‘Frankenfish’ spawns exaggerated rhetoric as sales start in Canada

Canadian customers have purchased the first 4.5 tons of genetically engineered salmon fillets, a product more than a quarter-century in the making, that the fishing industry in Alaska will have to get used to.

The fish grown at a plant in Panama are not an immediate economic threat to the salmon industry in Alaska, but you wouldn't know it from the exaggerated rhetoric their creation has spawned.

As the state celebrates "Alaska Wild Salmon Day" for the second time Thursday, here is a look at a new fledgling entry among farmed competitors.

The company producing AquAdvantage salmon — genetically engineered to grow about twice as fast as other farmed Atlantic salmon — also announced it has purchased a fish farm site in Indiana for its first U.S. production, which it hopes to begin by the middle of next year. That site could produce a small amount of fish, about 1,300 tons a year.

The promotional arm of AquaBounty claims this inland production plan could make the world's most sustainable salmon, a healthy farmed fish requiring no vaccines or antibiotics.

The attempt to win regulatory approval began in the early 1990s, following a scientific breakthrough that allowed the fish to reach market size in 16-20 months, instead of 28-32 months for other farmed salmon. Its approval was held up for years because of political opposition from various sources, including Alaska.

"We do not in any way threaten the Alaskan wild caught salmon industry, and the accusations made in this regard are completely unfounded," said AquaBounty spokesperson Dave Conley.

"The U.S. imports 300,000 tons of Atlantic salmon every year from Chile, Norway, Canada, and other countries. The untrue allegations of those who oppose us are, in essence, protecting those imports and preventing the U.S. from growing a safe and sustainable product," he said.

The federal government approved the AquAdvantage salmon for human consumption in late 2015, while Canadian regulators did the same more than a year ago.

"The salmon are safe to eat, the introduced DNA is safe for the fish itself, and the salmon meet the sponsor's claim about faster growth," the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in November 2015. "Because the sponsor has met these requirements, the FDA must approve the application."

But a provision inserted into federal law by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski blocked market approval until the FDA mandates a label describing the fish as genetically engineered.

Along with Sen. Dan Sullivan, Rep. Don Young, former Sen. Mark Begich and most other Alaska politicians, Murkowski uses language drawn from science fiction to portray the fish as something to fear, a product of science gone wild.

Young was listed as co-author of a column saying the fish are like something "out of the newest 'Jurassic Park' film," while Begich said six years ago it could be the plot for a "Deep Blue Sea" horror movie sequel.

Young said in 2012 his goal was to destroy the private firm. "If I can keep this up long enough, I can break that company," he said.

Begich said that year it was a joke to claim the fish were safe and he derided "lab-grown science projects."

AquaBounty is a subsidiary of Intrexon, a company with projects as varied as fighting the Zika virus with genetic engineering of mosquitoes and growing apples that don't turn brown after they are sliced.

In a presentation last year, Intrexon CEO Randall Kirk said a fear of technology is understandable, as it "changes our allocation of resources and it's upsetting to people."

He said the goal of the salmon project is to produce "fresh, beautiful, pathogen-free, sea lice-free, antibiotic-free salmon at a value that will beat what you can get from importing them from sea cages in Norway."

The fish are created by modifying the DNA of Atlantic salmon with a growth hormone gene from king salmon and a genetic element from an eellike fish known as an "ocean pout" that allows the fish to grow year-round.

There has been a "long and well-funded propaganda campaign to demonize the technology for market gain," according to the company.

Murkowski has in the past questioned whether these fish can really be called fish, referring to them as "creatures" or "organisms." The company is "messing with nature's perfect brain food," Murkowski said.

"Just say no to Frankenfish," is the refrain she has recited for many years, repeating it to fellow senators last month in an effort to extend the restriction in U.S. law.

"I like to show the picture of what the ugly transgenic Atlantic salmon egg merging with an ocean pout combining in the genes of a chinook salmon — if that scares you, it should, it should," she said.

The FDA has called for voluntary labeling. "If you think that any manufacturer of Frankenfish is going to voluntarily put that on the label of that fish, you're not thinking straight," she said.

The "Frankenfish" slogan aims at creating nightmarish visions of mad scientists who threaten Alaska's fishing economy.

Eric Hallerman, a professor of fish conservation at Virginia Tech, said the scare tactics from Alaska politicians are based on emotion.

"Scientific analyses show the AquaBounty salmon to be indistinguishable from conventional salmon. Any ecological issues are well addressed by culturing the fish under strict confinement," said Hallerman.

"Much nonsense has been written on food safety in an attempt to scare non-scientifically literate consumers," said Hallerman, who did research on the environmental impact but has no other connection to AquaBounty.

"The larger issue is that the GE salmon is but the first product to come through the regulatory pathway. Other very interesting products — that promote productivity, food safety, or animal well-being — are coming along.

"Disease-resistant livestock, fish and cattle that have omega-3 fatty acids in their products, goats that have milk that resists spoilage, these are all products that society would do well to adopt, and that reasonable people would see as positive contributions to agriculture and sustainability."

He said he is in his early 60s and he expects it won't be long before "production of these animals will be sufficiently routine that young people will wonder what all the fuss was about in the early 21st century."

Gunnar Knapp, a retired University of Alaska Anchorage economist who has long studied the fishing industry, said genetically engineered salmon may be a long-term economic threat to Alaska, but they are far down on a list topped by more pressing concerns— climate change, state salmon management issues, internal Alaska fish politics, labor issues, changes in the world economy and other potential technological breakthroughs in the development of farmed salmon.

He said his general sense is that the genetically modified fish are not that economic right now.

"I would say that 'Frankenfish' is not a particular threat to Alaska salmon. It is just part of the broader farmed salmon production. It may or may not become a significant new method of producing farmed salmon, which might possibly reduce farming costs," he said.

"But really I think there is always going to be room and opportunity in the market for wild salmon, simply because it's a different product in limited supply — particularly if we focus on growing the market," he said.

Columnist Dermot Cole can be reached at dermot@alaskadispatch.com. 

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.