The FDA has all but approved a genetically modified salmon for human consumption, but the politics of the fish s introduction to the open market is proving tricky. On Wednesday, the House voted to prohibit the FDA from approving the salmon, which was engineered by the Massachusetts company Aquabounty to reach market size in half the time of conventional salmon. Despite evidence to the contrary, detractors argue that the genetically modified fish will decimate wild salmon populations and cause allergies in humans. Accordingly, and with reference to his home state s interests, representative Don Young (R-AK), proposed an amendment to a farm spending bill that would prohibit the FDA from spending money to approve Aquabounty s application a measure that effectively bars the modified salmon from the market.
Those critical of the salmon, however, appear to have little scientific basis for their claims. Last year, the FDA declared the fish safe to eat, finding no biologically relevant difference between the engineered salmon and conventional salmon, as well as finding no certainty of harm from its consumption. Dr. Ross is in full agreement with the FDA; he observes that there has never been a genetically modified product that s induced any allergies in humans that the conventional product doesn t already. As for the salmon s alleged threat to wild populations, ACSH s Susan Ingber points out that these fish are all female, sterile, and grown in contained systems making it quite unlikely that they would affect wild populations at all.
In response to Rep. Young s assertion that such modified fish would compete with wild salmon in his own state, ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross could note only the House s gesture of blatant protectionism. On a free-market basis, this is completely unacceptable, he remarks.
ACSH s Dr. Josh Bloom agrees. This is being done for economic, not scientific, reasons. It serves the interests of Alaska at the expense of everyone else.
