Background

Advances in biotechnology have enabled genetic engineers to swap genes between unrelated species; however, serious questions about the environmental and human health effects remain unanswered. The reasons for developing genetically engineered species vary, and include:

• Introducing genetically modified organisms as an experimental method to test for the presence of toxic substances;
• Introducing genetically modified organisms to neutralize contaminants in polluted water;
• Introducing transgenic fish and shellfish into open space aquaculture farming for human consumption; and
• Creating aesthetically pleasing pets, such as GloFish.

Although none of these reasons are inherently harmful themselves, the environmental and human health effects of releasing genetically altered animals have not been studied. Transgenic fish released into natural ecosystems may behave like invasive species, negatively affecting native populations. Like invasive species, transgenic fish can out-compete native species for resources, destroy plants or sensitive habitat, and alter the food chain in an ecosystem. Transgenic fish may also possess competitive advantages over native species by virtue of their genetically engineered traits. For example, fish engineered for a rapid growth rate reach sexual maturity earlier, allowing them to breed sooner and more often than slower maturing native species. Introducing transgenic fish has the potential to cause the loss of genetic diversity within the population and may have unknown effects on future populations. Under the “Trojan gene” scenario, transgenic fish growing at a faster rate may die out earlier than native species as a result of their genetic modification. Eventually, this would lead to dramatic decreases and eventual decimation of entire native populations of fish.

Introducing transgenic fish into the marketplace may affect human health as well. Creating a transgenic species involves mixing animal and plant proteins from different species and/or increasing protein levels. Swapping genes from species such as peanuts or shellfish that are common causes of allergic reactions in humans may prompt allergic reactions in an unsuspecting consumer. Genetic modifications designed to increase the disease resistance of a transgenic species may allow transgenic fish to absorb higher levels of toxic substances, like heavy metals, which pose health risks when consumed by humans.

Regulation of transgenic fish currently falls to multiple state and federal agencies. Federal responsibility has been divided between several agencies:

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversees navigable fresh and marine waters;
• The Department of Commerce regulates marine resources; and
• The Department of Agriculture regulates marine aquaculture.

As the field of transgenic research advances, agencies that have not traditionally had a role in regulating waters may be forced to address resulting issues. For example, in 2000, the Food and Drug Administration was petitioned by A/F Protein – an aquaculture company – so the company could sell its transgenic salmon to the general public as a food. In 2003, Yorktown Technologies of Texas caused controversy by announcing its intention to sell transgenic Zebra fish – known as GloFish – as pets. The absence of clear governing authority at the federal level leaves the burden of establishing a regulatory framework to state agencies and legislators.

Many states have existing policies in place that could be modified to regulate transgenic fish. Including transgenic species within the definition of a non-native, exotic species would give state agencies regulatory power over transgenic fish. In 2003, Washington extended its definition of exotic, non-native species to include transgenic fish, thereby allowing the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to ban the importation, release, and possession of transgenic fish unless a permit had been issued by the agency. Other states, such as Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, and South Carolina, have permit systems for non-native species.(1) States like Connecticut, Louisiana, and Texas have specific lists of species that cannot be imported, which could be modified to include transgenic species. States have been more visible in regulating the aquaculture industry, creating permit systems and permit requirements. Maine currently includes all aquatic species in its permit system, whereas southern coastal states, like Georgia and Louisiana, have policies specific only to mollusks and shellfish.(1)

For coastal states, including regulations for transgenic fish in their Coastal Management Plan (encouraged under the 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act) would help guide development and research activities related to transgenic fish and could create permit systems to regulate activity along state coasts. Working in partnership with other states and jurisdictions is an effective way to regulate transgenic organisms. The Chesapeake Bay Program – a group of partners consisting of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the city of Washington D.C. – is a successful example. The Chesapeake Bay Program includes transgenic species in its definition of exotic species and establishes guidelines for obtaining permits for conducting research and production of transgenic species near the Chesapeake Bay and its surrounding tributaries.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) created a series of research guidelines in response to public concerns about genetic alterations. States such as New York and Maryland passed legislation to control research within their jurisdiction. Local townships in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California, which had research centers within their jurisdiction, adopted local ordinances that mandated compliance with NIH guidelines.(1) Although there has been a lack of action at the national level, the response from state and local government indicates that the controversy over transgenic fish is an issue to local citizens.

States need to take precautionary and preventative measures to protect consumers and the environment from the potential hazards caused by transgenic fish. The sample bill included in this policy issues package does this by requiring permits for all transgenic animals.

See the State Activity page for more information regarding state regulations and rules on transgenic fish.

Sources:
(1) Stenquist, Susan. “Federal and State Regulations Relevant to Uncontained Applications of Genetically Engineered Marine Organisms.” In: Zilinskas, Raymond A. and Peter J. Balint-Kurti, eds. “Genetically Engineered Marine Organisms: Environmental and Economic Risks and Benefits.” Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers, September 1998.