Rapid developments in genetic engineering have allowed scientists to alter the basic building blocks of life. The widespread use of gen etically modified organisms (GMO) in agriculture has dramatically increased food production.
However, the use of GMO has garnered much controversy. What place do genetically modified foods have in our diet, and how safe is it to consume them? Recently, a new product developed by Aqua Bounty Technologies has stirred new debate over the procedures used to approve these products.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently considering whether or not to approve a genetically modified Atlantic salmon after it undergoes FDA’s new animal drug application (NADA) process.
This GM salmon contains a growth gene and a switch-on gene from different salmon species that allow the animal to grow faster with less feed. If approved by the FDA for consumption, the salmon would be the first transgenic animal to be certified for human consumption in the United States.
According to Dr. Smith, from the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, and his team of researchers, the FDA’s NADA process is an insufficient and too narrow a mechanism by which to examine whether the GM salmon would be an appropriate food to add to the human diet.
These health risks are quantified by comparing the nutritional profile of a GM salmon to transgenic salmon. In addition, FDA scientists screen for known toxins and allergens.
By only examining the risks of each GM salmon compared with non-GM salmon, Dr. Smith states that the FDA approach fails to acknowledge how the transgenic salmon may affect total production as well as consumption of salmon, factors that could dramatically impact human health and the environment.
The AquAdvantage Salmon could potentially lower the costs of production by reducing the amount of feed and other inputs needed to produce one salmon. This would lead to an increase in production and further decrease salmon prices. As a result, GM salmon could put natural salmon in reach as a protein source for low-income households susceptible to conditions linked to poor nutrition.
While there are various health issues associated with consuming fish, for adults, the overall health benefits trump health risks from consuming fish. Salmon has the highest levels of omega-3 fatty acids than any other commercial fish. These fatty acids reduce the risk of coronary heart disease as well as increase fetal brain development. In the United States, salmon is of the tenth most frequently consumed fish.
Additionally, under federal law, the FDA is required to evaluate the environmental impact of the GM salmon if they were approved for human consumption.
Environmental problems that could result from increased salmon farming include local pollution from waste effluents, disease and potentially increased pressure on wild fish stocks that provide sources of feed for salmon. The most talked-about impact of GM salmon is the impact it could have on wild salmon (through either gene transfer or ecological competition).
Although the GM salmon might require less feed than wild salmon, if introducing GM salmon expands the market enough to compensate for the reduction of fish meal and oil input per salmon with the new technology, then demand for fish meal and oil will increase. The environmental risks of this increase are debatable.
Currently, salmon farming currently consumes 40 percent of world fish oil production, and commercial feed uses about 3 kg of wild fish to produce 1 kg of salmon. The technology to produce feed without ingredients from fatty fish that only exist in the wild is not available to compensate for this ratio.
Hence, when environmental or indirect health impacts of a new technology or policy depend on market size, as with GM salmon, a full impact assessment can help avoid unintended consequences.
By comparing a portion of GM fish to an equivalent portion of non-GM fish, Dr. Smith contends that the FDA is not keeping within its mandate to determine whether a new animal drug is “safe”. This may result from FDA’s perception of GM fish as an animal drug instead of a food, where disease incidence shapes the former and market prices shapes the latter.
To better incorporate both tasks into the FDA’s scope, Dr. Smith and his team suggest that Congress should facilitate a broader definition as well as a broader analysis of the term “safe” by giving FDA resources to better integrate biology and economics.
