Problems with GMO, AquaBounty Atlantic Salmon

An issue that has been simmering along beside the push to get old-tech, dinosaur fish farms out of the ocean and set up on land, is GMO Atlantic salmon that grow to harvestable size sooner than non-modified fish.

AquaBounty has been growing such fish with pout, chinook and other genes inserted in the fish genome, and working them through the FDA system in the USA. The Canadian connection is that they have been producing these fish in the province of PEI, and rearing them in Panama.

Joyce Nelson has done a well-researched article on the issue. There are several problems with the GMO fish. The FDA seems not to have done thorough work, while the Canadian science shows several problems. The fish grow at greatly inconsistent rates, they are more susceptible to diseases, particularly ISA and contain a chemical leading to increased cancer risk.

The FDA received two million complaints - hard to believe but apparently true - and looks to be doing some real work before reconsidering the issue of bringing these fish to consumer plates - or letting them be put in the ocean.

The Nelson article may be found here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/12/frankenfish-flops-risk-assessment/#.VXrmRn-j7fU.email.

Another thing to consider is that on-land fish farms can raise fish faster than in the ocean by holding the water temperature the same rather than it fluctuating, and photoperiod can be controlled, which also improves growth rate. The point being, if fish farms move to land, GMO fish would not be necessary, because unmodified fish will grow much quicker, and without the problems in the AquaBounty fish.

Fish Farm Feed and GMO Plant Products

Fish farm fish feed can now contain genetically modified materials that pass antibiotic resistance to bacteria in the gut of farmed fish. The reason for so doing is that most of the world’s stock of small fish for feed, that the fish farm industry has had a large role in fishing down, rather than them being used to feed people, are in short supply. For example, anchovies in Chile. Now, plant material with the genes are being used because it is now cheaper than the small fish the industry is culpable for eliminating.

 Read this about Norway: http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://www.bioteknologiradet.no/2014/11/stopper-dispensasjon-for-omdiskutert-fiskefor/&prev=search.

There are other issues: Norway had laws that were not in concert with the EU, it chose to allow fish farms to apply for an exemption to import GMO products with nineteen known genetic modifications, eight of which code for antibiotic resistance.

In a Google translation, the problem for humans who eat such farmed fish is:

“Antibiotic Resistant bacteria have become one of the greatest threats to global health. Only in the EU and EEA dies 25,000 people annually as a result of infections that we few years ago could treat. Antibiotic resistance is the bacterial defenses in the ancient arms race between bacteria and their enemies. Human use of antibiotics and germicides have made it an enormous advantage for bacteria having genes encoding antibiotic resistance.

If we fail to slow development, we and the generations after us have a far more slunkent medicine cabinets to defense, even against infections that today are perceived as banal. A recent report on antibiotic signed an interdisciplinary and independent experts were handed Health Minister Bent Høie in August this year, showing that the problem is growing in Norway.”

With Norway not following up on such products and providing an exemption for such feed, a consumer has no real assurance that a GMO antibiotic resistant product has not been used in Norwegian farmed salmon. It should also be noted that bacteria found in cold blooded fish, may not be active in warm blooded humans that eat the fish.

It is a twisted road in the past ten years regarding GMO use in farmed fish in Norway. Here is a part of that history:

“Yet the FSA since 2008 given dispensation to introduce eight varieties genetically modified feed with antibiotics. It all started in April 2004, when the EU introduced new rules for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The so-called "GM-package" includes approval requirements for GMOs.

Norway had prior to 2005 no restrictions on imports of non-living, genetically modified feed, with or without antibiotic, and more genetically modified ground feed was probably used in feed or attempt. When the EU came with new accreditation requirements, altered Norway regulations to adapt the EU. Regulations for feed was changed in 2005 so that the FSA must approve each application for permission to import of genetically modified, not viable feed.”

Then, further on: “The Norwegian regulations have not yet been harmonized with EU regulations. Since 2008, feed producers sought FSA for exemption from the requirement for approval of the nineteen feed products. FSA has granted this exemption, due to the need to have genetically modified feed in reserve.”

“Thus feed manufacturers had to import genetically modified feed with genes coding for antibiotic resistance, but resistance among customers and the market has done that feed producers have not wanted to use the feed, and the genetically modified feedstuffs, according to manufacturers not been an ingredient in fish pellets since 2005.”

However, in 2014: “the FSA for the first time refusal to grant an exemption for fish feed producers. Because they have never availed itself of the exemption, says the FSA that it no longer "is no real need" for the goods. Now you must feed manufacturers seek approval pursuant to regulations on animal feed. Then it is far from certain that feed with genes coding for antibiotic resistance is allowed.”

And so on. A twisted story.