Thank you for the question.
Actually, when we're talking about “shifting the onus,” what we are trying to understand is the following: why make a genetically modified version of an organism when that organism already exists in the wild?
I've been working on this issue for nearly 15 years. Fifteen years ago, AquaBounty told us that its salmon matured twice as fast. Then, it was only one and a half times as fast. In the promotional video that came out when the company announced its production launch, no mention was made of the fact that its salmon grew more quickly. Now, there's no mention on the company site of its salmon maturing more quickly.
They made us believe that their salmon matured more quickly, perhaps to attract investors and to help advance the technology used. That is not the case currently, and the Norwegians, the biggest salmon farmers in the world, are able to raise non-genetically modified salmon as quickly as AquaBounty.
Why take the risk of genetically modifying a living species that can contaminate ecosystems when there's no advantage for the consumer or for animal production?