bounty.JPG
This photo provided by AquaBounty Technologies shows two same-age salmon, a genetically modified salmon (rear) and a non-genetically modified salmon. Genetically altered fish growth stalled Anonymous Publication Date: April 4, 2014 Page: 12 Section: A Edition: 1M
(AP Photo)
By Steven Savage
In early May, for the fourth time, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon rejected as ineffective a federal plan for recovering the salmon population of the Columbia River. But with 13 salmon and steelhead species in the basin listed as endangered, it is time to try strategies that do not depend on litigation that has already run almost a quarter century.
For example, the Food and Drug Administration recently approved a kind of fast-growing salmon that is so much less expensive to produce and harvest that it could attract enough consumers to reduce the pressure on wild species populations. And it is farm raised in land-based tanks, so levels of mercury -- a heavy metal that accumulates in ocean-based fish -- can be kept low.
But because this salmon is a "GMO" (that is, genetically modified) consumers may never be allowed to buy it. In the name of the environment, lawmakers have been pressured to erect legal obstacles to its production, while grocery chains, including Issaquah, Washington-based Costco, have succumbed to intimations of harassment if they carry it.
As an environmentalist and food scientist, this opposition makes no sense to me. GMO salmon is more efficient at the conversion of feed (what the salmon eats) to food (the salmon we eat) than other salmon -- exactly what we need to take pressure off our ocean resources, an urgent need. Between 1970 and 2012, overfishing slashed global marine life in half, according to the World Wildlife Federation.
The technology supporting the GMO salmon includes a multi-tiered safety protocol to ensure that no fish will accidentally make their way into the open ocean. The FDA scrutinized that plan in an 11-year review that included an extended period for public comments. I spent much time reading those comments. I can see why federal scientists found no persuasive arguments against approval. Most who opposed approval had not taken time to understand the technology. They were simply reacting to the scary sounding, ill-informed characterizations.
To my mind, this controversy reflects two visions of environmentalism contending in our society today. The GMO salmon represents an "eco-modernist" approach that views technology as a critical part of the solution to environmental challenges -- in this case, the strains on ocean resources driven by a growing and more prosperous humanity's rising demand for protein. The other vision rejects cutting-edge technologies, finding them frightening.
In the great salmon war, too many in positions of influence are effectively endorsing the fear-based camp. Lawmakers like California Gov. Jerry Brown and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski endorse legal obstacles to producing and selling the fish. Meanwhile, grocers like Costco and Whole Foods lack the courage even to offer an option that makes sense to their eco-modernist customers.
Isn't it time for the rest of us to push back and let government officials and retailers know that we would like to make our own decisions about something as carefully regulated and painstakingly approved as GMO salmon?
The environment would benefit. Consumers would benefit. The wild salmon of the Columbia River basin would benefit.
*
Steven Savage, Ph.D., is an agricultural scientist with more than three decades of experience in academia, industry and consulting. A resident of Encinitas, California, he is a frequent blogger.