'Frankenfish': food's future

The problem is not that these people are obsessed, but that they inflict their obsessions on society by convincing politicians and regulators that they represent mainstream opinion. They invent scary stories, mislead the media, enlist gullible politicians and public figures, and frighten off investors with threats of boycotts and other direct action.

Because of them most of Europe thinks food from genetically modified sources is bad for human health, the environment or animal welfare, or all of the above, contrary to all scientific evidence. So bizarre has it become that the EU won't even buy GM canola to convert into biodiesel for use in cars and machinery.

At the same time there are no concerns about the use of genetically modified organisms to produce vaccines, insulin or other pharmaceuticals, whether for humans or animals, or the use of genetically modified rennet in the production of cheese. There is nothing rational about irrational obsessives.

By any objective measure Canada's genetically modified fish should be welcomed with open arms. It will make a healthy fish diet cheaper and more readily available, while relieving the pressure on wild fisheries.

Of course the risks will be fully considered by experts prior to it being approved for human consumption, but there is nothing inherently hazardous about eating a piece of salmon with DNA from both Atlantic and Chinook species. You could just as easily consume a meal comprising a separate piece from each.

If they escaped from a fish farm and were capable of breeding with wild fish (which may not be the case), they would only grow faster if the same level of food was available as in a fish farm. That is not likely. And so what if they grow faster anyway?

But whether the public, media, politicians and regulators recognise the benefits, or are swayed by the anti-GM obsessives, is far from certain. If the history of GM crops is any guide, we are in for a long, tortuous battle.