Dr. Moav's comments [4 September] are well thought out and present some important issues that need to be discussed. I am pleased that he views our approach as a science-based assessment of risk, that is the goal of our research. The approach presents a testable hypothesis on the environmental risk of transgenic fish, relative to the native species, and allows an unbiased assessment of risk without the hysteria normally associated with GMOs. In fact, the method, if used, provides a good defense to allow production of transgenic fish. It shows that all necessary precautions have been taken by the company and any risks identified have been hopefully addressed.
A very important issue raised is that of production of transgenic fish in regions where the species does not exist, i.e. there are no native fish. This same issue has been raised for production of transgenic tilapia in Cuba and transgenic Atlantic Salmon in the Pacific and elsewhere. There are really two issues here, 1) introduction of exotic fish into new territories (domestic and/or transgenic) and 2) liability for spread of the transgene to other regions of the world where such species exist naturally.
Introduction of exotic non-native species has usually resulted in ecosystem disruption everywhere it has been tried. This is an issue for transgenic as well as non-transgenic domesticated fish. I would urge extreme caution in this case. Our methods do not apply to introduced species and we do not know of any good methods to assess such an environmental risk. The reason being, the risk depends on the competing species, is unique to each region, and competing species may not even be known.
The second issue is liability and is a non-scientific issue, but one that nevertheless needs to be addressed. Because raising fish in areas where they are not native gives a false sense of security, biosecurity on the transgenic carp may be lax. What is to prevent someone from taking one of those transgenic carp and introducing it into other regions of the world ? After all, they want enhanced production too. As Dr. Moav notes, carps represent roughly 90% of aquaculture output of the world finfish each year. However, most of that production occurs in areas of the world that carp DO exist. Is your country then liable for any environmental damage in the other country if it becomes introduced? We have to think of environmental risk in broader terms than our own borders.
Finally, Dr. Moav argues that a 20% growth advantage over the commercial strain is not a megamutation. I won't argue the point because a megamutation has never been defined. On the other hand, I think we can all agree that the 1000 to 1500% increase in growth of salmonids is a megamutation. Small growth enhancements may be seen as not being important factors contributing to risk, but our transgenic medaka also only show enhancements in growth in the 20-25% range. Nevertheless, we show that a 25% enhancement in size at sexual maturity is sufficient to provide a 400% mating advantage.
Thus the need remains, regardless of the magnitude of the effect, that all transgenic fish should be assessed for environmental risk in a scientifically sound manner. We also need to assure the public that this technology is safe before it will be accepted. Industry needs to embrace an attitude that inspires confidence in them by the public. Openly testing transgenic fish as we have suggested will help eliminate those fears.
Bill Muir
Professor of Genetics
Department of Animal Sciences
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1151
Phone 765-494-8032
FAX 765-494-9346
E-mail Bmuir@purdue.edu
http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/faculty/muir.htm
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 2:45 PM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Can introduction of a GMO be risk-free?
[Thanks to Hans Magnus Gjøen for his views on the issue of risk assessment of transgenic fish. Remember that in addition to the biotechnology of genetic modification, we also wish to receive your views/experiences on the appropriateness of other biotechnologies (such as the use of molecular markers, hybridisation, induction of polyploidy or the production of single sex groups of fish) for the fishery sector in developing countries....Moderator]
I would just like to comment on the form of discussion that we have seen at this conference. When Dr Moav [4 September] states that opposition of GMOs "is based on a naïve approach and creationist ideologies with very little scientific basis" and Prof. Muir [5 September] states that his approach allows an unbiased assessment of risk without the "hysteria" normally associated with GMOs, I don't think it brings the discussion into a fruitful pathway. Respect for others with different points of view is a crucial prerequisite for any discussion, and we should argue against the argument and not the person claiming it. I fear this could prevent people of opposite views to enter the conference.
What this issue really boils down to is two things: Ethical considerations and risk assessment. The first one is probably beyond the scope of this conference whereas the latter one very much should be our concern. For me there are then two things I am willing to admit: 1) There is probably no one able to foresee all the implications of the use of GMOs and 2) I am willing to learn from history; that much of what the "opposition" claimed against new "technology" was first considered to be "hysterical", but have later shown to be very much the truth (e.g. regarding the effect of different kinds of pollution, the effect of smoking on human health, the effect of insecticides like DDT, the greenhouse effect etc.). This should make us humble as scientists when propagating our "excellent" technology.
This should however not prevent us from trying to quantify the risk, like Prof. Muir's models. I just think it is hard to conclude that something like an introduction of a GMO is risk-free.
Dr. Hans Magnus Gjøen, Norway
hans.magnus.gjoen@genomar.com
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]