Washington Post Worried About Frankenfish

2 Articles:

Really Big Fish
Blue Revolution on the Horizon as Scientists Develop Genetically Engineered Fish

Editorial
Really Big Fish

The Washington Post
Saturday, May 19, 2001

THE ECOSYSTEM may or may not be ready for the first genetically
engineered salmon, but the regulatory system emphatically is not. It is
stuck in the legacy of decisions about biotech regulation made in the
mid-1980s, when food was food, drugs were drugs and a lot of people
thought most biotech products were going to be microbes. The creatures
and products that have come along instead -- corn that makes its own
pesticide, animals that make drugs, goats that carry a spider gene and
make silk -- are straining that simple model.

The case of the salmon shows how badly the framework needs updating. A
coalition of 60 consumer and environmental groups recently asked the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to block importation and marketing of
the souped-up salmon, which reaches full size faster because of
genetically stepped-up production of growth hormone. The fish have been
under development under controlled conditions in Canada, but they have
not been commercially marketed. No significant health issues have been
raised about humans eating the fish. But environmentalists fear that if
the altered fish escape from the ocean pens in which commercial fish are
typically grown, they could mate with wild salmon and wreck ecological
balances. That issue is unlikely to get the best possible airing at the
FDA, which has classified the genetic enhancement as a drug for animals.
That technically means the main task of its review will not be to look
at the effects of the fish on the environment or the fish on the
consumer, but to study the effect of the growth hormone on the fish.

Environmental issues will be covered, the FDA promises. But the
environmental and marine specialists who could best address them are
housed at other agencies, and no law requires their routine involvement
in decisions about the handling of genetically modified organisms that
might get released into the environment. Even the Environmental
Protection Agency gets involved only under narrow circumstances. It was
able to regulate Starlink, the bioengineered corn that found its way
into the food supply after being denied a permit for human consumption,
only because the corn was classified as containing a pesticide. Such
piecemeal authority won't foster consumer confidence in the growing
number of genetically modified organisms, especially given the
irrational fears that have swept Europe. Consumers can benefit hugely
from these products, but only if whatever needs checking is being
checked. Those producing these organisms likewise need to have a
reliable notion of what sort of hurdles they face. The opposite
situation now obtains: Most checking is voluntary, especially for foods,
but the coalition that petitioned the FDA on the salmon has also filed
the request with the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior
(which houses the Fish and Wildlife Service) and Defense (the Army Corps
of Engineers). Any of these could theoretically claim jurisdiction under
statutes ranging from the Endangered Species Act to laws governing the
control of exotic foreign species.

A better way is mapped out in legislation being drafted by Rep. Peter
DeFazio (D-Ore.). It would require approval of new genetically modified
organisms through a single "address," probably an assistant EPA
administrator for biotech, who would then be required to consult with
experts in other agencies depending on each organism's properties. The
exact address is less important than the idea of a process flexible
enough to keep up with bioengineers' limitless ingenuity.

***************************************************************

Blue Revolution on the Horizon as Scientists
Develop Genetically Engineered Fish

>From the March 2001 issue of The Campaign Reporter

Agribusinesses tamper with nature in the quest for ever greater profits

Coming soon to a supermarket near you: genetically engineered salmon,
tuna, lobsters, shrimp and other sea critters. Some scientists are
calling this latest wave of sea-based genetic tampering the "blue
revolution".

Unfortunately, this revolution may have dire consequences for human
health and the environment-even, possibly, leading to the extinction of
some species of fish. And as with other genetically engineered foods,
the U.S. government largely has sidestepped its responsibility of
protecting people and the planet. Instead, it appears to be trusting the
companies that stand to profit the most from selling these foods to
gauge the safety of their own products.

The most imminent biotech seafood has been dubbed the superfish. It's a
salmon that grows twice as big - and as much as six times as quickly -
as its natural Atlantic counterpart, and it may be in stores as early as
next year.

A/F Protein, an American-Canadian biotech firm doing business on Prince
Edward Island, has genetically engineered more than 100,000 salmon so
far to include an antifreeze protein that allows the salmon to produce a
growth hormone year-round. Normally, the salmon produce this growth
hormone only during the warm months.

A/F Protein is awaiting approval by the Food and Drug Administration to
begin selling the fish to the United States, the biggest consumer of
farmed fish in the world.

Other companies are tinkering with genetic engineering techniques that
could produce the world's largest lobster, and giant chickens, sheep and
pigs. The goal is to produce animals with double the meat yield of
normal animals.

Proponents of sea biotechnology think it will do a lot to help their
bottom line. "We're aiming to reduce the time to market to 50 percent so
we're no longer having to feed these fish without getting any return,"
Michael Erisman, vice president of business development for A/F Protein,
told Fox News last fall.

Proponents of Frankenfish argue that it is an efficient way of feeding a
growing human population at a time when fishing stocks are declining
around the globe. But critics say mixing biotech and seafood may spell
disaster.

Risky business: "Trojan" genes may wipe out natural fish populations

Industry officials say that they will grow genetically engineered salmon
in "fish farms" - enclosed pens that are kept separate from wild fish.
But many scientists are terrified of the possible ramifications should
genetically engineered salmon or other marine life escape from
notoriously leaky fish farms. Frequently, fish farms are kept in open
waters; storm weather and other factors often lead to fish escapes.

In one study, Purdue University scientists William Muir and Richard Muir
looked at what might happen if transgenic Japanese madaka fish were
released into the wild. The pair discovered that 30 percent of Japanese
madaka that are engineered to produce human growth hormone-and thus grow
much faster than normal-don't survive to sexual maturity.

"In the market, this is not important. Fish can be sold and eaten before
they are sexually mature," writes biotech fish critic Jean-Michel
Cousteau for the Environmental News Network. "But in nature, surviving
to sexual maturity is everything. The superfish may dominate the mating
game, but if they are least likely to produce viable offspring, the
population will eventually decline."

The Purdue scientists calculated that if 60 transgenic fish were
released into a population of 60,000 wild fish, in 40 generations, the
species would become extinct.

Biotech fish growers say they will render the biotech fish sterile, thus
preventing the extinction problem. However, Cousteau argues, "complete
sterilization of all fish is simply not a reality. Nor is it likely to
be. No company has stepped forward to guarantee 100 percent perfection
in sterility. And nothing short of perfection is acceptable, for it only
takes one well-endowed superfish in a population of wild salmon to start
the process of decline."

An additional fear is that Frankensalmon and other transgenic aquatic
species will wipe out food sources for their natural counterparts.
A/F Protein is not the first company to experiment with genetically
mutated fish. In the mid-1990s, NZ King Salmon, New Zealand's largest
salmon producer, tried to produce transgenic salmon. The company has
confirmed, however, that some fish were spawned with deformed heads.
(Salon, "Stalking the wild Frankensalmon", May 5, 2000)

Last May, German zoologist Hans-Hinrich Kaatz made headlines when he
found evidence that genes used to modify crops can jump the species
barrier and cause bacteria to mutate. Under that theory, if genetically
engineered fish escape into the wild, it could lead to contamination of
many natural species of fish.

Who's minding the fish pen? Government policy "full of holes"

The U.S. government, which already has a reputation for kowtowing to
industry when it comes to genetically engineered fruits and vegetables,
has not inspired confidence that it can handle the vast implications of
biotech fish any better. Laws on the books are more appropriate for an
earlier era, and some people say the present situation is akin to using
19th century transportation laws to regulate air travel.

"Here we are on the brink of remaking life on Earth through genetic
engineering, and we do not have a thorough process for reviewing the
environmental impacts," said William Brown, former science advisor to
the Clinton Administration's Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. "The
system is full of holes."

"My sense is that the current system is not going to be OK and that
there are going to have to be changes--or a whole new system put in,"
said Bill Knapp, a senior fisheries official with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.

Federal officials, according to a January 2nd Los Angeles Times report,
say there are no laws on the books requiring people who alter fish genes
to keep the fish isolated from natural fish. Additionally, they say, it
is unclear whether federal law prohibits a person from releasing
genetically modified animals into the wild.

Critics also charge that the FDA, whose domain is food and drug safety,
does not have the expertise to gauge the environmental implications of
biotech seafood. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department
of Agriculture bowed out of the salmon case.

"Having the FDA assess environmental risks would be like having the Fish
and Wildlife Service assessing food safety," said Rebecca Goldburg, a
senior scientist with the environmental Defense Fund. "It's absurd."

Many fishermen around the world are worried about the implications of
transgenic fish as well. In Scotland, an estimated 700,000 salmon
escaped from fish farms over a three-year period. In 2000, the trade
group representing the country's salmon industry voted to reject any use
of transgenic salmon within the country's borders. (Salon, "Stalking the
wild Frankensalmon", May 5, 2000)

"We are very worried," said Glen Spain, Northwest regional director of
the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. "Once you let
the genies out of the bottle, you are at the mercy of the genies."

Food pharm: Biotech land animals on the way as well

Biotech companies also are working on bringing genetically engineered
land-based animals to market. On the drawing board are pigs engineered
to have less fat, cattle that grow twice as fast on less feed, and
chicken engineered to resist disease-causing bacteria.

"The most striking of the new creatures being concocted by plucking a
gene from one organism and inserting it into the DNA of another,"
according to a New York Times article last May, "are what are known as
pharm animals. These domesticated beasts - cows, pigs, goats, sheep and
chickens - have been given the ability to produce pharmaceuticals and
other valuable substances in their milk, eggs or semen."

If you think these developments sound like they come out of a
frightening sci-fi novel, you're not alone.

The New York Times continues: "Endowed by scientists with foreign genes,
often taken from humans, these animals, or bioreactors, as they are
known, earn their keep as living chemical factories."

One company is developing a goat that includes genes from a spider,
allow the goat to produce spider silk in its milk. The extremely strong
spider silk would then be extracted from the goat's milk, and may be
used in bulletproof vests and other products.

A Canadian university team is trying to create chickens engineered to
produce antibiotics in their eggs.

Animal rights supporters say there are troubling moral issues
surrounding the use of animals as chemical factories. And some
scientists say there are food safety issues as well.

"Those goats are not going to just get a decent burial after they grow
old and stop producing silk," John Matheson, senior regulatory review
scientist at the Center for Veterinary Medicine at the FDA, told the New
York Times. "So we have to look at them as potential food and as
potential feed ingredients."

Matheson also told the Times that some genetically engineered animals
already have been approved for use in animal feeds, but said he was
unable to reveal any details because the biotech animals are still
experimental and under confidential FDA review.


<<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>>