Frankenfish and the World of Genetically Modified Food

The scary ways our food supply is being screwed with and why you might not know you're eating altered fish

Dan Forbes
Swimming in Controversy
At a meeting in September 2010, the FDA—considering whether to approve AquaBounty Technologies' application—presented its analysis of ABT's studies to the committee that evaluates safety data of new animal drugs, feeds, and devices. The FDA had already reached a unanimous preliminary conclusion that the food from the transgenic salmon "is as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon" and that "there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food from this animal."

At the end of the meeting, 15 scientists and consumer advocates each received five minutes to note their opinions for the record. Nearly all of them called ABT's research sloppy. Among other things, they criticized the extremely small sample sizes used for some of the studies; the absence of key safety-assessment studies; and the use of insensitive detection methods that could easily miss potential health risks (see "Big Fish, Big Concerns," at left, for critics' top qualms).

A week later, 11 senators asked the FDA to immediately "halt all proceedings" on the matter, citing in a letter endorsed by 50 consumer and environmental groups "serious concerns with potential human health and environmental risks that are associated with producing [GM] fish." This past February, two senators from Alaska introduced a bill, endorsed by 64 organizations, that would ban GM fish and require labeling if approved. And 360,000 citizens sent letters to the FDA, demanding that it reject this fish. Despite all this, FDA approval could come any day.

"The FDA did a supposed assessment based almost completely on data from AquaBounty, and in the assessment the FDA repeatedly points out serious problems in the data, and then says it doesn't matter," says Freese. Anne Kapuscinski, a fisheries biologist and professor at Dartmouth College who studies genetically engineered fish, agrees: "There are a lot of problems with the scientific quality of the analysis," she says. "If this application is going to set the precedent for what the FDA will require in the future for approving genetically engineered animals, then the quality of the science is really important."

Even those in support of approving the fish admit the research could have been better. "We're still figuring out how to do these sorts of studies as we go," says Eric Hallerman, Ph.D., a professor of fisheries science at Virginia Tech who was an invited speaker at the September meeting.

Engineering Our Future
Beyond the analytical ruckus, everyone seems to agree on the need for sustainable aquaculture—that is, growing fish in controlled environments, which currently provides almost half of all the fish consumed worldwide. The United Nations has predicted there will be a 25 percent increase in global demand for seafood by 2030, and because we've overfished the oceans, the increase can be met only by aquaculture. Stotish, ABT's president, is convinced that his AquAdvantage fish is the perfect solution. "Our technology allows for a method of production that is land-based, environmentally sustainable, and economical," he says. "This isn't anything to be frightened about."

It is, he says, the fear of technology—of folks in white lab coats playing God with living creatures—that sounds the Frankenfish alarm. Some think it's a fear that we just need to get over. "[It's important to] focus on the source of the fear and investigate its basis," says Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D., a biotechnology extension specialist at the University of California at Davis, who served on the committee that evaluated the data. "There are legitimate questions, but they have been thoroughly investigated, and where risks were identified, mitigation measures have been proposed [by the FDA]."

But, says Seeds of Deception author Smith, "if you're going to introduce a food into the food supply, it should not be allowed to have dangers. Otherwise, why would you introduce it?" he asks. "With drugs, the side effects are known and people can choose to take the risks in exchange for the benefits. If unexpected problems arise, the drug can be recalled. With GM food, however, it's not labeled, everyone's eating it, and because it cross-pollinates and self-propagates, it can't be recalled. If there are side effects, we might never know."

Dartmouth's Kapuscinski says the folks in favor of genetically engineered fish are missing the point. Of course we need aquaculture, she says, but we need to figure out a method that is truly sustainable, citing a new area of work in which fish waste becomes nutrients for plants and other organisms. "The answer isn't patenting these animals and then getting rich off the royalties," she says. "That's like having a tool and looking for a reason to justify its use."

If consumers would rather not play Russian roulette with their health, if they'd rather take a pass on this fish until they're assured of its safety, that's too bad. Although a 2008 poll by CBS News found that 87 percent of people want food with GM ingredients to be labeled—just as they are for trans fats, MSG, and aspartame—these fish, like GM crops, probably won't be. "That's a very complicated issue," says Stotish. "Our product is identical in every measurable way to the traditional food. I don't want to trivialize it, because we know this is an emotional issue. We do understand people's concerns, but it's a distinction without a difference. It implies something is different, that something may be wrong. We don't want what is basically the equivalent of a warning."

If the FDA approves the technology, the door will be open to all sorts of other genetically engineered animals being developed as food. Stotish says ABT has already put the same genetic "cassette" into other fish with the same effects, and the company is developing other engineered traits, such as improving flesh qualities.

Indeed, a large international effort is aimed at developing at least two dozen different transgenic fin fishes, seven mollusks, and six crustaceans. And it's not just the surf, but also the turf: A genetically engineered pig that produces less-polluting manure is in the works, as well as cattle that are resistant to mad cow disease. "This is brand-new, and if this is the kind of shoddy testing the FDA is accepting for the very first GM animal, then God help us for others that come down the line," says Freese.

A key question left unanswered in the hubbub: What, exactly, is food anymore? Sadly, we may have already moved beyond that point. "Most people don't know where their food comes from. My kids think beef comes from cellophane-wrapped packages in a cold case," says Stotish. "They don't associate it with a living thing." But perhaps we all would be better off if we did.

Issue date: September 2011

Check It Out:
43238, 41341