Frankenfish

Frankenfish.

Genetically Engineered Superfish are just around the corner.

For The Whatcom Watch, by Jeremy Brown.

February 2003

“State’s Ban on gene-altered fish a first.

Washington this month became the first state in the nation to ban cultivation of genetically engineered fish.” Seattle P-I, Monday, Dec 23^rd;

“Transgenic fish (as defined by actual transfer of genes from one species to another species) are not used in commercial production in Washington State today and should not be used here or elsewhere in the future unless they are proven healthy and nutritious, safe for human consumption and of minimal risk to the environment. This would mean approval by appropriate state and federal agencies.”[i]

The newspaper headline and this statement by the secretary/treasurer of the Washington Fish Growers Association might lead the reader to believe that wild salmon advocates who sought an outright ban on Genetically Engineered (GE) fish would have little to worry about.

Instead, not only did the fish farmers and their allies within the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) lobby hard behind the scenes to derail, delay or dilute such a ban, but plans were already unfolding to render the ban ineffective. As we shall see in this article, the above statement was not only deliberately misleading, but misinformed as well. Given the potential catastrophe to wild salmon stocks and the larger ecological implications of introducing GE superfish, wild salmon advocates are wise to be deeply concerned.

One definition or many?

Language submitted to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission by WDFW aquaculture advocate Andy Appleby on December 7^th 2002, suggested a two-year moratorium on the use of transgenic fish. Appleby defined ‘transgenic’ exactly as had Dan Swecker earlier in the year: ‘as defined by actual transfer of genes from one species to another species’.

Whilst the Commission acted decisively to make the ban permanent and changed the language to read ‘as defined by the actual transfer of genetic material from one species to another’, confusion persisted. Leaving the meeting, fishers appeared relieved but clearly still worried, environmentalists dashed off press releases announcing the turning of an historic tide, and the fish farmers carried on as if nothing had happened! Quite unfazed, Appleby told the press that the commission was careful not to simply say “genetically modified” or “genetically engineered” fish because they did not want to ban sterilized fish, for example. “There is a subtle difference, in my opinion, between transgenic fish and the GM/GE critters,” he said.[ii]

Biochemist Dr Bob Barker, Provost Emeritus, Cornell University and past board member of the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association was puzzled by Appleby’s statement: “These three expressions have generally the same connotation. You would have to explain exactly what you meant if you wished to draw any meaningful distinction between them.”

In fact, no discussion of any distinctions took place at the Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting. Commissioners Lisa Pelly and Dawn Reynolds did indicate their discomfort with the frequent additions and changes to proposals of which WDFW staff neglected to apprise them. Quite possibly Appleby himself did not understand what was in the draft regulations, though the large contingent from the aquaculture industry apparently did!

GM fish are out there already.

What, indeed, could WDFW staffer Appleby have had in mind? The most likely answer is ‘triploid fish’. This is a form of primitive genetic manipulation that has been tried with mixed success for half a century. In very simple terms, immediately after fertilization the egg is subjected to either chemical or physical stress. This causes the usual process of chromosome replication to produce an extra set (triploid) during cell division. Effects on overall growth vary, but the main result is sterility. In mariculture of oysters this is a huge advantage, since it is during the reproduction process that the flesh of oysters becomes less desirable to eat. In finfish, sterility may be attractive as a way to placate opponents of an introduced alien species, such as many of the trout planted in Washington waters. One problem is that the process is at best only 80% successful. As many as 40% of any batch of triploid fish remain fertile.[iii]

The principle attraction of triploidy in finfish is increased growth. This characteristic is inconsistent, but it is assumed that the usual physiological drain of reproduction is diverted to continued tissue growth. This feature has been used to promote the use of triploidy, and the larger fish, more aggressive to feed their larger appetites, are promoted by some anglers who otherwise take a very strong opposition to artificial propagation.[iv]

So, maybe triploid fish are genetically modified, but not transgenic, but are they a good idea?

The scientific evidence suggest not.

As we established in parts 1 and 2 of this discussion, any fish placed in a marine net pen may escape and find it’s way to the spawning grounds of wild salmon. Larger salmon consistently attract more competition in mate selection, are more likely to occupy the better spawning sites[v], and are likely to be more aggressively competitive feeders. This is not a good pressure for already stressed native fish. Tests in Alaska have shown that juvenile triploid chinook and coho salmon can also outperform their natural siblings.[vi]

The presence of the third chromosomes also makes for larger cell structures, which in turn produces ‘bloated’ tissue. Triploid fish have been found to freeze/thaw to a mushy consistency, and taste noticeably flabbier.[vii]

So, genetically modified fish are already in Washington State waters, which nicely undermines the credibility of the Commission’s action.

Feds to permit an end-run?

"I hate the words moratorium and banning because currently, right now, transgenic is a bad word. But five years from now, it may not be a bad word," said Kevin Bright, spokesman for Washington Fish Growers after the decision. Why should he even take this position, given the clear policy statement by his association[viii] at the beginning of this article?

Because they both want the door left open for future developments. The “appropriate agency” that would approve GE fish, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently processing the approval of a GE salmon, trademarked ‘AquadvantageÔ’, from Aqua Bounty Farms of Waltham, Mass, and is likely to give a green light in about two years, the exact period of time anticipated in the draft rules submitted by WDFW![ix]

AquadvantageÔsalmon are already in production at labs in New Brunswick. This GE fish, rumored to be engineered with genes from Arctic Char and Ocean Pout, grow up to three times as fast as natural salmon, and can reach considerably larger size. Once one salmon farmer starts using AquadvantageÔ, beit in Chile, Norway, British Columbia or Washington, in order to remain competitive all other producers will have to follow suit.

By making the ban in Washington State permanent, the Fish and Wildlife Commission set back the industry’s plans only slightly. Concurrent with the approval of the first GE fish, the federal government, through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is developing the necessary plans to promote the aquaculture industry outside state jurisdiction; more than 3 miles from shore. This would include the Straits of Juan de Fuca as well as the Pacific Coast. Quite conceivably net pens would also be sited in the Gulf of Alaska. The clearly stated reason in the draft ‘code of conduct’[x] being developed by NMFS is to escape restrictive state regulation!

In a future article I will discuss critical components of the plan to turn our continental shelf into a business park, including proposals for property rights and subsidies, and why major environmental groups have already signed onto this plan!