A genetically engineered scandal, twenty years in the making, and far more sinister than your local fishmonger dares to admit.

As Recounted By Lady Simmertown

Dearest Gentle Reader,

Permit me a moment of candor, for what I am about to reveal may cause you to put down your fork and question whether what lies on your plate is truly… alive.

Not in the literal sense, of course. Heaven forbid.
But rather, alive in the sense that it was born of nature, nurtured in briny waters, kissed by current and tide, and not, as it were, concocted in a laboratory tank by men in coats playing Neptune with a scalpel.

I speak, of course, of the creature known colloquially as Frankenfish, though its true name, wrapped in sterile elegance, is AquAdvantage Salmon. Developed by the mysterious minds at AquaBounty Technologies, this genetically engineered fish was the first of its kind: an animal approved for human consumption that did not exist in nature.

Let us, dear reader, plunge headfirst into the murky waters of corporate ambition, ecological betrayal, and bureaucratic betrayal. For this is not merely a tale of salmon, it is a tale of how one fish became the face of a movement to feed the world… by rewriting the laws of biology.

A Fish by Any Other Genome

In the beginning, there was the Atlantic salmon. Elegant, predictable, and slow-growing. She took three years to reach market size, a pace unbefitting the modern appetite.

Enter the genetic puppeteers.

By splicing the growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon, a species known for its considerable size, and inserting a genetic “on switch” from the ocean pout, a cold-dwelling, eel-like fish with a natural antifreeze protein, AquaBounty created a salmon that grew twice as fast, needed less food, and matured in tanks like obedient little miracles of science.

And just like that, with a bit of DNA wrangling and a lot of corporate polish, Frankenfish was born.

But fear not, they told us, it would be sterile. It would never escape. It would be raised inland. A marvel of modern engineering, contained neatly in a tank, far from the turbulent sea.

The problem, darling, is that nature always finds a way.
And so do regulators… when no one is looking.

A Secret, Twenty Years in the Making

The application to bring Frankenfish to market was first submitted to the FDA in 1995. It was not approved until 2015, and only became commercially available in the early 2020s.

What transpired during those two decades?

Nothing short of bureaucratic theatre, scripted behind velvet curtains.

Rather than classifying the genetically modified fish as a new food product, the FDA, ever the imaginative bureaucrat, classified the inserted DNA as a veterinary drug. Why? Because the DNA “affects the animal’s structure or function.”

This clever little maneuver allowed the entire process to avoid many of the environmental and food safety regulations one might expect when introducing an entirely novel lifeform into the global food supply.

There were no public warning labels. No consumer consultations. No ethical debates in town squares. Only meetings behind closed doors, with data redacted and opposition muffled.

And when the approval finally came, it came quietly, a whisper rather than a splash, buried in technical memos and clinical reports few would ever read.

The Ecological Horror Script Practically Writes Itself

Let us imagine, for a moment, what might occur should even a single non-sterile genetically modified salmon slip past its landlocked prison.

AquaBounty insists the fish are sterile. But they also admit, in the fine print, that only 99% are guaranteed sterile. A detail one might overlook, until that 1% meets a wild cousin and mates with the grace of Godzilla in a koi pond.

Scientists have raised the alarm about the “Trojan gene effect,” a phenomenon in which genetically modified organisms, once introduced to the wild, outcompete native species due to unnatural traits (like hyper-growth), only to eventually collapse the entire gene pool because their offspring are less viable.

It is ecological extinction by seduction.
A love story turned horror.
And all it takes is one fish.

AquaBounty assures us their tanks are secure. But as history has shown us, whether it be Burmese pythons in Florida, zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, or the housecat in every continent, escape is always possible.

And once released, there is no putting this fish back in the net.

Follow the Slippery Trail

If one wonders why so little was said, why the approval came so quietly, why labeling was not mandatory for years, one need only follow the money.

AquaBounty was funded by venture capitalists and biotech firms, including heavy investment from Intrexon and venture partners with ties to Monsanto. These are not fishmongers, but empires built on patents.

The genetically modified salmon is intellectual property, you see. It is not as much food, as it is a licensed asset. Farmers must purchase the eggs from AquaBounty. They cannot breed them independently. Each fish is trademarked life.

This isn’t about feeding the world, but about bottling life, slapping on a trademark, and selling it back to us by the pound.

And while the FDA waltzed hand-in-fin with corporate lobbyists, millions of Americans were eating this fish, with no label, no warning, and certainly no informed consent.

Lies in the Grocery Aisle

For years, there was no requirement for GMO salmon to be labeled in the United States. The FDA, in its infinite caution, decided that since the fish was “substantially equivalent” in taste and nutrition, no labeling was necessary.

Substantially equivalent.

Never mind that it grows twice as fast, contains foreign DNA, and was raised in controlled tanks, while its natural cousin swims wild and free in Arctic rivers.

It wasn’t until 2022, after immense public pressure and lawsuits, that labeling laws began to change, requiring companies to disclose the presence of bioengineered ingredients. But even then, they were allowed to use QR codes or digital links, rather than clear, front-facing labels.

Because nothing says transparency like having to scan your dinner with a smartphone at the seafood counter.

The Death of Wildness, Served with Lemon

It must be said that AquaBounty did not set out to poison the world. Their intentions were, at least outwardly, noble: to reduce overfishing, to create a more sustainable protein source, to provide affordable nutrition.

But good intentions do not make good science.

The release of genetically modified animals into our food supply, without long-term human testing, without public dialogue, without honest labeling, is not innovation.
It is a gamble.

And the stakes are our oceans, our ecosystems, and the right to know what we are consuming.

Once wildness is tamed, it can never be undone.
Once a gene is released, it cannot be recalled.
Once the public trusts a regulator who fails them… well, trust me, darling. They shan’t be so trusting next time.

A Final Word

They fed us lies.
Filleted, flash-frozen, and served on a bed of corporate promises.

They told us it was the future.
But it was a creature, a stitched-together marvel of synthetic biology masquerading as dinner.

This fish, dear reader, may very well have passed your lips already.
And if not, it surely will, unless you read your labels and question your grocers as you would a suitor of uncertain lineage.

Because not all monsters live under the bed.
Some are grilled with lemon and capers.

Yours in scandal and sashimi,

~ Lady Simmertown

For the Skeptics and the Scholars

A collection of respected sources for those who wish to read beyond the ink-stained drama.

Government & Regulatory Documents

• U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA).
  “AquAdvantage Salmon Approval Letter.”
  https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/aquadvantage-salmon
  — The official FDA approval of AquaBounty’s GMO salmon, including regulatory rationale and classification as a “new animal drug.”
• U.S. Congress.
  National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (2016).
  https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/764
  — The legislation that finally led to GMO labeling in the U.S., albeit with loopholes.

Scientific & Peer-Reviewed Sources

• Devlin, R. H., et al.
  “Growth and survival of genetically engineered fish.”
  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 128(1), 59-69 (1999).
  — One of the foundational studies showing how fast-growing GE salmon can outcompete wild salmon, raising ecological concerns.
• Muir, W. M., & Howard, R. D.
  “Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis.”
  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(24), 13853–13856 (1999).
  — The original formulation of the Trojan Gene Effect, warning that GE animals with reproductive advantages may drive species to extinction.
• Van Eenennaam, A. L., & Muir, W. M.
  “Transgenic salmon: a final leap to the grocery shelf?”
  Nature Biotechnology, 29(8), 706–710 (2011).
  — Explores both the scientific promise and ethical dilemmas of genetically modified salmon.

Investigative & Public Reporting

• New York Times – Pollack, A.
  “Genetically Engineered Salmon Approved for Consumption.” (2015)
  https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/business/fda-approves-genetically-engineered-salmon.html
  — A pivotal report outlining how quietly the FDA passed the approval and the public backlash that followed.
• Center for Food Safety.
  “Genetically Engineered Salmon.”
  https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/1040/ge-fish
  — Advocacy group coverage on legal challenges, environmental lawsuits, and consumer rights regarding GE fish.
• Smithsonian Magazine – Yeager, A.
  “Would You Eat Genetically Modified Salmon?” (2018)
  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/would-you-eat-genetically-modified-salmon-180970117/
  — Balanced public-facing explanation of both the science and controversy of Frankenfish.