This is Wayne Parrott again.
Tim Schwab brought up the prospect of conventionally bred fish that grow as fast as transgenics in message 80. This brings up an interesting question, regardless of whether such fish exist. The claim is that GM salmon could have adverse impacts on other populations due to their fast growth; yet it is implied that fast-growing but non-GM salmon can be used safely. Why the difference? If both share the same phenotype, then either neither is safe, or both are safe. Hazards come from phenotype, not the way the phenotype was obtained.
As to whether salmon farming contributes to food security, it is necessary to point out 2 things. 1) there salmon serves as proof of concept that can be transferred to more tropical species and 2) there is a lot of work underway to modify crops to make better fish food. In the future (though not within 5 years), it will be possible to raise salmon with a totally land-based diet, which should make fish farming more economical while reducing its environmental footprint even more.
I would also like to address Tim Schwab's concerns that insufficient growth comparisons have been done on GM salmon (Message 88).
I want to point out that not all studies are relevant to the food and environmental safety of the salmon. We do not need to know every possible imaginable aspect of the salmon for decision-making (for that matter, I doubt we know every possible aspect of any animal breed). We just need to know those traits that could result in a food or environmental hazard.
There comes a point where more data does not translate into better decisions or greater safety. It just translates into more costs and delays that will ultimately either simply kill the technology, or as happened in the plant world, make it so that primarily only the largest and richest multinationals can afford the technology.
As far as the call to study the benefits to producers/consumers/society, I do not see any such call being made for conventionally bred fast-growing fish. We really must avoid falling into the trap of
product vs process when it comes to regulations. In the end, there have been any number of technologies (canning, freezing, preservatives, waxes on fruits, fertilizing regimes, hybrids, new varieties, selling prepackaged candy bars, selling potato chips, etc etc;) where no one has determined a need to study impact on society at large prior to marketing. So, why the double standard?
Wayne Parrott
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences,
University of Georgia,
Athens, GA 30602
United States
wparrott (at) uga.edu
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the Biotech-Room2-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=Biotech-Room2-L&A=1
|