Image
Expert fisheries agencies prohibit growing engineering salmon in open-water net pens under the Endangered Species Act. FDA declined to disclose evidence during September hearings on Aquabounty Salmon.

Adding a new twist to the controversy over genetically engineered (GE) salmon, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) revealed today that, in recent hearings on transgenic fish, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knowingly withheld a Federal Biological Opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) prohibiting the use of transgenic salmon in open-water net pens pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA).

"This adds further evidence that in fact GE salmon pose a serious threat to marine environments and is another compelling reason for the FDA not to approve the fish for commercial use," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "While the FDA applauded the company's choice of land-based containment as responsible, it never revealed that it is illegal in the U.S. to grow genetically engineered salmon in open-water net pens."

The Biological Opinion and supplemental information, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, challenge claims by AquaBounty Technologies, the developer of the GE salmon, that the transgenic fish pose no threat to marine environments. The GE Atlantic salmon under consideration was engineered with growth hormone genes from an unrelated Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and DNA from the anti-freeze genes of an eelpout (Zoarces americanus).

The Biological Opinion issued by FWS and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2003 expresses concerns that transgenic salmon would threaten and adversely affect wild Atlantic salmon, currently on the Endangered Species List. Federal agencies are required by Section 7 of the ESA to consult with the expert fisheries agencies when any action may impact a protected species. As part of the consultation, the expert agencies draft a Biological Opinion explaining under what circumstance the proposed activity would not endanger the survival of the protected species. The Biological Opinion here analyzed the authorization of net pen salmon aquaculture and required:
"The prohibition on the use of transgenic salmonids at existing marine sites off the coast of Maine" in order to "eliminate the potentially adverse disease and ecological risks posed by the use of transgenic salmonids in aquaculture."
Despite this knowledge, it appears that FDA has not consulted in depth with the expert fisheries agencies regarding the current Aquabounty GE salmon. FDA acknowledges that "preliminary" discussions have been held. However, the documents released today by CFS also include an email from FWS staff to NOAA further revealed that:
Shortly after the Atlantic salmon was listed as endangered, several of us from USFWS and NMFS spent 2 days down in Maryland meeting with Aqua Bounty and FDA about development of genetically modified salmon and discussion around the need for FDA to engage in Section 7 consultation with the Services. We never heard a peep out of FDA or Aqua Bounty after that.
"The recent developments only add to the increasing concerns raised by the public, members of Congress and the FDA's own Advisory Committee," said Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Food Safety. "The documents received make clear that some data was even kept from FWS and NMFS scientists who would not sign the confidentiality agreements requested by the FDA. If the FDA won't even share confidential company data with government scientists, what else is it keeping secret from the public?" added Hanson.

In a similar Biological Opinion issued by FWS and NMFS to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2001, also included in the material released by CFS today, the agencies noted:
It is reasonable to assume that genetically-modified salmonids, possessing a greatly accelerated growth potential and occupying the same habitat as wild fish, would have a greater displacement impact on wild fish than non-transgenic domestic strains.
Conversations between NOAA and FWS staff in 2009 highlight a Swedish study that found that in simulated escapes, transgenic fish have a "considerably greater effect on the natural environment than hatchery-reared, non-transgenic fish when they escape." The study further noted that genetically modified fish survive better when there is a shortage of food, benefit more than non-transgenic fish from increasing water temperatures, and can be more resistant to environmental toxins that may ultimately end up in consumers.

"Today the public gains much needed insight about the risks of GE fish, we hope that FDA will take heed," added Kimbrell. "We strongly oppose the approval of these genetically engineered salmon and urge FDA to reject this application."