The bid by the US Federal Drug Administration to approve the first genetically modified animal – a modified salmon – for human consumption will certainly not be an isolated addition to our cuisine. A host of domestic animals, including several other species of fish, have also been genetically altered by scientists – mostly to improve growth rates – and will be considered for approval for sale to the public in the near future.

Thus the GM salmon is a mere starter in the culinary revolution with other seafood examples being provided by transgenic trout, carp and tilapia which may one day be sold in shops, subject to approval. Consider the tilapia. A modified version has been developed so that it can digest protein more efficiently. The result is a giant fish that can grow up to five times the size of a non-transgenic tilapia.

And then there are the meat courses. Transgenic pigs, sheep and cows have all be created by scientists so that these creatures grow faster and larger. As a result, steaks from super-sized cattle or chops from giant pigs may soon be appearing in our supermarkets.

For many people, this is a disquieting prospect. Tinkering with the genetic makeup of animals so that they become vastly more fleshy and muscular makes them unhappy. Hence the "Frankenfish" label that has been stuck to the GM salmon. This sort of thing is simply unnatural, it is argued.

However, we should be cautious about such reactions. For a start, there are few aspects of the food industry that could really be described as "natural". The domestic animals we have created over the millennia, through standard breeding techniques, are certainly very different from the original progenitors of modern cattle or sheep.

Nor have scientists' modifications been solely concerned with producing fleshier animals. In some cases, genes have been introduced to create pigs resistant to viral infections or cows that can better fight off bacteria. Creating healthier animals – albeit as a route to improving productivity in the farmyard – is surely a less ethically contentious business.

And then there is the issue of environmental benefits. Consider the Enviropig, created by scientists at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. It excretes far less phosphorus than a normal pig – a change that has been introduced because phosphorus from unmodified farm animals often leaches into rivers and seas, causing algal growth and "dead zones". The Enviropig gets round this problem because it has been modified so it produces a bacterial enzyme, phytase, that gives it the power to digest more of the most common form of phosphorus found in plants – and so excrete far less.

In short, we may feel disquiet but we have much to gain from GM animals, though we should also temper our hopes for their usefulness. GM technology has its limits. For example, trout that had growth hormone genes added to its genomes produced very varying responses. In domesticated, commercial, fast-growing fish, there was little impact. Their growth hardly improved. However, there was a huge difference in the growth of wild trout – suggesting that domesticated trout had already reached the growth limits inherent in the fish. No need for GM technology, in other words.

Similarly, other studies have found that although some transgenic fish may be persuaded to grow significantly, these animals are often more susceptible to disease. In short, there is a trade off when it comes to adding features to a species.

Thus we can see the technology is promising but still has to prove its worth. The fate of the GM salmon will be followed closely.