WWW.WAS.ORG • WORLD AQUACULTURE • JUNE 2013 3 Editor’s Note On May 25, a “March Against Monsanto” protest drew more than 2 million participants in 52 countries and 436 cities. The protestors assembled in opposition to seed giant Monsanto and the lack of mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods. The march was ignited by a Facebook page put up in late February that went viral, ultimately leading to the global protest. The occurrence of this event made me ponder the implications of the protestors’ concerns and perceptions for aquaculture. Opposition to genetically modified (GM) crops encompasses a broad range of concerns, including human health and environmental risks, intellectual property protection and patent law, food labeling, world hunger, the global trade in commodity grains, the relationship between corporations and government and inequities associated with accrual of benefits, among others. Opponents claim that GM crops can cause problems with human health and are harmful to the environment. This perception persists despite numerous studies, including those prepared by the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the European Commission. Those studies conclude that the risks of GM crops to human health and the environment are minimal, especially in light of the potential benefits (e.g. golden rice). Opponents want mandatory labeling of foods that contain GM crops so consumers can make presumably informed purchasing decisions. Most of the soybeans and corn in aquafeeds are derived from GM seeds, at least in the US. Does this mean that aquafeeds containing GM grain meals should be labeled? Should aquaculture seafood produced with feeds made with GM grain meals be labeled as such? How would such labels affect consumer purchasing decisions? Although not explicit, a GM label seems to imply some kind of health or safety warning, where no such warning appears warranted. Thus far, there are no genetically modified aquatic animals produced in aquaculture. One company – AquaBounty – has been trying to win approval for GM salmon for more than a decade. The potential benefit of GM animals in aquaculture to producers and consumers is considerable in terms of increased disease resistance, improved culture performance, and increased nutritional benefits of the product. However, consumers are wary of GM foods, even though many common processed foods already contain ingredients that are derived from GM crop seeds. Despite concerns (real or perceived) about GM crops, engineering genetic change using modern molecular methods should be seen in historical context as just the latest effort to manipulate the genome of formerly wild plants and animals for human benefit. It is just one of many tools available. The value of genetic improvement is beyond dispute. In aquaculture, using mostly traditional breeding methods, improved varieties of penaeid shrimp, Atlantic salmon and tilapia have been critical components of the global expansion in aquaculture production of these species. However, especially in developing countries, realizing the full potential of genetically improved aquatic animals, whether developed using traditional breeding methods or genetic engineering, is often constrained by production inputs such as fertilizers and feeds. One of the other objections to GM crops is related to the near monopoly that a large company such as Monsanto has over GM grain seeds. Traditionally farmers have always saved seeds from one crop to the next. With the advent of hybrid seed production and more recently with GM seeds, farmers who choose to do use these seeds become dependent on specialized seed producers. In aquaculture, there is no equivalent to Monsanto in the value chain. Seed provision in aquaculture is decidedly not corporate, being a diffuse, speciesspecific and generally low-tech activity. Part of the Monsanto protest is based on what is seen as the cozy relationship between Big Ag and Big Government. Protestors describe some recent legislation banning courts from halting the sale of GMO seeds as the “Monsanto Protection Act.” There has been a revolving door between Monsanto and FDA, the US federal agency charged with regulating activities of companies like Monsanto, representing what is perceived as a clear conflict of interest. Monsanto, like many large corporations in the US, receives generous government subsidies and favorable treatment. Because of the nature of this relationship, it becomes difficult to separate the potential benefits of GM crops with the negative consequences of monopolistic control over seed production, abetted by compliant government regulators and favorable government policies. The idea of awarding patent rights on seeds and other genetic resources is objectionable to many who support traditional practices of seed saving and sharing in agriculture. Nonetheless it is easy to see why private companies that invest in genetic improvement programs want to develop an economically sustainable business model that requires protection of intellectual property, at least for a reasonable time following introduction. Furthermore, the litigious nature of the opposition means that only large companies with deep pockets can absorb the business risks associated with developing GM crops. It is clear that the availability of land, water and energy resources for aquaculture, indeed for all of agriculture, will become increasingly limited, requiring an intensification of production. The role of GM crops in feeding nine billion people in the future is an open question. Given the clearly visible challenges that lie before us, it would seem foolish to close off any option before potential benefits and risks can be assessed. Whether or not you agree with the Monsanto protestors, it is clear that their views represent perceptions that may extend to GM seafood produced in aquaculture. — John A. Hargreaves, Editor-in-Chief Implications of the “March Against Monsanto” for Aquaculture
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=