Aquabounty Salmon Analysis

I chose a debate about AquaBounty's genetically modified salmon, which is designed to gown continuously instead of seasonally, and was approved by the F.D.A. It is the first genetically modified salmon to be sold in the United States. It has been argued by some critics that the studies done on the salmon are inadequate and that not labeling the salmon as genetically modified is dangerous to consumers. The author of the debate, Nina Fedoroff, is in favor of the G.M.O salmon.
First, she brings up that wild salmon are in decline because of over-fishing, open water cages, pollution, disease, and consumption. She says that because of how AquaBounty salmon is raised and fed, they would take pressure off wild salmon and make salmon farming more sustainable. She makes a sound point here. Her reasons are that AquaBounty salmon is raised in on-shore recirculation systems that eliminate escapement,
Furthermore, she states that the organic food producers are marketing there food for more money, not because it is better, but because their farming is inefficient. The conclusion being that it is in their best interests to tell scare stories about G.M.O products because it will make people want to buy the organic food instead. This argument would be sound, if it were true. However, this looks to me like a classic example of Ad Hominem, where the arguer tries to discount someone they are arguing against by discrediting them. The last argument is that because the G.M.O salmon are all female and sterile, so even if they did end up in the wild environment they would be unable to breed with are harm the wild stocks. This is a sound argument. Only sterile females are being grown, therefore, even if the salmon did escape, they would be unable to interbreed with the wild stock and destroy them. The reasons are true and proven and they clearly support the conclusion. This is a sound