural ecosystem. One important factor to keep in mind is there are still plenty of wild salmon out there. The 2011 wild Alaska salmon harvest concluded 203 million fish anticipated to be caught. Plus there are restrictions on fishing in Alaska, it helps to prevent abusing of fishing, and at the same time, is a way to handle and get these fish even under strict supervision of the State of Alaska’s Department of Fish if the United States is in need of salmon. “As much as 50 percent of the United States’ wild salmon catch is shipped abroad in canned or frozen form, leaving one with the question: Why are we sending the cleanest, most omega-3 rich protein abroad when it could be a key source of nutrition here in the United States, particularly for children?” (Greenberg). Going back to Barber’s idea of a ‘good’ fish farm, it is possible to still create a good population of fish that tastes good and does not harm the environment in any way. In other words, why do we need a new genetically engineered salmon when we can raise and increase the population of wild salmon through farming? Even without a nature-based farm like the channels in Guadalquivir River, it is possible to use commercial tanks that do not need the large load of food supply to grow a decent number of salmon. There are now vegetable-based salmon diets that require no wild fish feeding as it benefits the ecosystem as some fishes are being feed from recycled agricultural byproduct that might otherwise go unused.
Back in September of 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a set of guidelines for relation regarding developing genetically engineered animals. The document included six categories: Enhance food quality; improve animal health with higher resistance to disease; create animals that is able to produce insulin, clotting factors, and tissues for human transplantation; reduce human animal interaction; and improve production of industrial or consumer products such as fiber. Looking at the AquaBounty Technologies’ company goals, they are definitely trying to enhance food quality, as their fish not only grows faster compared to wild salmon, it also can reproduce under cold weather where as wild salmon can only grow in warm weathers. It also touches on the creation of animals that are able to produce therapeutic products as the fish contains a very high level of insulin hormone. But that is about it, as the other four categories are barely touched on. “The FDA proposal that GE animals be regulated as drugs no doubt will create certain patent issues, such that GE animal “inventions” could lead manufacturers to claim control over whole herds – or “new” species – of animals, as is now the case with GE crop seeds” (Gluck and Holdsworth 400). With this being said, it seems like genetic modifications made on animals is benefit human health, improve accessibility, and increase nutrients. On the other side, the company is trying to not only earn profit, but also take over the entire control of production.
Monsato controls almost all of United States genetically modified organisms, mostly corn and soybeans. It is a company that falls into the category of not only trying to earn profit, but takes over the entire control of production. Most of the vegetables and fruits seen in local supermarkets are genetically modified, but people do not even know they are consuming genetically engineered foods. Around the world, countries have labeling rules and bans on certain genetically engineered foods. But in the United States and Canada, there are no labeling rules required for genetically engineered foods. For example, genetically modified corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an insecticide, but it is sold to consumers unlabeled. With AquaBounty Technologies’ genetically engineered salmon, it will be treated the same with no labeling rules because there are none. The only state not in the category is California, as a recent state legislature requires labeling on genetically modified foods. However, even if labeling rules are enforced, consumers are still unlikely to purchase it anyways. “Online polls by the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal showed that only about 36 percent of consumers would willingly eat genetically modified salmon if it were labeled as such” (Greenberg). As it is a natural distaste that might be aroused due to nature rules. Who wants to eat fake, alternated salmon that has unknown gene inserted even if it is FDA approved?
Prior to the approval of AquAdvantage salmon, it brought people’s attention regarding the engineered salmon, as it tends to have a higher level of insulin growth factor. This brings the possibility of a higher cancer risk factor as higher levels of insulin like hormone in the bloodstream is associated to this disease. FDA did state even consuming a good amount of fish, the hormone is just a tiny amount as it won’t make a difference or change to the body. Since it took fifteen years to finally approve this engineered salmon, it is safe to say that the FDA’s approval process for animals is stricter compared to process for crops approval. The FDA has to join with the Advisory Panel prior to review a specific animal. However, Greg Jaffe, biotechnology project director at the center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group in Washington, DC stated that “The FDA doesn’t control completely the transparency of its regulatory process” and for that reason, also states, “I don’t think it goes far enough” (Taylor A384). This means that the company trying to get approval can conclude information without providing all the necessary data. With this being said, the top concern as of now would be the possible flaws the engineered fish might contain.
Although the fish is now approved and can be sold to local fish farms, there are still dangers that relates to genetically engineered salmon. Even on the company’s website, concerns are asked by researchers regarding how the wild salmon might be endangered by the genetically engineered salmon. There are possibilities for the salmon to escape from fish farms and contaminate the natural environment of the ocean. The company stated that not only their fish would be grown inland; all of them will only be sterile, female fishes with almost no ability to produce. A commentary paper from the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) reported that regulatory uncertainties “have essentially halted commercial and public investment in the development of genetically engineered animals for agricultural application in the United States” (Beardsley 651). This conclusion was based on a small sample that were tested, the process of sterilization is not perfect and in the future, if farms do decide to grow and raise the fish out in nature fish farms, there holds a possibility for the tiny amount of non-sterilized fish to have contact with wild salmon. It will affect and harm the wild salmon population. “Predator-prey dynamics could be disrupted both through lethal and nonlethal means” (Madin 6). The engineered salmon might be predators to other fish as it is “larger-at age” and might cause damage in marine system that might change the patterned structure. “Such ecosystem alterations could potentially have unanticipated repercussions throughout the food web” (Madin 6).
It seems like the negatives are more predominant; but needless to say, there are still few benefits of genetically engineered foods. However, the positive sides of genetically engineered foods only lean on the crops side. This might be due to the factor that genetically engineered animals are still a relatively new idea, and benefits are not yet fully discovered. But both are somewhat on the same track. For example, one of the top reasons for the development of genetically engineered crops would be to reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides. Growing crops without the ‘good’ genes might cause the usage of heavy hand of chemicals to reduce insect interaction of the crops. The engineered crops definitely play a big role as consumers are not consuming so much of the unnecessary pesticides and herbicides when they consume engineered crops. Also, continuing with this idea, technology allows the creation of bigger crops, easier to grow crops, and possibility more nutritious crops. A tiny factor such as crops that are able to grow faster is a huge plus to producers as they can increase their income. As much as we all know how Monsanto Company operates to produces most of the corn and soybeans in the United States, their technology that allows these crops to grow with less water is an invention that possibly leads to the domination of corn and soybeans. The FDA approval of AquaBounty’s genetically engineered salmon, the first genetically engineered animal, plays a role of the positive side too. It created a head start for the possible future genetically engineered animals. For example, researchers are trying to develop dairy cows that are resistant to mad cow disease, chickens resistant to avian flu, and even hens to lay genetically low-cholesterol eggs. As much as these possible genetically engineered animals to enter the market, it cannot be helped to think that there are still more risks than benefits regarding the possible future of genetically engineered foods.
The National Research Council has found that “assessing the potential allergenicity of transferred proteins remains one of the most difficult aspects in the overall safety assessment of transgenic foods” (Homer 93). The new genetic engineering technology is creating and adding genes into food that are not man food to begin with, this brings up the issue of possible allergic reactions. Also, the toxins that are used in genetic engineered crops to fight insects might bring toxicity concerns of the human body. Even if the crop itself is approve and proven safe to consume, it is not a guarantee in the long run. Last but not least, because genetically engineered foods contain new resistance genes that are antibiotic, when consumed, the antibiotic bacteria might be transferred to the human body and enter organs like the gastrointestinal tract. FDA approved the AquAdvantage salmon from AquaBounty Technologies, this means it is safe for consumption. It is stated that consuming a large amount of this fish is still okay, as the hormones from the fish would not affect human health. But this statement is unreliable as the affects in the long run are still yet to be determined. Out of all the possible animals, it is quite interesting to see a fish being the first one to enter the genetically engineered market. Going back to Monsanto Company, due to the reason that corn is heavily used in United States, as a food for livestocks, for ethanol, for co-products, for bio plastics, and even as a export to foreign countries; the brilliant technology was invented so that corn can be produced faster and better. It would be more reasonable to continue the trend with animals that needs to be genetically engineered. The average U.S. population consumes way more meats compared to seafood, why do we need a new salmon? Once again, there are plenty of wild salmon out there, if there is a need to prevent damaging of the natural ecosystem, there are fish farms that allows the maintenance of salmon to be grown indoors. Ironically, the number one concern in the United States regarding salmon as of now would be the amount of mercury that is in salmon. Seafood is higher in certain nutrients and especially contains omega-3 fatty acids that is good for human health, eating an average of eight ounces per week can actually reduce and prevent heart diseases. If AquaBounty came up with the idea targeting nutritional values, where their genetically engineered salmon is fully packed with omega-3 fatty acids and is lower in mercury compared to wild salmon, then it has a decent reason to stay in the market. First of all, unless U.S. population changes their eating habit and actually consumes the recommended amount of fish per week, there is no need what so ever for a genetically engineered salmon with the only benefit being the ability to grow faster, and even in cold weathers. Consumers are better off with hens to lay genetically low-cholesterol eggs as we consume way more eggs than fish. Second, if AquaBounty was able to create a fish that taste better than regular wild salmon, it can be another reason for this new fish to enter the market. It is a domino effect when food taste good, with promotion of its high nutrition value and distinct taste, consumers will definitely be attracted as it is different than wild salmon.
In conclusion, because there is no definite reason why AquaBounty Technologies created this new salmon, other then the fact that it is able to grow faster, even in cold weathers due to the new antifreeze gene, there is honestly no need for it to exist on the market. There are always positive and negative sides regarding genetic engineered foods, but fish is not corn, it is not highly used on so many things. Unless the demand for salmon rises within few years, there is no need to raise this AquAdvantage salmon. Due to the fact that corn is used in so many areas, human health risks such as allergenicity, toxicity, and the transfer of antibiotic issues can be over looked. Not to mention the environmental impacts, where adding genetically engineered foods might disrupt the nature cycle of biodiversity. For example, the resistance of pesticides if used often on crops, as they will develop immunity against it; or the possibility of the genetically engineered salmon escaping and disrupt the marine system and change the patterned structure as the process of sterilization might not be perfect. Last but not least, according to the National Research Council, “the introduction of any type of biological novelty can have unintended and unpredicted effects on the recipient community and ecosystem” (Homer 98). New genetic engineering always withholds unpredictable risks that we simply do not know. Not to mention, with the first genetically engineered animal approved and entering the market, it is safe to say there will be more coming. Let us just hope the genetic engineered side of animals will not turn out to be Monsanto Company. The last thing we want is to have another company controlling a part of a food chain.
5 different titles
1. Genetically engineered salmon: a possible start for AquaBounty Technologies to take over the fish supply chain
2. Genetically engineered salmon: is it necessary for average consumers?
3. AquaBounty Technologies new AquAdvantage salmon eggs: America does not need
4. New genetically engineered salmon: downsides outweighs benefits
5. AquAdvantage salmon eggs: unless it tastes better, there’s plenty of wild salmon avaliable
3 intro & conclusion paragraphs
INTRO
1. AquaBounty Technologies, a company that first created a AquaAdvantage salmone hormone that brought genetically engineered salmon to the market. This new salmon is able to reproduce faster, even in cold weathers where as wild salmon can’t. Yes, it is always good to see new technology and ideas being brought to the market, but is it necessary? Americans doesn’t seen to demand as much fish compared to soy and corn products (which most of them we consume are in fact genetically modified). Is it more beneficial to the company or consumers?
2. On June 29, 2011, after 15 years of rigorous review, the U.S. House of Representatives finally passed the amendment that includes approval from U.S. Food and Drug Administration on AquaBounty Technologies’ AquAdvantage salmon eggs. This new invention of genetically engineered salmon is a improvement compared to wild salmon as it is able to not only reproduce faster, it can even grow in cold weathers where as salmon usually can only be produced in warm temperatures. With this new improvement no on the genetically engineered animal side, does it serve as a positive or negative?
3. With AquaBounty Technologies’ AquAdvantage salmon eggs, a new invention of genetically engineered salmon that is an improvement to the wild salmon as it is able to not only produce faster, but even grown in cold weathers. Followed by FDA’s approval passing the new gene to the market on June 29, 2011, are consumers going to get benefits out of it? From what it looks like now, the new creation may bring a great road of success, however it might be the leading source and beginning to controlling the genetically engineered animal market. With the rise of AquaBounty Technologies, there might be a slight chance for our food, this case, fish to go on the same path as Monsanto, a agriculture biotechnology corporation that controls almost all of America’s corn and soy products.
CONCLUSION
1. Once again, new inventions and technologies are always beneficial to today’s world. However, there isn’t a need for AquaBounty Technologies to come up with their new AquAdvantage salmon eggs. America is not in desperate need of fish compared to corn and soy since the general population consumes foods daily that are composed of those two ingredients. It is only been 10 months since the FDA’s approval of this genetically engineered salmon hence the reason the company’s name is still quite anonymous. However, the development of the company might lead to America following into the planned route and depend on modified salmon as they take control of the fish food group just like how Monsanto controls America’s corn and soy products.
2. Listing the benefits and downsides of AquaBounty Technologies’ new AquAdvantage salmon eggs, it is almost a definite that there is no need for this new genetically engineered fish to exist on this market. Putting everything on the side, when this salmon goes to local supermarkets, consumers are going to buy it not knowing it is genetically modified. Yes, it does not harm and it is almost identical to the original wild salmon, but considering labeling rules with genetically modified foods, with the exception of the state of California, everyone else is like being cheated on. People are already intaking genetically modified vegetables and fruits as Monsanto controls and made the market the way it is today. This new salmon might serve as a second path to a downfall in today’s food supply chain.
3. Unless the entire controversial issue regarding food labeling gets looked at again, the new genetically engineered salmon from AquaBounty Technologies should not be brought to local supermarkets. Studies shown that consumers will avoid foods if they know it is genetically modified. However, it is a right for us to know what kinds of foods we are consuming on a daily basis. Also, this new AquAdvantage salmon egg might lead to a control of fish supply chain from the company just like how Monsanto controls almost all corn and soy related foods.
Draft Thesis Statement
About two decades ago, in the year of 1991 a company named AquaBounty was incorporated. Today, the company is known for its AquAdvantage genetically engineered salmon. AquaBounty Technologies was able to develop an Atlantic salmon that contains a growth hormone gene from a Chinook salmon and the ocean pout, a distant relative of the salmon. So what is the reasoning behind the development? Let’s take a closer look at it. The number one reason that is laid flat out in the front is the benefit of having a larger sized fish to boost the supply chain. The salmon can also grow to market size in 16 to 18 months instead of the 30 months required for a normal farmed Atlantic salmon. Not to mention, the new engineered salmon allow the fish to make growth hormone in cold weather, whereas salmon usually only produce in warm weather. This is because of the new antifreeze gene that was created from the Chinook salmon and gene-switched ocean pout. Just to clarify, AquaBounty Technologies do not produce and grow salmon themselves, instead they sell the engineered eggs to fish farms.
When it comes down to fish farms, it can be a quite controversial topic. Fish farms on one side can be disposed in the highest rate of sustainability as it is more economically beneficial. On the other hand, because fishes are commercially raised in tanks or enclosures, it can be inefficient and contains a high rate of contamination. One of the TedTalks featuring Dan Barber, he found out the fish that he loved and raised in a ‘sustainable’ fish farm turns out was feed chicken scrapes. “What is sustainable feeding chicken to fish?” Good news is that not all fish farms feed their fishes this kind of sustainable protein. The second fish farm Barber talked about serves as a better example. This fish farm located in the South Western part of Spain, Veta La Palma tip of the Guadalquivir River is a ‘natural’ fish farm. The farm itself is an intricate series of canals with channels that pulls water in. So instead of creating ecological destructions, as it is a natural farm (not man made) it is more of an improvement as how efficient the system is. The especially delicious fish not only does not consume and feed ‘sustainable proteins’ in this case, instead lives in a twenty-seven thousand acres of natural fish farm filled with bass, mullet, shrimp, and eel, it consumes of all the rich phytoplankton’s and algae’s underwater.
The Food and Drug Administration needs to approve the first genetically engineered salmon from AquaBounty Technologies before it can be sold to fish farms and raised to produce. No surprise, the company has been trying to get approval since the creation of this new fish. However, the process takes longer than people actually think. Back in mid 2010, the company stated that FDA had signed off on five of the seven sets of data required to demonstrate and prove the fish was safe for consumption and for the environment. For example, the FDA needs to make sure that the newly developed gene does not harm the animals as it might affect later generations. Ronald L. Stotish, the chief executive of AquaBounty stated, “Perhaps in the next few months, we expect to see a final approval.” Somehow, it seems like the company has too much trust within, stating how it would take two to three years after approval for the new fish to show up in local supermarkets. Pollack wrote in his article “Under a policy announced in 2008, the FDA is regulating genetically engineered animals as if they were veterinary drugs and using the rules for those drugs. And applications for approval of new drugs must be kept confidential by the agency.” Even till today, this newly developed salmon is not on the market yet. Yes, FDA did not pass the salmon completely, but what are the reasons that are stirring up controversies that are preventing the final decision being made?
Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists stated, “There is no opportunity for anyone from the outside to see the data or criticize it.” But if FDA passes the salmon, negative responses is not something that can be prevented. In the past, the federal government has opposed labeling on all sorts of genetically engineered crops and animals because it involves technology on food, but the foods that needs to be labeled are only the ones that differ in nutritional properties or other properties. In other words, because AquaBounty’s genetically engineered salmon does not necessary has new characters added to the fish, it does not need to be labeled. As of now, the only state in America that requires all foods that are modified is in California (and that is because of their state legislature). If the fish goes on to the market, unless the rest of the forty-nine states fight for a change in rules and make the government add labeling to all genetically engineered foods, the foods the general population consume will always be a mystery. Ironically, if the fish is labeled and sold on markets, online polls by the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal showed that only thirty six percent of consumers would buy and eat modified salmon if it were labeled.
Another issue to consider regarding genetically engineered animals is the possibilities for the salmon to escape from fish farms and contaminate the natural environment of the ocean. Animal welfare, environmental and fisheries are all against the approval of the salmon, as they believe the fish to be somewhat harmful. AquaBounty did state not only fishes would be grown inland; all of them will be sterile females, with almost no ability to produce. But the samples that were tested were small; meaning the process of sterilization is not perfect. However, the FDA did approve the safely of the salmon. It might bring people to attention that because engineered salmon have a higher level of insulin growth factor, as it connects to how higher levels of insulin like hormone in the bloodstream is associated to a high cancer risk factor. FDA did say even consuming a good amount of fish, the hormone is just a tiny amount as it won’t make a difference or change to the body.
From what it looks like, other than the issue regarding labeling genetically modified food, which by the look of it even if the new fish goes on to shelves of local supermarkets, having a label stating its genetically modified isn’t going to happen anytime soon as government rules does not necessary change (unless its in California). So does the benefits outweigh negatives? To add on to more positive sides, the approval of the salmon will definitely create a new pathway for other genetically engineered animals to enter the food supply, as AquaBounty’s salmon is the first to be examined. It might be a possibility to see a pig that is “more environmentally friendly manure” according to Pollack. Also Stotish, chief executive from AquaBounty said its AquAdvantage salmon “would help the world meet rising demand for seafood without further devastating natural fisheries while being economical to grow the fish in inland tanks in the United States, saving the cost of flying in the fish from Chile to Norway, from which the United States now gets most of its Atlantic salmon.”
However, when examining these benefits, there are actually a good amount of flows that’s floating around. Greenberg said, “It is completely unnecessary.” First of all the Aquabounty Technologies’ headquarters is located in Canada, there might be a possible chance for the fishes to escape and contaminate the rest of the wild population as five percent of the sterilized fish are not completely sterilized. Because it is cloned in Canada requiring wasteful transport if it is grown in Panama and flown back to United States for consumption. Also, AquaBounty is creating this new salmon like there is not enough wild salmon out there. In fact, the 2011 wild Alaska salmon harvest concluded 203 million fish anticipated to be caught. There are restrictions on fishing in Alaska, but there must be a way to handle and get these fish even under strict supervision of the State of Alaska’s Department of Fish if the United States is in need of salmon, or any other types of fish. “As much as 50 percent of the United States’ wild salmon catch is shipped abroad in canned or frozen form, leaving one with the question: Why are we sending the cleanest, most omega3-rich protein abroad when it could be a key source of nutrition here in the United States, particularly for children?” (Greenberg). Going back to Barber’s idea of a ‘good’ fish farm, it is possible to still create a good population of fish that tastes good and does not harm the environment in any way. In other words, why do we need a new genetically engineered salmon with we can raise and increase the population of wild salmon through farming? Even without a nature-based farm like the channels in Guadalquivir River, it is possible to commercial tank that does not need the large load of food supply to grow a decent number of salmon. There are now vegetable-based salmon diets that require no wild fish feeding. Also, some fishes are being feed from recycled agricultural byproduct that might otherwise go unused.
Annotated bibliography + reevaluation of idea + recap
3 journal articles
1. Homer, Michael B. “Frankenfish … It’s What’s for Dinner: The FDA, Genetically
Engineered Salmon, and the Flawed Regulation of Biotechnology.” Columbia
Journal of Law & Social Problems 45.5 (2011): 83-137. Web. 19 Apr. 2012.
2. David, A. Taylor. “LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICY. Generically Engineered Salmon on the FDA’s Table.” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 118, (September 2010): No. 9. pp. A384-A385. Web. 9 Apr. 2012.
1. Pollack, Andrew. “Genetically Altered Salmon Get Closer to the Table.” New York Times. New York Times, 25 Jun. 2010. Web. 9 Apr. 2012.
2. Pollack, Andrew. “Modified Salmon Is Safe, F.D.A. Says.” New York Times. New York Times. 3 Sep. 2010. Web. 9 Apr. 2012.
2 chapters from edited anthologies
1. “BioScience Vol. 61, No. 1.” Genetically Engineered Salmon Pose Environmental Risks
That Must Be Considered. Ed. Elizabeth M. P. Madin. California: University of
California Press, American Institute of Biological Sciences. 2011. p. 6. Print.
2. “BioScience Vol. 61, No. 9.” How to Get Real about Biotechnology. Ed. Timothy M.
Beardsley. California: University of California Press, American Institute of
Biological Sciences. 2011. p. 651. Print.
1 book
1. DeWoody, J. Andrew. Molecular Approaches in Natural Resource Conservation and Management. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print.
2 other sources
1. Ozersky, Josh. “How I Learned to Love Farmed Fish.” Time U.S. Time Magazine, 1 Sep. 2010. Web. 9 Apr. 2012.
2. Greenberg, Paul. “An Engineered Salmon’s Fishy Agenda.” Salon.com. Salon Media Group, 2 Jun. 2011. Web. 9 Apr. 2012.
Reevaluation of idea
Through new research, I found and gathered this list of bibliography that seemed to gave me further in depth facts. One thing before I go on to my reevaluation of my ideas is that I don’t know exactly what edited anthology research would first begin hence the reason its blank. I was not sure what exactly was considered a edited anthology and I will definitely need some heads up on that. Anyways, so through my new research, I can say I got a lot more answers than last week. I found out AquaBounty Technologies, a Canadian based biotechnology company was the first came up with the idea of genetically engineered salmon as their goal is to create bigger and larger chinook salmon that has an added growth hormone that allow the fish to produce all year long compared to periods during the year. From my research the most recently dated articles, that is after the year 2010 all talked about the new technology and the wait for FDA to prove it. There are both standings considering the negatives and positives which is normal but I can’t seem to find the exact answer to whether FDA approved it or now. However, I feel like it is leaning towards the approval side as I found more positives and the fact that AquaBounty is a successful running company as of now. I found Dan Barber’s Ted Talk on “How I fell In Love With a Fish” and it gave me some ideas as he spoke about fish farms. It is not exactly on point regarding my topic, but it relates to it and I felt like it is something I can incorporate to make my final paper more interesting. Barber’s talk also highlighted some really good ideas that can help me develop my paper. My thesis was supposed to be focusing on how the new technology harms nature’s surrounding and the negative effects of human consumption. This is because I was not looking carefully at the dates. Looking at the recent sources that are more up to date, it seemed like there was a more positive side regarding the entire idea of genetically engineered salmon. With this being said, my paper would start with the history and idea regarding to the topic then move onto the recent updates.
Recap
To improve my idea, I need to conduct further research and try my best to pull up the most recent info regarding to FDA’s approval of this new fish. If I can’t find it, I think I am still able to work with what I have so far. It is just the matter of how I word, and organize all the information. Also, as of now, I still don’t have a strong thesis statement because I have all these info and ideas but no good conclusion to bring them all together. I need to read over and like I said before conduct further research to get a good center focus. The comments from the conference linked me ideas (like about ethics and such..) Also, the articles pulled up from salon.com, Time Magazine, and even Dan Barber’s Ted Talk all gave me a better idea to start as I was searching up outdated information (especially with my topic it is more convincing to pull up the most recent data). These newspaper and magazine articles definitely includes a handful of useful information that can support my argument and at the same time give true facts.
Proposal
For my final research topic, I have decided to focus on the topic of genetically engineered salmon. At first, browsing around the basement of Lockwood library, I found a section of books relating to oceans which included topics like fishing rights, animal treatment, and privatization of the ocean. But I just felt like these topics were not necessary connected to food and the fact that it was hard to elaborate on. Since I originally though the topic of genetically engineered chicken was quite interesting, I came to the solution to combine both to form the final topic of genetically engineered salmon, as I can also relate and perform some research on the ocean.
With my topic in mind, I am planning to perform my research starting with the library databases. I don’t think I found many books relating to this specific area but I know for sure that there must be short excerpts from general books of genetically engineered salmon. Also, like in class, JStor and Project Muse are great searches for scholarly journals. I approached the reference table in Lockwood library and the person also referred me to use Academic Search Complete to narrow down my search.
Regarding where my topic is going with its thesis point. I am sure there are good and bad sides of genetically engineered salmon. I feel like I will concentrate on the negatives regarding the topic as how the new technology harms the nature’s surrounding, the long-term effects of humans consuming it, how the FDA goes to approving these new GEOs.
Scholarly Journals
1. A. A. Snow, D. A. Andow, P. Gepts, E. M. Hallerman, A. Power, J. M. Tiedje and L. L. Wolfenbarger Ecological Applications , Vol. 15, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 377-404
This is a ESA Report from JStor on genetically engineered organisms and the environment: current status and recommendations. It is a basic report generated by the Ecological Society of America. They evaluated the ecological effects of current and potential uses of field-released genetically engineered organisms (GEOs). GEOs do play a positive role in both developed and developing countries as they sustain agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and etc. But the negative ecological results seemed to top the advantages. One example of possible risks would be: “creating new or more vigorous pests and pathogens.” Therefore the ESA gave recommendations that narrowed down the idea. Like GEOs ”should be designed to reduce environmental risk and more extensive studies of the environmental benefits and risks associated with GEOs are needed.”
In general, the ESA is saying GEOs should be carefully evaluated and used within “the context of a scientifically based regulatory policy that encourages innovation without compromising sound environmental management.” This journal gives some good statements regarding why GEOs are bad and some alternatives to improve and evaluate the usage of GEOs today. I feel like this could be a good beginning to start my paper as well as a guide to possible ideas to extend my thesis.
2. L. Fredrik Sundström, Mare Lõhmus, Jörgen I. Johnsson and Robert H. Devlin Proceedings: Biological Sciences , Vol. 271, Supplement 5 (Aug. 7, 2004), pp. S350-S352
From the title: Growth Hormone Transgenic Salmon Pay for Growth Potential with Increased Predation Mortality, it already gives enough information regarding the journal. I am not so interested in the exact details of how the technology behind the GEOs work, this journal tells me how the recent gene technology to create fast-growing transgenic fishes are a great commercial way to increase potential and shorten production cycles so that the food supply would be increased. Of course there would be a downside to the hormones used on the fishes, especially how they would bring down and create possible damage to the natural environment. To predict the effects of hormone (GH)-transgenic fish, data is recorded from using landscape stream aquaria that predation mortality of newly hatched GH-transgenic coho salmon fry (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is much higher than in non-transgenic conspecifics. Also, the fitness of the coho salmon in the wild really depends on both predation pressure and food availability.
This journal gives data to prove the downsides of GH-transgenic salmons as they are put into a higher level of predation mortality. With the technologies out there, it is great to see GEOs being made so it increases food supply, but does it really? The other factors that relate to the fitness of these new species might be reconsidered before making that comment…
3 potential topics
1. Genetically engineered salmon
2. Conventional vs. organic farming
3. Public water sources
I researched around the web for possible research topics and came down with these 3 topics. From these 3 options, I think I might just go with the original idea that was developed. When I was in the basement of lockwood, I was so lost in finding a book that was going to help me prove my final thesis. But I was in front of the books that talks about fishing rights, animal treatment, privatization of the ocean and I thought it was interesting. Especially I remember from a television that I watched a while ago that talked about how people are going to vacation in Alaska and catching fishes illegally.
However, I did not really know how to relate it closer to food and such. Since I thought genetically engineered chicken was a topic that caught my eye, putting the two together lead to the idea of genetically engineered salmon. With this topic in mind, this leads to some basic questions. For example, how long are the manufacturing companies plan to conceal the truth about the foods we are eating today? I had no clue that 45% of the corn and 85% of the soybeans in the US are actually genetically engineered until I actually searched it up. Also, the role of FDA holds when it comes to approving a certain genetically engineered food. Last but not least, whether these foods pose a risk even though they might be approved.
Despite..should & If…then
1. Despite how school lunches are being served to kids these days just meeting the basic nutritional values, should it be modified so that it can offer higher intakes of vitamins and necessary nutrients?
2. Despite the already settle guidelines regarding school lunches, should it be modified even with higher costs?
3. Despite following guidelines and serving the required nutritional school lunches, should it be altered since kids these days do not even consume half of what is on the trays and most of it go to waste?
1. If requiring guidelines for school lunches is true, then why do school only focus on the values and not on taste?
2. If the food on school lunch trays are not appealing, then schools should really consider the chances of kids consuming these foods that us adults would not even eat.
3. If school are truly concerned about children’s daily diets, then there is a need to improve what they have been serving on school lunch trays.
