Consumer groups push for label for modified salmon

September 21, 2010 By MARY CLARE JALONICK , Associated Press Writer
This undated handout photo provided by AquaBounty Technologies shows two same-age salmon, a genetically modified salmon, rear, and a non-genetically modified salmon, foreground. The Food and Drug Administration pondered Monday whether to say, for the first time, that it's OK to market a genetically engineered animal as safe for people to eat. (AP Photo/AquaBounty Technologies)

(AP) -- Consumer advocates urged the Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday to ensure that salmon engineered to grow twice as fast as the conventional variety are labeled in the grocery store as genetically modified.

The FDA conducted a hearing on how the salmon, if approved for sale by the agency, should be labeled. According to federal rules, the fish would not be labeled as genetically modified if the agency decides it has the same material makeup as conventional salmon.

Consumer advocates say it is the public's right to know that has occurred. AquaBounty, the company that has developed the fish and is applying to the FDA to market it, says that genetically modified salmon have the same flavor, texture, color and odor as the conventional fish.

Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, testified that his organization disagrees with the FDA that genetic engineering itself does not constitute a material difference in the two fish. He added that the agency does have the authority to demand the labels, citing previous rules that allowed foods to be labeled so people with religious or cultural sensitivities could avoid them.

Labeling is also a safeguard for the safety of the fish, Hansen said.

"You need this labeling so if there's a problem down the road, you can trace it back," he said.

The engineered by AquaBounty has an added a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon that allows the fish to produce growth hormone all year long. The engineers were able to keep the hormone active by using another gene from an eel-like fish, an ocean pout, that acts like an "on switch" for the hormone, which conventional salmon produce only some of the time.

In his testimony, Ron Stotish, the CEO of AquaBounty, told the FDA, "This fish is an Atlantic salmon."

In documents released ahead of the hearing, the FDA agreed with the company, saying there were no biologically relevant differences between the engineered salmon and conventional salmon, and there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will come from its consumption.

On Monday, during a hearing on the science of the fish, FDA scientists said there are very few differences between the modified and conventional fish. An advisory panel that heard the evidence was more cautious, saying more study is needed to be sure.

Two experts speaking at the labeling meeting Tuesday agreed with the FDA that there are no obvious material differences between the two fish.

Alison L. Van Eenennaam of the University of California Davis and Gregory Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said there was no evidence from the data provided that the two fish were different enough the be labeled as such, though Jaffe urged the FDA to ensure the fish is somehow branded so consumers know what they are eating.

"The reality is there are consumers out there who want to know if their salmon has been genetically engineered," he said.

If the FDA approves the sale of the salmon, it will be the first time the government has allowed such modified animals to be marketed for human consumption. AquaBounty submitted its first application for FDA approval in 1995, but the agency did not decide until two years ago to consider applications for genetically engineered animals.

Genetically engineered animals are not clones, which the FDA has already said are safe to eat. Clones are copies of an animal. In GE animals, the DNA has been altered to produce a desirable characteristic.

Critics have two main concerns about the modified fish: The safety of the food to humans and the salmon's effect on the environment.

Because the altered fish has never been eaten before, they say, it could include dangerous allergens, especially because seafood is highly allergenic. They also worry that the fish will escape and intermingle with the wild salmon population, which is already endangered. They would grow fast and consume more food to the detriment of the conventional wild salmon, the critics fear.

The company says it has several safeguards in place to quell concerns. The fish would be bred female and sterile, though a small percentage might be able to breed. They would be bred in confined pools where the potential for escape would be low.

The FDA has said the fish shouldn't cause any allergies not already found in conventional and there is little chance they could escape. But its advisory panel, which was formed to give input to the agency, cast some doubt on whether there was enough evidence to back up those assertions.

It is still unclear whether the public will have an appetite for the fish if it is approved. is already widely used for crops, but the government until now has not considered allowing the consumption of modified animals. Although the potential benefits - and profits - are huge, many people have qualms about manipulating the genetic code of other living creatures.

If approved, the fish could be in grocery stores in two years, the company estimates.

Explore further: FDA considering whether to label engineered fish

More information: Background on FDA meeting:


Related Stories

Fish or frankenfish? FDA weighs altered salmon (Update)

September 20, 2010

(AP) -- Fish or frankenfish? A Massachusetts company wants to market a genetically engineered version of Atlantic salmon, and regulators are weighing the request. If approval is given, it would be the first time the government ...

US mulls approval of genetically engineered salmon

September 6, 2010

US authorities have begun to consider approval for the first time the sale of genetically engineered salmon, a move that some say could open the door to more transgenic animals on American dinner tables.

Scientists wonder where salmon are

July 7, 2005

Biologists and fish and wildlife experts in Washington State say only about 100,000 sockeye salmon have returned to spawn and they want to know why.

Salmon marked 'wild' may be farm-raised

June 30, 2006

Salmon labeled "wild" may actually be "farm-raised" and can be costly besides being wrongly packaged, New-York based Consumer Reports says.

Recommended for you

Quick quick slow is no-go in crab courtship dance

January 16, 2018

Female fiddler crabs are sensitive to changes in the speed of a male's courtship display, significantly preferring displays that accelerate to those that are performed at a constant speed or slow down.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Sep 21, 2010
If the FDA bows to the company and does not require labeling, people with concerns will either have to avoid ALL salmon to be sure they don't eat "frankenfish" or those marketing non-modified salmon will choose to label it as such, just as products with no GMO ingredients include "No GMO" on their packaging.
not rated yet Sep 22, 2010
The most unrational fear ever- the fear of trancegenic organism! Yes the FDA must bows to the stuped consumer who is afraid from being contaminated with genes from the fish. Claiming something is bad without proves- this is criminal activity.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.