John Boyd, Jr., President of the National Black Farmers Association, is now more than ten years into his fight to see justice done for the farmers he represents. Boyd—who once had his loan application torn up in front of him by a USDA agent who later admitted he thought blacks “were lazy”—has been instrumental in compelling the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to own to up to decades of obvious discrimination against black farmers. This year, it appeared he was finally going to meet his goal. In February, the Department of Justice and the USDA announced a settlement with the black farmers, with the money to be allocated by Congress by March 31, 2010. It didn’t happen. Instead, according to a CNN profile, Boyd found himself going to the funeral of another elderly black farmer who never received the money due him. According to CNN, Boyd, speaking at the farmer’s memorial service, said, “It really hurts to be here and have to deliver a message at Mr. Bonner's going home services that Congress failed to act."
News that an “efficient and environmentally sustainable” genetically modified (GM) salmon may be a step closer to commercial release had me reaching for a large pinch of salt—and not, I might add, to help season the dish.
As some of you will know from my previous blogs, I am extremely skeptical about the real benefits that GM technology offers us all. Indeed, I have grave concerns about GM—not only about the potential environmental and health risks associated with the technology, but also the potential control that GM gives “Big Ag” over global food production. These concerns are just as relevant to GM fish production as they are to GM soy, cotton or corn. The difference, of course, is that, with fish, we are dealing with a living creature, where welfare is also an issue.
On June 15, 2010, Massachusetts-based biotech company AquaBounty announced that it had moved a step closer to gaining formal U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approval of its AquAdvantage® Salmon. According to the AquaBounty website, the AquaAdvantage Salmon is genetically modified to “include a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon that provides the fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon.” This enables “shorter production cycles and increased efficiency of production.”
This fish would be the first GM animal to be approved by the USDA, and would open the door to the mass production of other GM fish. AquaBounty already has plans for GM trout and GM tilapia, and once GM fish are permitted, biotech companies would no doubt push ahead with other GM farmed animals—including pigs, cattle and poultry.
Call me a cynic but I’ve learnt to take the claims of biotech companies with a rather hefty pinch of salt. Despite the billions of dollars thrown at the technology over the years, I think it’s fair to say that most of the “golden promises” of biotech have failed to come to any real fruition. Fifteen years later, for example, and we’re still waiting for the promised drought-resistant GM crops that would “solve global hunger.” The handful of GM products that have managed to reach the market have generally focused on herbicide or insect-resistant traits. These crops are now rapidly losing their appeal after the emergence of multiple herbicide-resistant GM “super weeds,” unpredicted pest and soil nutrient problems, and growing discontent among farmers over the heavy-handed business practices of some of the GM seed companies and their so-called “seed police.”
But I am also naturally skeptical of anyone making claims of finding a “panacea,” because you rarely get something for nothing. In my experience of farming, Mother Nature has a pretty reliable habit of balancing things out over the longer term. Sure, you might trick her for a while but there is always a cost somewhere down the line, even if it’s eventually borne by someone—or something—else.
This is why AquaBounty’s claim that its GM salmon will reach a marketable size in half the time caught my attention. You don’t get such unnatural growth rates without a ”cost.” Even without the “advantages” of biotechnology we have already managed to cause significant welfare problems through selective breeding and hybridization of several species. For example, most farmers are well aware of the animal welfare problems associated with Belgian blue cattle. The double muscling mutation which breeders have selected for over the years has led to extensive calving difficulties and an extraordinarily high level of caesareans. Deformities of the jaw and tongue, as well as respiratory, heart and reproductive problems, are also well documented within the Belgian Blue breed. Similarly, research shows that the Cornish Cross chicken breed puts on weight faster than its body can actually cope with. The birds can suffer from heart strain and are prone to joint and ligament problems. Again, while the breed has not been genetically modified, the point is that our desire to constantly increase growth rates and shorten the time needed to reach a marketable weight has led to these associated welfare problems.
According to an expert panel from the Royal Society of Canada, set up in 2001 to consider the potential impacts of food biotechnology, experiments to genetically modify fish have already resulted in health and welfare issues, including “changes to enzyme activity, gross anatomy, behavior and, in all likelihood, hormonal activity.” This is why AquaBounty’s claims that its GM salmon will bring about “fish health benefits” had me reaching once again for a healthy pinch of salt.
Putting the GM issue aside for one moment, the welfare of farmed fish is already a big concern. Wild salmon are migratory fish and naturally travel thousands of miles. A farmed salmon is caged and swims around in a space equivalent to a large bathtub full of water. The parallels between intensive broiler production and salmon farming are, to my mind, quite striking—large numbers of animals in a small space being pushed to grow as fast as possible; the high risk of disease, leading to routine use of medication to avoid parasites and disease; the environmental pollution risk from feed and fish waste contaminating the seabed below the cages, and so on. This all goes completely against the type of farming system that AWA wants to see, whether it’s bird, animal or fish.
Some of you may well be thinking that we are”only” talking about a fish. But, as responsible people, we shouldn’t distinguish between the “cute and cuddly” and the “slimy”—either we care about what we eat, how it was produced, and the subsequent impact on the environment, or we don’t.
We also need to realize that USDA approval of this GM animal would undoubtedly pave the way for the future approval of GM pigs, GM cattle and GM poultry—all of which are already on the biotech drawing board, and which would entail the same health and welfare risks. And if you are expecting the public to kick up a fuss over this, think again: current labeling rules mean that most consumers wouldn’t even know they are eating a GM product.
On the plus side, AquaBounty has been seeking approval from the USDA for this GM salmon since 1996; and, back in 2004, the company publicly claimed that it was just ”two or three years away” from commercial production. So while the AquaAdvantage Salmon might still turn out to be another of biotech’s many burst bubbles, I’m not going to hold my breath.