Genetically Engineered Superfish Just Around the Corner

Jeremy Brown is a 2002 Food and Society Policy Fellow, a program of the Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute in partnership with the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy and funded by the W.K.Kellogg Foundation. He can be reached at fvoneandall@hotmail.com.

Editor’s Note: This is the third article in a series by Jeremy Brown about the unfolding salmon recovery debate.

Part Three

“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 Post-Intelligencer headline, Monday, December 23, 2002.

“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.” Dan Swecker 1

The newspaper headline and the above statement by Dan Swecker, 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 fish have little to worry about anymore.

Instead, not only did fish farmers and their allies within the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 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, this statement was not only misleading but misinformed as well. Given the potential catastrophe to wild-salmon stocks and the larger ecological implications of introducing genetically engineered superfish, wild salmon advocates are wise to be deeply concerned.

On December 7, 2002, Andy Appleby, of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, submitted draft regulations to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission setting out a two-year moratorium on the use of transgenic fish. Appleby defined “transgenic” exactly as Dan Swecker had earlier in the year “as defined by actual transfer of genes from one species to another species.”

While 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. Fishers leaving that December 7 meeting appeared relieved but clearly still worried. Environmentalists dashed off press releases announcing the turning of an historic tide and fish farmers carried on as if nothing had happened!

Quite unfazed, aquaculture advocate Appleby told the press that the commission was careful not to simply say “genetically modified” or “genetically engineered” fish because they did not want, for example, to ban sterilized fish. “There is a subtle difference, in my opinion, between transgenic fish and the genetically modified/genetically engineered critters,” he said.2

Biochemist 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,” he said. “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 indicated their discomfort with the frequent additions and changes to proposals that Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife staff neglected to tell them about. Quite possibly Appleby himself did not fully understand the draft regulations, though the large contingent from the aquaculture industry apparently did!

What difference would these distinctions make anyway? Why should the Department of Fish and Wildlife care to differentiate between “transgenic” and genetically modified/genetically-engineered fish? The most likely answer is the ongoing program of stocking genetically altered or “triploid” trout into Washington state lakes, including Squalicum Lake and Lake Terrell in Whatcom County. 3

Triploidy 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 of chromosomes during cell division. Instead of two sets of chromosomes in each cell (one set from the male parent and one set from the female parent), there are three sets of chromosomes (triploid). Effects on overall growth vary, but a frequent main result is sterility.

In the culture of oysters, inducing sterility is a huge advantage, since it is during the reproduction process that the flesh of oysters becomes less desirable to eat. In fish, sterility may be attractive as a way to placate persons opposed to introducing alien species, such as many of the trout planted in Washington. Sterile fish presumably cannot breed with native fish.

One problem with inducing sterility by producing an extra set of chromosomes is that the process is only 70 to 90 percent effective. Ten to 30 percent of the triploid fish would still be fertile.4 This is scarcely an adequate standard to protect wild stocks.

The principal reason for inducing triploidy in aquaculture is to increase growth. The usual physiological drain of reproduction is diverted to continued tissue growth. However, this characteristic of increased growth may not always occur.

The increased growth feature has been used to promote the use of triploidy. Larger fish, more aggressive in order to feed their larger appetites, are favored by some anglers who otherwise take a very strong opposition to artificial propagation.5

So, maybe triploid fish are not transgenic, but are they are genetically modified? Are triploid fish a good idea? The scientific evidence suggests not.

As we established previously in this discussion, any fish placed in a marine net pen may escape and find its way to the spawning grounds of wild salmon. Large salmon of either sex consistently attract more potential mates. They are more likely to occupy the better spawning sites.6 And they are likely to be more aggressively competitive feeders.

These are not good pressures for already stressed native fish. Tests in Alaska have shown that juvenile triploid chinook and coho salmon can also outperform their natural siblings.7

The presence of the third set of chromosomes also results in larger cell structures, which in turn produces “bloated” tissue. Triploid fish have been found to freeze/thaw to a mushy consistency and have been found to taste noticeably flabbier.8

So, genetically modified fish are already in Washington state waters, which nicely undermines the credibility of the commission’s action. It may also not be a coincidence that a principal supplier of triploid trout, Troutlodge Inc., is a source of juvenile Atlantic salmon for the salmon farms in Washington, and would likely be interested in promoting genetically engineered fish, were they approved for industrial scale production.

“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 take this position, given the clear policy statement by his association quoted at the beginning of this article? “Transgenic fish…should not be used …unless they are proven…of minimal risk to the environment.”

A possible explanation is that they both want the door left open for future developments. The “appropriate agency” that would approve genetically engineered fish, the Food and Drug Administration, is currently processing the approval of a genetically engineered salmon, trademarked “AquAdvantage™” from Aqua Bounty Farms of Waltham, Massachusetts. It is likely to give a green light in about two years, the exact period of time anticipated in the draft rules submitted by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife! 9

AquAdvantage salmon are already in production at labs in New Brunswick. This genetically engineered fish grows up to three times faster than natural salmon and can reach considerably larger size. It is rumored to have genes from arctic char and ocean pout. Once even one salmon farmer starts using AquAdvantage, be it in Chile, Norway, British Columbia or Washington state, all other producers will have to follow suit in order to remain competitive.

The risks to wild populations by escaped genetically engineered fish have been shown to significant. In the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Purdue researchers William Muir and Richard Howard proposed their “Trojan Gene Hypothesis.” They showed that 60 GE fish, with size-driven mating advantage, but lower overall viability, could drive a wild population of 60,000 to extinction in 40 generations. A single GE fish could have the same result over a longer period. “You have the very strange situation where the least fit individual in the population is getting all the matings—this is the reverse of Darwin’s model,” Muir was quoted in New Scientist, “the sexual selection drives the gene into the population and the reduced viability drives the population to extinction.”

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 genetically engineered fish, the federal government, through the National Marine Fisheries Service, is developing the necessary plans to promote the aquaculture industry outside state jurisdictions, that is, more than three 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” 10 being developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service 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. The plan includes proposals for property rights and subsidies. And I will discuss why major environmental groups have already signed onto this plan!