A Genetically Modified Dilemma

On Thursday, the United States approved the sale of genetically engineered Atlantic salmon. The salmon was essentially given a gene from Pacific salmon for faster growth, as well as a gene from the "eel-like ocean pout" to sustain year-round growth. Although the salmon is claimed to be nutritionally equivalent to conventional farm-raised salmon, and that there is no evidence of the modified fish being a risk to human and environmental health, there is still some controversy coming from environmentalists. Beyond that, many grocery chains such as Kroger Corp, Trader Joe's, and Whole Foods refuse to sell modified salmon in their stores.


Personally, I had never really obtained a strong opinion one way or the other in terms of genetically modified food. Whether it's because of a lack of exposure to news and media about the topic, not enough research on my own part, or simply a lack of interest, I'm not sure. In this particular case, however, from the information I have, I could more easily make an argument in favor of the genetically modified salmon. As an environmentalist, optimism for such a thing feels like betrayal. However, my reasoning has a lot to do with overfishing. We are fishing at an unsustainable rate and fish populations are dwindling rapidly. In the book Ocean of Life, Callum Roberts dedicates a chapter to this particular issue. He states that, "fishers land just 6 percent of what they did 120 years ago. Put another way, fishers today have to work seventeen times harder to get the same catch as people did in the nineteenth century. The simple reason for this stark contrast between past and present is that there are fewer fish in the sea." Furthermore:

A universal rule of fishing is that when you exploit a population, the average size of the animals gets smaller. Most fishing methods are size-selective, which is to say that they catch animals whose bodies or mouths are larger than the size of a mesh or a hook. Even hand-gathered fish and shellfish are susceptible, as people tend to pick out the largest and juiciest ones first. Over time, therefore, fishing alters the balance between young and old in a population.

Evolution works to maximize the number of descendants that an animal leaves behind. Where the risk of death from fishing increases as an animal grows, evolution favors those that grow slowly, mature younger and smaller, and reproduce earlier.

Young fish produce many fewer eggs than large-bodied animals, and many industrial fisheries are now so intensive that few animals survive more than a couple of years beyond the age of maturity. Together this means that there are fewer eggs and larvae to perpetuate future generations. In some cases the amount of young produced today is a hundred or even a thousand times less than in the past, putting the survival of species, and the fisheries dependent on them, at grave risk. 

I'm optimistic that as long as the genetically modified salmon are well-managed and maintained, perhaps this could be a temporary solution to the tragedy of overfishing. Although I would much rather see improved fishing practices and stronger fishing regulations, I cannot deny that genetically modified salmon may help save other more natural populations of the fish until we get such regulation established.

Sources:

• http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/20/us-aquabounty-technologies-fda-idUSKCN0T826T20151120#iicoWuzrKuxhH5oU.97 
• The Ocean of Life by Callum Roberts