It’s been barely a month since the US Food and Drug Administration approved a genetically engineered salmon for human consumption, and the fish continues to be the subject of editorials and talk shows, all converging on the controversial issue of labeling.
Much to the annoyance of opponents of genetically engineered foods, the FDA did not require AquaBounty, the Massachusetts-based company that developed the fish, to label the salmon as a lab creation. In a draft guideline on labeling genetically engineered salmon, the FDA reasoned that there is no material difference between the genetically engineered salmon and its run-of-the-mill cousins, but it dropped rather heavy hints regarding voluntary labeling, even suggesting specific wording that avoids the demonized letters “GMO” in favor of terms like “bioengineering” or “modern biotechnology”.
Nevertheless, AquaBounty has said it has no plan to label its fish. This is a mistake, for both the company and for consumers.
Labeling is a zombie issue, one that refuses to die and serves as a proxy for ongoing food ideology battles over products ranging from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, to certified organic food. Before Congress approved its $1.1tn spending bill last Friday, agricultural industry groups pushed hard (albeit unsuccessfully) for a provision that would block state labeling laws. Of course, groups who opposed genetically engineered food pushed back just as hard.
The bill, which Obama has signed into law, does require the FDA to forbid any sale of genetically engineered salmon until it finalizes its labeling guideline. But, since the bill will sunset in September 2016, and AquaBounty has said it could take two years to set up commercial production, the ban is unlikely to affect its business.
On the day that the FDA announced its approval of the salmon, Tamar Haspel, a food columnist for the Washington Post, appealed to AquaBounty for voluntary labeling. “If the fish has all the advantages the company claims it does, say it loud. And let everyone – pro and con – vote with their wallets,” she said.
On the surface at least, there’s a lot to recommend AquaBounty’s salmon. It’s genetically engineered to grow to market size faster than wild or conventionally farmed salmon. Its feed conversion ratio, the amount of fish food that is converted to meat, is around 10% better than its non-engineered cousins, so it uses up fewer resources. It is also reared in land-based production facilities in Canada and Panama, which are a better option than the awful, ecologically damaging sea pens where most farmed salmon are raised.
Critics say that genetically engineered fish could threaten the wild salmon population if they escape into a nearby stream. AquaBounty’s fish are unlikely to escape from their indoor tanks, and the company says that it only grows sterile female fish. And, even if a genetically engineered, non-sterile fish manages to get into a nearby stream, it won’t likely pose a threat to the wild population. Research has shown that salmon with the growth gene are less successful at mating than wild salmon.
Assuming all the protective measures are sound – and AquaBounty would be shooting itself in the foot if they weren’t – the company’s salmon really does seem like a sound ecological food choice. But Haspel’s suggestion that the fish could therefore be labeled in a positive way didn’t fit into the well-worn narrative of the debate, in which environmentalists who oppose genetically modified food line up to attack the biotech industry and both sides view labels as warning signs.
The debate is about both the wording and the concern that consumers would see any label as a warning. But the beauty of voluntary labeling is that companies can choose what they want to say, as long as it is not false or misleading. For example, a label could say that the fish is “produced using biotechnology to have a lower environmental impact than conventional farmed salmon”. Voluntary labeling also circumvents a key complaint from opponents of mandatory labels: that government intervention implies there is something to be worried about.
It does not seem so far-fetched that some consumers would want to buy genetically engineered foods, and would need labels to make that choice. In that context, it’s somewhat annoying that AquaBounty is unwilling to allow people to choose. Given that it spent 20 years waiting for regulatory approval, it’s easy to see why the company is concerned about consumer rejection. But unless it does something to address public criticism, it will continue to face opposition. Already, numerous grocery chains, including Costco, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Aldi, Target, Kroger and Safeway have pledged not to stock the fish.
Yet, as Nathanael Johnson points out in a piece for Grist, an environmental news site, labeling is a way for companies to show that they respect the feelings of their customers. “Companies should respond to ignorance by providing more information, not less. They should dispel fear by making the unknown known.”
AquaBounty is not alone in this debate. Other companies with genetically engineered products have been equally label-shy. J R Simplot’s new potatoes, which are designed to resist bruising, should be making their way to the store shelves any day now. In this case, genetic engineering could reduce the amount of potatoes that are tossed away by farmers and consumers because of their blemishes. Yet Simplot only mentions the word “biotechnology” on its website, not in the packaging.
For these companies, media attention is a distraction from their mission – selling fish and potatoes. But the AquaBounty salmon in particular has become a rallying point for mandatory labeling proponents, and the decision to not to label has kept attention firmly fixed on the company.
So please, AquaBounty, for the sake of all of us who want to move on from this stagnant debate: label the fish.