Mouthful

What in the world are you eating?

Frankensalmon or future food?

05 October 2010 | 23:19 - By Phil Lees

It’s been an interesting few weeks for those considering the prospect of eating genetically engineered animals.

From the September 19-21, the US Food and Drug Administration held two public meetings on AquAdvantage Salmon, the first genetically engineered animal built with the intention of being food. The FDA found “a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food from this animal” earlier in the month. Martha Rosenberg from Counterpunch has a good summary of the hearings and here is the 180 page briefing packet if you’re keen to dig into the deep background and make your own assessment.

The hearings neither produced a big thumbs up for the fish nor an outright rejection – not exactly the most newsworthy of results, but produced some great footage of big fish that the world seems no closer to eating and the opportunity for journalists to append "franken-" to another living creature.

The salmon is produced by taking a portion of the gene that protects the ocean pout fish from freezing, transplanting it into the growth gene of a Chinook salmon and then moving that genetic material into the fertilised eggs of a North Atlantic salmon. Your regular salmon only produces the growth hormone in warm weather, but with the ocean pout antifreeze genes, the growth hormone is turned on year round.

The resulting salmon reaches maturity in 16 to 18 months rather than the regular 30 month period, producing a beautiful, newsworthy image of an anemic-looking non-engineered salmon lined up next to her beefy engineered brethren and the tantalising possibility that food will reach the plate faster than ever before.

The reason why a faster growing salmon is at all necessary is the increasing demand for salmon in industrialised nations. For example, while the fish makes up around 1 per cent of the meat eaten in the US (and comes in third behind prawns and canned tuna as most popular seafood), but between 1989 and 2004 consumption of salmon more than doubled.

In the wild, Atlantic salmon stocks (according to the FAO) are ranging from fully-exploited to depleted. There aren’t enough fish in the sea. As for farming, and as with farming any carnivore, the salmon requires more meat to eat than is output in the final product: a different (and less palatable) fishery is depleted in the service of the farmed salmon.

Share article: 
top

Comments (4)

02 Dec 2010 5:49 AEST

???

From:

???

From a very good discussion and put forward the idea Thank you for the open discussion on this topic

Agree (0 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

19 Oct 2010 10:43 AEST

William Jones

From: Wollongong

Philidomine,DDT and now GM.

We must not forget that products are often pushed onto us by savy lobbyist and marketters long before we know of any of the real after effects of these advancements.GM food like all other 'products' needs to be extensively tested and researched to the point of destruction long before a single morsel of it ever enters the human food chain.Science in this case needs to be 100% sure of any plausible side effects from consuming any GM products.We do not need another Philidomine or DDT.

Agree (2 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

14 Oct 2010 19:30 AEST

Jef Hanson

From:

the idea of fear

While the idea of a few excessively powerful companies in any commercial field is worrying, the genetic manipulation fear seems to be sparked by ignorance. What did it take to produce th (deeply disturbing) battery hen from the wild jungle fowl? A feral Australorp is frightening enough, yet our ancestors managed to tame these vicious creatures, a transformation greater than any attempted in a laboratory.

Agree (0 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

12 Oct 2010 3:31 AEST

Mark

From:

swimming against the tide

A very important post thanks! It is surprising this issue passes by with barely a murmur. While scientists debate health and other merits of the fish, if it can be called that, socio-political questions are omitted. Few, excessively powerful companies have the resources to genetically modify what we eat. Do you wish to have your food controlled by fewer and fewer unaccountable corporations? It's a typical example of humankind's approach to preference a taste for salmon over health of the oceans.

Agree (2 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

Join the discussion

You have characters remaining.
Validation (
) :
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

PLEASE NOTE: All submitted comments become the property of SBS. We reserve the right to edit and/or amend submitted comments. HTML tags other than paragraph, line break, bold or italics will be removed from your comment.

About this Blog

A blog about what the world eats, when and where it eats it, and why it matters to us all. Only much less ambitious than that sounds and with more excruciating puns.

Phil Lees grew up in rural Victoria, the first generation in his family to not have lived on the farm and thereby not slaughter their own meat.

In 2005 he moved to Cambodia and started the nation’s first food blog, Phnomenon.com, named after the best pun that he has ever made. It turns out that Cambodian food is delicious and unlike the warnings in most guidebooks, is not likely to kill you with any immediacy. Gridskipper called him a “national treasure”. Lonely Planet’s Greater Mekong guide called him “the unofficial pimp of Cambodian cuisine”. The New York Times laughed at a funny hotdog he saw.

Phil makes a mean sausage, a hoppy pale ale, a modest laksa. He owns three barbecues and is in the market for a fourth.

 
ADVERTISEMENT