5 ms·

I don't know what I'm supposed to be scared of here. The concept of genetically engineered food doesn't put me off in the least, and the risk of these salmon e

by Zikes 11y ago

I don't know what I'm supposed to be scared of here. The concept of genetically engineered food doesn't put me off in the least, and the risk of these salmon escaping to the wild doesn't sound particularly dangerous to me. I know there're lots of "unknown unknowns" when it comes to messing with the natural order, but if for some reason they wind up thriving and supplanting the existing salmon population then, what, we wind up with faster-growing wild salmon? I'm sure the local fishermen won't mind.

AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
My concern, oddly enough, would be copyright. Suppose the AquAdvantage Salmon escapes into the wild, reproduced, and flourishes. Suppose that it flourishes so well that it displaces the native population of salmon. Then, finally, suppose that Aqua Bounty starts suing everyone and everything who attempts to fish, catch, or farm these salmon, which are now the only thing left. Such behavior would not be unheard of. See similar accusations against Monsanto: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally-in-farmers-fields.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally...
- falsestprophet 11y ago
  My concern, oddly enough, would be copyright. You mean patent infringement.
- x1798DE 11y ago
  First of all, it would be patent protections, not copyright. Huge difference. Second, I highly doubt anyone would succeed with such a dubious legal strategy. Catching fish in the wild with your patented genes in them is not a violation of your patent rights - who is the violator? The fish?
  - pfisch 11y ago
    What happens when you sell the fish?
    - vectorjohn 11y ago
      You earn money from the consumer?
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        You get sued.
  - gregcrv 11y ago
    "That case concerned Percy Schmeiser, who discovered that canola growing on his farm in 1997 was Roundup resistant. He had initially discovered that some canola growing by a roadside along one of his fields was Roundup resistant when he was killing weeds along the road; this led him to spray a three- to four‑acre section of his adjacent field and 60% of the canola survived. Schmeiser harvested the seed from the surviving, Roundup resistant plants, and planted the seed in 1998. Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for the 1998 planting. Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from seed that was pollinated with pollen blown into his field from neighboring fields, he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in 1998." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases edit: TL;DR: Monsanto sues farmers, not seeds ;)
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Schmeiser was found to have deliberately created a Roundup-Ready crop --- he weaned out the non-RR crops by spraying them with glyphosate, preserved the patent-encumbered plants, and then cultivated them so that his fields were ultimately 95+% encumbered, in such a way that he could spray them with Roundup at any point he felt it would be profitable and only then pay the licensing fees.
      - trhway 11y ago
        >he weaned out the non-RR crops by spraying them with glyphosate, preserved the patent-encumbered plants, and then cultivated them so that his fields were ultimately 95+% encumbered this is how typical selection works. And the same way like the antibiotic resistance develops.
        tptacek 11y ago
        You should just read the trial documentation (there is a shitload of it just a Google search away). Suffice it to say that the trial pretty conclusively established that Schmeiser deliberately created an unauthorized glyphosate crop. You might not care; that's fine. This link might save us an unproductive round-trip: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10604755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10604755
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 11y ago
  Every time this Monsanto story comes up, people leave out the part where Monsanto has only sued people who grew Roundup-Ready crops and then sprayed them with glyphosate, which would kill non-Roundup-Ready crops.
unclebucknasty 11y ago
Honestly, that's pretty naive when we're talking about biology and complex ecosystems. Yes, there are a lot of unknown unknowns, as you stated. So, not quite sure how you're concluding it's all good.
glibgil 11y ago
What if they escape, thrive and naturally select for some advantage that has the side effect of making them taste like shit?
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  Then we make GE shit fish that taste good!
munificent 11y ago
> the risk of these salmon escaping to the wild doesn't sound particularly dangerous to me. It should. You can think of a GM species as akin to introduce a foreign species to a new environment. Except in this case, instead of coming from some other continent, it came from a lab. So, how does introducing foreign species go? Often, it's fine. But often, it's catastrophically destructive. Think kudzu in the Southeast, rabbits and cane toads in Australia, killer bees, carp in the Mississippi, and rats pretty much everywhere they've been introduced. A new, aggressive species that the ecosystem hasn't had time to get used to can decimate an area and cause species to go extinct before they have time to adapt.
- blacksmith_tb 11y ago
  Except these are sterile females, farmed in inland pools[1]. I agree in general that we should consider the possibility of GM species interbreeding with or out-competing existing species, but this case seems exceptionally safe. 1: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/genetically_engineered_aquabounty_salmon_safe_fda_decides.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  The risk of this GM species escaping into the environment is infinitesimally small. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/fda-approves-first-gmo-food-animal-atlantic-salmon/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/fda-approves-first-gm... Key part: "The agency also assessed potential environmental effects and the proposed containment method. In accordance with the FDA’s approval, the fish must be kept in inland tanks, specifically tanks at two facilities—one in Canada and the other in Panama. The Canadian facility will keep the breeding stock, and the Panama site will be used to raise the fish to market-size. Both facilities have multiple, redundant physical barriers to keep the fish and eggs from escaping, the agency noted. Tanks have covers, nets, jump fences, covered drains, and closed septic systems. In addition, conditions of natural water systems surrounding the Panama site, particularly the warm temperatures, are expected to be lethal to the salmon. The Panama site will raise all-female, sterile fish."

by Zikes 11y ago

AdmiralAsshat 11y ago

My concern, oddly enough, would be copyright. Suppose the AquAdvantage Salmon escapes into the wild, reproduced, and flourishes. Suppose that it flourishes so well that it displaces the native population of salmon. Then, finally, suppose that Aqua Bounty starts suing everyone and everything who attempts to fish, catch, or farm these salmon, which are now the only thing left. Such behavior would not be unheard of. See similar accusations against Monsanto: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally-in-farmers-fields.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally...

falsestprophet 11y ago
My concern, oddly enough, would be copyright. You mean patent infringement.
x1798DE 11y ago
First of all, it would be patent protections, not copyright. Huge difference. Second, I highly doubt anyone would succeed with such a dubious legal strategy. Catching fish in the wild with your patented genes in them is not a violation of your patent rights - who is the violator? The fish?
- pfisch 11y ago
  What happens when you sell the fish?
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    You earn money from the consumer?
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      You get sued.
- gregcrv 11y ago
  "That case concerned Percy Schmeiser, who discovered that canola growing on his farm in 1997 was Roundup resistant. He had initially discovered that some canola growing by a roadside along one of his fields was Roundup resistant when he was killing weeds along the road; this led him to spray a three- to four‑acre section of his adjacent field and 60% of the canola survived. Schmeiser harvested the seed from the surviving, Roundup resistant plants, and planted the seed in 1998. Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for the 1998 planting. Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from seed that was pollinated with pollen blown into his field from neighboring fields, he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in 1998." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases edit: TL;DR: Monsanto sues farmers, not seeds ;)
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Schmeiser was found to have deliberately created a Roundup-Ready crop --- he weaned out the non-RR crops by spraying them with glyphosate, preserved the patent-encumbered plants, and then cultivated them so that his fields were ultimately 95+% encumbered, in such a way that he could spray them with Roundup at any point he felt it would be profitable and only then pay the licensing fees.
    - trhway 11y ago
      >he weaned out the non-RR crops by spraying them with glyphosate, preserved the patent-encumbered plants, and then cultivated them so that his fields were ultimately 95+% encumbered this is how typical selection works. And the same way like the antibiotic resistance develops.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        You should just read the trial documentation (there is a shitload of it just a Google search away). Suffice it to say that the trial pretty conclusively established that Schmeiser deliberately created an unauthorized glyphosate crop. You might not care; that's fine. This link might save us an unproductive round-trip: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10604755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10604755
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 11y ago
Every time this Monsanto story comes up, people leave out the part where Monsanto has only sued people who grew Roundup-Ready crops and then sprayed them with glyphosate, which would kill non-Roundup-Ready crops.

unclebucknasty 11y ago

Honestly, that's pretty naive when we're talking about biology and complex ecosystems. Yes, there are a lot of unknown unknowns, as you stated. So, not quite sure how you're concluding it's all good.

glibgil 11y ago

What if they escape, thrive and naturally select for some advantage that has the side effect of making them taste like shit?

vectorjohn 11y ago
Then we make GE shit fish that taste good!

munificent 11y ago

> the risk of these salmon escaping to the wild doesn't sound particularly dangerous to me. It should. You can think of a GM species as akin to introduce a foreign species to a new environment. Except in this case, instead of coming from some other continent, it came from a lab. So, how does introducing foreign species go? Often, it's fine. But often, it's catastrophically destructive. Think kudzu in the Southeast, rabbits and cane toads in Australia, killer bees, carp in the Mississippi, and rats pretty much everywhere they've been introduced. A new, aggressive species that the ecosystem hasn't had time to get used to can decimate an area and cause species to go extinct before they have time to adapt.

blacksmith_tb 11y ago
Except these are sterile females, farmed in inland pools[1]. I agree in general that we should consider the possibility of GM species interbreeding with or out-competing existing species, but this case seems exceptionally safe. 1: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/genetically_engineered_aquabounty_salmon_safe_fda_decides.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
enraged_camel 11y ago
The risk of this GM species escaping into the environment is infinitesimally small. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/fda-approves-first-gmo-food-animal-atlantic-salmon/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/fda-approves-first-gm... Key part: "The agency also assessed potential environmental effects and the proposed containment method. In accordance with the FDA’s approval, the fish must be kept in inland tanks, specifically tanks at two facilities—one in Canada and the other in Panama. The Canadian facility will keep the breeding stock, and the Panama site will be used to raise the fish to market-size. Both facilities have multiple, redundant physical barriers to keep the fish and eggs from escaping, the agency noted. Tanks have covers, nets, jump fences, covered drains, and closed septic systems. In addition, conditions of natural water systems surrounding the Panama site, particularly the warm temperatures, are expected to be lethal to the salmon. The Panama site will raise all-female, sterile fish."