And really, aren't all commercially grown organisms technically genetically modified via artificial selection?
ChairmanPoo: Bacteria do things with DNA that eukaryotes frankly can't (restriction enzymes. plasmids.) so you get some interesting sequences from the resultant slurry, and between them and archaea there's a great many proteins with potentially useful functions that eukaryotes never evolved to synthesize--but probably can, if you don't get unlucky and see it ubiquitylated or misfolded. Also consider the relative simplicity of prokaryotic transmission and translation-- at least as far as I'm aware there's less in the way of massive posttranslational modification and having one protein modified by a dozen others going on, and operons are easier to account for than activation factors(less so promoters), so once you've found a given protein in a prokaryotic proteome that you want it's more straightforward to go back to the genome.
As to my two cents on this...this reminds me a lot of the debate between margarine and butter that caused Wisconsin to mandate, for a time, that margarine producers color their product bright pink to clearly distinguish it from butter--while, of course, butter producers were decrying the despicable artificial coloration practices of their competitors and quietly dumping amaretto into their tanks. There was a lot of pseudoscience and partially justified fears among the public then, too, and there's still a seesaw back and forth as to which is healthier. I almost hope we see a close parallel here so that they're forced to add Glofish DNA to these salmon--and I challenge you to find me a lawmaker who wouldn't consider this a reasonable demand after a sufficiently lucrative meeting with fisheries-- and I can finally have Technicolor fluorescent sushi.