35 replies to this topic

[bmk1245]

jugoso, on 06 February 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

I have no idea. However, whatever genetic material they share would be a result of nature rather than laboratory manipulation
[...]

And whats the difference? In GM you target specific areas, while in selection process you "shell huge area with mortars" in order to achieve the results.

jugoso, on 06 February 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

[...]
I don´t think this is the case. What is happening is the farmers want to grow non GM crops and are finding that their crops are contaminated by the GM strains. They not only lose their organic certification but are vulnerable to lawsuits by the “owners” of said strain.

Monsanto owns the patent on these strains and can sue farmers whose feilds contain them even if it is due to cross-pollination.
There is absolutely no way to control this as was claimed when they were introduced
[...]

Sorry, but many natural breeds are patented:

Quote

The German and European patent offices grant patents to inventions that are new, based on an inventive step and capable of industrial application.

Inventions that concern animals or plants are therefore granted a patent if these animals or plants are not obvious on the basis of what is already known and have beneficial properties. The inventor thus makes a contribution and receives the patent that grants him exclusive rights for a limited period of time.

Where genetically modified animals or plants are concerned, this practice is not called into question by the opponents, and instead the motion only concerns the case where the agricultural livestock or plants have been obtained by means of conventional breeding processes. Even if a known process is applied, this does not mean that patentable products with new advantageous properties have not been obtained.

(link)
So, if company (who produces new breeds by selection) will suspect foul play, you can get lawsuit.

jugoso, on 06 February 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

[...]
Farmed salmon whether genetically altered or not have a lot more contaminants than wild salmon.
[...]

Its not GM vs non-GM issue, but hey, what would you suggest? Get rid of all farms and watch natural resources decline in even grater pace?

jugoso, on 06 February 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

[....]
Again, as previously mentioned, this is not about the salmon but rather the process of approval for this new food-drug. First off, the company that is selling it has been left in charge of determining it´s health risks. BAD IDEA. Secondly, rather than a full envioronmental assessment they have opted for one that is much less extensive. BAD IDEA
Once the floodgates are opened there will be many new products which pose different types of risks:
[..]

Ok, I partially agree. Company should be more opened about their research.

jugoso, on 06 February 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

[....]
I don´t know what would happen but I know what wouldn´t happen. They wouldn´t be at risk of being sued by a huge multinational corporation with bottomless pockets.
[...]

Again, you can get sued by company which produces non-GM breeds.

jugoso, on 06 February 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

[....]
Again, I don´t know exactly what the long-term impacts are but feel that the blueprint for the appbvalprocess is lacking.
[...]

Actually all our activities have long term impacts either natural, or non-natural (so to speak).

jugoso, on 06 February 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

[....]
Are you really comfortable with it?

More or less.

[bmk1245]

jugoso, on 06 February 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

Congress Unites Against FDA Approval of GE Salmon

At least 30 House members and 14 senators have written the Obama administration either expressing serious concerns about the manner in which the FDA conducted its review of Aquabounty’s GE salmon, or calling for the outright prohibition of its approval for human consumption.

I bet majority of those would like to see creationism taught in science classes.

Kinda reminds me:

Quote

The potato has been marked as evil by many people who have encountered it on it's journey around the world. When the potato made it's arrival in European countries people thought that it was evil and caused diseases. In most cases this was caused by none other than it's odd shape and the fact that it came from the ground.

The potato was blamed for causing leprosy, scrofula, rampant sexuality, sterility among a host of other diseases.

It's even said that the Catholic Church declared the potato an evil object and was the work of the devil.

(link)

[AsteroidX]

I dont want to eat genetically engineered Salmon or give it to my child. Id rather see free range salmon farming. Does that make me a bad person.

[praetorian-legio XIII]

I lost all faith (what little I ever had) in the FDA after I read the story behind artificial sweeteners and how they were finally approved.

Hate to sound like a conspiricy gook but "Are we systematically being poisoned and sickened by the powers that be?"

Maybe the FDA should stand for the Federal De-population Agency.

[jugoso]

bmk1245, on 13 February 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

I bet majority of those would like to see creationism taught in science classes.

Kinda reminds me:

(link)

So if you are uncomfortable with genetically modified food you are a "creationist"?? C´mon. Do your research instead of making comments like that. My understanding is that these were some of the people that actually spent some time looking into what is happening.

I´m not sure about the comparison between a genetically-altered animal and the introduction of the potato into a non-native region. I expressed where my concern is (with the process) and asked you point blank if you are comfortable with the approval procedure. Here are reasons I am not

Quote

The problems begin with FDA’s bizarre decision to consider GE meat using its “New Animal Drug Approval” (NADA) process, a process designed for evaluation of new animal drugs (hence the name), not genetically engineered animals. The GE salmon themselves are, according to this analysis, the animal drug. As food blogger Ari LeVaux explains on Civil Eats, “the drug per se is AquaBounty’s patented genetic construct... Inserted at the animal’s one-cell stage, the gene sequence exists in every cell of the adult fish’s body.”

Quote

Health and consumer rights advocates have raised alarms, noting among other concerns, that: 1) these animals will require massive doses of antibiotics to keep them alive in dirty, crowded aquaculture conditions, and we don’t know these antibiotics’ effect on human health; 2) the limited testing that has been conducted was carried out by or for AquaBounty and included shockingly small sample sizes; and 3) what studies have been done indicated increased allergic potential and increased levels of the hormone IGF-1, which is linked to various cancers — an outcome ignored in FDA’s approval according to the Consumers Union, Food & Water Watch, and the Center for Food Safety.

Quote

The process of examining new drugs’ environmental impact is also lax, so it’s also not surprising that FDA bungled this analysis as well. As just one glaring example, the agency looked only at how one small pilot project in Canada and Panama will affect U.S. waters, ignoring its legal obligations to consider the likelihood of salmon escaping as the pilot program expands—an expansion the company has already announced.
“Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences notes that a release of just sixty GE salmon into a wild population of 60,000 would lead to the extinction of the wild population in less than 40 fish generations.” FDA totally ignores this scenario and its vast implications for our aquatic ecosystems.

Research issues ignored by FDA

Quote

1. Although AquaBounty supplied limited animal welfare data, its own application indicates that it engaged in “extensive culling” of deformed, diseased, dying, and dead fish from its analysis. This would be like studying smoking’s impact only on long-distance runners who had shown no signs of cancer or heart disease.

2. All aquaculture causes physical deformities and makes fish sick; nevertheless (and even after culling the sickest animals), the limited data supplied by AquaBounty indicates that AquAdvantage fish are even sicker and more prone to abnormalities and death losses than other farmed fish

3. Even within these parameters, there were problems with the studies. For example, sample sizes provided were tiny and included limited data, and all analysis was done by the company (do you recall how this worked out with the tobacco companies?).

http://www.commondre...ew/2013/02/11-4

The scariest thing about approving GE animals through NADA is that once a type of technological drug advance is approved (here, genetic animal engineering), future approvals become much easier and much less transparent: the process that protects corporate drug development secrets will protect the GE process, resulting in reduced scrutiny and no transparency at all for future approvals. The American public will probably not even find out about future GE animals until after they’re approved for sale.

I am also surprised that more people aren´t concerned with this. Perhaps because it´s being done in a very quiet way without any major press coverage. I would think on this forum where there are so many skeptics and people demand solid proof to back up claims, there aren´t more people questioning the process.

So, do you feel comfortable with the approval process and those that carried it out? Why specifically should we not be concerned about the health, environmental and long-term ecological impact of these new food-drugs we are creating?

Edited by jugoso, 13 February 2013 - 03:24 PM.

[AsteroidX]

Amen brother.