annotated bibliography
Genetically Engineered Salmon’s Potential Impact on the Ocean 7
Genetically Engineered Salmon’s Potential Impact on the Ocean
Lacey Russo
Oceanography
Professor Greengrove
November 26, 2013
INTRODUCTION
Popular articles found in newspapers, magazines, and on the internet are often the first place people are introduced to the latest news and new issues that face the public. This is a big responsibility because popular sources of media can have large influences on the way society perceives different issues. Popular articles can also determine what actions are taken by society such as how they vote and what products they buy. One topic that has been highly publicized is Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). Washington State just voted on whether GMOs should be labeled and the concerns about their safety will probably continue on for years.
One topic that hasn’t been publicized as well during the GMO debate is Genetically Engineered (GE) salmon. Some popular articles have been published on this topic but it seems that the general public has little knowledge on GE salmon. This means that popular articles that are published on this topic are likely to have major impacts on the view the public has on the issue. Being able to determine the accuracy and biases of an author and their article is an important skill for our society to have so that they can make well informed decisions about issues.
GENETICALLY ENGENEERED SALMON
Genetically Engineered salmon were created by Aquabounty, a Massachusetts based company. They are Atlantic salmon that grow twice as fast as wild Atlantic salmon (Marris 2010). Aquabounty was founded in 1991 and is still waiting on the approval of these fish by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for human consumption (Perrone and Jalonick 2012). Critics concerned about the safety of the fish and the negative impact they could have on the ocean seem to have delayed approval. The FDA’s job is to examine the fish to determine if they are safe to eat and their potential for environmental damage. It has been determined by the FDA that the fish are safe and that the potential for environmental damage are low but none the less, approval is still pending (Taylor 2010).
Aquabounty has spent over 20 years and 65 million dollars on the development of these genetically engineered salmon in hopes of large profits. They claim that the salmon would be beneficial to wild salmon and humans if approved (Perrone & Jalonick 2012). Aquabounty scientists created the GE salmon by inserting a gene from Pacific Chinook salmon into the genome of Atlantic salmon. This gene encodes for a growth hormone and enables the Atlantic salmon to grow at a much faster pace than they do naturally (Reichhardt 2000). A gene from an “eel-like ocean pout” (Marris 2010) was also added to the Atlantic salmon’s genome. This gene makes it so that the growth hormone from the Chinook salmon stays on all year long, instead of only turning on in the summer (Marris 2010).
POPULAR ARTICLE
To determine how popular articles are portraying issues to the public I decided to look at an article from The Seattle Times called, “FDA says fast-growing fish would not harm nature.” It was written by Matthew Perrone and Mary Clare Jalonick and published on December 21, 2012. The authors address issues surrounding GE salmon such as environmental impacts, safety, reasons for delayed action regarding approval, Aquabounty’s history and business plan, critic’s opinions, and labeling (Perrone and Jalonick 2012).
CLAIMS MADE BY AQUABOUNTY
The article published in the Seattle Times cites claims made by Aquabounty regarding the GE fish and their impact on the environment. Aquabounty claims that it has put in place many safeguards to ensure that the environment will not be harmed by its fish. They also claim that most of the fish they produce will be sterile and that it is unlikely that any will escape (Perrone and Jalonick 2012).
An article in a 2010 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives titled “Genetically Engineered Salmon on the FDA’s Table” (Taylor 2010) list some possible concerns about GE salmon. Calestous Juma is a critic of GE salmon and is cited in this article. He is the director of the Science, Technology and Globalization Project at Harvard University. Juma believes that the main concern surrounding this issue is the impact GE salmon could have on wild salmon. While he does agree that the chances are low, he states that there is a possibility that fertile GE salmon could be produced and that they could escape into the wild. If this was to happen Juma explains that the GE salmon could become established in the area and have negative impacts on the wild salmon (Taylor 2010).
Another scientist, Philip Hedrick (2001) published an article in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences about the effects GE salmon could have on wild salmon and ecosystems if an accidental release of a fertile GE salmon were to happen. Hedrick knows that if this were to happen many possible outcomes could occur but his research did find that there is a possibility of an invasion by GE salmon. This invasion would be made possible by the increased mating success of GE salmon due to their larger size. Hedrick does conclude though, that at this point it is impossible to know whether GE salmon would have an advantage or disadvantage over wild salmon. He also points out at the end of his article that because so much is unknown and research does show possibilities of invasions that it is important for policy makers to be aware of the possibilities if GE salmon are accidentally released (Hedrick 2001).
CLAIMS MADE BY THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTATION
The Seattle Times article also published claims made by the FDA. The FDA said that GE salmon are “unlikely to harm the environment” and that the salmon “will not have any significant impacts on the quality of the human environment of the United States.” The article also says that the FDA claims that GE salmon are unlikely to have impacts on wild salmon (Perrone and Jalonick 2012). While the article is correct about the FDA’s position on GE salmon, they failed to tell the opinions of scientists on the FDA’s claims.
As it turns out, ecologists say that there is not enough information to determine what impacts GE fish could have on ecosystems according to an article in Nature Magazine. This article also warns of the advantage GE salmon could have over wild salmon as well as the effects they could have on the ecosystem even if they are incapable of breeding. It is possible that the GE salmon could outcompete the wild salmon for food. The article also warns that if the methods use to make GE salmon sterile is any less than 100% effective it is possible for wild populations of salmon to become extinct in a short amount of time. Scientists are also worried that companies that will buy GE salmon eggs from Aquabounty will not have the skills necessary to ensure that all eggs are sterile. Not surprisingly this article also found data on GE salmon’s effects on the environment to be inconclusive (Reichhardt 2000).
CRITICS OF GENETICALLY ENGENEERED SALMON
Genetically Engineered salmon still face opposition despite Aquabounty and the FDA claiming the fish are safe and there is likely to be no harm to the environment. The article in the Seattle Times lists some of the critics as well as their opinions. These critics include environmental groups, commercial and recreational fishermen, consumers, health organizations, and some members of Congress. Most criticism surrounds the unknown, mostly pertaining to food safety and environmental degradation (Perrone and Jalonick 2012).
Many environmental committees, academies, and scientists agree with the critics. The US National Academy of sciences was asked by the FDA to determine the largest concern surrounding GE salmon and their findings were that possible impacts on ecosystems are of the greatest concern. Scientists have also expressed concerns about modified genes being added to wild populations of salmon and the outcomes it could have. Scientist also expressed moderate concern over allergies that could arise in humans from the fish (Check 2002).
POTENTIAL BENEFIT FOR THE OCEAN
The Seattle Times article briefly states that the potential benefits and profits that could be made if GE salmon are approved are huge, but it does not explain what these are (Perrone and Jalonick 2012). Calestous Juma has warned of the negative environmental effects GE salmon could have but also confirms that they could have some benefits. She lists these benefits as more efficient aquacultures, more protein for third world countries, and pressure taken off of wild salmon populations (Taylor 2010). An article published in the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society also agrees that there are likely to be benefits for the aquaculture industry if GE salmon are approved by the FDA (Tymchuk, Abrahams, and Devlin 2005). Benefits of GE salmon are likely but as my research shows, the disadvantages far outnumber the benefits if environmental impact is taken into consideration.
MY CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I think the author of this article did a fairly good job of giving society the information they need to make informed decisions. It spoke mostly of the disadvantages GE salmon could have on the environment but also mentioned that there are possible benefits. The author included the views of Aquabounty, the FDA, as well as some critics, but I think that some information from scientists to back up the claims that were made would have helped reads be more informed. Overall the article is accurate and creditable. It did this partly by only telling the positions of Aquabounty and the FDA and not stating their opinion on these positions. The one thing that should have been done was to add more scientific evidence that either agrees with or refutes the claims of these parties so that readers would have ended the article being fully informed.
Cited References
Check E. 2002. Environmental impact tops list of fears about transgenic animals. Nature
418(6900):805.
Hedrick PW. 2001. Invasion of transgenes from salmon or other genetically modified organisms
into natural populations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58(5):841- 4.
Marris E. 2010. Transgenic fish go large. Nature 467(7313):259.
Perrone M, Jalonick MC. 2012 Dec 21. FDA says fast growing fish would not harm nature
[Internet]. Seattle (WA): Associated Press; [Cited 2013 Nov 10]. Available from:
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019952919_apusfastgrowingsalmon.ht ml
Reichhardt T. 2000. Will souped up salmon sink or swim? Nature 406(6791):10-2.
Taylor DA. 2010. Genetically engineered salmon on the FDA's table. Environ Health Perspectives 118(9):a384-5.
Tymchuk W, Abrahams MV, Devlin RH. 2005. Competitive ability and mortality of growth- enhanced transgenic coho salmon fry and parr when foraging for food. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134(1):381-9.