A pseudo-debate on GE salmon

Interesting "debate" between Paul Greenberg, an opponent of GE technology and Elliot Entis, the former CEO AquaBounty Technologies. They've used GE to create a faster-growing salmon, which is to be raised in large (inland) fish tanks on primarily plant-based feed (in contrast to conventional farmed salmon which requires primarily fish-based feed). I put "debate" in quotes because the nature of the discussion doesn't resemble a real discussion so much as a bout of eel-wrestling. Entis repeatedly shows Greenberg's claims to be either mistaken or internally inconsistent (e.g,. arguing for "sustainability" at the same time as opposing GE salmon that requires less fish-meal input per unit of output), at which point Greenberg just raises some other point, without ever providing a rebuttal. I don't see how anyone can read this and come away thinking that Greenberg has made a case.

For anyone going to the link and deciding tl;dr; here's a key exchange. The earlier back-and-forth concerns also questions of "ownership" of the breed, environmental impact, labeling and profit.

Greenberg: But what about the fact that traditional growers who may not want to farm with modified stock will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. That they may in fact be obliged to buy salmon juveniles exclusively from AquaBounty. Is that ethical? Is that good for the world?

Entis: I am confused by your raising the question of ethics. Are you really suggesting that improving a product so that people will prefer it is unethical because people with an inferior product will be disadvantaged? Is that what you would have written when the first Model T rolled off the line and the horse and buggy industry cried foul? Your "ethical" objection can be raised against any new invention or product. Do I hope salmon farmers will buy the AquAdvantage eggs? Of course, and then the farmers, consumers, and the environment will benefit. I think that is pretty ethical. 

Greenberg: I suppose it depends on what your definition of an “inferior product” would be. I know you have absolute faith in the safety of your salmon, but others would rather take a longer range view and wait and see if it is truly safe. DDT and PCBs were once considered “safe” in the general marketplace. We only saw their profound impact on the environment decades later.

Entis: Paul how long is the long range? Ten years? A hundred? This argument is the refuge of those who would prefer that this fish and any product of biotechnology never see the commercial light of day.

Very little in our world is perfectly knowable, but over the years I believe that the systems for judging knowable risk have improved in quality and comprehensiveness. I also know that analysis of DDT, PCBs, and other chemical agents used in the past did not undergo 15 or more years of safety research, as has the AquaBounty salmon. I can also point out with no fear of contradiction that no fish has undergone as much testing and analysis as the AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon.

After this exchange, where pretty much every claim Greenberg makes has been countered, Entis asks whether his mind has been changed at all. Greenberg says, in effect, that nothing he learns about this could change his view. So much for open-mindedness.