News: GM salmon just approved for food by US

After 18 years of research and testing, the US has just approved the production and sale of GM salmon for food, following extensive studies on its safety for human consumption. This is a big step forward in terms of the wider perceptions of GM produce, but it will be interesting to see what the public response is as many are still against the idea of GM seafood. 

"It's the first genetically engineered animal for food that's been approved anywhere in the world" Professor Helen Sang, Roslin Institute at the University of Edinburgh.

What is GM salmon?

Scientists transplanted a growth hormone from a Pacific Chinook Salmon into an Atlantic Salmon to create the transgenic salmon known as the AquAdvantage Salmon.

This means that they reach marketable size in around 18 months, not 3 years, they can be produced all year and they consume feed more efficiently. This means they need less food which could help take pressure off wild stocks, as a large amount of wild fish is used to create food for farmed fish.

GM salmon pictured behind regular salmon. Source.

The fish will not be bred in the US, only Canada and Panama, will be grown in tanks to prevent escape and will be sterile to prevent cross-breeding with wild species. There are still some concerns over the wider impacts of GMOs in the environment. 

The Chief Executive of AquaBounty, the biotech company behind the AquAdvantage Salmon, stated that it is "a game-changer that brings healthy and nutritious food to consumers in an environmentally responsible manner without damaging the ocean and other marine habitats".

However, some remain opposed to the approval and marketing of GM salmon, highlighting how the consumer demand for such a product will not be there, and that we need more research into the wider health and ecological impacts. There is also currently no requirement for products which contain GM salmon to be labelled as such, therefore consumers will find it difficult to choose, however the FDA are working on draft guidance for the labelling of GM produce at the moment. 

It may take some years before AquAdvantage salmon is  fully integrated into the seafood consumer supply chain, and it will be interesting to see whether other countries follow suit now that the US has taken this unprecedented step forward. Furthermore, if GM salmon is to be used to help feed a growing population, access to it and widespread distribution will be key to providing those who need it with a source of protein. 

If GM isn't the way forward, maybe vegetarianism is...

I read a really interesting article in Newsweek at the end of October which tackled the question of how we are going to feed more than 9 billion people in the future. The population is predicted to rise to 9.6 billion people by 2050, and this makes the problem even more time-sensitive. The article explored a few different ways which we might be able to increase crop yield to feed our expanding population, such as greenhouses, reducing excessive edible food wastage and improving  the efficiency of agricultural technology (Isaccson, 2015).

Source

The bit which jumped out at me was the section on GM organisms, and whether they could help fill this production gap. I found it interesting how much produce is dictated by consumer demand, and  how this has fluctuated between a demand for and against GMO products. 

Bourne, an agronomist and journalist who is interviewed in the article,  doesn't feel that GMOs will help feed 9.6 billion people as the increased yields using GMOs such as insect and herbicide resistant crops since 2000 have not been substantial enough.

He points out that there is an exception, C4 rice, a strain of rice which is engineered to have a 50% greater yield than normal, C3, rice.  However, it is not widely used, and experts think that it may actually take 20-25 years to come into practice. The question is whether we have that long to develop solutions, or whether we must start now. 

Bourne highlights an interesting alternative solution to the impending food crisis: vegetarianism. Statistics used in the article from the FAO show how we are actually using 1/3 of the available cropland to make food available for animals, and then another 26% of ice-free land mass to raise those animals. I wonder how much more food we could grow if we reduced our meat consumption and made this space available for crops, not to mention the benefits it would have in terms of reducing methane emissions?

The role of GM in mitigating the impacts of Climate Change

It is clear that the changing climate is already affecting food security, and will continue to do so as the population increases and agriculture continues to be affected by fluctuating temperatures, rainfall patterns and more extreme climatic events (FAO, 2008).

Public and scientific opinion is currently divided on the matter of whether genetic modification will have a role to play in mitigating these impacts and securing food supply for the future. A brief overview of a few viewpoints are detailed below.

GM organisms can help us out

Studies exist concerning the ability to enhance certain aspects of crops, such as making them resistant to drought and certain pests and diseases which means that higher and more reliable yields can be grown where they are required to support expanding populations (Finger et al., 2011). As a result GMOs are becoming increasingly important in securing access to food for the population(Borlaug, 2007). Pest resistant crops can also reduce the amount of weeding required which is often carried out by the women, thereby freeing up time for other income-generating activities which can lead to further economic development (Finger et al., 2011).

Some feel that 'excluding technological options that raise productivity will do more harm than good' (Juma et al., 2013:472). Juma further supports their argument by indicating that a GM crop does not have to be edible in order to help enhance food security, and that cash crops such as GM cotton can provide a more reliable yield in changing environmental conditions. This therefore means that the farmers have more income with which to purchase more nutritional food. However, I feel that this is clearly only a partial solution to the problem, as more food will still need to be grown overall to meet increasing demand, and extra income from GM cotton will only increase access to food which is currently able to be produced elsewhere. 

GM organisms pose a risk and should be avoided

The negative effects and concerns about GM are well documented, and some argue that evidence of the above benefits of GMOs is lacking (Shiva et al., n.d.)

The impact that genes which escape may have on the wider environment, leading to hybridisation of wild and genetically engineered species is relatively unknown. If such a hybrid species were to be discovered it would require very careful monitoring (Dale et al., 2002).

There are concerns that breeding disease or pest resistant crops has actually lead to the development of weeds which are resistant to the chemicals needed to control them, and outbreaks can be hugely damaging to yields and become very expensive to control (Vencill et al., 2012).

Uncertainty in the field

An important factor to bear in mind when considering the potential role of GM is the uncertainty behind some of the predictions. Von der Lippe and Kowarik, 2007 explore the idea of the uncertainty we have regarding the impact of GMOs on the wider environment, noting that there is potential for containment issues at various points along the supply chain, and that if GM individuals were to mix with wild individuals in an uncontrolled environment it may lead to an unforeseen 'feral' population. This uncertainty complicates decision-making concerning GM crops.

Due to this uncertainty, several studies call for further study of the health and environmental impacts of genetically modified organisms, and seek further validation of whether they really will help us meet the our growing targets for food security. Several authors who feel that GM crops have a role to play and should be utilised also warn of the dangers of over reliance on them, and point out that they will not be able to solve food security issues alone. If they are to be used they should form part of a wider toolkit to help solve the problem (Ryan, 2002; Juma et al., 2013; Qaim, 2013).

Source