Would You Eat Genetically Engineered Salmon?

Like it or not,  chances are you’ve already consumed some sort of genetically engineered (GE) food product. Almost all U.S.-produced corn and soybean is genetically modified (GM). What's worse is that these foods currently reside on grocery shelves and in produce aisles without labels.

Hold on to your dinner plates, food purists: As Sarah Parsons pointed out a few months ago, AquaBounty Technologies aims to be the first company to sell GE salmon to the general public. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the Frankenfish would give it the dubious honor of becoming the first GE animal meat sold in the U.S., setting a precedent that some consumers and scientists fear would open the door to future approvals, less testing, and a lax attitude toward GMOs in general on the FDA’s part.

Aside from environmental and health concerns, the potential approval of GE salmon raises other questions. On Wednesday, the FDA began a 60-day process including public meetings and consultations to consider giving the fish the go-ahead. In addition to potentially approving the first GE animal available to consumers, the FDA is confronted with whether or not to label the product as genetically modified.

In brief, the salmon's genetic modification allows it to produce growth hormones year-round instead of just in warmer months. That means the salmon grow twice as fast and are ready for consumption in 16-to-18 months instead of the usual three years. And here's where AquaBounty's PR policies get a little fishy: The technology used to modify the growth hormone comes in part from an unrelated species of eel called the ocean pout. But, as the U.K.'s Guardian revealed, the company literature makes no mention of the addition of a foreign-species gene to the salmon meat. Instead, it tells consumers that "...the chinook growth hormone is the same as the Atlantic salmon growth hormone; it is simply regulated differently. Their ability to grow faster does not change the biological make-up of the fish."

When questioned on the topic, the company's chief scientific officer mused that there was no intention to mislead the public, but that "the description on the Web site had been simplified to make it less confusing." I mean, how confusing is it? This isn't calculus. Either there are genes of a different species included in the modification, or there aren't. There's nothing confusing about being deliberately obscure.

The company's approach leads right in to the question of whether the meat, if approved, should be labeled as genetically modified. According to the Los Angeles Times, AquaBounty's CEO "would have no problem" with a voluntary label, but that he "fears that a mandatory label would look like a warning." FDA policy normally contains information on the so-called content of a food, not how it was produced. Apparently when it comes to GE salmon, unnatural eel parts may not count as content.

So what do you think, readers? Would you dine on GE salmon? Tell us in the poll above.

Photo credit: AZrainman via Flickr