Genetically Modified Fish Could be Toxic to Your Health
Genetically modified fish are destined to hit the food cases of supermarkets at some point. Unfortunately, the risks of genetically modified fish may not be worth the potential benefits. Here’s why.
It’s coming whether you like it or not. Genetically modified fish are expected to become an important part of the future food supply. Why? Because they grow at a rate that’s up to two times faster than fish that haven’t been modified and they’re able to use food more efficiently which means it costs less to feed them. What fish farmer wouldn’t like that? Unfortunately, a new report from the University of Gotherberg in Sweden suggests that genetically modified fish could be a significant threat to human health.
The Toxin Problem
According to this report, genetically modified fish have had genes inserted that not only help them grow faster and resist infection, but also make them more resistant to toxins. This means they could potentially build up higher levels of harmful substances which would be transmitted to humans when they’re eaten With their already being concern about toxins in fish such as PCB’s, dioxins, and mercury, this could raise an even higher levels of health concern, particularly for children and pregnant women who may be particularly susceptible to food-borne toxins.
What If They Escape?
There’s also concern about the effects genetically modified fish would have on the environment should they escape into the wild. These modified fish would have a distinct advantage when it comes to competing in the wild due to their more efficient use of nutrients and their increased ability to resist infections that other fish might be susceptible to.
If modified fish escaped into the wild, they would be able to freely breed with other non-modified fish which would create fish with unique genetic make-ups and unknown health effects when eaten by humans. Plus, there’s concern that genetically modified fish that escaped into the world could upset the natural ecosystem. Like opening Pandora’s box, it would be an irreversible step that could forever change the delicate ecological balance.
A Possible Solution?
Despite the fact that genetically modified fish are farmed and not allowed access to the wild, fish do escape from fish farms. In Europe, it’s estimated that up to two million escape from farms each year. As a way to rectify this problem, there’s talk of using only genetically modified fish that are sterile so they would be unable to breed with wild fish should they escape. The technique of making genetically modified fish sterile is still in its early stages and has yet to be perfected.
The Bottom Line?
Genetically modified fish present even more health issues than non-modified farmed fish – fish that are known to be high in toxins and likely pose health risks to humans. Genetically modified fish could potentially accumulate even higher amounts of these toxins. At the same time, they could upset the natural ecosystem if they escaped into the wild. Are the potential benefits worth such a risk?
Liked it
KTP | Sep 5, 2009 | Reply
Why would anyone eat anything that man has messed with? God knows what kind of effects it can have in the longer run. Nature is perfect, don’t mess with it.
Henry | Sep 5, 2009 | Reply
The problem with blogs and the internet is that it is too easy to repeat without due diligence or analysis, misinformation, disinformation, or lies promulgated by groups who are irrationally opposed to certain technologies. First of all the study in question has not been published, and the findings are suspect in many aspects. The research was conducted by scientists who are opposed to transgenic salmon, for their own personal reasons. The studies were conducted with coho salmon, and it most likely the first commercial lines of transgenic salmon will be Atlantic Salmon, for which the findings (not yet published, but conveniently leaked to the internet) do not apply. As a matter of fact the first transgenic salmon will be sterile and single sex, and thus cannot reproduce amongst themselves or with wild fish in the event of an escape. (The comment about sterilization not yet being perfected was clearly written by someone not familiar with the methodology.) Lastly, the authors attempted to extrapolate observations made on salmon in the lab, to a real world environment, which is not valid. Finally, the assertion that highly domesticated fish accustomed to being hand fed prepared pellets, and unaccustomed to predator avoidance, would be hardier or more fit in the wild than wild fish, demonstrates the many fallacies of their work and their conclusions.