It looks like a North Atlantic salmon. But it grows seven times faster, and it's much more attractive to the opposite sex than a normal salmon.

It's a transgenic fish, the first genetically engineered animal under review for the U.S. food supply. Embedded in every cell of its body are genes from the Chinook salmon and the ocean pout fish that make it grow more quickly.

The altered salmon is likely to become the next focus in the battle over bioengineered food, after controversies over the desirability of genetically altered bovine growth hormones in cows and modified corn, soybeans and canola in cereals and tortilla chips.

In the next year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will consider a petition by Aqua Bounty Farms of Waltham, Mass., to farm and market the altered salmon.

Already, the prospect of mutant fish escaping and disrupting already threatened wild populations has prompted lawmakers in several states to take pre-emptive steps. California could become the first state to ban transgenic fish outright.

Last week, the Senate Natural Resources Committee approved a bill by Sen. Byron Sher, D-Palo Alto, that would make it illegal to import, transport, possess or release transgenic fish. They would be considered an "aquatic nuisance," a category that includes piranhas, slugs and giant toads that threaten wildlife.

Another bill by Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin, D-Duncan Mills, would require labeling of transgenic fish sold in markets. And a joint legislative resolution introduced by Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael, urges the FDA to deny Aqua Bounty's petition and put in place a moratorium on transgenic fish.


The bills -- and Sher's in particular -- have strong support from consumer, environmental and commercial fishing groups, which dub the altered salmon a "Frankenfish" that would eat or outcompete smaller wild species and cause their extinction. What's more, critics say, federal regulatory oversight of bio-engineered foods is not sufficient to guarantee the fish are safe to eat.

Proponents of biotechnology, on the other hand, view transgenic fish as the answer to supplying consumers with healthful fish without depleting the ocean's declining populations. To fish farmers, it means being able to grow salmon in half the time and at lower feed costs.

Sher's bill could abruptly end these hopes. Biotechnology trade groups, the National Food Processors Association, the state Chamber of Commerce, California Farm Bureau and the California Grocers Association oppose the legislation.

Passing a strict anti-transgenic fish state law would create "a precedent, and could poison the well. Once the door is shut, we may never be able to find the key to open it up again," said George Gough, a Sacramento lobbyist for Monsanto Co.

He urges legislators to leave it up to the FDA, which must consult with federal wildlife and fisheries agencies, to decide whether the bio-engineered salmon is safe.

"This is really the first biotech animal that is going through the review process. The FDA is going to be taking a microscope to this, and it should. When you you say 'fish' or 'beef,' it hits you more than when you say 'soybean, ' " he said.

While Monsanto doesn't work with fish, it's one of the largest producers of transgenic crops, holding dozens of patents on new biotech products, among them soybeans, potatoes, canola and corn. The company believes a California ban would have a chilling effect on the industry and investors.

Opponents of biotechnology say a pre-emptive strike is crucial. About two dozen varieties of genetically engineered fish or shellfish are under development, most aimed at increasing growth and resistance to disease in such species as abalone, oysters, stripped bass, rainbow trout, catfish and tilapia.


"These genetically engineered fish will pose a threat to our natural resources," said Natasha Benjamin, program officer with the Institute for Fisheries Resources, a research arm of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.

"California is known to set a precedent when it comes to environmental standards. We hope to see the state take the lead in this issue, and hopefully other states will follow," she said.

At the crux of the debate is whether the superfish would escape into the wild and harm native salmon populations. Damaged by dams, pollution, invasive species and loss of fresh water, salmon are already struggling for sustainability on the Pacific Coast.

A 1999 study by Purdue University scientists predicted ecological risks from the release of transgenic fish into the wild.

The researchers found the larger transgenic fish were more attractive mates for native fish, thus allowing a trait to spread quickly through the wild population. But because the offspring don't live long, eventually the native population would be wiped out.

The study caused widespread concern because in aquaculture, the escape of farmed fish is inevitable.


Last year, Maryland passed a law prohibiting transgenic fish any place that might connect with waterways. In Oregon, the law prohibits the release of transgenic fish into locations where they can mingle with wild populations. There are discussions in Alaska over an outright ban.

Representatives of Aqua Bounty Farms say its modified Atlantic salmon won't threaten wild stocks. The company will use only sterile females in netted pens, so, if they escape, they won't spawn and pass along the genetic traits.

Joseph McGonigle, vice president of Aqua Bounty, said the technique that his company uses to sterilize eggs "is 100 percent effective. We will be doing . . . screening on every batch of eggs that is done."

But fish scientists, including some from the aquaculture industry, say there is still a chance that a small percentage of fish will be fertile. And they predict another problem: Wild male salmon will try to mate with the larger but sterile female salmon, depressing reproduction rates.

Aquaculture is the fastest growing segment of agriculture, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In California, sales of farmed fish and shellfish have jumped from $33 million a year in 1991 to $71 million in 1999 from more than 100 producers.

"The majority of our producers are not involved in transgenics. What we're grappling with is that there may be some transgenic techniques that are proven safe that would be excluded by this bill," said Justin Malan, executive director of the California Aquaculture Association.

The trade group is negotiating with the bill's author to change the language. One of the aquaculture industry's problems is that the bill shuts out all commercial ventures.

"It's a question of whether the importation of transgenic fish should be banned or adequately regulated," Malan said. "We don't have a problem with stipulations that will safeguard the environment or public health, but a ban is forever."