A Salmon's Unsettled Journey from the Lab to the Market

Transgenic AquAdvantage salmon grow faster than their natural counterparts.

Coming to a grocery store near you: transgenic salmon? That’s been on AquaBounty Technologies' wishlist since the company genetically engineered a salmon for human consumption more than 15 year ago.

A formal application for the so-called AquAdvantage (AA) salmon was first submitted in 1995 to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an investigative new animal drug. AA salmon contain a transgene that encodes for a Chinook salmon growth hormone which results in faster fish growth and consequently increases food production. However, the FDA approval process to market the genetically engineered salmon has been log-jammed over safety and efficacy issues.

According to William Muir, a Purdue University scientist providing a review of the FDA approval process, data made available by the FDA shows that AA salmon poses little real risk to the environment or human health. The fish would be spawned in Canada and grown to full size in Panama, both of which are land-based, contained facilities.

"We realize that any new technology can have risks, and those risks need to be assessed in a thorough and convincing manner," Muir said. "However, once the assessment has been completed and the agency concludes from the weight of evidence that risks of harm, either to the environment or to consumers, is negligible, the next step, which is to allow production and sale of the product, needs to be taken."

Muir and Alison L. Van Eenennaam, an animal genomics and biotechnology Extension specialist at the University of California Davis, made the call for FDA approval in a peer-reviewed commentary in the early online version of the journal Nature Biotechnology.

The salmon would be the first genetically engineered animal used as a food in the United States, but it has been tied up in FDA regulatory proceedings since 1995. Muir said that becomes a disincentive for those working to increase food supplies for a growing world population.

"This tells us that no entrepreneur is going to invest in these new projects because they can't get them approved," Muir said.

Muir has not received any funding or support from AquaBounty Technologies.

Alan Mathew, head of Purdue's Department of Animal Sciences, served on the FDA's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee, which did not find any significant concerns for AA salmon. He said after considering the issues, he was convinced that the genetically engineered salmon is safe.

"We determined there was not added risk. This is generally the same food as farm-raised and wild salmon," Mathew said.

Mathew said crops and animals have been selected for favorable traits for centuries, keeping the value-added genes and eliminating unfavorable ones. He said genetic engineering simply shortens the time it takes to gain those favorable traits.

"Our methods are doing it more strategically rather than randomly," Mathew said.

The commentary goes point by point to refute concerns raised by special interest groups over genetically engineered salmon.

One of the most significant environmental concerns about genetically engineered salmon is that if they were introduced into the wild salmon population, they would cause its extinction. This is a theoretical scenario discovered earlier by Muir, which he termed the Trojan gene effect. However, Muir examined fitness data and concluded that AA salmon are less fit than their native counterparts, meaning that natural selection would simply purge them from the wild population.

"The Trojan gene effect does not apply in this case, and there is no evidence to support concern for an extinction event," Muir said.

Muir also points out that AquaBounty has developed multiple redundant safeguards to prevent the fish from entering natural populations.

First, only triploid eggs which have three copies of each chromosome - would be sent to Panama from Canada. That means 99.7 percent of the fish are sterile. All the fish would also be female, unable to breed with each other.

Second, the facility in Panama is land-based, with screens to keep the salmon inside. Panama was chosen as the farming site because its waters are tropical. If fertile AA salmon were able to escape the holding barriers, they would perish when reaching water too warm for their survival.

Finally, in the unlikely event that fertile fish escaped and survived in the surrounding oceans, they would have to swim several thousand miles to find possible spawning streams and mates.

Regarding human health concerns, AA salmon were said to have more allergens than non-genetically engineered salmon. This raised concerns that consuming the genetically engineered versions could harm people.

But the data did not support this assertion. Muir said there is no baseline for the amount of allergens a fish may contain before it is unsafe for consumption and that many fish consumed regularly, such as herring, have significantly more allergens than AA salmon.

"There is as much as a hundredfold difference in the allergenicity among fish," Muir said. "At what level should it trigger concern?"

Muir also argues that the FDA will treat AA salmon like a new drug that has been through the regulatory process. The agency can approve and continue to monitor the salmon. If new concerns are raised and found to be valid, the government could withdraw its approval.

Source

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

GM Salmon

Andrew: where on earth did you get the idea that Dr. Muir and Purdue were collaborators and developers of AquaBounty's GM salmon? You should do a better job of investigation before you publish such erroneous statements.

Hi Mystery Scientist: thank

Hi Mystery Scientist: thank you for your comment. My apologies for falsely stating that the two parties are collaborators and developers of the AA salmon. Dr. Muir's involvement was unclear to me at the time. I have retracted my original statement(s).

sounds fishy

Andrew - what are your thoughts on this study? I find a lot that could go wrong with introducing this 'super' salmon. my largest concern is the potential impact on wild salmon. I understand that they are only hatching females and keeping them in land-locked lakes. But, right now one of the largest conservation efforts for wild salmon is based on the fact that humans want to eat those salmon. if we engineered some 'super' salmon that no longer made it as essential to protect wild salmon biodiversity and habitat, we could see them go extinct.

and that's not even going into all the other concerns i have with this study. why is AA salmon getting treated as a 'drug' if there are no potential side effects to humans???

Re: sounds fishy

Hi Mystery Scientist: thanks for your comments!

First I'd like to be a bit cautious calling AA salmon "super" salmon, which might lead to the assumption that they are "super" sized and could out-compete wild salmon. On average, AA salmon do not grow any larger than their wild counterparts; they only grow faster and therefore reduces the time required for the fish to mature and be ready to harvest.

Second, to answer your question about why AA salmon is being regulated as a drug, the FDA defines a drug as:

"an article (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals. Therefore, the rDNA construct intended to change the structure or function of the body of the genetically engineered (GE) animal is a drug."

As far as potential side-effects, the article notes that AA salmon are more allergenic than wild salmon. In fact, the allergens in AA salmon are 20-50% higher but the FDA concluded that the study design had flaws and there were insufficient data and information to draw a conclusion. However, to contest the higher allergenicity, Dr. Muir notes that there are no established guidelines stating what level(s) of allergens is a risk to humans (e.g., how much peanut allergen does a peanut have to have before its a risk to someone who has peanut allergies?). In my opinion, I think the allergen study should be reviewed/re-done since consumer health could be at risk.

I agree with your concern regarding the possibility that salmon biodiversity and habitat could be in jeopardy if public/private conservation groups no longer have to worry about threats to wild salmon. I also wonder what the long-term impact of eating AA salmon (or any other transgenic animal made for consumption) is on human health. We have had access to a number of genetically modified foods but the consequences of long-term use has [likely] not been studied. I like the idea of all this but I don't think I'm ready for a giant leap to seeing grocery store shelves being stocked with GE foods.

Genetic discoveries have and

Genetic discoveries have and will continue to shape our understanding of the world in a variety of ways. Here is a series that explores the Greatest Genetic Discoveries Series presented by the Discovery Channel. What do you think of this? http://cbt20.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/genetic-discoveries/

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2> <embed> <iframe> <object> <pram>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
7 + 9 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.