More than five tons of genetically engineered Atlantic salmon are on their way to U.S. restaurants and food service outlets where customers will not be told what they’re eating.
Federal labeling law “directs” companies to disclose genetically modified ingredients through use of a QR code, on-package wording or a symbol. Mandatory compliance takes effect in January 2022, but the rules don’t apply to restaurants or providers of meals away from home.
The Associated Press reports thus far, the only customer to announce it is selling the salmon is Samuels and Son Seafood, a Philadelphia-based distributor.
Bio-tech producer AquaBounty raises the manmade fish that are genetically tweaked to grow twice as fast as wild salmon, reaching an 8- to 12-pound market size in 18 months rather than the normal three years. The fish are reared at an indoor growing facility in Indiana, with other locations planned.
“Most of the salmon in this country is imported, so having a domestic source of supply that isn’t seasonal like wild salmon and that is produced in a highly controlled, bio-secure environment is increasingly important to consumers,” AquaBounty CEO Sylvia Wulf told the AP.
AquaBounty markets the salmon as disease- and antibiotic-free, saying it comes with a reduced carbon footprint and none of the risk of polluting marine ecosystems as in traditional sea-cage farming.
The FDA approved the AquAdvantage Salmon as “safe and effective” in 2015. It was the only genetically modified animal approved for human consumption.
Interest grows
in kelp farming
Alaska’s interest in growing kelp continues to outpace that of shellfish, based on applications filed during the annual window that runs from January through April.
Though the number of applications was down compared to last year, most were to raise kelp, and the pandemic is the likely cause of the recent decline in overall applications.
“We had people whose personal situations changed because of COVID. They became homeschooling parents, things like that, where they can no longer dedicate the time they thought they were going to have out on a farm site,” said Michell Morris, permit coordinator at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The agency partners with the Department of Natural Resources, which leases the lands where aquatic farming takes place.
Of the new applicants, six plan to grow kelp in waters of Kodiak, Yakutat and Cordova, and one intends to farm oysters at Sitka.
So far, 76 active shellfish farm and kelp permits in Alaska cover nearly 900 acres, and 35 pending applications total 1,631 acres, Morris said.
Most of the active farms (42) are located throughout Southeast, with 26 in the Southcentral regions of Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound and eight at Kodiak.
The number of operations reporting sales through 2020 stayed steady at 28, said Flip Pryor, statewide aquaculture section chief at Fish and Game. Overall, sales last year dropped to approximately $1.08 million, down from $1.5 million, with Pacific oysters making up about 80% of the value.
“Production in 2020 dropped below one million oysters for the first time since 2016,” Pryor said.
At the same time, sales of primarily ribbon and sugar kelp doubled, topping 230,000 pounds.
“The statewide value of aquatic plants was just under $200,000, which is a nice jump from $60,000 in 2019,” Pryor added.
Nearly all of the kelp sales came from three Kodiak growers who expect to produce up to 300,000 pounds this year, according to the Kodiak Daily Mirror. All sell their harvests to Blue Evolution, a California-based buyer that produces kelp popcorn, pastas and powders.
Alaska kelp pioneer, Nick Mangini of Kodiak Island Sustainable Seaweed (KISS), also is working with the U.S. Department of Energy on a biofuel project that would eventually need hundreds of millions of pounds of product.
Small growers fill a niche, Pryor said, but it will take bigger operators to scale up the industry’s economic potential.
“Small growers can do things like supply local restaurants because of very low transport costs compared to shipping stuff down to the Lower 48. But it’s going to take those big farms and the big processors that have money to invest to bring that volume up and make those economies of scale happen and provide a constant product,” he said.
“People who are buying kelp for biofuels, for example, don’t want a boom-and-bust sort of thing. They want to know they can count on X number of pounds every single year. And that’s definitely going to take some big operations in the water.”
Shellfish safety zone
Kachemak Bay appears to be a refuge from ocean acidity levels that prevent shellfish and marine creatures from growing skeletons and shells.
That’s based on first results of a study started in 2017 that placed an array of sensors nearshore to test for carbon dioxide levels which indicate ocean acidity. The tested regions never indicated long-term periods of corrosivity, and that’s good news for aqua-farmers doing business in the bay.
Researchers found that Kachemak Bay also is one of the most variable places on Earth in terms of hourly acidic changes, likely due to its vast tidal range.
“I think it’s the second largest in the world being about eight meters or 24 feet in total, in June and December,” said Cale Miller, at the University of California who led the study for his doctoral thesis at the University of California. “The other thing that’s important is the oceanography of the bay itself. You get a lot of influx from the Gulf of Alaska and Cook Inlet, and the Homer Spit bisects the bay into two distinct regions that have different oceanographic patterns. There’s evidence that organisms, especially the photosynthesizing organisms, are different between the inner and outer portions of the bay. And those are what you would call the lower trophic level or food chain items for a lot of other organisms that they live on.”
Miller worked under the guidance of Amanda Kelly, an assistant professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who said the multi-year study will give a better gauge of corrosive water conditions and when they are occurring.
“One of the benefits of studies like these is that we’re able to identify areas that are potentially good for shellfish or maybe not so good, or maybe better for seaweed aquaculture,” she said.
Reader Comments(0)