If you're a foodie…a New York Times lover…or a Twitter junkie, you likely saw the article last week about the strong possibility that genetically engineered salmon may soon make its way to our marketplace. These salmon can grow twice as quickly as natural salmon, therefore making salmon more available to the growing market of people who have been educated to believe that this fish is the only one providing a significant source of omega-3 fatty acids. (An important note: These fish will not grow to humongous size, they will merely reach their mature size more quickly than natural salmon…a"body builder fish," so to speak.)
Essentially, this new type of salmon is an Atlantic salmon with genes spliced into its DNA from the Pacific Chinook salmon and the pout, another salmon-type of fish. The genes allow the new fish to produce growth hormone year round, and therefore grow year round, instead of just during the summer.
Aqua Bounty, the company that created this fish, has to provide seven sets of data to the FDA, proving that this new fish is the traditional equivalent of natural salmon; they've already submitted five of those sets.
This is what happens when we get overly enthusiastic about one type of fish and recommend it to the exclusion of all other possibilities in the sea. Greed sets in.
What is of concern to me is that these fish, according to current labeling laws, would not even be required to be labeled as genetically engineered. (The FDA to date actually opposes mandatory labeling on a food"merely because it was genetically engineered"). The CEO of Aqua Bounty, Ronald Stotish, has already absolved himself of responsibility in this area, claiming that since his company would only be selling eggs to fish farms, and not fish to markets, they would not be the party in the production chain to regulate. His take?"If there's no material difference, then it would be misleading to require labeling."
It seems as though this would be a great way to tank the entire salmon industry, given the fact that people tend to be all-or-nothing in their consumer choices and would likely shift away from all salmon"just to be safe".
If this technology is approved, it will still take 2 to 3 years for these salmon to show up in your stores.
For those of you reading this blog who know how much we love to recommend fish for your health, here are some questions to ask yourself and points to remember when making your own seafood choices.
1. ALL seafood contains omega-3 fatty acids. You don't have to eat just salmon! The benefit is double, as every ounce of fish you eat replaces an ounce of a more saturated type of meat. So whether it's bass, tuna, scallops, or shrimp, your choice is perfectly fine.
2. The Monterey Bay Aquarium, the go-to place for fish recommendations, lists Atlantic salmon, farmed and wild, as a type of seafood to avoid in their seafood watch program.
3. To help increase the total omega-3 supply, consider trout! Farmed trout, which is genetically and nutritionally slightly higher in omega-3's than salmon*, is on the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Best Choices List. You can buy it boned if that is a deterrent. I've been experimenting with trout and many of my salmon recipes work very well. It's a bit more fragile as far as cooking methods, but the flavors you cook with can work just fine.
4. In addition to trout, there are numerous farmed fish options getting the Monterey Bay green light, including: char, clams, cobia, mussels, oysters, striped bass, and tilapia.
4. If you're an adventurous eater…why not just eat the pout? It's plentiful and edible.
5. Speak up! Don't let this issue fall through the cracks. The only reason this kind of technology can even survive…is if consumers create a market for it.
*Trout contains 1.6 grams omega-3's per 100 grams
Salmon contains 1.4 grams omega-3's per 100 grams