FDA approves GMO salmon

Just heard this on the radio going into work:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-approves-genetically-modified-salmon-1447946835

Not set to hit stores for another 2 years.

Radio personality mentioned something I thought was interesting; over half the granulated sugar here in the US comes from GMO sugar beets.

Heard about this a few weeks ago. I'm not sure how to feel about this, because on hand I'm like

"Cloned fish for consumption? Yuck! What could go wrong? A lot!"

yet I'm also like

"Holy shit, they clones fish ready for consumption! Think of the possibilities of how we can take this further!"


I find such endeavors like these as dangerous, yet also utterly fascinating. I want to see more, yet at the same time I'm afraid.

Salmon is my number one favorite fish, especially the smoked one. I honestly don't care that it's genetically modified, unless it was affected by the radioactive.

But regardless of the fact that I'm a salmon-holic, GMO still sounds a little bit dangerous to me. Maybe I need to live more days to find out that they are safe to eat.

Clonehunter said:

I want to see more, yet at the same time I'm afraid.

Progress.

This does not concern me at all, mostly because consumption of salmon is probably deadly.

It's funny how most people freak out about genetically modified food, yet almost nobody knows nothing about it.

I really don't see much wrong with it, though I can understand the environmental concerns about one escaping into the wild and mating with the already endangered population.

The stigmata over GMOs reminds me a lot of the one over food irradiation years ago. From my studies at the time I found no real health risks with cobalt irradiation and my understanding at the time was that it was just the hype that prevented its widespread use.

Zed said:

It's funny how most people freak out about genetically modified food, yet almost nobody knows nothing about it.

I know one thing about it: It will spread its genes, and that's the real danger here: Not eating it but the risk that it may put other species at risk.

Clonehunter said:

I find such endeavors like these as dangerous, yet also utterly fascinating. I want to see more, yet at the same time I'm afraid.

To me, that seems like a thinking man's reaction.

I'm very curious to see what this means for our global hunger situation a few years down the track. There are so many implications with this kind of thing. We'll just have to wait and see!


Edit: Oh yeah salmon is gross anyways but yeah still

Graf Zahl said:

I know one thing about it: It will spread its genes, and that's the real danger here: Not eating it but the risk that it may put other species at risk.

Yes, that's correct. But isn't that the way all species work? I guess you could call it "natural genetic modification".

Being one to live in Salmon country, and having known about this for years, I've done a bit of research.

From what I know, if these are indeed the AquAdvantage salmon, the actual genetic modification gives them three sets of chromosomes, leading to drastically decreased fertility to the point of near sterility. Another trait is weaker/smaller/less efficient muscles compared to the wild counterparts. It also causes all the males to be rather feminine (basically, bishi salmon) and fortunately for us, salmon aren't very in to this. So during tests natural salmon females tended to not want to breed with the GMO males.

Zed said:

Yes, that's correct. But isn't that the way all species work? I guess you could call it "natural genetic modification".

But not with artificially altered genes. We have no idea how much long-term damage they can create.

And let's not even enter the patent issue? What about some natural plant species that gets pollinated by a patented gene-mutated version? Are the offspring also patented? Fact is: Gene mutated species will spread their DNA so it'll escape into the wild. There's a reason why this is very unpopular in many European countries and the least of the worries is that the produced food is bad.

Graf Zahl said:

But not with artificially altered genes. We have no idea how much long-term damage they can create.

I don't know, I mean, humans have "artificially selected" various species of plants and animals. The only difference is that nowadays we know a little bit more of what we are doing. Yes, there can be unintended (and there usually are) consequences, but there's no reason to believe they will be bad/nocive. I know that messing directly with the genomic code itself can lead to more serious consequences than just inbreeding, for example, but most of these "new" products are subject to a lot more safety tests than "conventional" food.

Graf Zahl said:

And let's not even enter the patent issue? What about some natural plant species that gets pollinated by a patented gene-mutated version? Are the offspring also patented? Fact is: Gene mutated species will spread their DNA so it'll escape into the wild. There's a reason why this is very unpopular in many European countries and the least of the worries is that the produced food is bad.

If a natural event causes a proprietary/owned object and/or technology to place itself on your property then you are a thief and should rot in jail forever.

To prevent this from happening, I am selling bubble, plastic wrap, and stakes where you can wrap everything you own.

Zed said:

Yes, there can be unintended (and there usually are) consequences, but there's no reason to believe they will be bad/nocive.

There's also no reason to believe that the changes are benign. Playing God with our food supply strikes me as a highly naive action, driven by people who only think in $$$.

Graf Zahl said:

There's also no reason to believe that the changes are benign.

Well, I think it's fair to say that we expect them to be that way, that's why we bother with genetic engineering in the first place.

Graf Zahl said:

Playing God with our food supply strikes me as a highly naive action, driven by people who only think in $$$.

I know money plays a big role here, but there are a lot of people who genuinely care about it. Being against genetics because there are some unscrupulous people in the bussiness is like being against electronic engineering because some people use it to make bombs.

And I don't think modifying plants and/or animals is "playing God".

Graf Zahl said:

There's also no reason to believe that the changes are benign. Playing God with our food supply strikes me as a highly naive action, driven by people who only think in $$$.

Idk if I can agree with that; weren't humans playing God with their food supply when they cross-bred certain species over long periods of time to achieve an animal/plant that never would have otherwise existed? This goes all the way back to (and past) Gregor Mendell's genetics experiements on the pea plants.

Looking to the present, many produce in supermarkets as well as many grown from even minimally maintained gardens grow bigger than their wild counterparts. Now this statement gets into the Nature/Nurture argument, but there is undeniably a predisposition within the DNA to cause things to trend a certain way. And these are foods we wouldn't classify as GMOs simply because there's no scientist injecting chemicals into it to beef it up, but it is still playing God in a sense, isn't it? Same goes for animal breeds.

I hope this means I'll be able to buy lots of cheap GMO salmon in the future.

Besides, what's wrong with playing God? The Bible does, in fact, state that we were made in His image, so one can logically deduce that if He didn't want us to have the potential to be His equal eventually, He wouldn't have designed us the way that He did.

*smug*

Adam and Eve were probably kicked out of the Garden because they, um, obtained knowledge a little too quickly for comfort (perhaps God was afraid they would build nukes and blow up the planet, or something).

I personally choose to avoid all GMO's. Salmon is one of my favorite foods, so this is disappointing news.

RUSH said:

I personally choose to avoid all GMO's. Salmon is one of my favorite foods, so this is disappointing news.

I love the idea of GMO's.

Imagine a world where American bacon can be grown on trees, chicken naturally tastes like KFC and doesn't require additional spices, fruits and veggies are 5 times as big as they currently are, and it costs $5 to get a week's worth of food (not ramen) at the supermarket.

Wouldn't that be great?

frithiof said:

I love the idea of GMO's.

Imagine a world where American bacon can be grown on trees, chicken naturally tastes like KFC and doesn't require additional spices, fruits and veggies are 5 times as big as they currently are, and it costs $5 to get a week's worth of food (not ramen) at the supermarket.

Wouldn't that be great?

Except that GMO can't make bacon grow on trees. I'll swallow my shirt if that happens in our lifetime. It would be pretty neat but I just don't see GMO being capable of those kind of extremes. Currently the changes are mainly a subtle difference in nutritional properties, color, texture or (mainly) pesticide resistance. And what kind of effect would these crazy foods have on our environment exactly? I'm not a tree hugger but the damage of pesticide resistant weeds and insects is pretty well documented at this point and it isn't getting better.

Ya know, I was about to say "as long as we don't find out it causes cancer later" but then I remembered everything without moderation already does anyway.

Still, the environmental risks are a pressing issue, both to us and to our non-human neighbors. I wouldn't mind a bacon tree, though, as long as it's not a floppy-jawed, square-wheeled Canadian bacon tree ;p

*Edit*
About what Rush said, wait, you mean the so-called "super-bacteria" that are resistant to stuff like penicillin haven't taught us anything? We're Doomed.

Well, I think the pesticide issue could be a non-issue if plants were designed to be omnivorous, and were able to eat bugs and small animals.

That would probably work better with the bacon tree, though. More protein. Imagine how many animals it could attract if it was constantly giving off the scent of fried bacon; my cat used to start purring when I gave her tiny pieces of bacon (it was a rare treat).



GMO is the future.

The only thing that could make it better is if the plant could self-cook the bacon "buds" when you separate it from the main plant, and it had a huge cannabinoid content. Everyone would own at least one of these.

frithiof said:

Well, I think the pesticide issue could be a non-issue if plants were designed to be omnivorous, and were able to eat bugs and small animals.

That would probably work better with the bacon tree, though. More protein. Imagine how many animals it could attract if it was constantly giving off the scent of fried bacon; my cat used to start purring when I gave her tiny pieces of bacon (it was a rare treat).

Yeah, and next GMO trees will sprout legs, start talking and take shits everywhere like animals. Plants taking over world confirmed 2069.

I do not see artificial genetic modifications as playing as god, there can however be unforseen consequences however.

GhostlyDeath said:

If a natural event causes a proprietary/owned object and/or technology to place itself on your property then you are a thief and should rot in jail forever.

To prevent this from happening, I am selling bubble, plastic wrap, and stakes where you can wrap everything you own.

I don't know about "rot in jail forever", but there have been cases in Australia of organic farmers being put out of business by GMO contamination from nearby properties.

GreyGhost said:

I don't know about "rot in jail forever", but there have been cases in Australia of organic farmers being put out of business by GMO contamination from nearby properties.

Yet another overlooked problem with GMO's. I hate to be that doomsayer prophesy type guy, but honestly if you think about the power GMO food gives corporations like Monsanto it's quite scary. Genetically modifying a particular food allows Monsanto to claim a patent on it. Since that GMO food seed becomes the new standard, Monsanto can essentially (and legally) own that food. The concept of corporations being able to legally patent food makes me a little uneasy. To make matters worse, airborne GMO seeds can invade neighboring fields and cause organic (and non-GMO in general) farmers to lose their certification. I wouldn't be surprised if Monsanto secretly spreads GMO seeds to other farmers on purpose. They want to crush competition after all. But that's just my own speculation. I can't prove they sabotage. In any case, Monsanto are not afraid to sue you for every cent you have. You join their GMO crop or you tread a very thin line as a farmer.

GreyGhost said:

I don't know about "rot in jail forever", but there have been cases in Australia of organic farmers being put out of business by GMO contamination from nearby properties.

I think the real question here is who is producing the better product.

Is it the "organic" farmers, or the Monsanto farmers?

I mean, a lot of us like eating organic bread, but do we really enjoy paying twice as much for food that will get moldy in a couple days, while the chemically treated bread will last for a couple weeks?

Is it better to drink milk that is growth hormone free, or is it possible that our kids might actually benefit from getting a little extra growth hormone, and they get bigger and stronger as a result?

Suppose that GMO corn grows faster, and yields more than the organic corn, and with all that extra corn, you can send your surplus to an impoverished, war torn nation, and help save their lives?

And what if... what if... allowing GMO foods to be used, helps set in motion things that will allow the population of the USA to increase until it has more citizens than China?

I think of organic farming to be kinda like Apple, and Monsanto to be a bit like Microsoft. Apple makes decent products (although to be honest there were times in their history where they really should have died off due to producing super shitty hardware and software), but Microsoft makes the stuff that everyone uses (not in the literal sense, but you know what I mean), and most people tolerate Microsoft because their computers, in most cases, do what they are supposed to do, or the annoyances are so relatively minor that it's better to go with Microsoft than Apple. Especially since you're kinda paying a premium for Apple hardware and software, and Apple still kinda lags behind in some areas when you typically can get a superior PC product for half the price, or less.

With GMO foods, we might have cheaper foods, possibly a higher quality of food, and while it may push out the smaller farms that want to be "organic", perhaps sometimes the better product should succeed. There was a time in human history when success was determined by simply surviving. The strong conquered the weak, and the weak perished.

While that sort of thing is no longer an issue in modern first world countries (you can literally be born with the kinds of defects that normally would have resulted in death within minutes of being born, and you can now live to the ripe old age of 90, and you can get jobs that you aren't qualified to do because the standards will be lowered for you, and your coworkers will have to pick up the slack, because it's not politically correct to do otherwise), perhaps it is something that should be brought back, to a certain extent. Maybe, just maybe, we should allow superior products to dominate the market. Why let the inferior stuff dominate our supermarket shelves? We should demand the best for our children, and we should get the best.

Don't let them fool you by letting them trick you into thinking that we need these goofy, crappy products that do nothing good for us. Accept nothing but the best. You deserve it.

Buy GMO foods. Be the better person. God bless you.

I'll give the GMO salmon 15 years on the shelves, if no one has reported their kidneys mutated into aliens or some shit by then due to eating GMOs, I might give it a shot.