This is Tim Schwab again, from Food & Water Watch. I want to comment on Carlos Scotto's Message (nr. 90), specifically about sterility (posting 90). AquaBounty, the company producing GE salmon, openly acknowledges in its regulatory applications that its triploidy sterilization process does not achieve 100 percent sterility. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is regulating GE salmon in the U.S. notes GE salmon's average sterilization of something like 99.7% but concluded that: "We have confidence that the method will provide triploid rates greater than 98% for most inductions." The FDA has also indicated that, if GE salmon is approved, the company will only need to demonstrate (with a .95 probability) that 95% of eggs are triploid once in commercial production. This point is available in this FDA document at page 58: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224762.pdf [The link is to a 172-page FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (VMAC) 'briefing packet' (2.7 MB) on AquAdvantage Salmon, September 2010...Moderator]. Whether it is 95 percent or 98 percent or 99.7 percent sterility, this is not 100 percent. And once millions of eggs are being produced, this could mean tens or hundreds of thousands of fertile GE salmon. And we should consider that even if all GE salmon are sterile, that doesn't mean that they won't still have an environmental impact when they escape. Their presence in a marine environment, even relatively briefly, can still have myriad impacts on native species, competition for food, and, as Carlos puts it, the "delicate ecology" of marine life. Unfortunately, regulators have not comprehensively considered these impacts if there was an escape. On environmental accidents: Carlos Scotto mentioned environmental accidents being common in developing countries. AquaBounty reported in 2008 that a bad storm damaged its experimental production facility in Panama "with the result that all these fish were lost." (http://www.aquabounty.com/documents/press/2008/2008_Operations_Update.pdf) The company claims that the fish suffocated, but there is no obvious record of any independent regulatory body reviewing the details of this event. The FDA has never publicly acknowledged the details of this event. Here is news article examining the details more closely: http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/science/Genetically-Engineered-Salmon-Running-Wild.html I absolutely agree with Carlos that decisions to accept or deny new transgenic plants and animals should consider whether these products are needed and desired, not simply whether we can appropriately mitigate risk. But I don't think this applies to just the developing world. This applies everywhere. I also completely agree that we must approach new GE animals in an "unhurried and cautious" manner.-asking the right question, getting comprehensive answers, and having meaningful and independent review of the risk-assessment. There are far too many unanswered and unasked questions regarding the environmental, animal welfare, food safety, and societal impacts of GE salmon to move forward with this product. Clearly we need more science, more data and more independent review. Tim Schwab, Food & Water Watch 1616 P Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 United States P 202-683-2500 F 202-683-2501 http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/ e-mail: tschwab (at) fwwatch.org ######################################################################## 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