Svein A. Fosså, Vice-Chairman, OFI
Science has long since brought us to
the point where transferral of genes from one species to another is
becoming everyday practice in many areas. The construction of GMO's
(Genetically Modified Organisms) has become a welcomed tool in medical
production (various medicines, antibiotics, human spare parts, etc.),
and it finds increasingly more uses in agriculture and food production.
We get faster-growing crops, plants with integrated biological pest
controls and disease resistance, plants with reduced need for
fertilisers, as well as extended environmental tolerance and increased
nutrient values in plants, as well as animals. Soon, GMO's -
fluorescent Zebra Fishes and Medakas for a start - will be ready also
for introduction to the aquatic trade. Are we prepared for this?
Surrounded by Controversy
Although
one should easily be able to see the good intentions behind most of the
biotechnological research and GMO production, this does not come
without controversy. Medical uses do not get too much attention, as
long as they stay away from incorporating human genomes or using higher
vertebrates as test or production animals. GM foods, however, raise
considerable scepticism and resistance - enough for Greenpeace to label
them "Frankenfoods" in a 2001 television commercial (2). The term
"Frankenfish" for genetically engineered salmon has become widespread
(1).
Opponents of GMO's have arguments
against them, some of which are valid. It is not uncommon, though, that
facts alone are insufficient for the opponents' needs. One can hardly
deny that falsehoods and lies have been, and are being, spread in
campaigns of vilification. Public press and the Internet are filled
with campaign initiatives against genetical engineering. Many groups
also resort to attacks on laboratories and farms in acts of vandalism
in pursuance of their cause.
Public authorities frequently
demonstrate uncertainty and lack of decisiveness when it comes to
legislation on GMO's. Labeling of GMO's and products from GMO's is
discussed, and several countries try to control the imports and
domestic production of genetically engineered products and organisms.
In the following paragraphs, I will summarise a few selected examples of the arguments most frequently heard in the GM debate.
Precautionary Principle
A
favourite argument from opponents of GMO's is the "precautionary
principle": until we are 100% sure there is no risk involved in
genetical engineering, we should avoid it.
At least, the possible benefits should
receive equally heavy weight when being compared against the potential
dangers. Possibilities for reducing the use of pesticides, or for
increasing food production and quality in Third World countries, may
easily be balanced in on the positive side. However, sheer food
cosmetics or economical arguments may weigh less heavily.
Environmental Risks
Environmental
concerns are strong arguments on the negative side. Can we be certain
that modified organisms don't spread and cross-fertilise with wild
populations? Alien invasive species are a major concern in the world
today, and the fears are frequently larger when dealing with
"artificially engineered laboratory life forms". Frequently, genetical
engineering involves increasing a species' ability to live under harsh
and unfavourable life conditions, under parameters outside of the
normal acceptance range of the species, by inducing alien temperature
or moisture tolerance, or resistance towards otherwise natural enemies.
All such factors clearly increase the risk of a GMO becoming invasive.
Even induction of sterility in
specimens by triploidisation (triploid = having 3 copies of
chromosomes, in contrast to the normal number of two copies which is
necessary for producing functional germ cells) is not considered a
guarantee against spreading, since the genetic changes cannot be
accurately assessed, monitored or controlled (7).
Human Safety
In
particular, GM foods are challenged with arguments that these
transgenic crops might not be safe to eat. To a large extent, one
should expect that genetical engineers know what they are doing, yet it
seems only human to fear that there could be unanticipated consequences.
Religious and Ethical Aspects
Some
people have strong ethical remonstrance towards genetical engineering,
or towards man "playing God". In a US survey in July 2001, 57% of
Protestants (62% of Evangelists) oppose biotechnology based on their
religious or ethical views, while 37% are in favour; Catholics followed
closely behind with 52% opposed and 42% in favour. Among Muslims, 46%
said they are opposed, with 32% in favour, while Jews were the most
favourably disposed towards the technology, with 55% in favour and 35%
opposed (5).
Among humanists, too, arguments
concerning the ethics (or the lack of ethics) in 'monkeying around'
with Mother Nature frequently surfaces.
Anyone in Favour?
One
can safely say that genetic modification is as old as agriculture, at
least. As long as man has carried out selective breeding of domestic
plants and animals, we have also altered the genetic composition of
organisms. Still, it is not too hard to see that there are marked
differences between traditional 'old fashioned' breeding techniques and
direct transferral of genes from other species.
The benefits from producing GMO's are
overwhelming in some areas: non-polluting enzyme-based detergents are
produced by transgenic microorganisms; genetically engineered yeasts
produce human insulin for treatment of diabetics; and bacteria-carrying
human genes produce pituitary hormones for improving the lives of
people with defective glands.
Generally, there has been very little
fuss about these non-agricultural uses of genetic modification. This
may be accounted for, either by the obvious benefits of these uses, or
a lack of knowledge among the general public, or by the fact that most
people will never encounter these products directly - quite unlike GM
foods that they are expected to put in their own mouth.
Transgenic Ornamental Fish
Work
on producing aquatic GMO's of relevance for the ornamental trade has,
so far, been carried out (in particular) in Asia. In Singapore, for
example, transgenic Zebra Fishes (Danio rerio) that glow in
green or red under UV-light were first produced some years ago.
Although still not available commercially, they have been shown at
Aquarama.
In Taiwan, fluorescent greenish yellow Medakas (Oryzias latipes)
will be ready for their international launch in the aquatic trade. And,
in several countries, research continues to find new areas for
employing genetical engineering in the production of new fish
varieties, often supported by government offices and research
institutions.
Efforts do not only focus on improving
colour and shape, but also on developing characteristics such as faster
growth, resistance to infection and tolerance of lower temperatures.
This last point, in particular, would certainly open up the debate on
invasiveness and environmental risks.
The Best Intentions
Representatives
of the Agrifood and Veterinary Authority (AVA) of Singapore, as well as
the National University of Singapore (NUS), have, on occasions, clearly
expressed their major interest in biotechnology being applied to
increase variation in ornamental fish available on the market. The
Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre supports studies
aimed at enhancing the commercial value of ornamental fish species by
the use of gene transfer technology.
Taikong
Corporation, the manufacturer of the Taiwanese fluorescent Medaka,
points out that their TK-1 Fluorescent Transgenic Fish is, simply, an
ornamental fish, only for fish hobbyists to keep in their tanks. The
fluorescent gene that they transfer to the fish embryos is extracted
from a naturally-occurring jellyfish's gene. Taikong Corporation finds
no indications that it will be harmful in any way, either to any
animals that might accidentally take TK-1 fish as a food, or to the
fish itself.
The investors and developers of the
transgenic fish will, naturally, also do their best to make sure their
fish are incapable of breeding. In practice, marketing triploid or
tetraploid sterile specimens will be the method employed. Taikong
Corporation therefore considers TK-1 Fluorescent Transgenic Fish as
100% safe and environmentally friendly (8).
The logical approach would be for all
of the aquatic industry to relate only to the assurances of the
producers. There is very little reason to suspect that GM ornamental
fishes are particularly dangerous in any sense, in comparison to other
GMO's. Still, we are talking about a luxury product; unnecessary and
superfluous in some people's eyes. Logic may, however, not apply in the
debate we can be faced with.
Controversial?
In
aquarium hobbyist circles there is already a growing scepticism towards
many other 'modern' techniques employed for producing varieties of
well-known ornamental species. A simple search on the Internet easily
reveals heaps of attacks on the industry's use of artificial colouring,
hormone
treatments and physical manipulation, as well as on traditional
selective breeding carried out to what opponents call monstrous
extremes.
Strong emphasis is already being
placed on GMO's among the public, in media and in political circles.
The trade in live animals is receiving increased attention from many
pressure groups. GMO's in the aquatic trade, in the form of striking
luxury products, are likely to become obvious targets for campaigning.
Do we have the arguments in place for handling this pressure?
References
- Friends of the Earth. Salmon Activist Toolkit - Frankenfish. http://www.salmonactivist.org/Frankenfish
- Greenpeace (2001). MTV Commercial "Frankenfood". Archived at http://www.tappedintogreenpeace.org/ram/react-apple.ram
- Lomborg, B. (2001). The Skeptical Environmentalist - Measuring the Real State of the World. Cambridge University Press.
- Organic Consumers Association (2000). The Emerging Scientific Debate on
Frankenfish. http://organicconsumers.org/ge/gmfish.cfm
- Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001). Views on
Genetic Modification of Food Influenced By Religious Beliefs, Not Just
Science. http://pewagbiotech.org/newsroom/releases/032601.php3
- Rader, C.M. (2001-2002): A Report on Genetically Engineered Crops. http://members.tripod.com/c_rader0/gemod.htm
- Smith, T. & al. (without year). Biological containment of
transgenic fish and risk assessment of inter-species gene transfer. EU
Research Project http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/gmo/07-fish/07-01-project.html
- Yeh, I. (2002). Personal communication, March 2002.
See also references on transgenics in Internet Surf Research Reports by
Svein A. Fosså in past issues of the OFI Journal (November 1999; May 2001,
and August 2001).
OFI Journal Issue 39: May 2002
