California Agriculture Online
California Agriculture Home  >   Volume 60   >   Number 3  >   Viewing Expanded Abstract

Peer-reviewed Article

Careful risk assessment needed to evaluate transgenic fish


Alison L. Van Eenennaam, UC Davis
Paul G. Olin, UC Cooperative Extension Sea Grant

publication information

California Agriculture 60(3):126-131. DOI: 10.3733/ca.v060n03p126. July-September 2006.

NALT Keywords

California, fish, risk factors, transgenic animals


The reproductive biology of fish makes them particularly amenable to genetic manipulation. A genetically engineered or “transgenic” Atlantic salmon is currently undergoing federal regulatory review, and international research is being conducted on many other species. The innate ability of fish to escape confinement and potentially invade native ecosystems elevates the ecological concerns associated with their genetic modification. Escaped transgenic fish will not invariably result in deleterious effects on native populations, and careful risk assessment is required to determine the ecological risks unique to each transgene, species and receiving ecosystem combination. In response to public concerns about transgenic fish, California has developed stringent regulations for the importation, possession and raising of transgenic fish, and a California law prohibits their presence in waters of the Pacific Ocean regulated by the state.

author affiliations

A.L. Van Eenennaam is Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Cooperative Extension Specialist, UC Davis; P.G. Olin is Director and Marine Advisor, UC Cooperative Extension Sea Grant.


Aerni P. Risk, regulation and innovation: The case of aquaculture and transgenic fish. Aquat Sci. 2004. 66(3):41. DOI: 10.1007/s00027-004-0715-8 [CrossRef]

California Code of Regulations. Permits for Restricted Species. Subsection (a)(9), Section 671. Title 14. 2003. .

Cook JT, McNiven MA, Richardson GF, et al. Growth rate, body composition and feed digestibility/conversion of growth-enhanced transgenic Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture. 2000. 188(1–2):32. DOI: 10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00331-8 [CrossRef]

Devlin RH, D'Andrade M, Uh M, et al. Population effects of growth hormone transgenic coho salmon depend on food availability and genotype by environment interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004. 101(25):8. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0400023101 [CrossRef]

Devlin RH, Sundstrom LF, Muir WM. Interface of biotechnology and ecology for environmental risk assessments of transgenic fish. Trends Biotechnol. 2006. 24(2):97. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2005.12.008 [CrossRef]

Du SJ, Gong ZY, Fletcher GL, et al. Growth enhancement in transgenic Atlantic salmon by the use of an all fish chimeric growth-hormone gene construct. Bio-Technol. 1992. 10(2):81.

[FDA] US Food and Drug Administration. Questions and answers about transgenic fish. Center for Veterinary Medicine, (accessed 5/31/06).

Fu C, Hu W, Wang Y, et al. Developments in transgenic fish in the People's Republic of China. Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties. 2005. 24(1):307.

Hedrick PW. Invasion of transgenes from salmon or other genetically modified organisms into natural populations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2001. 58(5):4. DOI: 10.1139/cjfas-58-5-841 [CrossRef]

Kalaitzandonakes N, Bijman J. Who is driving biotechnology acceptance?. Nat Biotechnol. 2003. 21(4):9. DOI: 10.1038/nbt0403-366 [CrossRef]

Lynch M, O'Hely M. Captive breeding and the genetic fitness of natural populations. Conserv Genet. 2001. 2:78. DOI: 10.1023/A:1012550620717 [CrossRef]

Maclean N, Rahman MA, Sohm F, et al. Transgenic tilapia and the tilapia genome. Gene. 2002. 295(2):77. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1119(02)00735-7 [CrossRef]

Muir WM, Howard RD. Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: Sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999. 96(24):6. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.24.13853 [CrossRef]

Muir WM, Howard RD. Fitness components and ecological risk of transgenic release: A model using Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes). Am Nat. 2001. 158(1):16. DOI: 10.1086/320860 [CrossRef]

Muir WM, Howard RD. Assessment of possible ecological risks and hazards of transgenic fish with implications for other sexually reproducing organisms. Transgenic Res. 2002. 11(2):14. DOI: 10.1023/A:1015203812200 [CrossRef]

Muir WM, Howard RD. Characterization of environmental risk of genetically engineered (GE) organisms and their potential to control exotic invasive species. Aquat Sci. 2004. 66(4):20. DOI: 10.1007/s00027-004-0721-x [CrossRef]

Nam YK, Noh JK, Cho YS, et al. Dramatically accelerated growth and extraordinary gigantism of transgenic mud loach Misgurnus mizolepis. Transgenic Res. 2001. 10(4):62. DOI: 10.1023/A:1016696104185 [CrossRef]

[NRC] National Research Council. Animal Biotechnology: Science-Based Concerns. 2002. Washington, DC:Nat Acad Pr.

NRC. Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms. 2004. Washington, DC:Nat Acad Pr.

Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Future Fish: Issues in Science and Regulation of Transgenic Fish. 2003. Washington, DC.: .

Slanchev K, Stebler J, Cueva-Mendez G, et al. Development without germ cells: The role of the germ line in zebrafish sex differentiation. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2005. 102(11):9. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0407475102 [CrossRef]

Uzbekova S, Chyb J, Ferriere F, et al. Transgenic rainbow trout expressed sGnRH-antisense RNA under the control of sGnRH promoter of Atlantic salmon. J Mol Endocrinol. 2000. 25(3):50. DOI: 10.1677/jme.0.0250337 [CrossRef]