www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/330/6007/1052/dc1 Supporting Online Material for Genetically Modified Salmon and Full Impact Assessment Martin D. Smith,* Frank Asche, Atle G. Guttormsen, Jonathan B. Wiener *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: marsmith@duke.edu Published 19 November 2010, Science 330, 1052 (2010) DOI: 10.1126/science.1197769 This PDF file includes: SOM Text References
Supporting Online Material Genetically Modified Salmon and Full Impact Assessment Figure 1 Explanation and Data The real price (i.e., adjusted for inflation) of salmon and the relative price of salmon to beef have decreased as salmon production and real income have increased. Indexing shows change relative to the base period (1981 in the case of Figure 1). The indexed relative price was 0.46 in 2009, meaning that the relative price of salmon to beef has dropped by more than 50% from 1981 to 2009. Reinforcing these relative price decreases is health advice to eat more fish, most notably the American Heart Association s recommendation to eat fish at least twice a week with an emphasis on fatty fish like salmon (S1). Nominal beef prices (i.e., not adjusted for inflation) are from Historical monthly price spread data for beef, pork, broilers, turkeys, and eggs (S2). Salmon prices are wholesale prices based on Norwegian exports (S3). Real prices are computed using the US Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers from Table Containing History of CPI-U U.S. All Items Indexes and Annual Percent Changes From 1913 to Present, (S4). Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita is from the International Monetary Fund (S5). GDP is expressed in inflation-adjusted USD per person. Data are derived by dividing constant price GDP by total population. Real prices are indexed by dividing each period s real price by the real price in 1981. GDP is indexed similarly by dividing GDP in each period by 1981 GDP. Salmon quantity produced through 2007 is from the UNFAO FishStat (S6). Salmon quantities for 2008-2009 are from Kontali Analyse (S7). The justification for mixing Norwegian prices, global production, and U.S. prices stems from the fact that the global salmon market is highly integrated, and Norway is the largest farmed salmon producer and provides the most consistent time series. Salmon aquaculture as an industry became commercially viable around 1980, as production reached 5,000 metric tons. Since then production has increased rapidly, reaching over 1.4 million metric tons in 2009. The main reason for this growth has been innovation and implementation of new technology, which have helped production costs to decline, increasing the competitiveness of salmon relative to other products (S8). Norway has been the leading farmed salmon producer throughout the period 1981-2009, with a production share starting at more than 90% in 1980 and stabilizing around 50% since the late 1980s. Because of Norway s leading role, a consistent data series on production and trade has been collected virtually throughout the industry s existence. This Norwegian data series is more complete than the data collected by the United States, EU and other countries importing, exporting, or producing salmon. For most years of our data set, the United States was the world s largest producer of wild salmon, landing significant quantities of the species chinook, chum, coho, pink, and sockeye (S9). As such, the United States has been a large exporter of salmon. But the United States was
also a significant importer of salmon before the advent of salmon aquaculture. Until January 1988, the U.S. trade statistics did not identify the different species of salmon but only separated the data by product forms (S10). Since January 1988, the trade statistics have separated data by species, and since June 1992, the statistics also have indicated production technology. A number of studies have investigated the degree of market integration for salmon (S11 S17). The results indicate that there is a global market for farmed Atlantic salmon, containing all main product forms. These findings imply that any consistent data series of the salmon price will measure the global price of salmon. Hence, the Norwegian export price -- the longest price series to which we have access -- provides the longest price series available for farmed Atlantic salmon. Moreover, there is no evidence of market segmentation from attempts to differentiate organic salmon (S18). Health Benefits from Increased Salmon Consumption Mozaffarian and Rimm conduct a series of meta-analyses to quantify the risks and benefits of fish intake (S19). They synthesize their main findings: Modest consumption of fish (eg, 1-2 servings/wk), especially species higher in the n-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexeaenoic acid (DHA), reduces risk of coronary death by 36% (95% confidence interval, 20%-50%; P<0.001) and total mortality by 17% (95% confidence interval 0%-32%; P=0.46) and may favorably affect other clinical outcomes. Intake of 250 mg/d of EPA and DHA appears sufficient for primary prevention. (S19, p. 1885) Because salmon is so high in these n-3 fatty acids, consumers can obtain 250 mg/d by consuming just one small serving each week. Similarly small consumption levels of anchovy or sardine would provide the recommended 250 mg/d, but obtaining 250 mg/d from tuna, shrimp, catfish, scallops, or cod requires considerably more consumption (S19, Figure 6, p. 1894). Low-income Consumers Despite its declining relative price over time, fresh salmon is still expensive compared to other protein sources. The average U.S. retail price per pound for fresh salmon fillets in December 2009 was $7.99 (S20), while retail prices per pound of other animal protein sources were substantially lower, including ground beef ($3.07), beef steak ($5.37), bacon ($3.57), ham ($2.16), and boneless chicken breast ($3.31) (S2). Market studies indicate that consumption of fresh salmon increases with income (S21), which means that the substitution effect and the income effect of a salmon price decline are reinforcing: that is, reducing the price of salmon (relative to other protein sources) will encourage substitution toward salmon consumption, and will also slightly increase consumers effective remaining disposable income which itself will increase their propensity to consume salmon. Low-income individuals in the United States people at or below 130% of the federal poverty threshold consume less finfish and shellfish
than average U.S. consumers (11.32g/person/day compared to 12.83 g/person/day) (S22). James, Nelson, Ralph, and Leather argue that there is scope for enormous health gain if a diet rich in vegetables, fruit, unrefined cereal, fish, and small quantities of quality vegetable oils could be more accessible to poor people. (S23, p. 1545) Further price decreases in farmed salmon could put fresh salmon within reach for more low-income households. References S1. American Heart Association. 2010. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4632. S2. USDA-ERS. 2010. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/meatpricespreads/. S3. Norwegian Seafood Exports Council. 2010. S4. USDL-BLS. 2010. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/#tables. S5. International Monetary Fund. 2010. World Economic Outlook, http://www.imf.org/external/data.htm S6. UN-FAO. 2010. http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstat/en. S7. Kontali Analyse, Monthly Reports, (2008-2009). S8. Asche, F. 2008. Farming the Sea. Marine Resource Economics 23(4): 507-527. S9. Knapp, G., C. A. Roheim and J. L. Anderson. 2007. The Great Salmon Run: Competition Between Wild and Farmed salmon. Washington: TRAFIC. S10. NOAA. 2010. www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/trade/index.html S11. Asche, F. 2001. Testing the effect of an anti-dumping duty: The US salmon market. Empirical Economics 26(2): 343-355. S12. Asche, F., H. Bremnes and C. R. Wessells. 1999. Product Aggregation, Market Integration and Relationships Between Prices: An Application to World Salmon Markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(August): 568-581. S13. Asche, F., A. G. Guttormsen, T. Sebulonsen and E. H. Sissener. 2005. Competition between farmed and wild salmon: The Japanese salmon market. Agricultural Economics 33: 333-340. S14. Jaffry, S., S. Pascoe, G. Taylor and U. Zabala. 2000. Price interactions between salmon and wild caught fish species on the Spanish market. Aquaculture Economics and Management 4: 157-168. S15. Nielsen, M., J. Setala, J. Laitinen, K. Saarni, J. Virtanen and A. Honkanen. 2007. Market Integration of Farmed Trout in Germany. Marine Resource Economics 22: 195-213. S16. Nielsen, M., J. Smit and J. Guillen. 2009. Market Integration of Fish in Europe. Journal of Agricultural Economics 60: 367-385. S17. Valderrama, D. and J. L. Anderson. 2010. Market interactions between aquaculture and common-property fisheries: Recent evidence from the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery in Alaska. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59: 115-128.
S18. Aarset B, S. Beckmann, J. Bigne, M.C.M. Beveridge, T. Bjorndal, M.J. Bunting, P. McDonagh, C. Mariojouls, J.F. Muir, A. Prothero, A.P. Smith, R. Tveteras, J.A. Young. 2004. The European consumers' understanding and perceptions of 'organic' food. British Food Journal 106(2&3):93-105. S19. D. Mozaffarian, E. B. Rimm. 2006. Fish intake, contaminants, and human health - Evaluating the risks and the benefits. Journal of the American Medical Association 296, 1885. S20. Urner Barry, Weekly National Feature Activity 13, 1 (2009). S21. J. Xie, H. W. Kinnucan, Ø. Myrland. 2009. Demand Elasticities for Farmed Salmon in World Trade. European Review of Agricultural Economics 36, 425 S22. U. S. EPA. "Estimated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the United States"(Washington DC, 2002). S23. James, W.P.T., M. Nelson, A. Ralph, S. Leather. 1997. Socioeconomic determinants of health: The contribution of nutrition to inequalities in health. British Journal of Medicine 314:1545.