Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jugoso

the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon

36 posts in this topic

I found this to be an interesting news item

On December 21, the agency announced that AquaBounty’s genetically engineered salmon had cleared the final hurdle before clinching FDA approval.

Despite insufficient testing and widespread consumer opposition, AquaBounty’s food experiment is dangerously close to becoming the first genetically engineered animal produced for human consumption. Yes, a newfangled fish may soon land on a dinner plate near you.

For those who have been following this news for the past several years, the timing of the FDA’s release of its draft environmental assessment — the Friday before Christmas — was no surprise. But the news was still frightening: The FDA may give this transgenic animal the green light under a new approval process that treats the fish as an “animal drug.”

What is an animal-drug you ask?

According to FDA logic, the drug per se is AquaBounty’s patented genetic construct, made of genes from two other fish inserted into Atlantic salmon DNA. The company claims this cluster of genes, aka the drug, makes AquAdvantage salmon grow faster than its non-GM counterparts, and it hopes to sell that claim – and lots of AquAdvantage salmon eggs – to fish farmers everywhere.


This label also helps them to avoid the label as being a food. leading to faster approval.

More disturbing

AquaBounty, the biotech company responsible for bringing us this fishy salmon,used its own data to convince the FDA that it is safe to eat. But AquaBounty’s profits are inextricably linked to approval of this salmon. It’s outrageous that the FDA would take AquaBounty’s word over that of dozens of lawmakers and scientists, including experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service, not to mention thousands of concerned consumers.

So it hasn´t even been proven that it is safe for consumption by any independent agency.

What about dangers to the environment?

By releasing an environmental assessment instead of a more thorough environmental impact statement, the FDA has failed to fully consider the threat this controversial new fish could pose to wild fish populations.

http://otherwords.or...t-a-fork-in-it/

So it seems as if corporate interests are being placed yet again before both our personal and environmental health and safety. These kinds of things being passed in such a haphazard way without proper scrutiny is disgraceful.

My philosophy is if your gonna play with mother nature, you better be damn sure you´ve really checked ALL the angles before you start-

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have no intention of *not* passing it. We can cry and sign as many petitions are we want.

Salmon even now,the farmed kind,is not good to eat . Most farmed fish are no longer healthy because of cramped space etc .

Salmon ,Tilapia . I wont touch Chilean bass and the like,because they're endangered ,and yet you see it at whole foods for sale.

No one cares.

We deplete the crap out of our resources .Make it unsafe ,then make Franken versions ,so the mass public can eat it,and the good stuff is only affordable to the rich .

I stopped eating salmon three years ago ,because I knew the farmed kind was no longer a healthy option .,so it doesn't phase me at all .

I still eat tilapia and flounder ,but very rarely .

Keep in mind,this will also affect things like salmon oil and salmon oil supplements.

They pick these things to warp, very purposefully,to affect as many common place "healthy" items as possible.

Edited by Simbi Laveau
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salmon is my favorite food. However, I try to limit my intake of salmon (and fish in general) because of concerns over mercury levels, etc. I honestly don't think it's a good idea to make GM fish, not only because it sounds gross, but because we don't know the effects it will have on the environment and the humans who eat it. I really hope that, at the very least, GM fish is labeled as such, and not passed off as genuine salmon.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salmon is my favorite food. However, I try to limit my intake of salmon (and fish in general) because of concerns over mercury levels, etc. I honestly don't think it's a good idea to make GM fish, not only because it sounds gross, but because we don't know the effects it will have on the environment and the humans who eat it. I really hope that, at the very least, GM fish is labeled as such, and not passed off as genuine salmon.

You don't really need to worry about salmon too much when it comes to mercury levels. It is the larger fish that eat lots of other, smaller fish that are highest in mercury. Think tuna, swordfish, seabass and shark. It's because low level mercury fish are eaten a lot by medium sized fish, where the mercury then builds up. Then even larger fish come along and eat the medium ones and as a result collect a lot more mercury.

MercuryFoodChain-01.png

This link has a (in no way definitive) link that you can use as a rough guide.

You can pretty much eat all the salmon you want. You may end up skint though :)

Edited by ExpandMyMind
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'This link has a (in no way definitive) link list that you can use as a rough guide.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GM stuff mixing with Mother Nature's version ,which she took billions of years to create, is what worries me. Too many unknowns ... it's completely irresponsible .

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are we going to have left that we can safely eat ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fear mongering continues...

Words of former anti-GMOist:

So I guess you’ll be wondering – what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.
(emphasis mine; link)

Edit: spelling.

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are we going to have left that we can safely eat ?

Pretty much nothing. Everything grown will be processed or GMO .

meat and poultry are fed steroids and antibiotics .Fish is either endangered ,farmed or gmo .

Nothing .Not in the USA anyway .

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a sad state of affairs. Really. We never needed the GMO's. I mean I get fish farms but they should be set up in a free range style. As should all poultry and meat. Ill stand by that till the day I die.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are we going to have left that we can safely eat ?

Pretty much nothing. Everything grown will be processed or GMO .

meat and poultry are fed steroids and antibiotics .Fish is either endangered ,farmed or gmo .

Nothing .Not in the USA anyway .

Salmon is my favorite food. However, I try to limit my intake of salmon (and fish in general) because of concerns over mercury levels, etc. I honestly don't think it's a good idea to make GM fish, not only because it sounds gross, but because we don't know the effects it will have on the environment and the humans who eat it. I really hope that, at the very least, GM fish is labeled as such, and not passed off as genuine salmon.

Mercury ,although a concern in fish ,isn't really a man made issue.

Tests done on specimens of fish from as far back as the 1800s ,showed the mercury levels from fish back then,match mercury levels of fish today .

It seems to just be a predisposition for fish to be high in mercury .

And its obvious they do not want to label gmo anything ,so don't expect too much on that front .

Edited by Simbi Laveau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fear mongering continues...

Words of former anti-GMOist:

(emphasis mine; link)

Edit: spelling.

Former anti gmo = paid off to say the opposite.

Bill gates = anti Christ

Sure feed billions crap,because bill gates wants billions to die so his children can live in the world of his creations.

Lol

http://nutritionnewsandreviews.com/?p=314

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/media052102.cfm

http://myhealingkitchen.com/featured-articles/the-smear-campaign-against-organic-food/

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_win-micro-gates11.htm

.

Edited by Simbi Laveau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
comes out demonizing organic food and implying those who choose it over “conventional” foods are some sort of delusional health nuts.

So these processed/chemtrailed foods are now considered "conventional" and the organic advocates are nuts. For the lulz.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pulled this out of the article you linked: Health Risks of GMO foods.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pulled this out of the article you linked: Health Risks of GMO foods.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers

We've had gmo foods for a while,but not to the degree we do now.

Soy and corn crops are near 100% gmo now . Processed foods use what as additives ? Corn and soy based products,ergo,almost everything we eat that's baked ,processed ,and comes in a box,has a gmo component .

Everything. Eating it once in a while was one thing,now its everything. That cannot be good.

Read labels. See what contains soy or corn ,and you will be amazed.

Almost all dry dog and cats foods have corn as the first ingredient.

I only buy ones with rice .

So let's look at the chronology .

Monsanto was a chemical engineering company. They created agent orange . The effects of the children of people exposed to tangent orange,goes on even today .

In Dec of 2009,despite what Snopes says ,as i know for a fact its true ,Obomba signed codes alimentarius into law.

This gave Monsanto complete control over the seed supply in the USA .

It's illegal for farmers to hoard heirloom seeds ,aka NON GMO seeds.

Only certain entities can have heirloom seeds now .

Monsanto has flooded the market with gmo seeds.

You have to look at any seeds you buy now ,and wonder if its real or Franken .

The whole gmo thing with bill gates ,didnt go into full swing after this.

He sank millions into monsantos gmo endeavors .

Google "Bill Gates ,depopulation"

And you let me know what you find .

Also ,the gmo crops and response to monsantos round up pesticide,is what's killing our bees,and monsanto covered it up .

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's illegal for farmers to hoard heirloom seeds ,aka NON GMO seeds

Im in a conversation on another board about heirloom seeds and GMO contamination.

the gmo crops and response to monsantos round up pesticide,is what's killing our bees,and monsanto covered it up

I have a honeybee nest on my property should I be worried ? Should I be taking any precautions to protect it ? So far I just leave it natural but am thinking of getting into a whitebox for my gardening and portability.

Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im in a conversation on another board about heirloom seeds and GMO contamination.

I have a honeybee nest on my property should I be worried ? Should I be taking any precautions to protect it ? So far I just leave it natural but am thinking of getting into a whitebox for my gardening and portability.

I just heard about a ton of privately owned honey bee hives dying . What part of the country are you in ?

If you haven't had a problem ,I wouldn't worry unless you hear about bees dying in your area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im in a conversation on another board about heirloom seeds and GMO contamination.

I have a honeybee nest on my property should I be worried ? Should I be taking any precautions to protect it ? So far I just leave it natural but am thinking of getting into a whitebox for my gardening and portability.

.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/01/european-commission-wants-to-res.html

And maybe get a bee keeping donkey

:D

http://urbanfarmandbeehives.com/

Edited by Simbi Laveau
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Oregon almost offgrid. But I think I have one of the few honeybee nest itleast withing a few acres. So its important to me. In the past Ive been more worried about Africanized bees making there way up here but now it looks like there may be a new threat.

Looks like Ill have to get them a whitebox and put them behind my fence where nothing but GMO free heirloom seeds are grown.

Dont tell the govmnt please cause theyll come tear it all down for being to far off the grid and self sustaining.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fear mongering continues...

I´m not exactly how the OP is fear mongering. The genetically modified salmon are inconsequential to the whole process involved in their approval. As technology has allowed us to play God, there are many questions and concerns about long term consequences of the new products that will ever-increasingly become available.. Having the company that wants to market the product responsible for the testing seems ridiculous. And the fact that the FDA will accept these results speaks volumes to how well they are doing their job. creating new categories that allow for less testing and scaled-back environmental impact studies are}ts negligent and the blueprint for possible irreversible damage to the ecosystem.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the makings of a future avatar in the Beekeeping Donkey. Thanks for the share Simbi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former anti gmo = paid off to say the opposite.

[...]

Heh, one that have the courage acknowledge hes been ignorant, now becomes "paid off". Typical argument from lala lander.

[....]

Bill gates = anti Christ

Sure feed billions crap,because bill gates wants billions to die so his children can live in the world of his creations.

Lol

[...]

I see things quite opposite: you are the one who wants billions to die with your quite often proposition Don't go to see [...] (insert the word, you know which).
Hot air, fear mongering, nothing more.

Here is Monsanto's (and not only) response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I´m not exactly how the OP is fear mongering. The genetically modified salmon are inconsequential to the whole process involved in their approval. As technology has allowed us to play God, there are many questions and concerns about long term consequences of the new products that will ever-increasingly become available.. Having the company that wants to market the product responsible for the testing seems ridiculous. And the fact that the FDA will accept these results speaks volumes to how well they are doing their job. creating new categories that allow for less testing and scaled-back environmental impact studies are}ts negligent and the blueprint for possible irreversible damage to the ecosystem.

But we "played God" long before GM in the lab. How many, for example, wheat (heck rye, apples, potatoes, tomatoes, etc, etc) breeds (non-GM) you know and have on the table that comes from the nature solely, i.e. were developed without human interference?

Now, lets look at GM salmon. It grows faster (it will arrive on your table much sooner) hence will accumulate less mercury (not that its very big problem, as was pointed out earlier by other UMer). How about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will it be labeled ? Will there be an alternative that does not include go catch it myself ?

Lack of research does not equal an exceptional product. Only hazardous tendencies to experiment with biology.

Farmers have for centuries grown stronger and more resilient crops through selecting good seeds from last years crop. Even cross pollinating certain crops to hybrids. The difference is this is done naturally without need for a laboratory of secrets and a trail of victims.

Even a childs toy is labeled as a hazard if it could be swallowed by an infant based on a young childs tendency to grab and put things in there mouth they are not suppose too. But not genetically modified food.. That has to be exempt because they have no idea whats going to happen to Humans that consume too much of it. What greater test population then the hungry/starving of the world. What better test subject then MY child. My child is not at an age where he can understand this type of gross negligence to humanity.

Why would a rationale person defend this practice before it has been thoroughly and rigorously tested as safe. Then to push it off on unaware people without even a label *cough* could be misunderstood by some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will it be labeled ? Will there be an alternative that does not include go catch it myself ?

[...]

I'm not against labeling, but if some "evil" GM don't want to do it, manufacturers of non-GM can put labels "Non-GM" on their products.

[...]

Lack of research does not equal an exceptional product. Only hazardous tendencies to experiment with biology.

Farmers have for centuries grown stronger and more resilient crops through selecting good seeds from last years crop. Even cross pollinating certain crops to hybrids. The difference is this is done naturally without need for a laboratory of secrets and a trail of victims.

[...]

If its natural, then it can't be poisonous? Recently Australian developed new salt-tolerant wheat. Is it good for your health and will you ask for the health risk assessment? I guess not for the latter. Now, if it would have been done in "the lab" is it bad, or good if FDA (and other agencies) would approve it after reviewing researches? Do you ask for risk assessments for apple cultivars, which are scab and canker resistant? How do know those "chemicals" that fight apple diseases, will not fight your healthy cells?

Let me use blunt and faulty logic again: throughout 20th century cancer rates increased, as well increased number of cultivars. See correlation? (Who cares about causation...)

[...]What greater test population then the hungry/starving of the world. What better test subject then MY child. My child is not at an age where he can understand this type of gross negligence to humanity.

Why would a rationale person defend this practice before it has been thoroughly and rigorously tested as safe. Then to push it off on unaware people without even a label *cough* could be misunderstood by some.

Emotions aside: people who work in those companies do have children, relatives; people in FDA have children and relatives, etc, etc. Ah, of course, they are so evil that would sacrifice their kids for money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.