A real full impact assessment of genetically modified salmon

In a recent paper, a group of environmental economists tries to evaluate the full impact of genetically modified (GM) salmon. Pointing to the alleged importance of GM salmon for society, they raise important questions about full impact assessment in aquaculture. However, in order to “evaluate whether society is better off overall with the new product on the market than without it” (Science 330: 1052), at least four levels of the issue should be considered: 1) The biological level: GM salmon and salmon produced by classic breeding methods are not equivalent. Morphological deformities and physiological abnormalities have been detected several times in transgenic Salmonidae and wait to be explained. 2) The etological-ecological level: The behaviour of many GM salmons differ from the nontransgenic salmons, particularly when food abundance is low with presumably considerable effects on the natural ecosystems. 3) The aquatic system level: While GM products may require less feed to grow, a Life Cycle Assessment could account not only for natural resource inputs but also for their provenance and for the distribution of the final products. 4) The global level: Research focuses should account for the implications of increasing consumption of fishmeal and fish oil to feed salmons, either natural or GM. One might ask whether equivalent investments could be made towards the development of food alternatives which are more decentralized, less energy consuming, and managed by local people. So, unmasking the yes/no debate on GM salmon would allow not only for food to be brought onto the table but also for a more equitable and democratic approach to sustainable ecosystems’ management. In conclusion, more complex analysis of the issue is required, and a variety of perspectives and alternatives has to be included and legitimated in order to perform a real full impact assessment.