The Food and Drug Administration has given its first approval for human consumption of a genetically modified animal. AquAdvantage salmon grow twice as fast and year-round compared to salmon that have already been honed by selective breeding.
A kind of salmon that's been genetically modified so that it grows faster may be on the way to a supermarket near you. The Food and Drug Administration approved the fish on Thursday — a decision that environmental and food-safety groups are vowing to fight.
This new kind of fast-growing salmon was actually created 25 years ago by Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies. A new gene was inserted into fertilized salmon eggs — it boosted production of a fish growth hormone. The result: a fish that grows twice as fast as its conventional, farm-raised counterpart.
AquaBounty has been trying to get government approval to sell its fish ever since. Five years ago, the FDA's scientific advisers concluded that the genetically modified fish, known as AquaAdvantage salmon, is safe to eat and won't harm the environment.
[More after the break.]
Alison Van Eenennaam, a biotechnology specialist at the University of California, Davis, who was part of that scientific evaluation, says it wasn't a hard decision. "Basically, nothing in the data suggested that these fish were in any way unsafe or different to the farm-raised salmon," she says.
The FDA now is giving the salmon a green light. In a statement, the agency said that the data indicated "that food from the GE salmon is safe to eat by humans and animals" and "that the genetic engineering is safe for the fish." It's the first genetically modified animal approved for human consumption.
[...] AquaBounty will only be allowed to raise the modified fish in tanks, on land, at just two sites — one in Canada and one in Panama. And the company says its fish will be sterile, so if they escape, they will fail to reproduce. But those precautions aren't enough for the fish's opponents. "This frankenfish, this GMO salmon, should not be approved, and shouldn't have been approved," says Dana Perls, a campaigner with the environmental group Friends of the Earth.
Aside from opposition by groups like Friends of the Earth (FOE) and Consumer Reports, the article also notes polls showing that only 25-35% of respondents say they would eat genetically modified fish. Would these consumers actually read product labels in an attempt to avoid eating GMO fish? We may not find out, because FOE says that over 60 grocery chains, including Safeway, Kroger, Target, Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, and Aldi, have promised not to sell AquAdvantage salmon.
We previously noted on the double-muscled pigs story that no regulator worldwide had approved a GMO for human consumption. That changes now.
Related Stories
Researchers from Seoul National University have created piglets with abnormal muscle growth by disrupting a gene that inhibits muscle cell growth:
Key to creating the double-muscled pigs is a mutation in the myostatin gene (MSTN). MSTN inhibits the growth of muscle cells, keeping muscle size in check. But in some cattle, dogs and humans, MSTN is disrupted and the muscle cells proliferate, creating an abnormal bulk of muscle fibres. To introduce this mutation in pigs, Kim used a gene-editing technology called a TALEN, which consists of a DNA-cutting enzyme attached to a DNA-binding protein. The protein guides the cutting enzyme to a specific gene inside cells, in this case in MSTN, which it then cuts. The cell's natural repair system stitches the DNA back together, but some base pairs are often deleted or added in the process, rendering the gene dysfunctional.
The team edited pig fetal cells. After selecting one edited cell in which TALEN had knocked out both copies of the MSTN gene, Kim's collaborator Xi-jun Yin, an animal-cloning researcher at Yanbian University in Yanji, China, transferred it to an egg cell, and created 32 cloned piglets. Kim and his team have not yet published their results. However, photographs of the pigs "show the typical phenotype" of double-muscled animals, says Heiner Niemann, a pioneer in the use of gene-editing tools in pigs who is at the Friedrich Loeffler Institute in Neustadt, Germany. In particular, he notes, they have the pronounced rear muscles that are typical of such animals. Yin says that preliminary investigations, show that the pigs provide many of the double-muscled cow's benefits — such as leaner meat and a higher yield of meat per animal. However, they also share some of its problems. Birthing difficulties result from the piglets' large size, for instance. And only 13 of the 32 lived to 8 months old. Of these, two are still alive, says Yin, and only one is considered healthy. Rather than trying to create meat from such pigs, Kim and Yin plan to use them to supply sperm that would be sold to farmers for breeding with normal pigs. The resulting offspring, with one disrupted MSTN gene and one normal one, would be healthier, albeit less muscly, they say; the team is now doing the same experiment with another, newer gene-editing technology called CRISPR/Cas9. Last September, researchers reported using a different method of gene editing to develop new breeds of double-muscled cows and double-muscled sheep (C. Proudfoot et al. Transg. Res. 24, 147–153; 2015).
A mutation in MSTN could occur naturally, and no gene transfer is involved. No genetically engineered animal has been approved for human consumption by any of the world's regulators, but the U.S. and Germany have passed on regulating gene-edited crops that do not incorporate new DNA in the genome.
Original Submission
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave the green light Friday to genetically modified salmon that grow about twice as fast as normal.
The FDA lifted an alert which
Prevented AquaBounty from importing its salmon eggs to its Indiana facility, where they would be grown before being sold as food. The agency noted the salmon has already undergone safety reviews, and that it lifted its alert because the fish would be subject to a new regulation that will require companies to disclose when a food is bioengineered.
Compliance with the disclosure regulations will start showing up in 2020 and becomes mandatory in 2022.
As one might expect, the FDA is under suit by various groups opposed to the sale of the fish.
Called AquAdvantage, the fish is Atlantic salmon modified with DNA from other fish species to grow faster, which the company says will help feed growing demand for animal protein while reducing costs.
The fish are bred female and sterile in containment tanks to help allay fears about them entering the environment.
Previous Coverage here
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @12:06PM
I'm so vegan. I won't be eating any fish until after I graduate, when peer pressure makes me abandon my elitist vegan lifestyle to fit in with the money crowd because I like fitting in and doing things for money. Follow me on Fishfuck, two years from now!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday November 20 2015, @12:11PM
Soylent Pink... it's Frankenstein!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Friday November 20 2015, @02:55PM
It's salmon! Soylent pink is salmon!!!
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by hankwang on Friday November 20 2015, @12:19PM
Are there any written transcripts of Lenny's conversations?
Avantslash: SoylentNews for mobile [avantslash.org]
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday November 20 2015, @01:51PM
Lenny the Salmon?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday November 20 2015, @12:33PM
So these fish are coconut flavoured [wikipedia.org] then?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 20 2015, @12:47PM
I love salmon. I have no problem eating farmed salmon, and don't see this as much different.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @01:11PM
technically, the worst that could happen is that you'd get cancer because of the extra growth hormones. but I guess that's what the study was watching out for...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @01:55PM
Actually the worst that could happen is something nobody knows. A much more interesting question is what will likely happen, statistically. It will be interesting to watch the results of this human experiment.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MrGuy on Friday November 20 2015, @03:06PM
I'm glad you'd eat it. I'd like to read the research a bit myself, but after literally years I generally believe the FDA has science on its side here.
But the problem I see is that the decision (whether I'm comfortable eating this) should IMO be mine. Whether I think the fish is safe or not, I'd like to respect that others may differ on that. I don't believe skepticism about GMO foods is ipso facto groundless or anti-scientific.
What troubles me is that the FDA approved this and specifically denied that labelling is necessary. This can be sold as salmon, just like non-GMO salmon. There's no way for a concerned consumer to know the difference. In theory, you could stick to only buying wild salmon (there are already restrictions on what can be labelled as "wild"), but that's a crapshoot. [nytimes.com]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday November 20 2015, @08:48PM
You should watch this. It might not change your mind but at least you'd understand the issues with farmed fish a little better: https://vimeo.com/61301410 [vimeo.com] (Salmon Confidential).
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @01:11PM
The gene is from the Pacific Chinook salmon, which is already safe to eat.
(Score: 4, Funny) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @01:17PM
Mother Gaia didn't intend for the genes to be arranged that way in one salmon!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Friday November 20 2015, @01:35PM
Nor did she intend for Down's to occur.
Nor did she intend for the world to eat a handful of species of cow because all the others don't produce enough milk/beef.
Nor did she intend for the carrot to be bred from small, spindly and purple to large, thick and orange.
Nor did she intend for racehorses to be breed from only a handful of thoroughbreds.
Nor did she intend for one bull to inseminate entire county's worth of cows.
Nor did she intend for someone to breed wolves and tame them into dogs.
Nor did she intend for MRSA to be bred, and for (recent news stories) the last of our significant antibiotics to start to show resistance from bacteria.
Because, a) she doesn't exist. b) Humans have been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years. c) Intent has NOTHING to do with it.
Ever seen coppiced trees? Same thing.
Ever seen dog-breeding? Same thing.
Ever heard of anything called "pedigree" or "thoroughbred"? Same thing.
The only difference in the mechanism. Whether you just let the animals do it themselves, whether you humanly select the animals that are allowed to do it to themselves, whether you force two animals to do it to themselves, or whether you get our a pipette, do it for them, and then spend decades making sure you haven't broken anything. The actual result is the same. There's no such thing as a "synthetic" transcription - they are literally four chemicals arranged in slightly different orders. By doing that same thing "naturally" (rubbish), we've managed to create entire infertile species (e.g. mules), species with inherent severe health problems (certain types of "pedigree" dogs), and radically alter the makeup of animals to turn them into beef machines already. Doing the same under controlled circumstances and with testing is no different, if anything it's better. Say I crossed two species of apple, and make a new type of apple (happens all the time). Apples contain cyanide in their pips. Say the cross-version has unbelievably dangerously-poisonous pips? Say it gets into the market. It's all "natural", we just crossed two safe versions of other apples by encouraging the trees to breed "naturally". But that *WON'T* necessarily undergo FDA testing before appearing on the market. And it's quite likely it's YEARS before we link deaths to the pips of that particular type of apple, or whatever.
I see no problem with this... the change mechanism is a natural hormone. Injecting that same hormone into "normal" fish would result in the same end-product. All you've done is plant a seed so that unnecessary injection is eliminated. OF COURSE you must test - because you could be putting these fish into pain, or higher risk of disease, or other mutations that could affect consumption. But that's already more testing than a new type of fruit would get.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 20 2015, @01:44PM
"then spend decades making sure you haven't broken anything."
I see one problem with GMO. Labeling. Decades from now, there MIGHT BE a problem discovered with GMO foods. You can't know, I can't know, and the researchers can't know in advance. After decades of being a guinea pig, it would be nice to know that you were part of the control group, or the test group. All genetically modified food products should be labeled as such, so that people can make some sort of informed decision.
I'm going to buy my defensive radar from Temu, just like Venezuela!
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 20 2015, @04:47PM
Well that's easy--add in a gene to make your poo glow in the dark, then you'll know.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Covalent on Friday November 20 2015, @01:51PM
You're right! Only natural things should be permitted, like:
Polio
Cancer
Death during childbirth
Indiscriminate raping and pillaging
Misogyny
Slavery
No rights for women
Stoning for heresy
I'm so tired of the "but it's not natural" argument that I could spit. Natural was often horrible, and we have markedly improved the lives of humans precisely by being UNnatural. It's our duty to continue that, unless of course your goal is to increase suffering. If that is the case, then please carry on spreading fear and ignorance (see stoning for heresy above for some inspiration)
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @01:59PM
I support voluntary sarcasm labeling.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @03:03PM
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @04:09PM
Hitler would approve.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Friday November 20 2015, @10:18PM
Correct me it I am wrong, but I am guessing Pacific Chinook are more commonly found in helicopters than the north of Scotland.
In my experience, even farmed salmon don't taste like the real thing.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday November 20 2015, @01:54PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Touché) by slinches on Friday November 20 2015, @02:42PM
The Food and Drug Administration has given its first approval for human consumption to a genetically modified animal
I hope they meant "of" rather than "to".
I, for one, would rather not have to welcome our new human consuming mutant fish overlords.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @08:31PM
Honestly, that could go either way. You give your "seal of approval" to something, not "of" something.
Writing the headline was perilous enough. I had to fit in the "human consumption" part in there. "Genetically modified organism animal" only works because GMO has become a standalone noun and adjective these days. There's been so much arguing about GMOs, shorthand was needed.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @10:47PM
Why was it necessary to write "for human consumption"? Has the FDA approved other genetically modified animals, but for use only in drugs and cosmetics, not food?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @11:38PM
Is it necessary for me to be more clear? I think so.
For one, I had to specify animals since the FDA has approved GMO crops.
I have to specify FDA because the Dept. of Agriculture approves GMOs based on other issues (like resistance genes spreading to superweeds).
Human consumption is important to specify because it is the story. Also, FDA could approve GMO animals for use in animal feed, although I don't think they have done so before.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by slinches on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:55AM
The approval is for human consumption of the GMO fish.
But no worries. The original wording really isn't wrong, just ambiguous. I tend to run with the stranger interpretations of ambiguous statements for comedic effect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:43PM
Okay, you have a point in that you give your seal of approval to something. However in that case you would write that sentence such: "The Food and Drug Administration has given its first approval to human consumption of a genetically modified animal.