Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Genetically Modified Atlantic Salmon to Hit the Market

  1. #1
    Elite Member KristiB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,852

    Thumbs down Genetically Modified Atlantic Salmon to Hit the Market

    Ughh I'm glad I only buy wild caught.

    Genetically Modified Fish May Soon Enter US Market; How Will Consumers React?

    (Aug. 4) -- A major U.S. fish research company has tampered with the DNA of Atlantic salmon by adding a quick-growth gene that allows the fish to eat year-around and grow more quickly. And the Food and Drug Administration is about to allow these genetically engineered salmon to head to market, the company says.

    But food safety activists insist that the FDA doesn't have adequate tests and regulations to ensure the safety of modified seafood, and others question whether consumers are even ready for it.

    "Far from being a benefit to consumers or the environment, this merely allows factory fish farms to double production rates," said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety.

    Nevertheless, AquaBounty Technologies in Waltham, Mass., near Boston, is already producing tiny red Atlantic salmon eggs that have been injected with a gene from Pacific Chinook salmon and another gene from the ocean pout. This genetic modification gives the engineered fish the ability to grow to market size in half the time of salmon that haven't been messed with.

    The fish would be the first transgenic animal application ever approved by the the FDA, according to the company, which has been developing the product and waiting for approval for 20 years.

    AquaBounty says it has launched a "blue revolution," which brings together biological sciences and molecular technology "to enable an aquaculture industry capable of large-scale, efficient and environmentally sustainable production of high quality seafood. Genetically altered trout and tilapia are the next to be offered up to the nation's fishmongers.

    However, the largest foreign breeders -- like Canada, which is the No. 1 supplier of Atlantic salmon to the U.S. -- say they see no reason to meddle with a good thing.

    Current fish breeding practices are adequate to enable the production of a high-quality product, says the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance.

    The alliance "does not support the commercial production of transgenic fish for food production until it has been declared safe by all the relevant regulatory bodies and until the market demands it," Ruth Salmon, the group's executive director, told AOL News.




    Not So Fast

    The science, as inventive as it is, may be ready to go, but there is a significant infestation of obstacles, beyond the FDA's willingness to sign off on the gene modification, that must be overcome before these fast-growing fish start popping up on backyard grills.

    During a happy hour conversation with AOL News at the annual International Food Technologies conference in Chicago last month, two food microbiologists, two research chefs and a market analyst talked about genetically modified animals.

    Two thought the time had come to use this technology to produce cheaper, healthier and faster-to-market meat, poultry and fish. The other three predicted that they'd never see it in their lifetimes.

    They knew of efforts by AquaBounty with the salmon, of two other labs that had jiggled DNA to get quick-growing jumbo shrimp and tilapia, and a third, somewhere on the New Hampshire or Maine coast, that had done something genetically to significantly shorten the seven years it takes lobsters to grow to a legal size.

    Great advancements in fish science, they agree, and at least half of the group believed that the FDA was ready to approve engineered seafood. But absolutely no one thought the North American consumer and those in most of Europe were going to shell out money for genetically modified animals of any kind.

    A food economics expert questioned by AOL News at the conference agreed.

    "It would take a worldwide famine to get people with more than a grade school education to willingly eat any animal or fish concocted in a laboratory. They would have to be starving," said the woman who worked on the United Nation's hunger program.

    Can FDA Regulate This New Science?

    U.S. federal agencies attempt to regulate biotechnology using outdated statutes, written before biotech products ever came to market, said Kimbrell, the attorney for the Center for Food Safety.

    "For example, FDA plans to regulate genetically engineered animals as 'veterinary drugs,' not living creatures, and its animal drug safety review was conceived before genetic engineering became a reality," he said.

    Kimbrell called the agency's tests unacceptable and increasingly dysfunctional. He said the analytical methods used do not address the issues of potential allergenicity and toxicity, and are "grossly insufficient to determine the long-term, unforeseen consequences of eating and producing the (engineered) salmon."

    Not so, FDA spokesperson Siobhan DeLancey told AOLNews Wednesday.

    The agency has the regulations and authority to appropriately regulate these genetically engineered fish, she said.

    She didn't explain why it had to be done under the "existing New Animal Drug paradigm" but added, that FDA has issued guidance to the Industry on precisely how it would "rigorously and scientifically evaluate genetically engineered animals."

    Kimbrell said his organization wants to halt the approval, commercialization or release of any new genetically engineered crops until they have been thoroughly tested and found safe for human health and the environment and said his group would consider litigation to stop it.

    AquaBounty officials have said they will raise their fish in land-based facilities where ocean escapes are impossible.

    This doesn't appease all.

    "What about the masses of corporations that will no doubt race to produce GM fish in the crowded open ocean facilities they already utilize for fish production?" asks Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch.

    Opposition to the approval of genetic engineering of fish is not new. Last year, of a coalition of 18 fisheries, consumer and food safety group shared their varied concerns on the use of the untried technology with the FDA.

    Both Hauter and Kimbrell say those involved in food safety believe that if these genetically engineered fish get to market, they must be properly labeled so consumers will know what they're really buying.

    But AquaBounty says FDA cannot legally obligate the fish producer to label the product as anything other than Atlantic salmon. Anything else is voluntary.

  2. #2
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    27,794

    Default

    I don't see what the risk in this is supposed to be at all. The fish have a gene spliced in to make them grow faster. How does this translate into "toxin" of some kind"? None that I can see. The fish just grow bigger.

    What type of disease would this introduce into the food chain? None.

  3. #3
    Elite Member McJag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    42,527

    Default

    I am sticking with wild caught. I will pay the price. I just thing it is wrong to mess with Mother Nature.
    I didn't start out to collect diamonds, but somehow they just kept piling up.-Mae West

  4. #4
    Elite Member qwerty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,673

    Default

    I'm with McJag. However, the rest of the population has been drugged with apathy and will not think twice about buying it.

    I fear for our health with all the tinkering being done to our food and environment. We still have the same genes as a hunter gather of 10,000 years ago. We were meant to live off the land and consume clean, wholesome food. Frankenfoods are alien to the body.

  5. #5
    Elite Member TonjaLasagna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    2,876

    Default

    i'm more interested in the growth hormone injected into the salmon.
    Which one of the scientists that created it, can tell me what happens to humans when they're directly injected with it.
    "the place you live in is that much more drab and empty that they're gone"

  6. #6
    Elite Member sprynkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    At the salon
    Posts
    20,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McJag View Post
    I am sticking with wild caught. I will pay the price. I just think it is wrong to mess with Mother Nature.
    Totally agree.

    "A massive penis means never having to say you're sorry". Mo

  7. #7
    Elite Member KristiB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TonjaLasagna View Post
    i'm more interested in the growth hormone injected into the salmon.
    Which one of the scientists that created it, can tell me what happens to humans when they're directly injected with it.
    Exactly. There's mounting evidence that consuming GMO food is unsafe.

    And once the gene pool is modified there's no going back.

    Home - Institute for Responsible Technology

    What pisses me off most is there's no mandatory labeling. If other people want to eat frankenfood that's their choice but I'd like to choose not to.

  8. #8
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    27,794

    Default

    We've been tinkering with food since the beginning of agriculture. The article didn't reference growth hormone being injected into salmon, but growth hormones have been used in cattle in the U.S. and Canada for over 50 years.

    I agree with mandatory labeling, though.

  9. #9
    Elite Member ConstanceSpry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    8,422

    Default

    I'd rather eat wild-caught though it's awfully expensive. I don't buy farm-raised fish at all because it is highly contaminated with pesticides. Hub is refusing to go veg, so we switched to grass-fed organic meat and poultry. If you buy directly from the farmer, the price isn't too bad. We buy in bulk and pay $4.70 per pound for everything, from ground beef to t-bones to tenderloin. The biggest plus is that the animals are humanely treated and get to graze in pastures instead of being stuck on feedlots, pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, and abused. AND you support local farmers instead of big business which doesn't give a shit about the animals or the consumers.

  10. #10
    Elite Member mtlebay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,361

    Default

    Frankenfish?

    Uh, I'll pass.
    Go Habs Go!!

  11. #11
    Elite Member aabbcc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Watching the sun set over Lake Superior.
    Posts
    18,672

    Default

    Some of the veg you already buy is genetically modified. I think most corn is now gmo thanks to those fuckers at Monsanto. It is SO important to find local sources of food and start rejecting large corporations.

  12. #12
    Elite Member aabbcc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Watching the sun set over Lake Superior.
    Posts
    18,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    ... but growth hormones have been used in cattle in the U.S. and Canada for over 50 years.
    What is your source for rBGH in Canada? As far as I know, it isn't used here. I don't eat meat or dairy, so I don't pay much attention though. I did find this:

    (1/25/99) Canada Rejects Bovine Growth Hormone

    rBGH has been banned in Canada, the European Union, Japan, and Australia, due to concerns that it damages the health of the cows, and possibly those who drink the milk.

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005...es_over_bo.php

  13. #13
    SVZ
    SVZ is offline
    Do fish have boogers? SVZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Venus
    Posts
    1,000,003,609

    Default

    Honestly, I'm less worried about GMO than I am about Monsanto's IP practices.

  14. #14
    Elite Member celeb_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    13,468

    Default

    I think most Americans have other dietary concerns to worry about, like the ginormous amounts of sugar, saturated fats, and salt they consume everyday (not that this salmon issue isn't of concern).

  15. #15
    Elite Member LynnieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    34,698

    Default

    I am so against genetically modified ANYTHING, but as aabbcc pointed out, its actually difficult to stay away from it completely.

    I will only purchase wild as well....

    Might have to have salmon for dinner tonight now...yummy

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 45
    Last Post: May 24th, 2010, 11:51 PM
  2. Feeding the world: Genetically Modified (GM) vs. Organic
    By Fluffy in forum Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 23rd, 2008, 09:32 PM
  3. Maple glazed salmon
    By Mariesoleil in forum Recipes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 12th, 2007, 02:04 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 10th, 2006, 05:15 AM
  5. Favourite Salmon Marinade
    By pacific breeze in forum Recipes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 8th, 2005, 12:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •