GMO Fish are coming, Good or bad?

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.discovery.com/animals/fish- ... ified.html
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-fda ... 5459.story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02424.html

Genetically Modified Salmon are on their way and it's looking they'll be approved by the FDA.

I don't think consumption wise it should be much of an issue since it's genetic modification and not chemical modification, but there are still some concerns I have.

First, there's always that risk that the GM Salmon may escape into the wild and cross-breed with wild salmon and destroy their genetic diversity. I hear they are trying to work out some safeguards by either sterilizing the fish or confining them to in-land fish farms. But should they happen to get out and interbreed what are going to be the consequences? I am assuming AquaBounty owns the GM Salmon's genes as is the norm for GMOs and if that gene spreads into the wild, will that cause AquaBounty to own all the salmon in the ocean?

It's a real legal issue that hasn't been addressed so far. Monsanto went into a litigation frenzy the past decade over traces of it's GM Crops ending up accidentally in other people farms and it put many family farms right out of business and cross-contamination of their crops is already happening in Mexico and S. America. Could the same happen with GM Animals? Probably and I think it needs to addressed very seriously.

Second, they're still debating over whether to have GM Salmon labeled as such. I think it should simply because it enables consumer choice. Yet there is resistance to idea by the companies themselves. They label where the Salmon came from in the supermarket so I don't see why they shouldn't add such GM information. If people won't buy it if it's GM, then that's consumer choice at work. Free market rules.

I have a bit of a distant third concern as well and that is the scientists at the FDA. I would like to know who they are and if there any conflicts of interest involved. Reason being is that the FDA has had several former Monsanto people employed before that certainly helped get their bovine growth hormone approved with insufficient testing. I can't rule out the possibility of conflicts of interest here but there are reasons for my critical view of the FDA with something like this.

So what are others thoughts on the issue? good, bad? Other concerns?

I like salmon and cook it regularly so I hope it goes well. But the wild salmon is still better than the farm raised for me, so much leaner and tastier. The GM Salmon won't change my opinion on that anyway.

I would be amazed if this were not the case. There might not be identifiable 'in your face' conflicts of interest that would pop up in a few hours research, but rather some sort of loose back-scratching network iyswim.

Ive long regarded the FDA as a rubber-stamping exercise for the major corporations; monsanto, dupont, 3M etc. get to do whatever they want whilst any small-time firms that want to move in on the market get forced to jump through increasingly difficult hoops.

"insufficient testing" - This is exactly why i am opposed to GM food.

They can pull all the "starving Africans" BS all they want, there are alternatives to GM food, as in subsidising local farmers and have them grow the food, creating an industry as well, instead of having them stay dependant on foreign aid. But thats the difference between long term thinking and short sightedness - or Europe and US.

I'm glad that we do not have that s**t in Europe and that the Us Gov. allow for testing GM food on their own population as if it was a pet science project. But hey - if nothing bad happens right?

And yes, I am willing to eat my own words in 40 years rather than to eat GM food now.

The thought that you can own genetic code is in my eyes moronic if they could actually contain it i might say its justified but they obviously can't because its getting into other peoples crops.(Who then get their asses sued off because of other businesses incompetence.)

Good heavens - people are carrying on as if there were some sort of artificial DNA strand being woven in, and the salmon were at risk of becoming feral or intelligent or something.

The "genetic modification" involved transplants ONE gene sequence, governing rates of growth, from Pacific salmon to Atlantic salmon, so the Atlantic salmon will grow as quickly as their Pacific relatives. It doesn't scramble ANY other parts of the salmonic genome - the flesh will have exactly the same taste and texture as current Atlantic salmon (at least, the farm-raised salmon tested so far have exhibited this).

Its major effect will be the ability to satisfy Atlantic salmon demand with fewer total fish, thus reducing fishing stress on salmon populations and averting a fishery collapse.

Sorry, folks, Piranha 3-D is still just a movie fantasy, and Frankenstein a Victorian horror novel based on an inadequate understanding of physiology, psychology, and epistemology. No relation to reality whatsoever.

I don't think there was much concern about the fish itself, it's the environmental and legal issues surrounding this that concern me. Past experience with the introduction of GM crops had and still does have environmental and legal issues that are still not adequately addressed IMO.

Should companies have a patent on something that acts and thinks independently? Who's responsible if said product escapes into the wild and starts reproducing? How is a fisherman going to know the difference between a GM Salmon that is patented over a wild salmon they catch? Can a fisherman be sued if they happen to catch a GM Salmon in the wild? Will AquaBounty go snooping in people's fish farms and catches to see if they have any of their Salmon much the way Monsanto did with farmers?
Questions like these and many others deserve answers before this product is approved.

IMHO, patenting life is dangerous.

Noone is talking about fictional threats, what happens is live and its real. Genetic lifeforms are superior and they take over biome.space (i.e. soil) from other lifeforms, wiping them out and creating a monoculture. Nature is about a balanced diversity, and a balanced diversity survives.

As an example: People say that the (unmodified) banana is dying, but all they are saying is that a specific genetic breed of the banana, i.e. the yellow half-circular shaped one, is dying. the natural bananas that most people couldn't pick out from a lineup of potatoes, will still survive because it has different genes.

Genetic non-diversity, basically has the same effect upon nature as a mass-extinction event, i.e. equivalent to a (genetically-focused) cataclysmic mini-asteroid collision that would completely wipe out the entire species.

That is what is happening with some genetically engineered plants in south america right now.

Sure, if they make a superior plant that is immune to everything that the rest of nature throws at it - fine. But people (or rather scientists and corporations pushing the fast forward button) are not perfect and they cannot foresee every type of threat there is to a specific lifeform.

I'm not against the idea, I'm against corporations jumping up and down on the fast forward button. Its basically as irresponsible as handing a box of firecrackers and a lighter to a 5 year old...

The Cavendish banana did not become an example of monoculture because it was "genetically superior", nor did it "displace" other breeds (obviously, since those other breeds still exist); instead, it became a victim of its own marketing success. People became convinced that unless it had white creamy flesh, nearly-invisible seeds, an extremely mild taste, and a bright yellow, easily-removed peel, it wasn't "really" a banana. Banana farmers, interested as anyone in turning a profit, began growing only that breed of banana that people wanted to buy; this state of monoculture, of course, left the breed exceptionally vulnerable to any new disease that overcame the breed's defenses. As a consequence, the banana industry today trembles on the verge of collapse, as most Cavendish trees have begun suffering from a unique form of root mold.

The transgenic salmon involved here is similarly unlikely to displace other varieties of salmon even should it escape to the wild, as its makeup does not make it any less vulnerable to any of the many ills that befall wild salmon - in fact, it would be more attractive to predators, due to its increased size.

I do not oppose your point, but then, you failed to provide one as i used the banana as an example of how genetic diverse plants will survive, and how it not kill off lesser brethren of its own species because it was cultivated normally.

Specify the danger, please.

ruveyn

From everything I've read, it seems that GMOs are getting a big push without much investigation, and it's primary a route for a major corporation to gain a lion share of its industry. Monsanto for example, and how they took over farmer's crops that had maybe a few instances of it's patented plant in their fields, seems very nefarious in that they basically gave themselves the right to steal people's livelihood and force them to buy the company's approved fertilizer, and pesticides and cant' do anything without the consent of the company, forcing a lot of them into debt, because their profits don't pay off their debts because there's always something new the contract holder is demanding the farmer to buy. And they keep the people down by constantly having task forces that spy on people and make sure they are not using their product (even unknowingly) then harass them, turn their neighbors against them, take them to court hoping that they can suck up all the money the farms have in court costs.

Corn has been cheapened so much that it's byproducts are in almost everything, and it's to a point where everyone is consuming too much corn products. Even thought people used to live shorter lives, they had better quality. Because of the cheapening of the food supply, people nowadays have to take medications for everything because we consume too much of things we weren't meant to, and that drains people of money. It's amazing, the leverage a company has to commit amount of subterfuge and skulduggery against the courts, government officials and the FDA just because it is their bottom line where people don't fit unless they are buying their products. These aren't wants they are messing with, these are needs.

The nutrition isn't the same and people are putting their health at risk eating food that don't have even the same resistance to bacteria. During no time except the modern time was there enough beef destroyed over one problem with antibiotic resistant bacteria to feed a burger to every single person in the US. Even livestock would rather not eat GMO feed. The effects we don't know about are more scary than the one's we do know about I can list specifics, but google is your friend too.

In the near future, I have to assume that they are going to start making GM people to perform certain tasks. Will these people be owned by the companies that spawned them? Will these people not be able to live without some kind of sustenance that only their progenitors can give them?

It's not that I don't agree with creating GMOs, it's how they are doing it, and getting away with so much that really makes me suspect.

Imo, patents on geneticly modified stuff is stupid. -.- Life is not a commodity that can be replicated so easily as machines can be. Besides, i thought patents were supposed to protect "inventions"... What did you invent that's so RADICALLY different from what was ALREADY there? >< Totally bogus. -.- This is why i hate the american vision of patents. =.=

Living things (including humans) are bought and sold every day. So life is a commodity.

Without some exclusive advantage there would be less incentive to invent stuff.

ruveyn

Yes, but the stuff being invented is to soley benefit the inventor at the expense of all its consumers.

I read a book about GMO and it cited several european scientists that found that GMO causes multiple organ damage. Also the califlower mosacic virus used to splice the genes is so overwhelming to DNA that it is feared to cause cross species disease transfers, called lateral transfers. Examples of lateral transfers is AIDS, the 1918 flu, mad cow disease, H1N1, maleria, the bubonic plauge. Diseases caused by lateral transfers are really dangerous as you can see. The possibility for this type of mutation with GMO is rather plausible since the califlower virus used to splice the genes...totally overwhelmes the gene...and allows it to re-written...the virus does not just die after that, it stays with the gene and in your food. Studies are popping up in the US about GMO corn actually helping cancer cells reproduce...that is because of the abnormal genes create abnormal cells. The FDA just put out new rules that non GMO products cannot label their products non GMO unless organic because it might indicate that something is wrong with GMO. Well american corperations have invested billlions of dollars in GMO capability, so with FDA in their pocket...they are poisioning americans to make money despite risks. There have been some studies done in the US in schools with high detention rates...kids where given non GMO food and within a week the detention rates dramticly decreased and behavior problems decreased and grades improved.