WRITTEN QUESTION E-1627/00

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) and Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Genetically modified salmon

Various sources of information report that an American company (AF Protein) is planning to bring genetically modified salmon on to the market. In this salmon, the gene that is responsible for the production of growth hormones is modified. This causes the modified salmon to have a much higher growth rate than its natural congener. There is a risk that modified salmon will oppress its natural congeners and thus eliminate in the longer term the genetic material of natural salmon. Furthermore, little is known about their sensitivity to diseases. Although the company argues that their salmon is infertile, there is reason to doubt the safety of this product. If the product is commercialised on a large scale, one mistake could cause an enormous disaster.

European producers have indicated that they are interested and willing to bring this salmon on to the European market.

Is the Commission aware of plans to commercialise genetically modified salmon?

Does the Commission share the view that such practices pose great risks as regards biodiversity, fish diseases and the survival of non-modified species?

What is the Commission's position on the possible future introduction of modified salmon on to the European market?

Is the Commission willing to undertake action (at WTO and UN level) to prevent this?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

The Commission is aware of several press articles dealing with genetically modified salmon. Apparently the development of fast growing salmon has reached a state where commercial use appears feasible. In particular companies from North America have expressed their interest.

An application has been submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration for permission to market such salmon (see Nature, Vol. 406 of 6 July 2000, pp. 10-12). In addition to examining whether transgenic salmon are fit for human consumption and animal welfare aspects, the potential environmental impact is being examined in conjunction with two other agencies (Fish and Wildlife Service and National Maríne Fisheries Service).

The Commission has funded some research projects on the potential risks of transgenic fish in contained facilities. This ensures that Europe has the expertise available to address the safety issues. However, further research is required to ensure that such fish, on a case by case basis, would not have unacceptable impacts on biodiversity and the environment in general.

Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990, on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms(1) (GMOs) covers both experimental and commercial releases of GMOs and would include releases of genetically engineered salmon. Applications for such releases require, as a pre-requisite, a comprehensive assessment of risks to human health and the environment. They are considered on a case-by-case basis. An authorisation is only granted on the basis that there is no reason to believe that the release will have an adverse effect on human health or the environment under the conditions of consent.

There have been no applications yet for commercial releases of genetically modified salmon under Directive 90/220/EEC and no consents for such have been granted. Similarly, the Commission has received no summary notifications from Member States with respect to experimental releases of genetically modified salmon under the Directive.

In addition, if the salmon were destined for human consumption, it would have to undergo prior authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients(2). Again, authorisations will only be granted on the basis that there is no reason to believe that the release would have an adverse effect on human health or the environment.

Any action would depend on the detailed analysis of the circumstances in a concrete case.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.

(2) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.