GMO Salmon: A risky solution in search of a problem Tim Schwab Senior Researcher, Food & Water Watch Tulane University February 19, 2016.

GMO salmon opposition --International Salmon Farmers Association “firmly rejects transgenic salmon production.” --Consumer polls consistently show widespread public opposition---they won’t eat it --Leading grocery stores---Kroger, Target, Trader Joe’s—have pledged they won’t sell it--

BIOTECH LOBBYING EFFORT $572 million in campaign contributions and lobbying

Trust but never verify FDA reviews industry data, not independent science Absence of evidence= evidence of absence

Science or Science Fiction? "Maybe They [the FDA] Should Watch Jurassic Park.” --Denise Hawkins, PhD FWS Regional Geneticist

Once Fish Escape….. --Biological containment --Geographic containment --Physical containment

Biological Containment Up to 5% of GMO salmon will be fertile ---FDA Environmental Assessment

Geographic Containment “-During the spring, summer and fall, temperatures in the waters adjacent to the facility are suitable for salmon survival.” -FDA Environmental Assessment

Physical Containment “The damage by an unusually severe storm caused the water inlet system for tanks…to fail during the night with the result that all of these fish were lost. “ AquaBounty Press Release 2008

AquaBounty’s “Fort Knox” “Officials in Panama have fined the local facility of a US biotechnology company for a series of permitting and regulatory failures around a pioneering attempt to create genetically modified salmon.” ---The Guardian

AquaBounty’s “Fort Knox”

Environmental Risks Once fish escape, they can never be retrieved

Genetic Engineering: Unintended Consequences --Genetic engineering combines genes in a way that would never happen in nature -GMO salmon only as closely related to its gene donor as human being is to dolphin

Food Safety ---Many statistically significant differences in nutrition --Does growth-hormone gene construct increase hormone levels? --Allergies---FDA only looked at six fish; statistically significant differences that FDA still chose to ignore.

Animal Safety --“reasonable certainty that AAS is more susceptible to A. salmonicida than domesticated comparators...” --“...The study design was too restrictive in scope to provide a satisfactory answer” to the question of whether the overall health of AAS may be compromised in a commercial setting. -Department of Fisheries and Ocean Canada Draft Review

Growth Rates --FDA only examined growth rates up to 100 grams, the point at which you move salmon from fresh water to salt water. --Never examined growth rates to market weight or full life cycle

“A solution in search of a problem”

FDA Approval: 11/ FDA approved GMO salmon as safe to eat; said it needs no label --YET GMO salmon not yet approved as safe to produce in USA

FDA Approval: 11/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has “strongly recommend[ed]” an EIS for all grow-out facilities located in the United States.

FDA Approval: 11/ Congress stepped in and required FDA to formulate rules on labeling --FDA declared that imports of GMO salmon are banned until labeling rules are in place

Conclusion “Science-based rules” developed via intense biotech industry lobbying; FDA approvals based on biased industry science