Genetically engineered salmon under FDA consideration

[cory777]

Source: LA Times

With a global population pressing against food supplies and vast areas of the ocean swept clean of fish, tiny AquaBounty Technologies Inc. of Waltham, Mass., says it can help feed the world.

The firm has developed genetically engineered salmon that reach market weight in half the usual time. What's more, it hopes to avoid the pollution, disease and other problems associated with saltwater fish farms by having its salmon raised in inland facilities.

The Food and Drug Administration has yet to approve what would be the nation's first commercial genetically modified food animal.

- snip -

Unlike ordinary salmon, AquaBounty's genetically modified fish grows during the winter as well as the summer, so it reaches an 8-pound market weight in 18 months instead of 36. That's accomplished by inserting part of a gene from an eel-like creature called the ocean pout into the growth gene of a Chinook salmon, then injecting the blended genetic material into the fertilized eggs of a North Atlantic salmon.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-super-salmon-20100814,0,1584315.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fbusiness+%28L.A.+Times+-+Business%29

---

Uncensored Alternative News http://activistnews.blogspot.com

[IScreamSundays]

1. Frankenfood

What does it really matter anymore. All of our meat sources are anything but safe. Yeah, please tell me about buying corn fed and organic or what the heck ever. Fortunately for us, we can only afford chickens soaked with antibiotics. Hell, we all got to die some way. I say bring it.

[U4ikLefty]

2. A defender will soon be here to tell us that we do not know science.

Just like the Mosanto crowd comes to defend their genetically modified garbage.

[dipsydoodle]

3. "genetically modified garbage"

Sounds about right. :rofl:

[Xipe Totec]

5. It's time to grow our own American salmon

I'm tired of those terrorist sockeye salmon coming in to our country on suicide spawning missions and leaving anchor babies in our rivers and streams.

We need to close our borders to these intruders to protect our native born salmon populations.

[tammywammy]

19. Win!!! n/t

[boppers]

13. I'm more than willing to listen to science....

Knee-jerk reactions, not so much.

Looks like this has been getting looked at for at least 8 years now:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v10/n2/abs/nbt0292-176.html

...so there should be more than a few studies out there.

[U4ikLefty]

15. WTF is the point you are failing to make?

Aren't you busy defending the authorities somewhere?

[boppers]

17. My point:

There's been ample time, and effort, to get to the bottom of this, regardless of "authorities" or "corporations" or other boogymen being invoked... looks like an assortment of risk/reward issues have been thought about and scrutinized.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Genetically%20modified%20fish

[U4ikLefty]

20. How fucking corporate can you get?

"looks like an assortment of risk/reward issues have been thought about and scrutinized." WTF?!?

Jebbus-H-Christ can you get anymore cut-and-paste fron the corporate playbook?

Tell me who suffers the "risks" & who gets the "rewards"?

You are really in love with your self-percieved intellect aren't you?

[boppers]

22. Oh, scholarly articles are now corporate?

Is this an anti-education thing, an anti-science thing, and anti-public-knowledge thing, or what?

So, to answer your questions:

"WTF?!?"
This isn't really a question.

"Jebbus-H-Christ can you get anymore cut-and-paste fron the corporate playbook?"
That's a matter of opinion, I picked it up from dating a bio-ethicist for 6 years, and she now works at the CDC, which is a little more public government than corporate.

"Tell me who suffers the "risks" & who gets the "rewards"?"
Surveying over the existing literature, the two biggest risks anticipated are species outbreaks (which has led to calls for all fish farms to be located away from natural water bodies, and "sterile" fish), and a (very narrow) possibility that combining genes from two fish may create proteins that aren't found naturally (or have other unpredictable behavior). There are also other risks associated with it being too successful, and resulting overpopulation of natural fish stocks could cause problems, non-farm fish economies could suffer (we've already seen this in other industries, and there is the ongoing debate over ownership/patenting of living things. The rewards are a faster growing foodstuff, which has potential for both cheaper fish and reduced depletion of natural stock.

"You are really in love with your self-percieved intellect aren't you?"
Not really, which is why I linked out to others' work, and looked outside of myself for answers. There's nothing quite as arrogant, or ignorant, as a person who thinks they personally have all the answers.

[U4ikLefty]

24. Just cause you supposedly fucked a biotech promoter for 6 years doesn't make you an expert.

Be real, you take a pro-GM position on DU as a habit.

You don't have any real knowledge on the subject except to provide Google searches as links to APPEAR as you know anything about this.

Stick to being a code-jockey.

[boppers]

26. She actually wasn't a biotech promoter. Quite suspicious of it, actually.

She was a bio-ethicist, and knew some serious horror stories about the abuse/ignorance of irresponsible science. (Making assumptions about people's positions tends to create a bit of a cognitive problem.) Part of her regular coursework was teaching budding biology/medicine students how they could potentially cause *huge* amounts of damage.

I tend to take a pro-science position, not a pro-GM position. Perhaps you're conflating the two? I do tend to give out google searches to people asking vague questions, or looking for resources, because it seems like a neutral starting point, and costs less than subscriptions to academic journals. Are you a scientist in a genetics related field? Perhaps an expert in protein folding? Do you know about any papers on why this mixed salmon breed is dangerous for consumption?

I *will* stick to being a code jockey, but being informed is essential to democracy.

[U4ikLefty]

29. Correction...being informed and CRITICAL is essential to democracy.

I am critical of genetically modified products being thrown into nature.

You seem to be taking the stance that the corporations have done their due diligence.

I will repeat...I am critical.

[boppers]

33. Not all corporations do their due diligence.

I don't forget that, and hopefully, neither will you.

On this one single HGT, from Salmon, to Salmon, a lot of work has been done, but that IN NO WAY means that all HGT is safe, or that more work cannot be a better thing, or even that this case is a good one.

It this safe? Yes, as far as we know.

So far.

[U4ikLefty]

40. See you took the default corporate position again...do you even see it?

You stated "It this safe? Yes, as far as we know."

Don't assume it's safety before all the regulators have even finished their studies.

[andym]

44. Thanks for the useful summary of the literature and the links above

Yours are one of the few posts on this thread with actual information content.

[U4ikLefty]

52. It's a simple Google search you could've done yourself

Since you are impressed with a link: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/08/03-10

[superconnected]

63. Do you know the bush II admin first term had a whole lot of people on staff that were from

Monsanto? Do you realize that when you get into genetic engineering franken foods the studies on them are as reliable as oil company environmental studies?

No, I can see from your post that you do NOT know.

[Lorien]

51. Every major lobbying group has their paid trolls

and easily manipulated foot soldiers. Even if Monsanto isn't the one profiting from this particular bit of idiocy their trolls will defend the science behind it at every opportunity.

Here's a radical concept: let's clean up our act, clean up our environment, and make education a priority for we begin to breed less. Otherwise, Mother Nature will take care of our population issues and treat us like the parasites we're becoming.

[NobleCynic]

4. What a balancing act.

If you assume the worst about genetically altered foods (which many here seem to do so, and considering the repugnant actions of certain corporate actors like monsanto has justification), if this relieves stress on our already overtaxed fisheries, how damaging can this genetically altered food be and still be a net positive? How damaging to the environment, the wild salmon gene pool, or human health could this be and still be a net gain?

I say go for it. We are already damaging the oceans beyond repair with our appetites. Every little bit to help save the wild ecosystems helps at this point. And honestly, I see relatively few ways this could go exceedingly wrong. If this can take some of the strain off the wild stocks, fine. Push it through, we're are running out of time to take a decade studying the potential impacts of every advancement before acting. If we can't do something to relieve our oceans ASAP, we won't have enough sea life left to worry about how it might be impacted.

[SpiralHawk]

6. Yum. CorporoMutant facsimile fish. Pass my ration right over. To the trash.

[skoalyman]

9. ah a face only AquaBounty Technologies Inc.could love

[NobleCynic]

10. Nice pic. But seriously, got a solution to save the fisheries?

Lack of action is basically condemning most of the fishing stocks of the world to extinction at this point. And in relatively short order. Seriously, got a suggestion? Something politically viable? We don't exactly have a lot of time to work with either.

[kentauros]

31. How about the obvious: eat less fish.

I don't know what the seafood restaurants in your neck of the woods are like, but back when I ate meat at all (including "seafood") those same restaurants in this area always served far more than any one (and sane) person could eat as a normal meal. And fish (not including the shellfish) usually can't be taken home as leftovers. It just doesn't reheat well. So, what doesn't get eaten gets thrown out.

A fine solution, at least for American seafood restaurants, is to serve smaller portions for less money. If people complain, well, they can always order more and waste that much more. But serving smaller portions would make a big dent in the amount of fish needed for the American demand.

[NobleCynic]

36. Hoping people change their behavior is not a solution.

Yes, it would be great for our fisheries and our environment if we cut down the protein intake, fish and meat, in the 1st world diet considerably.

Are you suggesting a legal or regulatory limitation on portion sizes in restaurants? It won't happen voluntarily.

[kentauros]

39. A regulation on how much a corporate-restaurant can fish/buy

would help in the portion-size as well as get them to do more fish-farming. You can't really regulate the smaller restaurants, but I wouldn't have a problem doing so with the big ones, like Red Lobster and whatever the other big ones are.

As for "hoping" that wasn't what I was implying. Rather, Americans are becoming more concerned with their health, including things like portion size and when to figure out the difference between "satisfied", "full" and "stuffed". Health professionals could have a big say in this, too. Such a thing would be more of in the realm of the "public service announcement" which can also be federally funded and implemented. Health-conscious people could also implore the restaurants to offer half-size plates, especially on such things as fish. I know some restaurant owners I've talked with don't like the idea of half-sizes, and yet I've seen other places do just that. If more people demand it, especially if their doctors are telling them to cut back, then the change to smaller portion sizes can happen.

The alternatives are that we as a race fish out the oceans, seas, rivers and lakes until nothing is left, ecosystems collapse and we finally figure out what went wrong, i.e., a bigger appetite than the planet could handle. I do recognize that the human race too often requires a crisis before they take any substantial action, but I also feel what I've suggested here could help and you wouldn't have to consider regulations (because they likely wouldn't happen until too late anyway...)

[superconnected]

64. The gov could open fisheries - employ a whole lot of people and produce

health fish that feeds the country. It creates jobs and keeps us off of franken foods.

[NickB79]

69. Delete

[Odin2005]

48. Nice scaremingering there.

It's plain old salmon with a gene or two modified. Your hysteria is noted, though. :eyes:

[superconnected]

65. I see you haven't read anything about gene modifcation in food

:eyes:

http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.

[Odin2005]

66. Yeah, that's an unbiased source!

:eyes:

[superconnected]

68. Since I'm at work I don't have time to do your searching for you.

So I posted the first link that wasn't company sponsored. I hope you do investigate and not believe the crap coming from the companies themselves. :eyes: but then, I think you would have already done so if there were hope. Good luck.

[StopTheNeoCons]

7. "genetically modified garbage" +1

[OhioChick]

8. "genetically modified food animal"

That just sounds so wrong.

[MisterP]

11. note how they never follow up on their Messianic promises

as I recall, half of GM-filled India's kids are malnourished, and Miracle Rice was a big bust

maybe Jesus FishTM can save us all?

[MrsCorleone]

12. Another addition to my growing list of food items that will be banned from

my household.

[boppers]

14. You know abut PLU codes on produce, right?

The little numbers on stickers that are keyed in at registers?

Hint: If you want to avoid GM food, don't buy anything that starts with the number "8".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Look-Up_code

[U4ikLefty]

16. Can you please tell us where the public education campaign happened?

To utilize a resource one must be aware of it's existence & function.

Even a arrogant moron who writes code can understand that...eh?

[boppers]

18. I didn't know about it until very recently.

I knew about the "9", but that's because I prefer Organic produce, and saw the pattern... since labeling is optional, looking for "Organic" or "100% Organic" is a more accurate indicator, anyways.

[U4ikLefty]

21. So why put it out there like it's a remedy to the public?

Maybe you can actually advocate for corporate transparency. Naw, that would take more effort that self-congratulatory snark on DU.

BTW, I noticed that you really didn't answer my question, but I don't take your answers seriously anyway.

[boppers]

23. If you don't read, what can I say?

Corporate transparency isn't a problem here, the data on just about everything is out there in abundance.... you just have to look for it. If the public chooses to be ignorant, or uneducated, all the "Public Campaigns" in the world don't make a difference to people who expect to be spoon-fed every detail of reality.

If you're really interested in actually following scientific issues, there are these things called "journals", and they regularly publish reams and reams of information across a vast variety of disciplines.

So, to your straw man, I point out that the answer to your question is to learn something for yourself.

[U4ikLefty]

25. I hope everybody reads the post above for the nastiness that is Boppers.

That being said, as a licensed Professional Engineer I laugh at the rest of your attempt.

[boppers]

27. Ah, so I take it you have at least some familiarity with the hard sciences.

Good on you! You don't specify what type of Engineering...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Engineering

Perhaps? :P

[U4ikLefty]

28. I guess you were familiar with "hard" science for at least 6 years, eh?

Prolly a lot of "book learning" for ya after that. :P

[boppers]

34. Shit, I got 30 years invested, and still don't know much.

Being a "know it all" is damn near impossible, in the actual sense.

It's much easier in the asshole sense. Lots of those folks running around.

[U4ikLefty]

41. Agreed, definitely a lot of apologist assholes taking the "I trust science" stance.

Usually it is someone with marginal knowledge & a not-so hidden hate for us "knee-jerk" hippies.

[Lightning Count]

45. After reading over your posts, I have a question.

What are your thoughts on gene therapy for cancer, auto-immune disorders and other maladies? Should people receiving this treatment be allowed to procreate? Given the vector of contamination to the rest of the human population I will be anxious to see your response.

[boppers]

49. You weren't addressing me, but the answer is fraught with things to think about.

Should "super humans" be allowed to breed?
Is it fair to deny such treatments to the poor?
Is it discriminatory to estimate the value of a person based on their genetics?
If genes are fungible, how does that affect the way we think about age, race, disease, lineage, family, and culture?

It's not a simple thing to think about.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Arthur+Caplan+genetics

[Lightning Count]

56. Bioethics is a complicated field.

The future concerning our genetics is going to be very interesting.

[U4ikLefty]

53. I must have really pissed you off & you hastily pulled that bad analogy

out of your ass...right?

Try again rookie.

[Lightning Count]

55. It does not appear that you have a substantive answer to the question.

I will 2 more. What do you see as the difference between human genetic therapy/alteration and GMO crops. Which do see as more dangerous and why?

[MrsCorleone]

32. Yes, I am aware of produce coding, but the lowering of "certified organic" standards

in this country and increased genetic cross contamination of organic foods has moved my family to err on the side of caution.

Once a crop is approved for genetic engineering, my family eliminates it and its derivatives from our grocery list.

I do appreciate your bringing the coding system up, though, for those not willing or able to go as far as we do.

[boppers]

35. That can be hard...

Have you cut out all corn and soy?

How have you handled that?

[MrsCorleone]

37. Yes, we've cut out soy, corn, papaya, canola, etc (and their derivatives), with the

exception of when we dine out. Now from time to time we do consume soy sauce at sushi bars and can't always eat grassfed livestock, but this is not often. By and large we have found it easy and far healthier to consume whole foods ingredients. Needless to say, we do quite a bit of home cooking, which has become enjoyable.

[Nihil]

54. Well, I suppose that is a start but ...

> Hint: If you want to avoid GM food, don't buy anything that starts
> with the number "8".

From your link:
>> Adherence to the IFPS's PLU standards is voluntary, including the
>> decision to label produce as organic or genetically modified.

Also:
>> PLUs can also be defined by the individual retailer, or location,
>> and used in place of barcodes for a variety of reasons.

So ... for the areas that PLU codes actually apply (as opposed to any
other human- or machine-readable sequence numbers), the number "8" can
be taken as a voluntary flag to warn off anyone who doesn't like the
thought of eating GM food. On the other hand, if it *doesn't* start with
the number "8", you still have no guarantee that it isn't (or doesn't
contain) a GM food product.

Hands up all those who think that such voluntary labelling will improve
the profits for the company adopting them? Hmmm ...

[ProudDad]

60. THANK YOU FOR THIS!

I've passed on the information to some of the lists I'm on...

And here's another even more authoritative source:
http://www.plucodes.com/docs/IFPS-plu_codes_users_guide.pdf
Page 7!

[defendandprotect]

30. Right .... why try to REVERSE our idiotic behavior -- move on to destroy more !!

it hopes to avoid the pollution, disease and other problems associated with saltwater fish farms by having its salmon raised in inland facilities.


Remember, after 300 years of males studying physics, what they came up with was the

atomic bomb!!

Fish bred and grown in "facilities" are subject to disease, viruses, worms --

and many other problems. Factory farming of fish?


Here's what a woman from the Bikini Islands said of us after we dropped atomic weapons

in testing on her homeland --

"Americans are really smart about really stupid things!"

[NobleCynic]

38. Ummm.... what?

Did I miss something? What does any of this have to do with Bikini Atoll?

[boppers]

42. I think their point was about science doing stupid (in retrospect) things. eom

[defendandprotect]

43. Whaat? You don't see environmental destruction in atomic bomb testing?

Evidently, neither do you understand capitalism's exploitations of nature --

animal-life -- and even other human beings according to various myths of "inferiority" -- ???

[Odin2005]

47. That poster thinks Science = Patriarchal rape of nature.

:banghead:

[LanternWaste]

58. Or at least that the consequences...

Or at least that the consequences and ethics of science (e.g., ASCLS Code of Ethics, the IUMS, etc) appear to not be given the same weight of consideration in some cases.

Personally, I'm unable to see it as a zero-sum, either-or scenario.

[NickB79]

61. Damn those males studying physics, leading to the atomic bomb!

But so long as we're clear, Marie Curie gets a pass for her ground-breaking work in CREATING THE FIRST THEORY OF RADIATION and being the first to ISOLATE RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES, right?

[Odin2005]

46. Oh Noes, teh evil SCIENCE is gonna KILL YOU! *SARCASM*

:eyes:

[boppers]

50. Sometimes, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

[BuddhaGirl]

57. Frankenfish!!!!!!!

[ProudDad]

59. Too many damn people...

On a related matter...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4505236


There's no techno-fix for the human resource addiction...

There are just too many humans...

[ozone_man]

67. Perpetual growth is unsustainable.

The problem is not too little food, it's too many people. Fix the problem, not the symptoms.

[wordpix]

62. if it's anything like fish-farmed salmon, no thanks, no flavor

[nightrain]

70. no thanks. I can wait the 36 months for the real thing, not Frankensalmon...