Gm Salmon Out-Compete Natives For Spawning Sites

[Tim Smith]

Tim,

Thanks for the reminder on the %. I remembered talking about it before but couldn't recall the exact #.

I'm not saying that any rule would be 100% followed, but multiple steps of QC can reduce risks. For exampel 97% are sterile. Of the 3% that are not, QC blood sampling by the USDA could reduce the number of those that are put into farm population by another %. Now there are a few fish in the population, and I have to believe that some of those will escape, but what are the real numbers then? Then if a fertile fish, missed by QC, escapee makes it into the wild, it has to not be caught or killed, then it has to successfully make a strenuous trip up stream to a spot that it would like to spawn (shouldn't have the drive for this since it was born in a hatchery) and then be successful at spawning, which is not a 100% guaruntee for fish that ARE born with the drive to swim back upstream to spawn, and are better than the GM hatchery guys at spawing. Now if all that happens, those young have to have the gene which is probably 50/50 genetically, and they also have to successfully repeat the procedure for a few generations using their superior genetics as an advantage.

I get that we can't unring the bell if the gene gets out. I do think that reasonable multi-step rules could make the risk negligible. It's diminishing returns. This is not the "it only takes one" scenario.

Also are these fish polyploids from the normal process, or from a GM process? If so I think your 97% would be significanly higher.

I'd also prefer these things to be started in inland fish farms for further risk reduction. I thought that was the plan anyway.

And I don't think we can pretend like there's not a big anti-GM food movement that has nonscience as it's ideal. They're out there, I'm not saying it's you, but it's a big deal. "you don't know what it will do to you," "They use VIRUSES to make the corn that way." etc.

Just some thoughts.

Here are some additional thoughts:

If you can find the old discussion you can go to the link for the peer-reviewed citation for polyploidy. They'll be using the same techniques for these salmon.

The outlook that actually works for aquaculture is that if it can happen, it will eventually happen. The industry deals with millions of individuals which statistically makes escape events inevitable.

Even a small number of escapes is a serious issue. Many salmon runs in the US consist of 10,000 fish or less. A few aggressive males dominating a spawning site can fare quite well in that population.

Take no comfort in QA/QC. QC is optional for many aquacultural companies. Yes, they need it to compete successfully, but they are loathe to spend money on QC that does not benefit their bottom line. Without economic motivation, many of them simply won't do it. Also, there are bad aquaculture companies and good aquaculture companies, and good aquaculture companies that go bad...and stop doing what they are supposed to do. Remember, this is a commodity and their existence and profits are tied to extremely volatile markets. If your choice is to monitor for polyploidy or release staff or close your farm, what would you do? Exactly.

There are many countries in the world that don't really care about the environment at all and won't enforce ANY regulations regarding inland/offshore fish.

This truely is a "ring the bell" risk scenario. The lag time is probably decades, but just at the Asian Carp barrier was doomed to fail, so is any regulatory barrier to keep these salmon out of the sea. There are too many chances over too much time for something not to slip through.

I am one who tends to roll his eyes at many of the things that are said about GMO soybeans (although to be clear, I do think Monsanto is administrating the marketing of product like a blood-thirsty pirate and I'll glad when they finally take one between the eyes for all the crap they are pulling). This product is entirely different from a domesticated soybean plant and there is no comparison between the risks.