1

Robin Garnick
COMM 408
Final Paper

A Southeast Alaskan Fishers View on Frankenfish

As I don my pair of old, cracking rubber boots I envision the extra-tuf aisle at Murray
Pacific. All those shiny new pairs of boots lined up with the smell of the factory oil finish
permeating the airmmmmI wish I could justify a new pair but I just dont use them that
much anymore. Today, however, I am going to Sitka Sound Seafood to watch Steve pitch off
his fish and Im indulging my urge to dress the part of a fishermans wife. Plus Id like to keep
my feet dry. I park in front of the plant and walk down the long wooden pier corridor lined on
both sides by blue and turquoise buildings. The wooden decking is plated with industriallooking metal. Everything is wet; water seems as ever-present here as the smell of fish. The
open doorways expose bustling employees. Workers in rain pant bibs with white aprons are
busy scrubbing stainless steel shelving units with small white scrub brushes. Men on forklifts
drive to and fro moving large grey fish totes. I emerge onto the loading dock in time to watch
our tall, sleek, trolling vessel The Huntress cut neatly toward us through the calm water. As it
approaches the pilings of the Sitka sound dock, the boat goes into reverse. The engine revs, a
blast of smoke rises from the stack, and the prop churns up bubbling water. Lines fly, Give me
some slack on the bow line is heard, and the boat is secured. The hatch is thrown open, the deck
is cleared, and Captain Steve shouts, OK. Almost immediately hoist lets out a whine as the
white plastic tote lowers to the deck. The sun glints as it hits the iridescent sheen on the silver

bodies as Steve places them into the tote. He signals the OK to raise the tote and then slowly
climbs, rung by rung, up the perpendicular ladder to the buying platform to watch the crew
weigh and grade his fish.
Hey, easy with those Steve growls at a fish-grader who picked up a stunning 22 lb
King Salmon with one hand and carelessly scraped the scales against the grain of another fish.
The Asian-looking gentleman in orange bibs and a white apron flashed a quick smile and nod it
while he quickly supported the tail of the fish with his other hand. Steve, my husband of thirty
years, handles each fish with the utmost care while on his boat, stunning the fish, landing it,
cleaning, bleeding, rinsing, and icing with skill and precision to ensure the best possible quality
product is delivered. He has no patience for careless handling. The graders quickly and
efficiently sort each fish according to size, flesh color and quality. The fish are inspected,
weighed, and the internal temperature is taken to ensure proper chilling.
From here, according to general manager John Baird, the load of fish will be logged with
the date and time landed and who caught them where. Its called chain of custody, he tells me,
and this load of fish will be tracked until the product reaches its final destination. Many steps are
taken along to way to ensure the quality of this high-end seafood product. Alaska wild seafood
is an 11 percent niche market, John explains, The best in the world, bar none. But its only 11
percent. The bulk of the worlds seafood, over 50 percent according to the NOAA Fisheries
website, is farmed.
John, who has been in the seafood industry for 38 years, has some general concerns with
the quality of farmed fish. Those (fish) are getting lots of inoculations; the fish has antibiotics
in the food and those kinds of things. I still dont think farmed fish is a good thing for humans to

consume. But, it is a protein source thats available and its out there. Its just like organic milk
or anything else. Some people decide to drink organic milk at $6.53 per gallon rather than
buying something thats been pasteurized, homogenized, and everything else. For $4.50, or
whatever. So therell be always those people that want that natural opportunity. Theyll still
have that natural opportunity
Sitting in Johns third-floor office, dismally brown, but overlooking beautiful Sitka
Sound, I ask John, What are you thoughts on Frankenfish? I am referring, of course, to the
genetically engineered (GE) salmon dubbed Frankenfish by its opponents in the news media.
John engages the subject eagerly, Well, one of the things is that there is no science based review
process. Specifically to genetically engineered salmon or any other GE animal for that matter,
right now. Also, there is no way for the public to be sufficiently informed about the safety, and
the wholesomeness, of a new, what I would call strange product. Or provide any impacts, or
anticipated impacts.
Impacts? I probe.
Health impacts, economic impacts, I mean, its just huge. Its just huge here, the
implications. Another thing is, the FDA, theyve evaluated the GE salmon, and it would be
considered an animal drug which limits the involvement by the agencies specifically charged
with protecting the fisheries resources and habitats The data thats been released, sample sizes
were really small. And this leads to confusion about whether or not questions of the public
health and environmental safety have really been fully vetted. How much input has there been?
No one called me! Not that they have to, but I mean, who else in the industry have they called?
None of the people that Im involved with. Not one of the other processors that Im involved in

had a call. Thats concerning. One thing I think is really concerning is theyve done this, a lot of
this, gotten this information in a vacuum we dont think that theyve done enough to secure
the safety of this product for human consumption. I just dont think they have. Its new.
The strange product John is referring to is called AquaAdvantage salmon by
developers AquaBounty Technologies of Massachusetts. It is an Atlantic salmon which has an
added growth DNA from both a Chinook salmon and an eel-like fish called Ocean Pout. The
gene from the Chinook causes it to grow faster, and the gene from the Pout enables it to grow
year-round. The DNA sequence, which the FDA has classified as an animal drug, is injected
into the eggs in a facility on Prince Edwards Island, CA. The treated eggs are then transported to
an inland facility in Panama where they are raised to market size in only 18 months compared to
the normal 3 years. This could put farmed salmon on the supermarket shelf pretty cheaply. If
approved, it will be the first time a genetically modified animal will be allowed for human
consumption. Until now, we have only seen GMO crops, GM crops resist insects and disease
and produce higher yields for farmers. In a hungry world that has a growing population, this new
generation of crops promises to feed more people. GM animals could offer similar benefits
cattle resistant to mad cow disease, and in the case of the GM salmon, a plentiful food source at a
time when wild fish stocks are dwindling.(Monitor)
The developers of AquaAdvantage salmon are concerned that investors will dry up soon
if the FDA doesnt soon approve GM Salmon for human consumption. They are facing concerns
are that the altered fish may cause food sensitivities, or that accidental release of the fish may
post a threat to the environment, salmon habitat of natural stocks of salmon. In addition, the
Christian Science Monitor was concerned with the moral implications.

The FDA, on the other hand, has determined that the modified salmon will have "no
significant impact" on the environment. The agency also stated the salmon was as safe as food
from conventional Atlantic salmon. While the agency's draft environmental assessment will be
open to public comment for 60 days, it seems likely that the salmon will be approved, though
that could still be months away.(Pollack) In addition, the FDA claimed that the chances of the
fish being released into the environment are remote, as the salmon would be raised in inland
tanks with multiple barriers to escape. Even if some fish did escape, the nearby bodies of water
would be too hot or salty for their survival. And reproduction would be unlikely because the fish
would be sterilized, though the sterilization technique is not foolproof. (Pollack). The National
Marine Fisheries Service agreed with this statement.
Opponents, however, disagree. In an article for Womens Health Magazine Gretchen
Voss points out that little is known about the long-term effects of GE organisms on the
environment. And since only 95 percent of the fish are actually sterile, even though they are
unlikely to survive, there is no proof that they will not. Neither the FDA nor AquaBounty has
performed an environmental assessment in Panama to determine the impact if an escaped salmon
does survive, so the effect of escaped fish is relatively unknown. In addition, Voss claims that
the AquaBountys Canadian facility experienced an outbreak of a dangerous, untreatable fish flu
called Infectious Salmon Anemia, and that this information was withheld from the public.
While FDAs environmental assessment concludes that the salmon will not have a negative
impact on environs surrounding the U.S., FDA did not require a similar study in the waters
around Prince Edward Island, where the eggs are currently produced; or Panama, where the fish
are being farmed. (Voss) So they havent actually done and environmental impact assessment
on the areas where the fish are being produced.

John has similar environmental concerns, I dont know exactly where theyre doing this
modification. Are those streams open to the ocean? Are they open to the open streams and
rivers that run to the ocean? And rivers and streams run to the ocean. Whats the affluent that
comes out from those tanks that you mention? What kind of antibiotics? All those other
eventual inoculators that they have to use on the fish just to keep them from dying or diseasing.
Where does that water go? I dont know if those questions are answered, but theyre certainly
not given to the general public to weigh in on.

Opponents of Frankenfish have health concerns as well as environmental concerns.

Voss writes, Opponents argue that testing, especially on the possible long-term health effects of
consuming genetically engineered fish, has not been adequate. Limited testing has shown
increased allergy causing potential and elevated levels of a growth hormone called IGF-1. This
growth hormone has been linked to Breast, prostate, and colon cancers. But what I have
personally found most disturbing in my investigation thus far is the data from this 2005 ATB
study, only 16 percent were normal; 13 percent of the salmon had severe irregularities (which
ABT didn't describe), and 71 percent had moderate ones. (Voss) This, for me, paints a chilling
visual image of an actual Frankenstein fish. "Physically visible abnormalities make you wonder
what's going on biochemically," says Freeze. (Voss)
If approved, consumer groups want the GE product labeled as such, stating that, "If
you've got a product on the shelf next to wild salmon and it's genetically engineered, raised in
pens in a factory facility - probably priced a lot less - and you don't even label it, the consumer
will think it's salmon," Huffman said, adding that the cheaper competitor would threaten

California's struggling wild salmon industry. (Lyndsey). Some states have labeling legislation
under consideration, In four states - California, Oregon, Vermont and Alaska - lawmakers are
considering legislation that would pertain only to fish. The other states, including New York, are
grappling with measures that would require all foods made from genetically modified ingredients
to disclose that information on the label.(Post). However, the FDA states that they cannot
require a label identifying the product as genetically engineered because under current
regulations, labeling is only required when a product is materially different from its natural
counterpart. The FDA has found no material difference between AquaAdvantage salmon and
Atlantic salmon. AquaBountys position on labeling? The product should be labeled Atlantic
salmon. We support labeling by exclusion labels that note that a fish is non-GMO, for
example.(AquaBounty)

Without special labeling of GE salmon, consumers will lack information to allow them
to choose whether to consume and financially support a completely new kind of food and food
industryone that we know very little about. (Voss). According to Voss, 80 percent of the
processed foods on the market now contained GE ingredients, mostly from soy, canola, and corn.
80 percent!!! Thats huge. I asked John, Do you personally consume GMOs, genetically
modified food?

No! he replies, And Im not a guru on foods. Im not. But I check labels. And if
theres anything that says genetically modified Im not going to eat it. It isnt gonna happen.

Hmmm. I wonder how many others out there think that they are protecting themselves
and their family by conscientiously reading labels to steer clear of GMOs? I know of at least
one fisherman who is a little more savvy, or perhaps more skeptical, than John.

Sitting in my living room, with my pencil and notepad in hand, I face my husband, Steve,
who is settled into his recliner. Do you consume GMOs? I ask.
Yes, I believe everybody does. All our plants, especially, are totally modified.
Everything from corn to broccoli to Zucchini. Maybe I dont know what GMO means. Maybe
they are just hybrids.

Do you feel they pose a risk?

To me, its already proven. Increased food allergies, etc. But what can be done about
it? Can we stop GE fish? Probably not. I think the people that are doing this expected it to go
right on through. I dont think they expected much scrutiny.

When I asked John if he felt GMOs posed a risk, he replied, I doUnless they can
prove to me that it has better nutritional value, and its better for me, why am I going to eat it?

You know, initially, they used that (the concept that the GE product would be superior)
to sell their idea, but all they did was make more money on it, I replied. After all, back in the
day, the big hope for agricultural biotechnology was to create more nutritious, more abundant
crops to help feed the hungry. In reality, what the companies developed were either crops with

built-in pesticides (for example, Bt corn, which has genes from a soil bacterium inserted into its
DNA so that every cell of the plant produces pesticidal toxins) or herbicide tolerance (such as
Roundup Ready soybeans, which are engineered to withstand Roundup weed killer). In other
words, the focus wasn't on cultivating food that was better for us, but on increasing profits for
these companies. (Voss)

So, John, I ask, are you in favor of labeling all GMO ingredients?
Absolutely he states emphatically, expounding on the onerous labeling and tracing
requirements that he adheres to with wild seafood. Theyve gotta have labeling. I mean, if they
cant its the most idiotic, I mean, not that those people arent idiots in Washington DC
anyway I mean, they just do some of the most bizarre things. I just cant for the life of me
believe that they wouldnt have it labeled as genetically modified.
I can believe it, I think to myself, and then reply, Right now they are claiming that
(GE salmon) is not materially different and so
They sure as hell better. Because on the wild product we have, that is wild, its as
natural as you can get, they have us do all this traceability and follow it through. You think
theyd allow a genetically engineered fish that has chemicals and everything else in it to not be
labeled or traced and say truly what it is? Its unimaginable. And stupid.
I can imagine it. I reply.
What benefits, if any, I ask, do you see, jut in general, from GMOs? Including
salmon?

10

What benefits? He repeats, Obviously you can produce more with less. A pound of
flesh is created from a pound less of feed. So in that respect, its cost benefit is good. And, you
know, if it was a safe product, and we knew that it was safe, again, I wouldnt have a problem
with it. Theres always going to be competition in the world for products. And we have to
compete against chicken, and beef and everything else. So it wouldnt be any differentYou
cant stop innovation.
Right.
And maybe this is a product that needs to go to a lot of places including the United
States that has poor protein opportunities. And if its safe, then more protein for folks, if its
produced at less cost than say wild fish, people need to have protein. People are starving in
America and other places. Its a great protein source. That would be a good thing, to supply
more people with food.
I agree; it does have the potential for good. I just have some doubts. GM crops had
potential for good, as well, and look where they ended up.
In closing, I ask John one final question, Will the passing of legislation approving GE
salmon for consumer consumption affect you or your family in additional ways in which we
havent discussed?
John- Hmmm. I dont know. And thats the scary thing. At this point, they are treating
us like lab rats. Is it going to affect us in ways that we dont know about?
Ask us in 30 years when we pull it off the market, I interject playfully.

11

Thats right! he laughs. So why not spend the first 3 years, or whatever, studying it further
and getting it right? Instead of thirty years down the road saying boy, we shouldnt have done
that as we are walking around with 2 heads But then more seriously, Innovation,
responsible innovation, is good. But they have to do it responsibly. If they dont then it will be
a tragedy.
After my immersion into this topic, I surface still unsure of the safety of GE salmon.
There seems to be a lot of unknowns and miss-information. I find I have a tendency to view
corporate America as greedy and ruthless to the point of pursuing a profit regardless of cost to
humans. I dont trust them or the federal agencies that protect me. The responsibility, then,
seems to fall to the individual consumer. We must voice our opinions during the FDAs public
comment period, and we must shop and consume wisely. Not like John, carefully scanning
labels for GMO ingredients which are present in the food but not listed on the product label. Not
like Steve, convinced that they are everywhere and in everything so why bother. A concerned
consumer will need to look for products specifically labeled GMO-free, and shop at stores that
stock GMO-free products. Look for wild, organic, and locally harvested foods. Like freshcaught, wild Alaskan Salmon!! Beyond that, then, I guess we just wait out the 30 years and see
if anyone grows two heads!

12

Works Cited

AVILA J. NIGHTLINE INVESTIGATES. Nightline (ABC) [serial online]. December 4,

2012;:1. Available from: Newspaper Source, Ipswich, MA. Accessed February 16, 2013.
AquaBounty Website. http://www.aquabounty.com/documents/press/2013/201302.13UpdateonFDAapproval.pdf Website Acessed 04.23.13
Baird, John. General Manager of Sitka sound Seafoods. Interview dated 03.01.13 at Sitka sound
Seafood.
Garnick, Steven. SE Alaska Power Troller, F/V Huntress, Captain. Interview dated 03.30.13 at
105 Cedar Beach Road.
Garnick, Robin. Field Note. 03.30.13. Sitka Sound Seafoods.
Garnick, Robin. Field Note. 02.23.13. Murray Pacific Supply Corp.
Leschin-Hoar, Clare. TakePart.Com. Trader Joes, Whole Foods, and Other Big Grocers
Make Big Decision on GMO Salmon. MARCH 20, 2013.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/03/20/grocers-say-no-gmo-salmon?cmpid=tp-pthrslowfood Online journal. Accessed 03.20.13.
Lyndsey L. States lead debate over labeling food genetically modified. Washington Post,
The [serial online]. 5:Available from: Newspaper Source, Ipswich, MA. Accessed
February 18, 2013.
The Monitor's Editorial B. Frankenfish -- genetically modified salmon -- take food and ecology
to a new level. Christian Science Monitor[serial online]. September 22, 2010:N.PAG.
Available from: Newspaper Source, Ipswich, MA. Accessed February 16, 2013.
NMFS Website. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/faqs/faq_aq_101.html#4howmuch.
Website. Accessed 04.22.13
POLLACK A. Engineered Fish Moves Step Closer To Approval. New York Times [serial online].
December 22, 2012:1. Available from: Newspaper Source, Ipswich, MA. Accessed
February 18, 2013.

13

Sesana, Laura. The Washington Times Communities. Frankenfish: Genetically engineered

salmon close to FDA . February 2, 2013.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/world-our-backyard/ Online
journal. Accessed 02.26.13.
Voss, Gretchen. Womens Health Magazine. Frankenfish and the World of Genetically
Modified Food June 7, 2012.
http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/frankenfish?page=1 Online journal.
Accessed 03.01.13.