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

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?

I´m not referring to selective breeding here but rather laboratory genetic manipulaton and insertion. It´s pretty difficult to selectively breed eel genes into salmon. And there are still issues with genetically modified plants and vegetables that are of serious concern to farmers who don´t want to use them. Their crops are becoming contaminated by the GM strains and are causing them to lose their organic certification. In addition Monsanto is trying to sue them for using their seed without paying for it. Contamination of crops seems inevitable taking away choice and forever altering the ecosystem

The GM industry used to claim that GM contamination of non-GM crops could not occur. After it became clear that this was false, it shifted the argument to lobbying for “co-existence” of GM, non-GM, and organic crops. The industry now argues that farmers should be able to choose to plant GM crops if they wish and says that no serious problems are caused for non-GM and organic farmers.

But experience has shown that the arrival of GM crops in a country removes choice. “Coexistence” rapidly results in widespread contamination of non-GM crops, resulting in lost markets. Contamination occurs through cross-pollination, spread of GM seed by farm machinery, and inadvertent mixing during storage. Farmers are gradually forced to grow GM crops or have their non-GM crops contaminated.

Scientific studies confirm that GM contamination is unavoidable once GM crops are grown in a region.

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/5-gm-crops-impacts-on-the-farm-and-environment/5-10-myth-gm-crops-can-coexist-with-non-gm-and-organic-crops

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?

The salmon growing faster-less mercury contamination argument doesn´t wash for me,

Has it been proven that t this new “food-drug” poses no risk to wild salmon? What will happen in the longrun if cross-contamination occurs as it has with GM plants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I´m not referring to selective breeding here but rather laboratory genetic manipulaton and insertion. It´s pretty difficult to selectively breed eel genes into salmon. [...]

So? How many genetic material those two fishes share already?

[...] And there are still issues with genetically modified plants and vegetables that are of serious concern to farmers who don´t want to use them. Their crops are becoming contaminated by the GM strains and are causing them to lose their organic certification. In addition Monsanto is trying to sue them for using their seed without paying for it. Contamination of crops seems inevitable taking away choice and forever altering the ecosystem

[...]

And you are 100% sure those farmers just don't trying to cash in by suing company for damages? BTW, instead of "being forced to buy GM seeds", they can buy non-GM seeds. Simple.

[...]The salmon growing faster-less mercury contamination argument doesn´t wash for me,

[...]

Ok, no problem There are other things: people with less income would afford eat salmon more often and get more omega-3 fatty acids, and thus decrease rates of hearts diseases. Is it bad? Not to mention it will "relieve stress" on natural salmon population which is shrinking nowadays.

[...]

Has it been proven that t this new “food-drug” poses no risk to wild salmon? What will happen in the longrun if cross-contamination occurs as it has with GM plants?

This particular salmon will be raised in contained inland systems. What if such system will give a breach? Well, many things can happen. Train carrying chemicals can devastate half of the city, for example. Or huge asteroid can devastate whole country, etc etc.

You can look at all this GM vs non-GM from the different angle: lets say I bought new breed of non-GM crops resistive to some diseases. Farmer in the neighborhood uses different breed that is less resistive to those diseases. After the years of cross pollination I end up with hybrid, which might be even far more susceptible to those diseases. What then?

BTW, how many original corn breed(s) brought to territories of todays USA survived (until GM times)? And how many plant species were displaced, became endangered (or even extinct) after, for example, potatoes where brought to Europe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just waiting until I can order a BBQ four-wing four-leg chicken.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? How many genetic material those two fishes share already?

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

And you are 100% sure those farmers just don't trying to cash in by suing company for damages? BTW, instead of "being forced to buy GM seeds", they can buy non-GM seeds. Simple.

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.

With the help of a nonprofit called the Public Patent Foundation, organic and other farmers who do not wish to plant GMOs filed a lawsuit against Monsanto, the world's largest seed company and the holder of numerous GMO seed patents. The company is notorious for suing those farmers when their non-GMO crops become contaminated by GMOs growing in nearby fields. And the organic and non-GMO farmers hoped the suit would protect them from any litigation in the event that their crops become contaminated against their knowledge via drifting pollen or cross-pollination from bees. The lawsuit represented over 300,000 farmers, most of whom were represented by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association.

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

“The cultivation of genetically modified maize [in Spain] has caused a drastic reduction in organic cultivations of this grain and is making their coexistence practically impossible."Conclusion of research published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics: "An impossible coexistence: transgenic and organic agriculture", Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 30 June 2008

Ok, no problem There are other things: people with less income would afford eat salmon more often and get more omega-3 fatty acids, and thus decrease rates of hearts diseases. Is it bad? Not to mention it will "relieve stress" on natural salmon population which is shrinking nowadays.

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

A study published this week in a leading scientific journal found significantly higher levels of cancer-causing and other health-related contaminants in farm raised salmon than in their wild counterparts. The study, published in Science and by far the largest and most comprehensive done to date, concluded that concentrations of several cancer-causing substances in particular are high enough to suggest that consumers should consider severely restricting their consumption of farmed salmon

The researchers found significantly higher concentrations ofcontaminants in farmed salmon versus wild. In particular, four substances that have been well studied for their ability to cause cancer — PCBs, dioxins, dieldrin, and toxaphene — were consistently and significantly more concentrated in farmed salmon as a group.

This particular salmon will be raised in contained inland systems. What if such system will give a breach? Well, many things can happen. Train carrying chemicals can devastate half of the city, for example. Or huge asteroid can devastate whole country, etc etc.

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:

AquaBounty itself is looking at GM trout, according to its prospectus, and has conducted trials on catfish. Up to six other species of fish – including tilapia and cod – are viewed by biotech companies as ripe for genetic modification, according to experts.

You can look at all this GM vs non-GM from the different angle: lets say I bought new breed of non-GM crops resistive to some diseases. Farmer in the neighborhood uses different breed that is less resistive to those diseases. After the years of cross pollination I end up with hybrid, which might be even far more susceptible to those diseases. What then?

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

Are you really comfortable with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

[...]

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:

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.

[...]

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?

[....]

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.

[....]

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.

[....]

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).

[....]

Are you really comfortable with it?

More or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.”

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.

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

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amen brother.

1 person likes this

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.