January 21, 2003
Does something smell fishy?... Let's take five with Moira Gunn. This is "Five Minutes".
I once brought an international forum on technology to a grinding halt by simply stating, "This discussion of how we can do everything faster and faster is all well and good, but it still takes 9 months to have a baby."
As I was one of the few females in the room, it was almost a parlor trick. The next person to speak would have a heck of a time not stepping directly into the merciless jaws of political correctness. But my actual intent was to bring the focus down from our high-flying projections into the future and back onto our physical selves. At the end of the day, we'd all still be human.
I hadn't thought about it again, until just now. It turns out the Food and Drug Administration is considering the approval of a genetically-engineered salmon which can grow twice as fast as natural ones.
Obviously, I was brought up short. Would I someday find myself declaring, "But it still takes 4 and a half months to have a baby?"
--
Since I'm totally unprepared to consider this right now, let's stick with the subject of genetically-modified fish, also known as "transgenic fish."
First and foremost, there's money to be made here. The faster you can grow fish and bring them to market, the better a business proposition they become. And since there's money involved, there's impetus to make this proposition a reality sooner rather than later.
Genetically-modified grains and the like are commonplace in American supermarkets. They made their way there via a national decision to improve our economic competitiveness, although there has never been a requirement to notify the consumer. Now we're talking about genetically-engineered fish, and I'm hoping it can't be slipped by us so easily.
But there are challenges. For one thing, it's hard to think about. There are issues of human safety as well as environmental concerns: Could natural fish populations be threatened if transgenic fish escape into the wild? And there are a polyglot of federal agencies with confusing oversight responsibilities, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Still, there may be hope in the FDA attempting to regulate these fish. They consider them a "new animal drug," and if that doesn't make the whole idea unappetizing, I don't know what will.
--
These situations are difficult, even if you want to understand the issues, so we are fortunate to have a report prepared for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.
Entitled "Future Fish," it examines a broad scope: economics, environmental concerns, food safety issues, the government regulatory situation, risk management approaches, the underlying science and a long list of references.
Besides its clarity and breadth, the report stands out for another characteristic: It doesn't make any recommendations. And that is exactly why this report is so helpful. Each of us is entitled to our own informed opinion.
On second thought, it's not exactly true that there are no recommendations. There is one: Whatever agency ends up regulating these new transgenic fish, the report asks for "transparency," meaning that all information be made available to the public.
On second thought, I'm not sure I'd call that a recommendation. I think I'd call it a requirement.
I'm Moira Gunn. This is Five Minutes.
