Why we really need the #Frankenfish
Image courtesy of Avaaz
Avaaz’s latest campaign to stop a genetically modified breed of salmon from being approved as fit for human consumption is a massively unhelpful contribution to the debate about genetic modification.
The email I got from Avaaz on Friday, wittily titled ‘Attack of the Frankenfish’, was full of the kind of hysterical language and panic-mongering you’d be more accustomed to reading in The Daily Mail. The petition, which is at 670,802 signatures at the time of writing, lays out the risks of this new breed of genetically modified salmon – which grows faster than normal – and asks you to call on the US Food and Drug Administration not to approve ‘transgenic salmon’ for human consumption.
I’m not suggesting that there are no risks involved in eating genetically modified animals. But Avaaz’s scare tactics don’t help the debate on genetic modification move forward. Instead, they perpetuate a knee-jerk reaction in consumers, who see genetic modification/GM/GMO as something scary and dangerous and to be stopped before it is too late.
The reality is that, without genetic modification, and with the big population rises that experts are predicting (i.e. there’ll be 2 billion more of us on the planet by 2050), we simply will not be able to eat meat and fish in the future. Either many species will have been eaten out of existence or the cost of eating meat and fish will have risen so high that only the ultra-rich will be able to afford it, leaving the rest of us to eke out a low-protein existence elsewhere.
So what are the problems with genetically modified salmon? Well, the Avaaz petition points to three. Licensing genetically modified salmon for human consumption could:
- Wipe out natural marine species (if, by some accident, modified species escaped into the wild, we don’t know what effect that would have on natural species);
- Threaten human health, because we don’t know enough about the long-term consequences of eating animals that have been artificially modified;
- Open the floodgates for genetically modified animals worldwide (only a bad thing if you accept that genetically modified species are bad full stop).
Of course, these (apart from the last one) are genuine concerns, and I am not attempting to dismiss them here. This great fact sheet from Food and Water Watch explains in much more detail these and other key concerns with the production and consumption of genetically modified fish.
For me, the real big concerns with genetic modification are to do with who ‘owns’ these fish. After all, a key justification for genetic modification is that it will help us to feed the world, and if big companies have control over whole vital new species of crops or fish or animals, this will be entirely counterproductive.
In spite of these potential problems, the world has no choice but to see genetic modification as part of the solution to feeding an ever-growing population as the world’s resources grow ever more strained.
We know full well that the 7 billion people already living on the planet cannot consume in the unsustainable way that the richer percentage of them do. We also know that, by 2050, there will be 9 billion people on the planet – and an ever increasing number of them will want to eat ‘western-style’ diets rich in meat and dairy as they climb out of poverty.
With this knowledge in mind, what else can we do but look at genetic modification as an alternative way to produce meat and fish? It might be environmentally or morally preferable to impose worldwide vegetarianism, but that’s a) not likely to happen and b) not exactly fair on those who already struggle to get enough protein in their diets as it is.
I don’t know if the salmon in question should be certified fit for human consumption – I’m no expert and I haven’t read the evidence. But we need to get to a point where genetically modified meat and fish are an acceptable and palatable alternative for consumers – and we need to get there fast, because time is running out.
I partly agree with you, but i believe it is way to early for this.
GM Fish should be researched in labs for many years, and eaten by the scientists for testing purpouses.
If and when the food shortage arrives, only than it should be given to the masses. And it MUST be properly labeled.
For now, i totally agree with Avaaz.
I agree with you! I think maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my post as a couple of people have said this. I think we need to be having the DEBATE about genetically modified foods, and making sure that they CAN be an alternative when we need them (and I agree, that’s probably not yet). My problem with Avaaz’s campaign is that it’s hysterical tone just shuts down the debate, and, therefore, much of the possibility of investigating GMOs as an alternative (making it more difficult to fund research, for example). And I do agree with you on labelling too! Thanks for your comment though, I’m really glad there IS a debate happening about this topic.
Hey Jo. This is worth a read — http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/03/gm-food-grip-global-giants
The thing that bothers me is that the debate is far from being balanced. The big advocates for GM are big companies who largely don’t care about feeding the world (despite what they might say). As it says in the article I posted above, they often fiercely use patents and heavy-handedly lobby governments to deregulate markets. Whereas solutions to global hunger that involve training people in farming techniques, and look at the sharing of information to better equip small-scale farmers, often receive little PR simply because they stand to make little profit. So actually I kinda think it’s good to have Avaaz battling against these companies, because at the moment the debate really isn’t a fair one.
Just one last comment from me (promise!). When I say practice, I meant stuff like this — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk
Here’s a way in which permaculture led to incredible results in areas of land consider to be impossible to grow food. It’s sustainable in that it’s not carbon intensive and it doesn’t require huge chemical inputs. But yet things like this don’t get a lot of PR because it’s about practice as opposed to being about a product that can be sold.
Thanks for your comments Richard. I think there’s a lot of truth in what you say, and I do think my initial blog post was a bit indelicately worded. But you have inspired me to do some more research and think again about my opinion!
Pingback: Iain Duncan Smith’s wages; the uncertain nature of online petitions | Tech News
Pingback: Iain Duncan Smith’s wages; the uncertain nature of online petitions | Social Network Tips
Pingback: Iain Duncan Smith’s wages; the uncertain nature of online petitions | Ne Hakkında
Pingback: Iain Duncan Smith’s wages; the uncertain nature of online petitions | Social Web Guide
Pingback: Iain Duncan Smith's wages; the uncertain nature of online petitions - Government Tenders, Government News and Information - Government Online
Pingback: Iain Duncan Smith’s wages and the uncertain nature of online petitions | Dean Burnett | Build Own Social Network Website
Pingback: Iain Duncan Smith’s wages and the uncertain nature of online petitions | Dean Burnett | Education Today
Pingback: Iain Duncan Smith’s wages and the uncertain nature of online petitions | Dean Burnett | Ne Hakkında
Pingback: Iain Duncan Smith's wages and the uncertain nature of online petitions | Dean Burnett - Oxology
Pingback: instagram marketing software
Is it really “hysterical” to be worried about causing more harm to the environment in the long run? Don’t you think the GM crops have caused enough problems? We are an extremely wasteful species, and to think we may actually “run out” of natural fish is not so much an issue of creating more as it is an issue of creating less waste. I have read that 40% of the food in the U.S. goes uneaten and ends up in landfills. I seriously don’t think our problems will be solved by introducing a foreign, “man-made” fish to the market. There shouldn’t be a debate. This madness needs to just STOP!
Thanks for your comment, Lisa, and sorry it’s taken me so long to respond!
I 100% agree with you that we are disgustingly wasteful, and that GM does not solve this problem.
However, in a world where nearly 1 in 8 people go to bed hungry every night (and that’s, like, 800 million people plus), I think we have to consider all the options for solving this problem (especially when, as you say, we produce more than enough food to feed everyone). Of course, stopping people from going hungry cannot justify long-term environmental damage – but I don’t accept that GM necessarily and unavoidably will lead to this (although that is a big risk).
I use the word ‘hysteria’ to talk about fears of GM because these fears are so often expressed by middle class liberals who’ve never faced a day of hunger in their lives (and I include myself in this category), but who are content to simply shut down the debate by talking about “madness”.
Really, I think these problems can only be solved through a mix of solutions – from more investment in small-scale farming to real measures to both mitigate and adapt to climate change – but this mix at least needs to allow for the possibility of GM.