Conference 4, Fisheries: Summary for September 2000

Dr. Halos [31 August] raises many good points, I can address some of the issues, perhaps others can fill in where I leave off.

Dr. Halos states that the criteria we suggested should apply to introduction of new species. I agree with that statement. Introduction of transgenics is similar to introducing a new species. We all recognize the damage that has been caused in nearly every country by the introduction of new species. Exotics disrupt natural habitats and displace local species from their niches.

Basically, I agree that introduction of domesticated fish in native ecosystems is not good and should be avoided if possible, but for different reasons. Release of domesticated strains causes ecological problems by the sheer numbers that are released. Domesticated fish can swamp the local gene pool with genes that are poorly fit to natural conditions and, in turn, cause extinction of the native species (as with the catfish Dr. Halos mentions). If one tested domesticated fish (or transgenic fish) with our models and found no risk, this does not imply there is no risk if the fish are introduced in such numbers as to swamp the local gene pool or break up coadapted gene complexes. The risk that we are talking about with our model is due to introduction of a small number of escaped fish and the probability that they will self propagate and take over or eliminate the natural population due to natural selection, not stochastic events caused by finite population sizes.

Dr. Halos raises an interesting question regarding genetic diversity. If a domesticated population displaces a native population, what is lost ? Is it just alleles and allelic frequencies ? I think it is much more than that. There are unique co-adapted gene complexes (epistatic effects) that took millions of generations to develop. With epistasis, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Once these complexes are disrupted, it is difficult or impossible to reestablish.

However, the extension to call a transgene another allele and that by adding the allele we are simply adding diversity is like saying introducing an exotic species is good for the local ecosystem because it adds diversity. Remember, in the short term, exotics may add diversity but in the long term they decrease it by eliminating competitors. There is a similar analogy to transgenic fish. A transgenic animal can retain all the benefits of the native species while at the same time the enhancements of the transgene. As such, they can invade new habitats, spawn at different times, prey on animals that are not normally their food, and not be preyed on by their normal predators. In short, a transgene is not simply a new allele, it is a megamutation. Such megamutations are often the cause for the evolution of new species. This gets into Sewall Wright's shifting balance theory of evolution which would take more space than I have to explain. I guess one could argue that evolution is good, and hence megamutations are good, but then we are speaking in evolutionary time, where millions of years is a flash in time. Given such time, it would be possible to reestablish new niches etc. necessary to reestablish balance. But, I think we need to restrict our time horizon to the present and near future.

Bill Muir
Professor of Genetics
Department of Animal Sciences
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1151, USA
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: Monday, September 04, 2000 8:52 AM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: transgenic fish // carp-Israel

A few comments on transgenic fish:

Some of the opposition of public groups in Europe and in the U.S. to transgenic food, transgenic fish, transgenic animals in general, and transgenic plants is based on the idea that the genetic engineering technology presents in itself a high risk to nature. This is based on a naïve approach and creationist ideologies with very little scientific basis. On the other hand, approaches suggested by Muir [30 August] on the possible risk of transgenic fish is scientifically based and therefore open for discussion of its validity, merits and application.

Carps were domesticated thousands of years ago and now they represent roughly 90% of aquaculture output of the world finfish each year. In Israel, carps represent about 60% of the aquaculture output. Carps were imported to Israel from Eastern Europe and Yugoslavia and the commercial superior line (Dor 70) was selected by conventional breeding by R. Moav and G. Wollfart. There is no "native" population of carp in Israel's lakes or (polluted) waterways. Even if we take seriously and apply Muir's theoretical analysis and Medaka data, I see no reason why Growth Hormone transgenic carp that we have developed (that show 20% growth advantage over the commercial superior strain) could not be grown in Israel and used widely by the public as a source of "health food".

Once transgenic fish will be produced on a large scale, we will be able to collect the missing vital data about their fitness parameters, and feed them into Muir's theoretical calculations.

At the present situation I fully agree with Halos [31 August] that opposition to the use of transgenic fish (that differ from its parental strain in one gene only- and it is definitely not a "Megamutation") is unfounded, and prohibit breeders from attempts to develop new and improved breeds.

Boaz Moav Ph.D
Dept of Zoology
Tel-aviv University
Ramat-Aviv, Tel-Aviv, Israel 69978
Tel: 972-3-6409817, Fax: 972-3-6409403
Home: Tel,Fax:972-3-6418504
e-mail:boaz2@post.tau.ac.il

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 8:20 AM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: transgenic fish // carp-Israel

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

-----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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 8:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Why are biotechnologies not used more extensively // sterility techniques

[Thanks to Dr. Ibarra, Mexico, for this very clear message dealing directly with the issue of appropriateness of biotechnologies for the fishery sector in developing countries......Moderator]

HOW APPROPRIATE ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE BIOTECHNOLOGIES FOR THE FISHERY SECTOR IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?

Without first considering transgenesis or GMOs, for which the background document indicates 'is currently in the research and development stage' (although at least one case is more in the commercial implementation stage), most of the already available genetic biotechnologies are very appropriate, and in fact in need to be used for the benefit not only of the fishery and aquaculture sector in developing countries, but also for the whole population. In the short to medium term, larger productions can be achieved with many of those genetic biotechnologies when used in aquaculture, and, in the fishery sector, those biotechnologies will (or should) ensure optimum management decisions for conservation of the wild populations exploited by the fishery sector.

If the biotechnologies are appropriate, then why are they not used more extensively? From my point of view, the problem rests in the capability to absorb and appropriately use those genetic biotechnologies in different developing countries. The lack of human resources within the fishery and aquaculture sector trained in the adequate use of those genetic biotechnologies, and their applications, might be the main cause for this. Specifically, there is a shortage of human resources trained in genetics (not only trained in molecular biology techniques, which could be considered as just one small part within the genetics field). For example, there are very few (if any) population and quantitative geneticist working within the fishery and aquaculture sector in most developing countries (I am speaking specifically of Latin America), which would be those [people] trained to use most of those biotechnologies in optimum ways.

That lack of human resources can result also in that, in the medium to long term, potentially high-risk biotechnologies will become implemented without a careful evaluation.

One last interesting point: no one has mentioned the possibility of reducing the risk of transgenic fish or shellfish by using sterility techniques, which are apparently being developed already (Dr. Peter Grewe, CSIRO Australia). Whereas that biotechnology in plants (staple food, mainly) can result in significant problems for subsistence farmers in developing countries, it is probably very appropriate in many fish-shellfish cultures. However, this raises another interesting question, what are the risks of the sterility gene(s) being transferred to wild populations? Anyone knows?

Ana M. Ibarra, Ph.D.
Aquacultural Genetics Group
CIBNOR (www.cibnor.mx), Mexico
aibarra@cibnor.mx

Aquacultural Genetics Lab.
Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas del Noroeste, S.C.
A.P. 128, La Paz B.C.S. 23000, Mexico
Tel: ++ 52 1 125-3633
Fax: ++ 52 1 125-3625

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 2:23 PM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Why are biotechnologies not used more extensively // sterility techniques

In answer to a specific point [6 September] from Dr. Ibarra ("no one has mentioned the possibility of reducing the risk of transgenic fish or shellfish by using sterility"), the technology is certainly available and simple. The production of all-female triploid populations is a reliable technique for sterilizing salmonid fishes (and presumably other species). Individuals and companies producing transgenic fish for profit will presumably want to only sell sterile fish, in order to protect their investment. Triploid salmonids generally show reduced tolerance of chronic stress, and as a result the aquaculture industry has been reluctant to use them for regular production. However, I think the use of triploids is a simple way to ensure that transgenic salmonids do not breed if they escape into the wild.

T. Benfey
==================================================
Tillmann J. Benfey, PhD
Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick
Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 6E1, Canada
tel (506) 453-4583; fax (506) 453-3583
http://www.unb.ca/web/biology/Faculty/Benfey.html
e-mail: benfey@unb.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 6:10 PM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Why are biotechnologies not used more extensively // sterility techniques

In response to Drs. Ibarra and Benfey [both of 6 September],

I stated in my message (August 30) "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."

I know that Dr. Benfey is one of the leading researchers in the area of sterilization by triploidization, however I have not seen the power of his test. To show that the method is safe, one would have to show that the results are significantly less than that expected by chance. For example, if the true rate of failure is 1:1,000,000 then the probability of not observing a failure in a sample of 100,000 is determined by the binomial distribution.

P(0/100,000)= (1/1,000,000)exp(0) x (1-1/1,000,000)exp(100,000)=.904

i.e. there is a 90% chance that you would not have observed a failure in a sample of this size even if the true failure rate is 1:1,000,000

If a sample of 1,000,000 is used, the probability is:

P(0/1,000,000)= (1/1,000,000)exp(o) x (1-1/1,000,000)exp(1,000,000)=.37

i.e. there is still a 37% chance you would not have observed the failure.

To achieve a level of significance that would assure a scientist the method is safe, you would need to get this probability below at least a 5% chance, that would take a sample size of 2,995,730

Was a sample size of that magnitude used to make the conclusion that the method is safe?

[Thanks to Professor Muir for some extra comments on the probability of success of sterilisation technologies (and thus on our ability to determine how efficient a sterilisation technology may be). He points out, from binomial distribution theory, that if the technology has a probability of 0.999999 of making a given fish sterile (and thus a probability of 0.000001 of a given fish not being sterile), then the probability of getting all sterile fish from a sample of N fish is 0.999999 to the power of N. Thus, if N is 100,000 or 1,000,000 or 2,995,730 fish then the probability of making them all sterile (i.e. of not getting a single failure of the sterilisation technique) is 90%, 37% or 5% respectively....Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 2:01 PM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Sterility techniques

In reply to Dr. Muir [6 September]:

No, obviously we have not examined 2,995,730 fish, but I fail to see the point. If it is essential to confirm that every individual fish within a population is sterile, then it is a simple matter of testing every individual fish within that population before it leaves a secure facility. This is not without precedent: there was a time when every individual grass carp released for aquatic weed control in some US States had to be confirmed triploid before its release.

Tillmann J. Benfey, PhD
Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick
Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 6E1, Canada
tel (506) 453-4583; fax (506) 453-3583
http://www.unb.ca/web/biology/Faculty/Benfey.html
e-mail: benfey@unb.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 4:55 PM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Sterility techniques

I totally agree with Dr. Benfey's suggestion [7 September] that every transgenic salmon be tested for sterility before rearing in net pens. This potentially reduced [reduces ?..Moderator] the risk to below that of commercially raised domesticated salmon. The need for this precaution and potential failure is emphasized by his reference to grass carp. Grass carp are a prime example of what can go wrong.

See Loch and Bonar, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128: (2) 374-379 1999 who observed forty-nine adult grass carp migrating upriver past lower Columbia and Snake river hydroelectric dams between August I, 1996, and September 30, 1997. They conclude that "although the source of these fish is unknown, their appearance in the Columbia and Snake rivers might have been related to extensive flooding that occurred in western Washington and Oregon in February 1996. The unintentional escape of grass carp into this large river system re-emphasizes the need for the current requirement that all grass carp stocked in Pacific Northwest lakes be sterile triploids. It also suggests that increased attention to effective barrier construction and maintenance is important to prevent grass carp impacts in nontarget areas."

Also see Elder and Murphy, Journal of Freshwater Ecology 12: (2) 281-289 1997 who confirmed grass carp spawning in the river systems entering Galveston Bay and conclude this is a serious concern to many fisheries ecologists. "Researchers suspect a portion of recent losses in submersed vegetation and marsh habitat in Galveston Bay may be due to the presence of grass carp. Grass carp captured in the Trinity River were examined to determine population structure, ploidy, fecundity, and diet. Fish captured were primarily diploids and represented a broad range of cohorts, providing strong evidence that naturally spawned grass carp are being recruited to adult sizes in the Trinity River."

Everywhere grass carp have been observed in non-native ecosystems, they have caused ecological damage and elimination of some competing and non-competing species, even causing problems for migrating birds. How is it that a known environmental hazard has invaded our ecosystems given the precautions that were taken? Is this a page from history that may also apply to "triploid" Atlantic Salmon?

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 8:43 AM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Sterility techniques

In response to a point in the message of Dr. Muir [7 September],

The problem is that it is possible to test a fish for triploidy, not for sterility. The fact that a few (or large) number of triploids could be fertile is not demonstrated in salmonids but can be observed in other species (misgurnus, poeciliopsis).

At 04:54 PM 9/7/00 +0200, Bill Muir wrote:
>I totally agree with Dr. Benfey's suggestion [7 September] that every
>transgenic salmon be
>tested for sterility before rearing in net pens.

Bernard CHEVASSUS
Laboratory of Fish Genetics
INRA.78350 JOUY FRANCE
Phone 33 (0) 134 652 328
fax 33 (0) 134 652 390
mobile phone 680 368 412
e-mail: bchevass@diamant.jouy.inra.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 3:58 PM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Sterility techniques

Dr. Chevassus [11 September] makes a good point that triploidy is not necessarily the same as sterility. Another factor that I overlooked in my discussions is that triploid male salmon are still sexually active, even though they may not be capable of fertilizing eggs. This results in a different kind of risk, depending on the numbers released and how often. Releasing sterile males is a method of bio-control used to eradicate some insect species. If sterile males mate with fertile native females, the reproductive efforts of the females are wasted. If enough males are released, a significant decline in population numbers of native fish will result. Thus, in addition to making the fish triploid (and testing for sterility if necessary), the males need to be sex reversed. Although I have heard of sex reversal being done successfully in salmon, I haven't seen the data on effectiveness, and numbers tested.

Bill Muir Professor of Genetics Department of Animal Sciences Purdue University W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1151, USA
Phone 765-494-8032
FAX 765-494-9346
E-mail Bmuir@purdue.edu
http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/faculty/muir.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 5:37 PM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Transgenic fish (GMOs) and sterilitization techniques

This is from Professor Mork, Norway.

Concerning transgenic fish (or genetically modified organisms (GMOs)) risk management and the efficiency of various sterilization techniques in fish - here are some additional sources of information and arguments:

Both of these themes have been treated by the WGAGFM (Working Group on the Application of Genetics in Fisheries and Mariculture) of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in several annual terms of references and meetings since 1995: (Transgenic Fish: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and Triploidy/Sterility: in particular 1995 (but see also 1999)).

The results from these discussions of the Working Group, as well as the WGAGFM recommendations to ICES, are found at the WGAGFM Homepage under "Reports". They are in Word format and can be found on http://www.dfu.min.dk/ffi/wgagfmweb/index.htm

In short:
The WGAGFM discussion on the efficiency of various sterilization techniques was triggered by the alarming experiences with Pacific oysters transferred to the US east coast as triploids. Unexpectedly, the animals showed a high frequency of return to a diploid state. The WGAGFM report of 1995 concludes that no current mass triploidisation/sterilisation technique is guaranteed 100% effective.

The WGAGFM discussion on transgenic fish resulted in a conclusion that, until further, transgenic fish should be managed by the same strict rules as those that apply to exotic species (which is regulated by the ICES Code of Practice on the Introduction and Transfer of Marine Organisms 1994 (maybe with later updates).

Prof. Jarle Mork
Biological Station, Bynesveien 46
N-7018 Trondheim, Norway
Phone: (+47) 73 591589, Fax: (+47) 73 591597
Internet: www.ntnu.no/~jmork/jmork/morke.html
e-mail: JARLE.MORK@VM.NTNU.NO

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 8:55 AM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Risk management of introduced fish in developing countries

Risk management as has been described from the on-going discussions would be difficult to enforce in certain developing country situations. Growing introduced fish in containment is not practical since this would be expensive -especially in areas which could be flooded during monsoon rains. Growing fish in industrial waste water lagoons has been suggested elsewhere but there is always the probability of escape and the negative connotations that goes with waste water culture may not make the fish acceptable.

Yet, in countries where the population is dense and growing fast, overfishing is a common practice that is decimating species rapidly. Unlike in developed countries, regulated fishing is difficult to enforce since providing people with food is far more urgent that saving a species. Poor people do not care to save for tomorrow since they fear tomorrow may not come for them, anyway. Hence, our practice has been to introduce new, fast growing species to natural bodies of water, dams and water impoundments. If transgenic fish will grow faster, should they not be a better alternative than the introduced species, giving us higher yields per unit area and at a lower cost because of the faster turn around time ?

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:30 AM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Application in the developing world

[Thanks to Don Griffiths for a reminder that participants, when discussing certain aspects of fish biotechnologies, should keep in mind that the theme of this conference (Conference 4 of the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture) focuses on the appropriateness of these biotechnologies for developing countries. The views/experiences of people such as Don Griffiths on this theme would be much appreciated.....Moderator]

Ladies and gentlemen, the objective of this forum is `to provide an open forum that will allow a wide range of parties, ......to discuss and exchange views and experiences about specific issues concerning biotechnology in food and agriculture for developing countries.' To date, I've heard a lot of theoretical exchange that doesn't have much to do with poverty, food deficit, livelihoods and nutrition in developing countries. Can we relate the discussion to application in the developing world?

Don Griffiths
Programme Coordinator,
Rural Extension for Aquaculture Development project, working in Cambodia and Viet Nam.
mrccaibe@hcm.fpt.vn

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 9:02 AM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: GMOs and developing countries

Just to add my comments to the discussion on control of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that might be introduced in developing country aquaculture. I make these comments, having been involved in research on the development, application and dissemination of genetic technologies (although not those that might be considered "biotechnology") in developing country aquaculture (mainly Asia) for over 10 years.

I think the first comment should be that physical containment of a species that have the capacity to survive in the developing country environment (which includes almost all commercially cultured species) would be virtually impossible. Tropical countries are exposed to greater environmental extremes, particularly flooding, and based on my experience of many years working in genetics research in Asia, I would never like to guarantee that any domesticated fish cannot escape from an aquaculture facility. Of course on top of this you have the human element and you can be fairly sure that if a fish is considered superior for aquaculture, its movement will be impossible to control completely.

Given the impracticality of physical containment, triploidy was proposed as a method of sterility. Several reservations have already been expressed related to:

- The difficulty in producing reliably 100% triploid fish
- The possibility that triploids might not be 100% sterile or could revert to a diploid state
- The prospect that triploids, even when sterile, can still interfere with reproduction and breeding of wild populations

I would like to add to this, that the application of triploidy in commercial stocks (mainly salmonids and grass carp) has been limited to species that are habitually bred using artificial fertilization and incubation. For most of the important species in developing country aquaculture (namely tilapias and carps) artificial fertilization is rarely used and therefore application of triploidy on a commercial scale would be very unlikely to be viable.

I am aware of at least one research group that is working on the induction of sterility through transgenesis itself (introduction of an antisense gene). The objective of this research would be to produce a selectively sterile fish which would only reproduce upon application of exogenous hormones/steroids to replace those missing from the disruption of its own biochemical/physiological pathways. It will of course be necessary to have some (selectively) fertile offspring to produce the future generations of transgenic fish. This may offer the best option for control of transgenics in the long run.

More generally, my feeling is that the emphasis on issues related to the uptake of GMOs differ quite greatly between developed and developing countries with the result that cost:benefit ratios look very different. Whereas in developed countries, consumer concerns presently dominate the discussion and limit uptake, these are far less prominent in developing countries, particularly where food security itself is a major issue. It was illuminating to see a recent documentary on the introduction of transgenic crops in India where the important issue was not one of environmental safety but of who controls access to and pricing of seed for production of transgenic crops.

I am not suggested that human health, and in particular environmental concerns should be given lesser consideration in developing countries, but I do think that it is inevitable that such issues will carry less weight in consideration of the efforts to ensure food security, where GMOs could clearly have a role to play. These result could well be that we see adoption of GMOs in aquaculture, first in developing countries. [In this context, see the message of Ashie Norris, 23 August.......Moderator]

Dr. Graham C. Mair
Senior Scientist
DFID Fish Genetics Program at AIT
Aquaculture & Aquatic Resources Management (AARM)
Asian Institute of Technology
PO Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand
Tel/Fax 66 2 5245463; E-mail: gcmair@ait.ac.th; Mirablis ICQ no. 7968035

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:50 AM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: tilapia // monosex // Sri Lanka

This is from Dr. Udeni Edirisinghe. I am a Senior Lecturer of the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, and I am in charge of the Fisheries Curriculum of the Faculty of Agriculture. I have been involved in biotechnology research during the past 20 years.

I find the conference very interesting though some of the important issues are not discussed at all.

We, who represent the developing world, wish to know success stories from fish biotechnology, which have been applied with good results. These are places which we can adopt in our countries.

It is important to indicate that in most of the conference, very much interesting things are discussed. Yet at the end, when one tries to evaluate, nothing useful has taken place. Therefore, if at least some beneficial aspects of biotechnology, which can be applied in our countries could be summerized in this, it would be very much useful. I wish to reiterate that it would be of enormous benefit, if a technology to prevent the entry of tilapia to coastal waters could be informed please.

Udeni Edirisinghe
B.Sc., M.Sc, Ph.D., /L.L.B.
Senior Lecturer in Fisheries,
University of Peradeniya,
Sri Lanka.
udeni@ansci.pdn.ac.lk

[We will also use this opportunity to post a message sent by Dr. Edirisinghe to the Forum Administrator in August and which was held while waiting for further details. We would appreciate comments on it from anyone who has worked with monosex cultures and methyl testosterone (especially for tilapia).....Moderator.

Dr. Edirisinghe wrote "I wish to indicate that, there is a published paper co-authored by me with respect to monosex culture of tilapia using methyl testosterone. It was found that, the results could not be extended to farmer level due to the difficulties experienced in making a suitable feed with the hormone. If there is technology in this respect it would be most welcome. I will write further in time to come."]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 9:18 AM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Sterility techniques

Hi Tilmann and others listening in:

Glad to see that Tilmann Benfey [7 September] has picked up on the point I have been making in many written and oral communiques lately about the precedent already set, with grass carp, for certifying triploid status of every fish in a mass produced lot of embryos induced to be made triploid. When terrestrial farmers in Florida, United States, pushed to have permission to introduce grass carp, an exotic species, into the state's irrigation canals in order to control aquatic nuisance plant species clogging the canals, (many of which are also exotic species), the state government agency, the Dept of Game and Fish, in the 1980's established the requirement that each and every grass carp sold to a farmer had to have its blood cells screened and thus the fish certified to have triploid status (thus, effective sterility). Note that this is STILL required. Grass carp could wreak havoc in the Everglades and other natural aquatic ecosystems of Florida just as much in this century as in the last.

Anne Kapuscinski
Professor of Fisheries & Conservation Biology
Extension Specialist in Biotechnology and Aquaculture
Director, Institute for Social, Economic and Ecological Sustainability
(ISEES)

Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota
200 Hodson Hall, 1980 Folwell Ave., St. Paul MN 55108, USA
Tel.612-624-7719 (ISEES), 612-624-3019 (Fisheries),
FAX 612-625-8153 (ISEES), 612-625-5299 (Fisheries)
Email: ark@fw.umn.edu
http://www.fw.umn.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 9:32 AM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Comment for the Fisheries/Biotechnology conference

[Thanks to Dan Doering, who gives a very clear appraisal of the appropriateness of biotechnologies to aquaculture in developing countries in this message, and to Glenn Ashton, who focuses on the question of introducing exotic and/or genetically modified fish into the environments of developing countries in the next message.

A REMINDER: We are now entering the last week of the conference, so we especially encourage those who have not already participated to do so and to share their views/experinces with us on the appropriateness of biotechnologies in the fisheries sector of developing countries...........Moderator]

I am Don Doering, Senior Associate at the World Resources Institute (WRI) in Washington, D.C. Before coming to WRI, I spent over five years developing technologies for aquaculture both in my own company and as a consulting scientist. This included both specialized health and nutrition technologies and planning genetic improvement programs. Part of my work at WRI addresses biotechnology and food security in developing countries.

The background discussion for this conference gives an excellent overview of the applications of biotechnologies to fishery issues that in my experience is accurate and well balanced. My comments relate particularly to aquaculture. I find that positions on this issue vary greatly with one's view of the future. My assumption is that some form of modern 'domesticated' production of seafood will be part of regional solutions to providing high quality protein without the environmental damage of either today's capture or aquaculture seafood supply chain.

When speaking on this subject, I often showed the contrast between a wild turkey and a domestic turkey with the reminder that aside from carp and some improvement in tilapia and a few salmonids, today's cultured species are wild animals. I believe that there are enormous gains to be made in increasing the productivity, growth rate, and survival in aquaculture and in reducing environmental impacts through intensive selective breeding assisted by modern molecular techniques. In addition to uncertainties about containment and sterilization, transgenic aquatic animals are not sensible or cost-effective in the genetic background of a wild animal and the enormous productivity gains to be made by intensive selective breeding.

This relates to developing countries in several ways. There are great gains in aquaculture productivity and reduction of negative impacts through the improvement of water management, culture techniques, feed and feeding techniques, and simple measures of disease control. This is both good news and bad news in that low-tech methods do not receive private sector or often public sector investment. (I'm reminded of the province in Thailand where with a simple flag system to indicate the days on which to do water exchange, shrimp farmers greatly reduced the mortalities created by pumping in the effluent of neighboring farms. This increased survival and reduced chemical use and waste production.) In order for biotechnologies to be productively applied in developing countries there has to be greater standardization of production practices and production inputs - at least on regional levels.

One of the challenges of developing a genetic improvement program is to conduct the selection under the same conditions as the actual culture - which is very hard in today's developing country environment. Another precondition for a genetic improvement program is a program that has a significant number of independent families upon which to base the breeding program. This requires disease-free animals, separate holding conditions, family histories, quarantine facilities, reliable management and data-tracking, and highly-trained geneticists. The goal of a good program in aquaculture will be to both improve the genetic background and have high diversity to create strains appropriate for different culture techniques, water conditions, and even to respond to new disease outbreaks. Breeding can be very much a garbage-in/garbage-out system in which years of well-managed selection can be wasted through mismanagement. Along with good selective programs there absolutely must be intensive work on sterilization techniques and containment techniques.

My point is that along with considering appropriateness of biotechnologies for aquaculture we must also consider the essential capacity to be created for the safe, equitable and effective use of those technologies. I have found that in the enthusiasm for molecular techniques, policy makers and scientists can become 'blinded by science' and miss the capacity that must be built that formed the foundation for use of these methods in beef, swine, and poultry. Many of today's problems in aquaculture have fairly low-technology solutions around the sourcing of juveniles, water management, feed and feeding, and the education of farmers. The time and risk of genetic improvement is so significant that private sector investment has not been lacking and many of the private breeding programs are unsophisticated or began from an already limited genetic base.

I believe that marker-assisted (at the simplest level just for family identification and later for traits) selective breeding is a very appropriate biotechnology for developing countries yet it will only yield its benefits with significant investment in basic tools such as sterilization and cryopreservation and investment in the infrastructure for good breeding farms and the standardization and improvement of farming practices.

My own experience - learned the hard way trying to develop a high-technology business in this field - is that the species appropriate for culture in developing countries generally do not have the production economics to justify many high cost inputs such as vaccines and artificial larval feeds - though those costs are being reduced. Some of the technologies developed for aquaculture are driven by scientific interests and scientist's ambition, rather than a close connection to the needs in the field. Aquaculture science has a history of trying the latest techniques from other areas of animal science without having a fraction of the foundation of scientific knowledge that exists in other fields. For example, it is in only rare cases that the protective antigens in aquaculture are known, much less the mechanisms of protection and this is largely for bacterial rather than viral threats. There is generally such variation in field conditions and growing seasons that efficacy data is highly suspect.

My intuition is that investments in developing countries on farmer education, reducing culture stress and improving water quality as well as domestication will yield higher returns than investments in high technologies.

Don S. Doering, Ph.D.
World Resources Institute
Washington, DC
USA
DSD@wri.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 9:39 AM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Southern Perspectives on GE aquaculture.

Following the threads of the debate, I agree that much of the discussion around the issue of the relevance of GE fish to developing nations is missed. That said, the debate on the technical issues of diploid and triploid fish, sterility and so forth are essential. For all the technical discussion that has taken place in this forum, it is clear that inducing sterility is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee. Therefore the threat of introducing exotic species must be comprehensively assessed before the introduction of any genetically engineered (GE) or non-GE non-native species.

The experience of introduction of non-native species into foreign habitats has generally been negative, this being noticeably so in the case of fish. Dr. Mair's comments [15 September] about the environmental impacts of introduced species being perceived as having less weight in food scarce nations than in the north illustrates precisely the attitude (of which the results are borne by our children and future generations) that has already impacted disproportionately on the south.

The south is already staggering under the triple loads of environmental degradation, resource depletion and indebtedness caused largely through unsuitable, usually high technology solutions being applied, with inadequate supervision or follow through by the introducers, be they the World Bank or aid donors. This is the same logic given for rushing the introduction of GE crops into food scarce areas; by using guilt, mock philanthropy and Machiavellian scheming whilst glibly ignoring the risks.

In Africa existing threats to aquatic systems by multiple environmental factors mitigate against the introduction of further alien species. Interregional movement of African fish species has already caused serious disruption, e.g. Oreochromis mossambicus (tilapia spp) and the voracious Clarias gariepinus in the SW Cape. The introduction of Procambarus clarkii (American crayfish) in Lake Naivasha, Kenya has devastated the invertebrate community. To further complicate the situation by introducing GE fish into a new habitat seems a recipe for disaster.

Before any fish, GE or not, are introduced into southern nations, management systems which secure the protection, husbandry and sustainability of native species must be first be instituted. These management/regulatory systems must be proven to work before any introductions. I strongly support the precautionary approach of Prof. Muir [e.g. 5 September..Moderator] and Dr. Hans Magnus Gjøen [5 September].

To institute such a management system is costly and carries low economic priority in the south. Further, it is likely that most introductions of these fish will come either from the commercial sector or from government/NGO/Private sector partnerships. If there are not strong restraints and liabilities are not defined, problems are inevitable. There are also concerns over the number of qualified persons to monitor these technologies, exacerbated by migration of experts from southern to northern nations for economic reasons.

To repeat a point I made [19 May] in Conference 1 of this Forum, which dealt with the relevance of GE crops to the south: It would be irresponsible of the developed north to unleash the unquantifiable risks and dangers of GE on the south if there are not adequate bio-safety protocols, legal instruments, liability procedures and a clear thread of responsibility for any damage that may be caused to these nations. The south cannot afford to rectify many of their present problems. Sort out the misgivings science has with GE fish farming in the developed world before experimenting in the environments of southern nations.

To sum up: Before introducing exotic and/or GE fish into our environments southern nations must first investigate and maximise the local possibilities (there are many possibilities extant which carry less risk than GE fish) and have, literally and figuratively, watertight regulation of the aquaculture industry.

Glenn Ashton, South Africa
Director; Ekogaia Foundation, a non-profit, non-aligned think tank based in Cape Town, South Africa.
Spokesperson on GE and biotechnology for the Green Party of South Africa
ekogaia@iafrica.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 10:26 AM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Native species. Let´s start from the beginning.

[Thanks to Gabriela del Valle Pignataro for this message..... Note, Don Doering has informed us that there was a typing mistake in his message of 25 September. The last sentence of the 6th paragraph read "The time and risk of genetic improvement is so significant that private sector investment has NOT been lacking and many of the private breeding programs are unsophisticated or began from an already limited genetic base." The word NOT should be removed. This has been corrected in the online version.......Moderator]

This is from Gabriela del Valle Pignataro from Mexico. Research Centre for Food and Development (CIAD), Aquaculture and Environmental Management Division.

I much agree with Glenn Ashton´s point of view (Sept. 25), in reference to the great risk involved in introducing non-native species (either genetically modified or not) into foreign habitats. As stated (by him and others in the Conference), establishing regulatory and monitoring systems with the required strictness is not possible in developing countries (in most cases), due to factors such as low economic priority, lack of qualified personnel, etc.

Therefore, I would like to bring out for discussion the possibility of implementing domestication, culture methods and (eventually) breeding programs for those NATIVE SPECIES that are already being exploited (often over-exploited) by local fisheries, have good consumer acceptance and consequently are prone to reach a commercial level through various investment sources.

In particular, our efforts are directed to those marine fish species that cover the above mentioned criteria, with initial economic support coming from the public sector in order to have the governmental research centers (like ours) gather the basic experimental information. The second step is now being to scale the culture to a "pilot level" (with partial private sector investment) while at the same time conduct selective breeding assisted by "mid-tech" biotechnologies like chromosome manipulation (gynogenetic-androgenetic and clonal fish production), in which no foreign material is being introduced to the genome (therefore reducing much of the risk of potential environmental damage).

[Gynogenesis is female parthenogenesis, where, after fertilisation, the male nucleus is eliminated and the haploid individual has the maternal genome only. Androgenesis is male parthenogenesis, where the female nucleus is eliminated or inactivated and the haploid individual contains the paternal genome.....Moderator]

Details on how the program is planned to progress, would not be adequate for the Forum´s objective. I´d just like to conclude that given the condition of choosing native species, much can be done to improve performance traits through selective breeding combined with biotechnologies that, although "temporarily" reducing variation, will permit the fixation of the desired traits, producing superior strains in a relatively short number of generations.

Gabriela del Valle Pignataro, Ph.D.
Fish Genetics and Breeding.
CIAD-Mazatlán, Mexico.
gvp@servidor.unam.mx

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 1:39 PM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Genetically modified fish - a few major points

[NB NB: Because this conference started slowly, we will extend the conference by an extra week to allow participants to have a full opportunity to share their views and experiences on the appropriateness of currently available biotechnologies for the fishery sector in developing countries and/or to respond to or comment on some of the interesting messages that have been posted in the last couple of weeks. The final date for posting messages is now SUNDAY 8 OCTOBER...........Moderator]

Since the interesting discussion is coming to it's final stage, I would like to re-emphasize a few major points:

1) Genetically engineered (GE) fish lines are very similar to their respective parental lines. The additional traits added, like growth rates or disease resistance, are similar to any trait added by many years of conventional selective breeding.

2) Interpretation of GE zebrafish experiments (in aquaria), have very little relevance to aquaculture rearing conditions of carp, tilapia, rainbow trout or salmon.

3) Instead of automatically raising the black flag every time GE fish are mentioned, let us do the carefully designed experiments neccessary to answer basic questions of fitness parameters of GE fish. We should stop bragging and start working.

4) World organizations should invest money in experiments to study new GE fish lines like carp, tilapia, rainbow trout, and salmon in order to use them as improved stocks.

5) There is no question in my mind that once the risk assesment will be tested in properly controlled field experiments, GE fish will be part of the biotechnological revolution we are seeing with GE plants. Raising unfounded fears cannot stop the progress of biotechnology in service of mankind, but it can slow it down significantly

Boaz Moav Ph.D
Dept of Zoology
Tel-aviv University
Ramat-Aviv, Tel-Aviv, Israel 69978
Tel: 972-3-6409817, Fax: 972-3-6409403
Home: Tel,Fax:972-3-6418504
e-mail:boaz2@post.tau.ac.il

Return to Logs of Conference 4 or go to the main Forum pages.