8 ms·
Genetically modified salmons approved by the FDA
- jaequery 14y agoUpon further research, here are a few things that caught my attention: #1) There was a bit of Congress lobbying to get it approved. #2) There is a 5% chance that these fishes could actually become fertile. #3) These fishes have an extra chromosome and a novel protein not found in any other salmons.
- adulau 14y agohttp://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224760.pdf http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMe... "The potential hazards addressed in this EA center on the likelihood and consequences of AquAdvantage Salmon escaping, becoming established in the environment, and spreading to other areas. These hazards must be addressed for the production of eyed-eggs, grow-out to market size, and disposal (i.e., of fish & fish wastes)." and "As discussed in §2.4.2.1, the estimated escape rate of salmon from sea cages is about 1%. Sea cages, or net pens, have a direct connection with the aquatic environment." 1% of 50.000-90.000 fish in sea cage it's not something negligible, the first direct impact might be against the non-GE Atlantic salmon (salmo salar). Especially that salmon eats salmon eggs and so the dominant specie might become the GE one. You might say, oh it's fine it's not touching the diversity of Salmon, it's just replacing the Atlantic salmon with another one. Wait, they took some coding sequence from the pacific salmon (and especially from the oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and added the "anti freezing" protein from zoarces americanus. So this "subspecie" got an interesting level of properties to find its place in the atlantic and/or in the pacific (where the diversity of salmons (Oncorhynchus) is much higher) region. Those risks are without any spreading of the genetic modification (assuming that triploid induction is effective with a probability of 1, another point where the scientific literature is lowering down the probability of effectiveness). I suppose those risks are not really considered by the FDA as critical because the F is for Food in FDA. So the risk of changing the whole profile of wild salmon with such "GE" salmon is not negligible.
- allerratio 14y ago> As a precaution, the fish are all female and contain three copies of each chromosome rather than two, rendering them sterile. They won't replace atlantic salmon
- sliverstorm 14y agoBut what if they mate and spread their mutant genes? I don't think you understand how this works. /troll
- adulau 14y agoDo you know a way to have 100% triploid female in a set of 1 million females?
- twiceaday 14y agoNature will find a way.
- jaequery 14y ago"But the sterilization process is not perfect; up to 5% of treated salmon could still reproduce."
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- earbitscom 14y agoOther animals bred to have fast-growing qualities typically suffer incredibly painful problems supporting their unnatural weight. When are people going to realize that: A) just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. B) animals are not playthings put on Earth for us to do whatever we want with.
- unimpressive 14y agoWe can eventually fix the pain thing if that's an issue. And Christianity takes an opposing view, meaning that this attitude is deeply ingrained in western culture. (Which I happen to agree with.[0]) "01:001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." - King James Bible Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/30/pg30.txt http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/30/pg30.txt [0]: The attitude, on this particular issue.
- earbitscom 14y agoChristianity takes an opposing view to logic as well.
- unimpressive 14y agoI actually mention this not because I'm a Christian, but to let you know that the cultural precedent for this attitude in the west is deeply seated, so the answer to your question may be "A long time" or "Never".
- DanBC 14y agoLet's avoid the vegetarian arguments for the moment, because they are usually more heat than light. Are you saying that we can do whatever we like to animals? Or that we can do whatever we like to animals so long as it benefits humans? Or that we can do whatever we like so long as the benefit is significant? Or what?
- rjzzleep 14y agoi've stopped eating salmon a while back, the way theyre farmed is nothing short of disgusting. I think a deathrate of 20% is considered good in those tanks. But seriously who wants to eat animals that live on corn? for a subtle introduction on where the us meat comes from i suggest http://www.eatinganimals.com/ http://www.eatinganimals.com/
- twiceaday 14y agoI have a different reason for not eating farmed salmon: it looks and tastes awful.
- twelvechairs 14y agoWhat turned me off farmed salmon was this study on chemical contaminants http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Dec05/salmon.ssl.html http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Dec05/salmon.ssl.html. Key phrases "Consumers should not eat farmed fish from Scotland, Norway and eastern Canada more than three times a year" (for other origins its generally six times). Its worth noting that you can get wild-fishery salmon too (though generally all Atlantic Salmon is aquaculture). 'Plenty more fish in the sea' as they say. Salmon's unique, sure, but I'd rather buy something I am fairly certain is from a wild fishery.
- fusiongyro 14y agoHas the story changed much since 2005 when this was published?
- mitchi 14y agoEveryone should rethink their meat consumption. First, if you read nutrition books, you realize that in the long term, it's not healthy. It's much better to eat vegetables. Secondly, you can get all the nutrients and vitamins you need from whole foods. Thirdly, it can be cheap. A can of chickpeas is around $1 and it really fills you up for many hours. I'm not saying everyone should be vegetarian. But if everyone was 70 % vegetarian things would be very different.
- 14y ago
- jeffool 14y agoAs someone who doesn't care at all about eating genetically modified foods, I expect the argument over labeling will break out soon. To fire the first shot: I really wish they'd label genetically modified foods. It seems a small courtesy for those who do have concerns. And those who don't? Well, we don't care. That's the point.
- DanBC 14y agoYou are rational. Many people are not. Labelling a food as "genetically modified" is the same to them as labelling it as "radioactive" or "contains excrement". I'm not sure if labelling food as genetically modified is a useful warning, or if it would be the same as saying "wifi used in this building". WIFI isn't harmful, and eventually it's going to be everywhere and not avoidable. Yet you still have people who claim that electronic smog causes all sorts of things. I'm happy to eat these things. I'm gently worried about releasing organisms into the wild with "exogenes" (or whatever they're called). Evolution is amazing and powerful and wonderful. And human intervention in eco-systems isn't filled with particularly great examples - a long list of invasive species comes to mind.
- malandrew 14y agoHow many buildings in California do you regularly come across with the "This building contains chemicals known in the State of California to cause cancer" or something to that effect? They are everywhere. It doesn't stop 99% of people from entering these buildings to work or live in them.
- jeffool 14y agoI actually do get the worry of changing the ecosystem. That's the biggest concern to me as well. And I think I get your concern about the labeling as well. You're worried that people will assume the worst. I mean, you called it a "warning". But I expect it to be more like an organic labeling. Some people will care, most won't. Is it useful? Only to those who care.
- MRSallee 14y agoIf people want labels, they should demand them in the market. Don't buy foods that don't label. Do buy foods that do label. If they want to buy a food that doesn't label, write the producer and tell them you won't buy without a label. I'm already seeing a number of products proudly claiming they don't use GMOs.
- Surio 14y agoDan barber's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Barber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Barber TED talk might be relevant to this discussion ;-] http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_how_i_fell_in_love_with_a_fish.html http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_how_i_fell_in_love_with_...
- tomkinstinch 14y agoThere are legitimate concerns surrounding genetically modified foods. Some potential problems include the creation of monocultures that permit rapid and more complete devastation from disease, selective pressure that creates superior pests and predators (positive feedback toward creating monocultures), negative ecological network effects, overuse of pesticides, and reliance on commercial seed (you think software patents cause problems...). Food safety is one, but it's a given for crops intended for human consumption. That said, the real problem is fear from people who do not understand the science. We've been modifying what we eat for thousands of years. Selective breeding has allowed us to feed today's world. Development of short-stalk, high-yield, disease resistant wheat by Norman Borlaug in the 1950s secured a food supply for Mexico and India. His cultivars are now credited with saving more than a billion lives. Where selective breeding got us to where we are today, genetic engineering will carry us into the future. We need higher yields per acre to support a growing population. That means industrialized farming and cultivars that support industrial methods. So-called "Roundup-ready" varieties of plants allow mass spraying of herbicides over fields, and let desirable plants crow without competition from weeds (the plants have been made resistant to the herbicide). Corn engineered to carry the "Bt" gene for a bacterial endotoxin produces its own insecticide. In each case the modification allows for a higher yield per acre. Some may say that selective breeding is different than recombinant methods, which is true. Introducing exogenous DNA into an organism is different than crossing two parent organisms. The introduction of new DNA or new alleles does occur in nature however, via viral insertion or mutation. Somewhere between 5% and 10% of our own DNA is the result of viral insertions. Plants and salmon are effected by viruses too. We are only accelerating evolution down particular paths (albeit perhaps down very unlikely paths). So genetic modification is not inherently harmful, and it can confer wonderfully advantageous benefits. Baseless fear is unwarranted, but cautious concern is justified. When having debates or reporting on GM foods it is important that we discuss both the benefits of GMO foods along with the concerns I mentioned above. It is prudent that any new organism be fully studied and understood before it is deployed in the outside world, and at a large scale. Environmental impact needs to be understood. In the US, GMO foods must clear many regulatory hurdles before being approved. Among these are complete characterization of the genomically integrated transgene(s) and demonstration that the transgene(s) remains stable over multiple generations. Apparently these and other criteria have been met to the satisfaction of the reviewers examining the farmed salmon. Here is the environmental impact study provided to the FDA by the salmon company: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224760.pdf http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMe... Even though I support genetic engineering of foods, I am against labeling of GMO foods as currently proposed because I think a simple statement is inadequate. Saying "GMO food" says nothing about the modification, and only serves to incite fear. In a time of rapid whole genome sequencing, I want to be able to scan a QR code on a package and get a link to the GenBank entry for the food organism in question, along with the impact studies and a plainly worded overview. I want to see notes for which insertions, deletions, or other changes were made. I want to see the DNA diff on the genomic source code. Public food should be open source. A few years ago I had lunch with Richard Stallman (a fun story itself), and wanted to get his take on gene patents and "closed source" organisms. While he expressed an understandable disapproval of corporate monopolies on crops and biopharmaceuticals, he did not seem to have a strong desire for Freedom in genetically engineered products. I found that surprising. He thought the barrier to entry was too high for people to make their own genetic changes as they might make changes to software. I think we need to consider that genetic engineering is only going to get easier. From some cursory reading it looks like the salmon in question in this article has been modified with a promoter (kind of like a compiler flag to enable production of a gene product) from the pout fish, and a subsequent growth hormone gene from a different salmon species. It grows faster, is more aggressive, and is sterile. It seems that the aquaculture companies interested in using the fish intend to keep it isolated from the outside environment, but even in the event of a release the fish would merely eat prey. They would ultimately die. Since they are sterile, the likelihood is low that they would be able to outcompete unmodified variants in their single generation. It seems they are safe all around. If anyone is curious, the inserted gene construct is known as opAFP-GHc2, and its CDS source is available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/56691717 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/56691717