[Welcome to Conference 4 (on the fishery sector) of the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture !!

Thanks to Dr. Hans Magnus Gjøen, Norway, for this first message which deals with the question of whether transgenic technologies in the fishery sector would only be justified if they are directed towards solving hunger problems in developing countries.

The conference is expected to run until 30 September.

For those who joined the Forum and registered for this conference after July 31 (the date that the Background Document for the conference was sent to Forum members), you can receive an e-mail message which includes the Background Document by sending an e-mail to mailserv@mailserv.fao.org leaving the subject blank and enter the one-line text message as follows:

sending send listlog/biotech-l.jul2000

We hope that the conference will be interesting, constructive and beneficial............Moderator]

I have noted that there has been no initiating messages so far at conference 4 of Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture: How appropriate are currently available biotechnologies for the fishery sector in developing countries? This is surely not reflecting the true concern and importance of this topic among aquaculturists and people in general. I thus would like to try to start of the discussion on the topic of use of gene transfer techniques in aquaculture:

Lately, many milestones and results have been reached within the area of gene transfer in aquatic animals. Particular interest has been shown to the growth enhancing effect of introducing genes coding for growth hormone, either from other species, or duplicates or modified copies of genes originating from the same species. It seems like these techniques have not been well received in the western world - in fact, even the use of gene-modified plants have recently faced increased scepticism. We all know however that there will always be someone pushing on to use new technology, almost at any ethical cost.

In the western world, the introduction of GMOs is therefore first done within an area where it is tough to argue against the use of it: within the health care. Consequently, a question was raised during a press conference at the EAS/WAS Aqua 2000 conference in Nice [held 2-6 May, organised by the European Aquaculture Society and the World Aquaculture Society...Moderator], asking the assembled panel "if there was a scope for transgenic fish or shellfish to be produced in 'poor' countries which badly needed food and whose consumers were not so GMO-conscious". Mr David Barclay [I assume this is an error and should be Dr. Devin Bartley...Moderator], from the UN FAO noted that transgenics cost a lot to develop initially and wouldn't be economically viable at first. "For it to be accepted by consumer, it must be to his advantage. Transgenic technology is quite well accepted in medicine because it is the sick people that are seen to benefit, not the pharmaceutical companies. The same would need to apply to fish." (Quoted from IntraFish ( http://www.intrafish.com/engelsk/article.php3?ID=6518 ).

Does Dr. Barclay's reply, or this general view, imply that only if someone is sick enough in the western world (where its harder to find anyone starving) or hungry enough in the developing countries, any of these transgenic techniques would justify their use?

Dr. Hans Magnus Gjøen,
Director of R&D, Quantitative Genetics and Breeding
GenoMar
Oslo Research Park
Gaustadallèen 21
N-0349 OSLO, Norway
Tel: +47 22 95 88 75
Fax: +47 22 56 53 90
Mobile: +47 93 02 43 04
E-mail: hans.magnus.gjoen@GenoMar.com
Web: http://www.GenoMar.com

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:10 PM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Transgenic fish - Chile

[Thanks to Ashie Norris who raises some very interesting points in this message...Moderator]

Here are some general comments I have regarding biotech in aquaculture in developing countries. I'd be interested to see what other people think.

On a recent visit to Chile I got the impression that farmers were very sensitive to the subject of transgenic salmon. There have been a number of approaches made to the Chilean industry regarding the potential farming of growth hormone transgenic salmon in Chile. There are a number of reasons why such an approach might have been made to fish farmers in Chile.

Firstly, Chile are now the second largest producers of farmed salmon in the world and as such represent a potentially huge market for this technology. Secondly, there would probably be less national opposition to the farming of transgenic fish in Chile then there would be in the other major salmon farming countries of Europe/North America/New Zealand. There is a feeling among some Chileans, which may or may not be justified, that there is an attempt to introduce fish, whose farming is at present unacceptable to Western countries, to be farmed in Chile.

The salmon farming industry in Chile is mostly now owned by large international companies who are well aware of the risks/benefits from such technology. I wonder to what extent in other developing (and less developed that Chile) countries we are prepared to see the introduction of transgenic fish simply because it is acceptable in that country at the time without even considering risk assessment for such introductions. There are many countries in need of practical help and advice in developing good aquaculture breeding and husbandry practices which would benefit their programs greatly.

Very likely in the next five years or so we will see the commercial production of transgenic fish for consumption (as opposed to the production of broodstock). What should the role of developed countries be, if any, in monitoring and assessing the farming of transgenics in developing countries?

Ashie Norris
Department of Genetics
Trinity College Dublin
Dublin 2
Ireland
Ph: 353-1-6083521
Fax: 353-1-6798558
email: anorris@tcd.ie

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:07 PM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: GM fish //Ecological risk

[Thanks to Professor Muir for this clear and highly relevant message about the release of genetically modified (GM) fish. He summarises some of the main results from his paper, published in PNAS in November last year. This work was also featured in a recent article in the scientific journal Nature on 6 July this year (volume 406, pages 10-12).......Moderator]

In the fish sector, biotechnology has mainly been directed toward transgenics. While I generally support biotechnology, I think there are some major concerns with transgenics that need to be addressed when working with a species that is an integral part of an ecosystem. For example, if one is working with pigs, cattle, sheep, goats, or poultry in countries where such animals are all domesticated and have no counterparts in the wild, escape of such transgenic animals presents little risk because of the great difficulty they would have in establishing themselves in the wild because there would be no wild animals to interbreed with. This is, of course, assuming the transgene does not impart some major fitness advantages to the transgenic animals that would overcome this disadvantage.

On the other hand, if feral animals exist in the wild for the transgenic species, then there are two major concerns. The first is that the feral animals are most likely an integral part of the ecosystem, disruption of that species can result in cascading effects on the entire ecosystem. Second, because feral animals exist, it is much easier for escaped animals to become established through interbreeding.

In all aquatic species, there are feral counterparts, so transgenic fish need special attention. The question then comes down to: will escape of transgenic fish cause disruption of the ecosystem. In a recent paper (Muir, W.M. and R.D. Howard. 1999. Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis. Proceedings of National Academy of Science 24:13853-13856) we show that if a transgene increases mating success while at the same time has a viability disadvantage, it is possible for an escaped transgenic fish to take the entire natural local population to extinction. Further, we show with our model species (medaka), and in the literature, that larger fish (including salmon) have a significant mating advantage. Secondly, we show in our transgenic line of medaka for growth hormone, that a reduction in viability occurs. Thus the main criteria for such a result to occur are present in fish transgenic for growth hormone.

However, it is not enough to look simply at mating success and viability to determine if transgenic fish are a risk to the ecosystem. We conclude that there are six net fitness parameters that need to be measured in order to assess risk, these are: survival to sexual maturity, age at sexual maturity, fecundity, fertility, mating success, and longevity. All impacts of a transgene will manifest themselves in one or more of these components. We then have a mathematical model that combines these net fitness parameters to assess if there is the potential for an escaped transgenic fish to either increase in frequency or go to extinction.

Of course, we can never duplicate the exact conditions of nature in a secure laboratory environment, the only thing we can conclude is if such fish show the potential for disruption. However, if a fish does not show indications of risk in a relatively benign laboratory setting, we are comfortable they will not be a risk in nature's more harsh conditions. Thus, we can never really say, even with measuring all six net fitness parameters, if a transgenic fish will really cause ecological harm, we can only tell those cases where we are fairly confident that it will not.

Thus we have the means to assess "lack of" ecological risk in a secure laboratory setting. In some cases (perhaps even most) transgenic fish may show no indication that they would be an environmental risk. In such cases, the issues would have been addressed and commercialization should proceed. However, to date, none of these net fitness parameters have been measured on any transgenic fish of commercial interest. Until industry presents us with the data, use of this technology should be restricted to secure facilities and/or sterile fish. Even then, the problem is to determine if all transgenic fish in commercial production would be sterile. I have not seen convincing evidence that the failure rate of sterilization is less than 1:1,000,000, i.e. the escape rate of salmon from net pens.

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: Thursday, August 31, 2000 4:47 PM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: GM fish //Ecological risk

This is Saturnina Halos of the Philippines, Department of Agriculture.

I would like to comment on the message of Dr. Muir [30 August] about the undesirability of introducing transgenic fish that may have obtained selective advantage over its wild relatives by being transgenic. I think this criteria should apply as well when introducing a new species, or even a conventionally-bred strain, into the wild. We have had experience in the Philippines of introductions of new catfish strains that have apparently caused the "disappearance" of the native catfish strain. In cases like this, have we lost genes or simply allelic combinations ? Is this not the more relevant issue, the loss of genes rather than just allelic combinations ? When a transgenic fish mates with a wild relative, are we not introducing further diversity ?

I am amazed that questions are raised only against transgenics when similar phenomenon could happen even with conventionally-bred or foreign breeds. On the other hand, the disappearance of other breeds of farm animals in farming households as well as those of old varieties from farmer's fields happens because farmers choose to grow new breeds or varieties. Hence, should we not concern ourselves more with how to preserve old breeds and varieties ? Otherwise, we should stop breeders from developing new breeds.

Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D.
Senior Project Development Adviser(Biotechnology)
Bureau of Agricultural Research
Department of Agriculture
Philippines
halos@mozcom.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 ]