December 23, 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're all still human.
I thought about that again recently when the state of California refused to permit new glow-in-the-dark fish to be sold within its borders. While only for amusement, it's part of larger effort to tinker with fish, like the genetically-engineered salmon under review by the Food and Drug Administration for many months now. These new salmon grow twice as fast as the old-fashioned ones.
Would I someday find myself declaring, "But it still takes 4 and a half months to have a baby?"
--
Babies aside, let's tackle the subject of genetically-modified fish, also known as "transgenic fish."
First and foremost, there's money to be made. The faster you 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.
Today, 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, which might explain why there's never been a requirement to notify the consumer. And now we're talking about genetically-engineered fish, so can we expect the same information black-out?
The issues are wide ranging: Could natural fish populations be threatened if transgenic fish escape into the wild? Are they safe for human consumption? Even at the federal level, there's a confusing polyglot of agencies with overlapping oversight responsibilities. From the Environmental Protection Agency to the Army Corps of Engineers, there are many candidates, but in this specific case, the FDA is involved.
And why is that? This new fish is considered a "new animal drug."
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 earlier this year 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.
Actually, 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.
