AquAdvantage salmon

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article includes inline citations, but they are not properly formatted. Please improve this article by correcting them. (April 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (April 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

AquAdvantage salmon is a genetically modified (GM) Atlantic salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies. A growth hormone-regulating gene from a Pacific Chinook salmon, with a promoter from an ocean pout, was added to the Atlantic salmon's 40,000 genes. This gene enables it to grow year-round instead of only during spring and summer. The purpose of the modifications is to increase the speed at which the fish grows without affecting its ultimate size or other qualities. The fish grows to market size in 16 to 18 months rather than three years.^[1] The latter figure refers to varieties whose growth rate has already been improved by 2:1 as a result of traditional selective breeding. Conventional salmon growers publicly challenged the claimed growth rates.^[2] Transgenic salmon are an alternative to wild salmon, and are a sustainable food source (Coll, 2008; Meissa, Gascuel, 2015). The AquaBountry’s AquAdvantage was created in 1989 by injecting Atlantic salmon, (Salmo salar) with a gene consisting of growth hormone cDNA from Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) that is regulated with promoter sequences that acts as an antifreeze protein from an Ocean Pout (Zoarces americanus) (Tillmann, 2016, Bondar, 2010). The protein sequence comparison of a Chinook and Atlantic Salmon show 95% (198/210) of the amino acids are identical, 98% (205/210) of the amino acids are similar and 0% gaps (Bodnar, 2010). A nucleotide BLAST comparison of the Chinook and Atlantic Salmon growth hormone from the Ocean Pout found 90% (1013/1126) of the nucleotides were identical and only 6% gaps (70/1126) (Bodnar, 2010). The stability of the new DNA construct was tested vigorously revealing no evidence of mutational effects during insertion (Bondar, 2010). The new animal was backcrossed (two generation breeding protocol that starts by generating a hybrid offspring between two inbred strains, one of them carrying the mutation of interest) to wild-type Atlantic salmon, and the EO-1ɑ gene sequence was identical in the second through fourth generations, indicating that the insertion is stable (Bodnar, 2010) and a safe GE Salmon was created.

Genetic modification[edit]

AquAdvantage salmon are triploid (having three sets of chromosomes whereas most animals have two sets) female Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), with a single copy of the opAFP-GHc2 construct, which codes for a promoter sequence from ocean pout directing production of a growth hormone protein using coding sequence from Chinook salmon.^{[3]:vii, 8} This transgene allows the fish to achieve accelerated growth rates.^[4] Induction of triploidy in nearly 99% of the salmon by treatment of batches of eggs renders most of the fish sterile, reducing the risk of interbreeding with wild-type fish and further increasing growth by removing the stress of reproduction.^[5] Despite the public perception surrounding animal biotechnology being a futuristic science, the ability to generate transgenic animals has existed for over 30 years (Tizard et al., 2016). Precision breeding (Laible, Wei, Wagner, 2014) and other new technologies have allowed the development of transgenic animals to produce the desired traits without transgenes, which is much more precise and valuable than older technologies (Tizard et- al, 2016; Laible, Wei, Wagner, 2014). Utilizing biotechnologies can encourage more sustainable practices in the realm of food security because biotechnologies has the potential to face increased production in a growing population (Tizard et- al, 2016), enhancing nutrition for human health (Gottlieb, Wheeler, 2011), mitigates environmental impacts, and increases animal welfare through improved diseases resistance (Gottlieb, Wheeler, 2011). These benefits of genetically engineered animals have the potential to provide significant advantages contributing to a greater level of sustainability within demanding pressures. The rising demand for animal food products has not been met with conventional practices, nor can the environment withstand the current degradation of various ecosystems and extraction of resources (Rosalind et- al, 2017, Sahar et- al, 2014). Subsequently, there is an impending need to implement innovative and safe technologies, such as, bioengineered animals, combined with new methods like gene editing and precision breeding (Laible, Wei, Wagner, 2014), yet the backlash and criticism against these technologies is considerable. Biotechnology can make a substantial impact in many areas including human health (Tizard, et- al. 2016), as well as reduced environmental impacts, improved animal welfare, and food security (Gottlieb, Wheeler, 2011). Regarding human health, livestock animal products are a vital source of proteins and vitamins for humans (Washington Department of Health) yet often pose threats in the form of allergies and intolerance to certain foods in an increasing portions of the population (Tizard, et- al. 2016). Conventional livestock breeding does not account for these allergens and is unlikely to be safe for all consumers, whereas biotechnologies have allowed for animals to have increased nutritional value, and account for unfavorably high ratios of n-6 and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in modern human diets (Tizard et- al. 2016). Some livestock animals are unable to convert n-6 in n-3 PUFAs, but they have been genetically engineered to generate a different enzyme which results in healthy, decreased n-6 and n-3 ratios in meat and milk of pigs, sheep, cattle, and fish (Lai et al. 2006; Pan et al. 2010; Pang et al. 2014). Progress in bioengineering has also strived to improve characteristics of milk (Van Berkel et al. 2002) specifically improving the antimicrobial and immunomodulatory properties of cow’s and goat’s milk (Maga et al. 2006).

Production[edit]

AquAdvantage built a 100-ton/year aquaculture facility in landlocked highlands in Panama, a fraction of the 1.6 million ton/year^[6] global output of farmed Atlantic salmon. The company promoted its product as a way to re-establish a domestic U.S. salmon industry in place of imported aquaculture fish from Chile and Norway, reducing transportation costs and carbon footprint.^[7]

Aquaculture[edit]

Commercial aquaculture is the most rapidly growing segment of the agricultural industry, accounting for more than 60 million tons in 2012, versus 90 million tons of wild-caught fish. That year, aquaculture output exceeded beef output for the first time. While land-based agriculture is increasing between 2% and 3% per year, aquaculture has been growing at an average rate around 9% per year since 1970. As of 2011, salmon aquaculture produced 1.9 million tons of fish.^[8] Marine aquaculture is farmed seafood (NOAA, 2017). This food sector plays one of the most vital rolls in food security supplying more than 50% of all seafood produced for human consumption globally, compared to commercial and recreational fisheries (NOAA, 2017). Aquaculture is the fastest growing food-producing sector (GLOBEFISH, 2017) compared to livestock, pig, and poultry production (Animal Production FAO, 2018). With a growing population projected to reach nine billion by 2050 (Worldometers,2017) vital dietary needs must be met; fish are a crucial source of proteins and healthy long-chain omega 3 fats, vitamin D, and Calcium (Washington Department of Health). The production of nutrient-rich fish is vital for food security, so the Global Aquaculture Summit is determined to focus on advancing technologies to increase the efficiency and sustainability of the current global market performance (GLOBEFISH, 2017). Of the aquatic organisms farmed, such as finfishes, crustacea, molluscs, and others, the most important aquaculture operation is of finfish, which includes the Atlantic salmon accounting for 67.8% of the total aquaculture output of aquatic animals (GLOBEFISH, 2017). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has used the ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA) to improve the sustainability of aquaculture development.

Concerns[edit]

Aquaculture that uses conventionally bred salmon, mostly Atlantic salmon, cultivates the fish in net pens. In North America, this occurs mostly in coastal waters off Washington, British Columbia, and Maine. However, the application for FDA approval of AquAdvantage salmon specified land-based tank cultivation with no ocean involvement.^[9] To address the concern about biological containment, the FDA does require AquaBounty to take extra precautionary measures to ensure transgenic fish cannot get into wild fish population in the ocean (Fox, 2015). Critics of GE fish and other GE technologies have voiced this concern, suggesting it would be impossible to ensure no GE salmon escape into the open ocean were the engineered fish to be raised in ocean pens (Bruce, 2017). To reduce the chances that transgenic fish breed with wild populations, AquaBounty altered the fish to be entirely female (Jeffery L Fox, 2010) and up to 98.9% triploid (Benfey, 2016) rendering these females sterile. Male fish would more easily reproduced in the event of escape by widely spreading sperm (Muir, 1999). AquAdvantage salmon eggs are treated with pressure, to create batches of fish eggs with three copies of each chromosome (Bodnar, 2010) compared to two copies (diploid). Any batch that contains 5 percent or more diploid fish, is destroyed because these diploid fish are capable of reproducing (Bodnar, 2010). This method of biological containment is an added implication of non-GE aquaculture farms because they are not required to induce triploidy fish (Animal Production FAO, 2018), there are serious ecological and economic implications occur when stock fish escape from ocean-pens into native fish species’ ecosystems (Mapes, 2018). The AquaBounty AquAdvantage triploid fish are also, higher quality meat because they do not divert energy to reproduction, as a diploid fish would, instead use the energy to grow after maturity (Benfey, 2016). AquaBounty takes extra precautionary measures to ensure better security using physical containment to reduce even further any transgenic interbreed with wild Atlantic salmon (Jeffery L Fox, 2010). The AquaBounty transgenic Salmon are only allowed to be raise in two land-bases tanks at two sites in Canada and Panama (Tizard et al., 2016). The fact that AquaBounty fish eggs will be produced in a land-based fresh-water research facility on Prince Edward Island in Canada, makes the cases that these AquaBounty salmon, are still salmon, and salmon hatch and develop in freshwater then swim to salt water to spawn when they reach adulthood (B. Josson, N. Jonsson,1993) so if eggs were to escape this facticity, they would be unable to survive in the high salinity water nearby (Bondar, 2010). These eggs are then shipped to a land-based aquaculture facility at high altitude in Panama near a river that drains into the Pacific Ocean (Bondar, 2010), the facility is thousands of miles (120 km) away from the nearest Atlantic Salmon wild populations (Gallegos, 2017; Upton, Cowan, 2015). It is here, the eggs hatch and grow to market size (B. Josson, N. Jonsson,1993). Most of the water in the drainage river into the ocean is unsuitable for salmon to survive, and is constricted by dams that act as barriers (Bondar, 2010). It is extremely unlikely that one of the 1.2 percent diploid fish (Benfey, 2016), would successfully navigate the dam barriers and survive the lethal waters and reach the Pacific Ocean, thousands of miles away (Gallegos, 2017; Upton, Cowan, 2015). Other concerns include the heath effects of consumers due to the potentially heightened allergenicity of the GE fish and the potential effects of the hormone levels in the fish (Jeffery L Fox, 2010). However, there are no newly introduced proteins, fats, or any component different from salmon that has not been engineered (Børresen,2016). The FDA has upheld that people with allergies to Atlantic Salmon will likely be allergic to AquAdvantage Salmon due to the similar species properties, not because it is genetically engineered (FDA) and that AquAdvantage Salmon is as safe to eat as non-GE salmon because there are no significant food safety hazards associated with it (FDA, 2012). Other human health concerns arise about the increase hormone content in the edible tissue of transgenic fish (Green, 2016), the growth hormone content in two groups- AquAdvantage salmon and non-GE control- are both below the lower limit of observed quantities, and there was no significant difference in the amount of amounts of estradiol, testosterone, 17- ketotestosterone, T3, and T4 between the two groups (Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee, 2010). The AquAdvantage salmon showed statistical difference in the concentration of an insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) (Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee, 2010)., yet the amount of (IGF-1) found in AquAdvantage salmon is similar to, or lower than, other amount found in other common animal products- cow’s treated with growth hormones milk, cow’s not treated with growth hormones milk, organic cow milk, beef and cattle blood per milliliter (Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee, 2010). An average adult male that consumes 81.7 g of animal protein intakes 200 ng of IGF-1 per mL of blood, consuming regular amounts of AquAdvantage salmon imposes no greater IGF-1 content than an average animal containing diet (Giovannucci, et-al, 2003). The only notable difference between transgenic Atlantic salmon and the wild type is therefore the growth rate, with GM salmon reaching market size in half the time as conventional salmon (Børresen, 2016; Hafsa, 2016; Waltz 2016).

Critics raised concerns about potential environmental impacts if these fish reached rivers or oceans. Modeled invasion scenarios in semi-natural environments suggest that GM salmon would outcompete wild-type salmon.^{[10][11][12][13]} However, William Muir, the researcher who developed the "Trojan gene" hypothesis frequently cited by critics of this salmon, has discounted this scenario, noting their "sin of omission" and describing it as an "urban myth".^[14] His analysis indicates that "the data conclusively shows that there is no Trojan Gene effect as expected. The data in fact suggest that the transgene will be purged by natural selection. In other words the risk of harm here is low.”^[14]

Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Aldi, and other grocery stores throughout the United States have announced that they would not offer AquAdvantage.^[15]

Wild-type Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)

Survival in new habitats[edit]

Fish can learn to feed on new prey after leaving hatchery environments. These adaptations could pose a risk if GM salmon were to be released into the wild.^[16]

The ability of GM salmon to grow faster does not necessarily mean they are preferentially preyed upon, and this leads to increased survival.^[vague] In a competition scenario, such as a release of GM fish from a salmon farm into the wild, the GM salmon could initially outcompete wild-type salmon for food.^{[citation needed]} This success would allow the GM salmon's greater survival.^[10][16]

Rate of growth[edit]

AquAdvantage salmon have the potential to feed more efficiently than wild-type salmon. This leads to an accelerated growth rate during their first year after hatching. These fish have the capability to grow 11 times faster than wild-type salmon. This characteristic allows GM salmon to mature more rapidly and gives them the ability to reproduce in less than two years (about 700 days).^[17][10] However, studies suggest this accelerated maturity of GM salmon does not provide a reproduction advantage over wild-type.^[17]

Smoltification[edit]

Smoltification is the process of salmon adapting from freshwater to marine water. GM salmon can potentially achieve smolt size in only one year. This could allow AquAdvantage fish to reach the ocean quicker. The ability to reach the ocean first could allow GM salmon to access more food with less competition from wild-type salmon.^[11]

Allergenicity[edit]

Fish are one of the eight food types that the FDA is required by law to treat with special care, with regard to allergies.^[3]:97 As part of the regulatory process, the FDA required data on whether changes occur in the kinds or levels of fish allergens (such as parvalbumin) in AquAdvantage. The FDA reviewed data from the company and concluded, "The allergenic potency of triploid ABT salmon was not significantly different from that of sponsor control diploid salmon."^[3]:104

Swimming capabilities[edit]

AquAdvantage salmon lack in swimming capabilities compared to wild-type salmon.^{[17][11][12][18]} AquAdvantage individuals consume more energy when swimming than wild-type salmon. This is most likely due to the type of muscle fibers. AquAdvantage fish's muscle fibers have a smaller diameter than wild-type salmon. Because the force a muscle generates is proportional to its diameter, the smaller muscle diameter of AquAdvantage salmon produces less force than the wild-type.^[18]

Reproductive competition[edit]

Under simulated models, both precocial parr and anadromous GM male salmon lack reproductive success and have a reduced number of surviving offspring. GM salmon's lack of fertilization success can be attributed to nest fidelity, quivering frequency, and spawn participation.^[11] Under simulated competition environments, 94% of siring occurred by wild-type salmon, while only 5.4% was attributed to GM salmon.^[17] This advantage allows more than twice as many wild-type offspring to be produced.^[17] Other characteristics that could cause wild-type males to be chosen more frequently could be the lack of growth of the kype, the hooked jaw of a male, and red coloration on anadromous males, which demonstrates sexual maturity to females.

Using in vitro analysis, GM salmon's ejaculate was much less concentrated and had a lower sperm count and decreased sperm velocity, all of which can decrease GM salmon's fertilization success.^[17]

Solutions[edit]

AquaBounty addresses these concerns by cultivating reproductively incapable females. Most escapees cannot reproduce either natively or by interbreeding with wild stocks, because treatments of eggs have been found to render 98.9% of them triploid; batches with more than 5% diploid individuals will be destroyed.^[5][19] The company plans to provide farmers with fish rather than eggs,^[1] and has proposed that AquAdvantage fish only be raised in land-based facilities.^[20]

Government regulation[edit]

United States[edit]

In September 2010, an FDA advisory panel indicated that the fish is "highly unlikely to cause any significant effects on the environment" and that it is "as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon"^[3][21] Kathleen Jones of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine said:

In conclusion, all of the data and information we reviewed ... really drive us to the conclusion that AquAdvantage salmon is Atlantic salmon, and food from AquAdvantage salmon is as safe as food from other Atlantic salmon.^[22]

In October 2010, 39 lawmakers asked the FDA to reject the application. Other groups requested that the fish carry a label identifying its transgenic origin.^[21] Concerns included alleged flaws in sterilization and isolation, and excessive antibiotic use.^[23] In 2012, the major shareholder of AquaBounty Technologies said that he doubted that approval would be granted for the AquAdvantage salmon in a US election year.^[24]

On 25 December 2012, the FDA published a draft environmental assessment for AquAdvantage salmon.^[4] The FDA also published a preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact.^[25] A 60-day period for the public to comment was to elapse before the FDA reviewed Aquadvantage salmon again, which was arbitrarily extended until May 2013.^[26][27] As of May 2013, the public comment period officially ended, and the FDA was then scheduled to finalize its assessment.^[15]

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved AquaBounty Technologies' application to sell the AquAdvantage salmon to U.S. consumers on November 19, 2015.^[28] However, a rider to a spending bill signed into law on December 18, 2015 by President Obama bans its import until the FDA mandates labels for the genetically modified product.^[29][30] The decision marks the first time a genetically modified animal has been approved to enter the United States food supply. The decision came nearly twenty years after the company first submitted data to the FDA, and after they had raised ten generations of the animals. ^[23] The announcement released by the FDA states: "AquAdvantage salmon is as safe to eat as any non-genetically engineered (GE) Atlantic salmon, and also as nutritious." ^[31][32] One month later, language was introduced into a proposed federal spending bill requiring consumer notification that the fish is genetically modified.^[33]

Canada[edit]

On 25 November 2013, Environment Canada approved the product for salmon egg production for commercial purposes in Canada.^[34]

In May 2016, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency approved the sale of the GM fish.^[35] In July 2017, AquaBounty Technologies said they had sold 4.5 tons of AquaAdvantage salmon fillets to customers in Canada.^[36][37]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

A. Ducos, B. Bed’hom, H. Acloque, B. Pain. “Genome Editing: What Impact for Farm Animal Species?” INRA Productions Animales, vol. 30, no. 1, 2017, pp. 3–17. Ahmed Ben Hafsa, et al. “A New Specific Reference Gene Based on Growth Hormone Gene (GH1) Used for Detection and Relative Quantification of Aquadvantage® GM Salmon (Salmo Salar L.) in Food Products.” Food Chemistry, vol. 190, Jan. 2016, pp. 1040–45. Anastasa Bondar. “Risk Assessment and Mitigation of AquAdvantage Salmon.” Biology Fortified, vol. Science and Society, Oct. 2010. Aquaculture Fisheris Department. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2017. Ashifa Kassam. “GM Salmon Hits Shelves in Canada – but People May Not Know They’re Buying It.” The Guardian, 9 Aug. 2017. Aqua Bounty Technologies, Inc (2010). Environmental assessment for AquAdvantage salmon. Björnsson BT (1997). The biology of salmon growth hormone: from daylight to dominance. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 17:9-24. Børresen, Torger. “Genetically Engineered Salmon – Quality Aspects.” Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, vol. 25, no. 3, Apr. 2016, p. 287, doi:10.1080/10498850.2016.1150799. Bror Jonsson, and Nina Jonsson. “Partial Migration: Niche Shift versus Sexual Maturation in Fishes.” Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 3, no. 4, Dec. 1993, pp. 348–65. Bruce, Analena B. “Frankenfish or Fish to Feed the World? Scientism and Biotechnology Regulatory Policy.” Rural Sociology, vol. 82, no. 4, Dec. 2017, pp. 628–63, doi:10.1111/ruso.12146. Carvalho, Fernando P. “Pesticides, Environment, and Food Safe.” Food and Energy Security, vol. 6, no. 2, May 2017, pp. 48–60, doi:10.1002/fes3.108. Cecile Brugere, et al. “The Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture 10 Years on – a Critical Review and Consideration of Its Future Role in Blue Growth.” Reviews in Aquaclture, Mar. 2018. Dan Charles. “Genetically Modified Salmon Is Safe To Eat, FDA Says.” The Salt, 19 Nov. 2015, https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/11/19/456634593/fda-says-genetically-modified-salmon-is-safe-to-eat. David P. Green. “Genetically Engineered Salmon Approved for Food by US FDA.” Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, vol. 25:2, Mar. 2016, pp. 145–46. Devlin, R., Yesaki, T., Donaldson, E., Du, S., & Hew, C. (1995). Production of germline transgenic Pacific salmonids with dramatically increased growth performance Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 52 (7), 1376-1384 DOI: 10.1139/f95-133 Fletcher, G.L., M.A. Shears, E.S. Yaskowiak, M.J. King, S.V. Goddard. (2004) Gene transfer: potential to enhance the genome of Atlantic salmon for aquaculture. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44(11):1095-1100. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Animal Production.” Animal Production, http://www.fao.org/animal-production/en/. Accessed 19 Mar. 2018. Giovannucci E, Pollak M, Liu Y, Platz EA, Majeed N, Rimm EB, & Willett WC (2003). Nutritional predictors of insulin-like growth factor I and their relationships to cancer in men. Cancer epidemiology, 12 (2), 84-9 PMID 12582016 “GLOBEFISH - Analysis and Information on World Fish Trade.” The Global Aquaculture Summit 2017, 26 June 2017. Götz Laible, Jingwei Wei, Stefan Wagner. “Improving Livestock for Agriculture – Technological Progress from Random Transgenesis to Precision Genome Editing Heralds a New Era.” Biotechnology Journal, Dec. 2014. Harold F. Upton, and Tadlock Cowan. Genetically Engineered Salmon. Congressional Research Service, 8 Dec. 2015. Heidi Ledford,. “Salmon Approval Heralds Rethink of Transgenic Animals.” Nature, vol. 527, no. 7, Nov. 2015, pp. 417–18. Henry Clifford. “AquAdvantage® Salmon - a Pioneering Application of Biotechnology in Aquaculture.” BMC Biology, vol. 8, Oct. 2014. Hornick, Katherine M., and Buschmann, Alejandro H. “Insights into the Diversity and Metabolic Function of Bacterial Communities in Sediments from Chilean Salmon Aquaculture Sites.” Annals of Micobiology, vol. 68, no. 2, Feb. 2018, pp. 63–77, doi:10.1007/s13213-017-1317-8. Jefrery L. Fox. “Transgenic Salmon Inches toward Finish Line.” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 28, Nov. 2010, pp. 1141–42. Jenna Gallego. “E GMO Salmon Caught in U.S. Regulatory Net, but Canadians Have Eaten 5 Tons.” The Washington Post, 4 Aug. 2017. Jim Kling. “Fresh from the Biologic Pipeline-.” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 29, no. 3, Mar. 2011, pp. 197–200, doi:10.1038/nbt.1793. Lai L, Kang JX, Li R, Wang J, Witt WT, Yong HY, Hao Y, Wax DM, Murphy CN, Rieke A, Samuel M, Linville ML, Korte SW, Evans RW, Starzl TE, Prather RS, Dai Y (2006) Generation of cloned transgenic pigs rich in omega-3 fatty acids. Nat Biotechnol 24:435–436 Leggatt, Rosalind A., et al. “Alternate Directed Anthropogenic Shifts in Genotype Result in Different Ecological Outcomes in Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus Kisutch Fry.” PLOS ONE, vol. 11, no. 2, Feb. 2016, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148687. Lynda V. Mapes. “Fish Farm Caused Atlantic Salmon Spill near San Juans, Then Tried to Hide How Bad It Was, State Says.” The Seattle TImes, 30 Jan. 2018. Maggie Fox. “Genetically Modified Salmon Is Safe to Eat and Can Be Sold In U.S., FDA Says.” NBC News, Health, 19 Nov. 2015, https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/genetically-modified-salmon-safe-eat-can-be-sold-u-s-n466286. Mark TizardEric HallermanScott FahrenkrugMartina Newell-McGloughlinJohn GibsonFrans de LoosStefan WagnerGötz LaibleJae Yong HanMichael D’OcchioLisa KellyJohn LowenthalKari GobiusPrimal SilvaCaitlin CooperTim Doran. “Strategies to Enable the Adoption of Animal Biotechnology to Sustainably Improve Global Food Safety and Security.” NCBI, Oct. 2016, doi:10.1007/s11248-016-9965-1. Maga E.A., Shoemaker C.F., Rowe J.D., Bondurant R.H., Anderson G.B., Murray J.D. (2006) Production and processing of milk from transgenic goats expressing human lysozyme in the mammary gland. J Dairy Sci 89:518–524 Marta Coll, et al. “Ecosystem Overfishing in the Ocean.” PLOS ONE, Dec. 2008. Meissa B., and Gascuel D. “Overfishing of Marine Resources: Some Lessons from the Assessment of Demersal Stocks off Mauritania.” The ICES Journal of Marine Science, vol. 72, no. 2, Jan. 2015, pp. 414–27. Menozzi, D., Mora, C., & Merigo, A. (2012). Genetically modified salmon for dinner? Transgenic salmon marketing scenarios. AgBioForum, 15(3), 276-293. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What Is Aquaculture. NOAA, 21 Feb. 2018, https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/eutrophication.html. Pan D, Zhang L, Zhou Y, Feng C, Long C, Liu X, Wan R, Zhang J, Lin A, Dong E, Wang S, Xu H, Chen H (2010) Efficient production of omega-3 fatty acid desaturase (sFat-1) transgenic pigs by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Sci China Life Sci 53:517–523 Pang SC, Wang HP, Li KY, Zhu ZY, Kang JX, Sun YH. “Double Transgenesis of Humanized Fat1 and Fat2 Genes Promotes Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Synthesis in a Zebrafish Model.” Mar Biotechnol, vol. 16, 2014, pp. 580–93. Rosalind A. Leggatt\, et al. “Growth-Enhanced Transgenic Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch) Strains Have Varied Success in Simulated Streams: Implications for Risk Assessment.” PLOS ONE, Jan. 2017. Rosalind S Gibson, U Ruth Charrondiere, Winnie Bell. “Measurement Errors in Dietary Assessment Using Self-Reported 24-Hour Recalls in Low-Income Countries and Strategies for Their Prevention.” Advances in Nutrition, vol. 8, no. 6, Nov. 2017, pp. 980–991. SaharValidi, Arijit Bhattacharya, P.J.Byrne. “A Case Analysis of a Sustainable Food Supply Chain Distribution System—A Multi-Objective Approach.” Nternational Journal of Production Economics, vol. 152, June 2014, pp. 71–87. Sean M Tibbetts, Cheryl Wall, Valérie Barbosa Solomieu, Santosh Lall. “Effects of Combined ‘all-Fish’ Growth Hormone Transgenics and Triploidy on Growth and Nutrient Utilization of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar L.) Fed a Practical Grower Diet of Known Composition.” Aquaculture, vol. 406/407, May 2013, pp. 141–52. Sprague, M, et al. “Microbial and Genetically Engineered Oils as Replacements for Fish Oil in Aquaculture Feeds.” Biotechnology Letters, vol. 39, no. 11, Nov. 2017, pp. 1599–609, doi:10.1007/s10529-017-2402-6. Tillmann J. Benfey. “Effectiveness of Triploidy as a Management Tool for Reproductive Containment of Farmed Fish: Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar) as a Case Study.” Reviews in Aquaclture, vol. 8, no. 3, Sept. 2016, pp. 264–82, doi:10.1111/raq.12092. United States Department of Agriculture. “GMO Disclosure & Labeling.” GMO Disclosure & Labeling, https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/gmo. Accessed 18 Mar. 2018. Van Berkel, Welling M., Geerts M., van Veen, Ravensbergen B., Salaheddine M., Pauwels E.K., Pieper F., Nuijens J.H., Nibbering P.H. (2002) Large scale production of recombinant human lactoferrin in the milk of transgenic cows. Nat Biotechnol 20:484–487 Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee. Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine, AquAdvantage Salmon. Briefing Packet, 20 Sept. 2010. “Washington State Department of Health.” Health Benefits of Fish, https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/Food/Fish/HealthBenefits. Accessed 19 Mar. 2018.

William M. Muir, and Richard D. Howard. “Possible Ecological Risks of Transgenic Organism Release When Transgenes Affect Mating Success: Sexual Selection and the Trojan Gene Hypothesis.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nov. 1999.

(50)

External links[edit]

• AquaBounty site