Abstract
Improvements in production methods over the last two decades have resulted in aquaculture becoming a significant contributor to food production in many countries. Increased efficiency and production levels are off-setting unsustainable capture fishing practices and contributing to food security, particularly in a number of developing countries. The challenge for the rapidly growing aquaculture industry is to develop and apply technologies that ensure sustainable production methods that will reduce environmental damage, increase productivity across the sector, and respect the diverse social and cultural dimensions of fish farming that are observed globally. The aquaculture industry currently faces a number of technology trajectories, which include the option to commercially produce genetically modified (GM) fish. The use of genetic modification in aquaculture has the potential to contribute to increased food security and is claimed to be the next logical step for the industry. However, the potential use of these technologies raises a number of important ethical questions. Using an ethical framework, the Ethical Matrix, this paper explores a number of the ethical issues potentially raised by the use of GM technologies in aquaculture. Several key issues have been identified. These include aspects of distributive justice for producers; use of a precautionary approach in the management of environmental risk and food safety; and impacts on the welfare and intrinsic value of the fish. There is a need to conduct a comparative analysis of the full economic cycle of the use of GM fish in aquaculture production for developing countries. There is also a need to initiate an informed dialogue between stakeholders and strenuous efforts should be made to ensure the participation of producers and their representatives from developing nations. An additional concern is that any national licensing of the first generation of GM fish, i.e., in the USA, may initiate and frame an assessment cycle, mediated by the WTO, which could dominate the conditions under which the technology will be applied and regulated globally. Therefore, an integrated analysis of the technology development trajectories, in terms of international policy, IPR, and operational implications, as well as an analysis of a broader range of ethical concerns, is needed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Agricultural Biotechnology Research Advisory Committee (ABRAC) (1995), Performance Standards for Safely Conducting Research with Genetically Modified Fish and Shellfish. http://www.isb.vt.edu/perfstands/
Aerni, P. (2004) Risk, Regulation and Innovation: The Case of Aquaculture and Transgenic Fish. Aquatic Science 66, 327–341
Beardmore, J. A. and J. S. Porter (2003), Genetically Modified Organisms and Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 989 FIRI/C989(E). FAO, ISSN 0429-9329, 35pp
Center for Food Safety (2002), List of 25 fish distributors who took the “GE fish pledge” not to buy or sell GM fish http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Distributor%20List.pdf
Commission of the European Communities (2002), A Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture COM(2002) 511 Final. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. CEC, Brussels, 26pp
Delgado, C. L., N. Wada, M. W. Rosegrant, S. Meijer, and M. Ahmed (2003), Outlook for Fish to 2020: Meeting Global Demand. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Washington DC USA and the WorldFish Center, Malaysia, 36pp ISBN 0896296474
Dunham, R. A., G. W. Warr, A. Nichols, P. Duncan, B. Argue, D. Middleton, H. Kucuktas (2002) Enhanced Bacterial Disease Resistance of Transgenic Channel Catfish (Ictalurus Punctatus) Possessing Cecropin Genes. Marine-Biotechnology 4, 338–344
FAO (2005), Ethical Issues in Fisheries. FAO Ethics Series 4. FAO, Rome, 39pp
FAO (2004a), The State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology Meeting the Needs of the Poor? FAO, Rome
FAO (2004b), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2004. FAO, Rome
FAO (2003), Review of the State of World Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 886, Rev.2. FAO Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service. FAO, Rome, 95pp
FAOSTAT (2004), FAOSTAT on-line statistical service, FAO, Rome http://apps.fao.org accessed 19 December 2006
Food Standards Agency (2006), Your Guide to Oily Fish, February 2006). http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2004/jun/fishportionslifestagechart accessed 19 December 2006
Goos, H., R. Rastogi, H. Vaudry, and R. Pierantoni (2001), “Are transgenic fish for aquaculture doomed to extinction?” Proceedings of the International Conference on Perspectives in Comparative Endocrinology: Unity and Diversity. 26–30 May 2001, Sorrento, Italy. ISBN: 88–323–1526–2
Hallerman, E. M. (1997) Bioethics and Biotechnology. Naga: The ICLARM Quarterly 20(1):13–17
Hallerman, E. M., A. R. Kapuscinski (1990) Transgenic Fish and Public Policy: Patenting of Transgenic Fish. Fisheries 15(1):21–24
Hallerman, E. M., E. McLean, I. A. Fleming (2007) Effects of Growth Hormone Transgenes on the Behavior and Welfare of Aquacultured Fishes: A Review Identifying Research Needs. Applied Animal Behavior Science 104, 265–294
Hew, C. L., G. Fletcher (2001) The Role of Aquatic Biotechnology in Aquaculture. Aquaculture 197, 191–204
Hostetler, H. A., P. Collodi, R. H. Devlin, W. M. Muir (2005), Improved Phytate Phosphorus Utilization by Japanese Medaka Transgenic for the Aspergillus Niger Phytase Gene. Zebrafish 2, 19–31
Jhingan, E., R. H. Devlin, G. K. Iwama (2003) Disease Resistance, Stress Response and Effects of Triploidy in Growth Hormone Transgenic Coho Salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 63(3):806–823
Kaiser, M. (1997) Fish-Farming and the Precautionary Principle: Context and Value in Environmental Science for Policy. Foundation of Science 2:307–431
Kaiser, M. (2005) Assessing Ethics and Animal Welfare in Animal Biotechnology for Farm Production. Revue Scientifique et Techique (International Office of Epizootics) 24(1), 75–87
Kok, E. J. and W. Jones (2004), The Food Safety Risk Assessment of GM Animals. Topic Paper 4. FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Animals, including Fish Rome, 17–21 November 2003. FAO/WHO, Rome, 15pp
Logar, N., L. Pollock (2005) Transgenic Fish: Is a New Policy Framework Necessary for a New Technology. Environmental Science and Policy 8, 17–27
Maclean, N. (2003) Genetically Modified Fish and Their Effects on Food Quality and Human Health and Nutrition. Trends in Food Science and Technology 14, 242–252
Mao, W., Y. Wang, W. Wang, B. Wu, J. Feng, Z. Zhu (2004) Enhanced Resistance to Aeromonas Hydrophila Infection and Enhanced Phagocytic Activities in Human Lactoferrin-Transgenic Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon Idellus). Aquaculture 422, 93–103
Mepham, B., M. Kaiser, E. Thorstensen, S. Tomkins, K. Millar (2006) Ethical Matrix Manual. Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), The Netherlands
Muir, J. (2005) Managing to Harvest? Perspectives on the Potential of Aquaculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 360, 191–218
NRC (2002), Animal Biotechnology: Identifying Science-Based Concerns. National Research Council, The National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA
NRC (2004), Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms. National Research Council, The National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA
PIFB (2003). Future Fish: Issues in Science and Regulation of Transgenic Fish. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Washington DC, USA
Pimbert, M. P. and Wakeford, T. (2002), Prajateerpu: A Citizens' Jury/Scenario Workshop on Food and Farming Futures for Andhra Pradesh, India, London: IEED and Sussex: IDS
Pretty, J., N. Brett, D. Gee, R. E. Hine, C. F. Mason, J. I. L. Morrison, H. Raven, M. Rayment, van der Bijl (2000) An Assessment of the Total External Costs of UK Agriculture. Agricultural Systems 65, 113–136
Subasinghe, R. P. (2003), “An outlook for aquaculture development: major issues, opportunities and challenges.” In Review of the State of World Aquaculture, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy
WHO (2006), Public Heath, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights. WHO Press, 228pp
Zbikowska, H. M. (2003) Fish can be First – Advances in Fish Transgenesis for Commercial Applications. Transgenic Research 12, 379–389
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Millar, K., Tomkins, S. Ethical Analysis of the Use of GM Fish: Emerging Issues for Aquaculture Development. J Agric Environ Ethics 20, 437–453 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9051-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9051-z