Genetically engineered salmon: A problem?

The fish at issue: AquaBounty Technologies' AquAdvantage salmon.

A gene from Chinook salmon has been added to to some other type of salmon. Aquabounty has reason to believe that there are commercial advantages. I think the resulting salmon grow faster or bigger.

Several advocacy groups are lobbying the FDA for delay of approval, increased scrutiny , and/or out right rejection of the engineered salmon.

I wonder what the situation really is.

There are surely (I think) various consumer advocates that have valid (perhaps not conclusive) reasons for their point of view.

I am also convinced that there are some daffy consumer advocates that are similar to the Luddities.​

It always seems difficult to decide which groups belong in which category. It might even be the case that some groups have both daffy concepts & valid reasons for their point of view. It is also likely to be the case that such groups are biased, but sometimes accidentally correct in their view on some issues.

Relating to the above salmon issue, one of the groups I researched is dead set against irradiation of food products. This is surely hysteria due to prejudice against any concept which seems remotely related to atomic weapons. Irradiation of food is a fast, efficient method of getting rid of bacteria with no significant downside. When you hear these people talk, you realize that they think the resulting food is radioactive, which it is not.

Another group is uptight about genetically engineered corn, which has lots of advantages & little or no downside.

On the other hand, the above groups seem to be also lobbying on issues which are more murky (to me) & possibly lobbying for good causes (even if doing so accidently).

It does seem difficult to image harm coming from a gene from one type of salmon being engineered into the DNA of another type of salmon. It would seem to make much more sense to object to such a gene mix involving a human created gene or a gene from a totally different type of creature.

I wish I felt more confident in the mind set, efficiency, & competency of the FDA, which is after all subject to political pressures.

I am sure that there are some safe & worthwhile genetic engineering projects & surely some potentially dangerous ones. I am also sure that some people will never accept any human method of improving on so-called natural products.

BTW: Much of the advocacy of "organic" food products is nonsense. While there are down sides to the use of hormones & fertilizers, the resulting products are almost always as good or better (in some respects) than so called “organic” products & are almost always less expensive. Note that cobra venom is a natural “organic” substance as are ebola & cholera causing bacteria/viruses.

Any knowledge or opinions on the above?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, and I think that occurs along with a failure to achieve sexual maturity at an earlier age. They plan to stock Atlantic coast fish farms with the modified fish, which should substantially increase yield.

The fear is pollution of the salmon genetic pool with the transplanted gene. I have no idea as to the validity of that fear, and I also am familiar with the rather extreme and sometimes unscientific reaction of various anti - GM products activist groups on this topic. The bottom line is that we will deploy genetically modified organisms in our food production strategy because we will have to in order to feed an ever - increasing, hungry human population until we cease breeding ourselves into famine. While the intention of many of these activist groups is good and some great benefits come from their activities, they can also be a problem and a nuisance due to their extreme or irrational stances.

Caution and moderation appear to be called for in this process.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what does " no significant downside " actually mean ?

fine but my question above is still asked

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...UszHiSYxfhiUrudRg&sig2=TwzqK0Nm_4rjEZ1_wcefWg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...j0f18rIP0ftxg3kPQ&sig2=jPwVDMo-mrfR5BZ2PJqdaQ

 

thanks very much cosmictraveler

extremely important info for us all

river

 

Irradiation of food is an old subject , I remember it as we were producing and packaging beef on 1963. the irradiated beef was tested for many years , no effect was reported the only changed was a slight increase of sulfide odor.

 

what was the follow up research though ?

 

This paragraph says a lot of validity of the validity of the scary report'

In studies done on malnourished children by the National Institute of Nutrition at the Council of Medical Research in Hyderabad, India, blood tests showed chromosome damage after being fed freshly irradiated wheat for six weeks. Children fed a similar but un-irradiated diet did not show damage. When the children were taken off the irradiated diet the condition gradually went away.

http://www.healthalternatives2000.com/food-supply-report.html

 

as I thought , I forgot to mention this concern

I wondered , if the irradiation destroyed most of the nutrition in the food what was the point in eating it , it was empty food

 

If you have in mind protein . Well they get broken down into amino acids between you stomach and your duodenum and what ever is not absorbed is food for your bacteria in the colon. The same faith will be for your fat and starches ( you saliva will work on your starch)

In my opinion the chemical in the food are there , Gama radiation will ionize some Protein ,fat or carbohydrate , which means break down the chemical bonds,( choking or baking you break binds ) and some will recombine If there were some free radicals as soon you cook the food they will recombine , ( I would suspect the question could be about about free radicals )

 

in post #4 by cosmictraveler

second web site

actually answered my question

 

River: You asked the following.

what does " no significant downside " actually mean ?​

Circa 10-20 years ago, I read various articles relating to irradiation of food to destroy biological contaminants. I do not remember any mention of adverse effects. I do remember that some people erroneous believed that the resulting products were radioactive.

I appended the phrase “no significant downside” because I merely assumed that almost any process has some downside. Perhaps I should have said: “The down sides, if any, are of little or no concern.”

I have read about claims that irradiated food loses some nutrients & vitamins. As far as I know such claims have some validity, but the loss is viewed as minor & a worthwhile trade off for greatly decreased risk of infection or disease due to bacterial contamination.

There might be some alternative methods of coping with bacterial contaminants. It could be that one or more alternatives have advantages when compared to irradiation. I have not made a survey of the possibilities & rely (perhaps naively) on the sources of my food: Mainly Whole Foods & Trader Joe’s, which Gloria & I consider a bit more reliable than other food markets, although we do shop at other markets & speciality shops.

One of the links posted to this thread leads to articles by Dr. Gayle Eversole, PhD, ND, who is very much opposed to irradiation of food. A search turned up the following biographical data.

Gayle has completed education in psychology (1963); traditional naturopathy (1968); nursing and whole systems design (1969, 74, 75, 77); Oriental Medicine (1972); Meditation and Arbitration (1982, 83); master herbalist in western herbalism (1985); Ethics and counseling (1991); therapeutic aromatherapy (1998); Ayurveda (2000); and homeopathy and flower essence therapy (2002).​

When I see terms like the above (especially homeopathy), I tend to dismiss the opinions presented.

Another link referred to The Decuypere Report, which describes experiments with children in India. The experiments seemed to show that children fed irradiated food faired worse than those fed unirradiated food. A search for Decuypere resulted in the following.

Radiation has known negative effects on your body. Radiation naturally occurs in the environment and food supply, through radioactive materials such as rocks, soil and air. Common sources of exposure include nuclear accidents, nuclear bomb testing, x-rays from medical offices and therapies for cancer, the food supply, the sun and cigarette smoking.

Microwave ovens are the primary source of radiation for your food. According to chiropractic physician Dr. J. D. Decuypere, microwaving your food can produce unique radiolytic products that can alter the nutritional composition of foods. Irradiation of food to preserve or prolong shelf life is another means of radiation exposure. The dose used for fruits and vegetables, red meat, poultry and spices is considered low and safe for human consumption by the Food and Drug Administration, but the Organic Consumers Association feels any exposure can have unpredictable effects. Decuypere says that irradiation to kill harmful bacteria, such as E. coli, can cause mutations of the bacteria, causing resistance to irradiation and becoming more dangerous to your health.​

First: note that J. D. Decuypere is a chiropractor, which to me translates as a Quack., if not a charlatan.

Second: Note that Decuypere does not seem to know the difference between microwave radiation & irradiation of food.

Third: He seems to think or imply that irradiated foods have some level of radioactivity when consumed. This is a false belief.

Considering the above, I accept neither the conclusions of the alleged experiments in India (Decuypere Report) nor the opinions of Dr. Gayle Eversole & I consider irradiation of food to be a good idea. I still believe that most of the opposition is due to confusion with & hysteria relating to radioactivity.

BTW: I do not have the foggiest idea of how widespread the use of irradiation is.

 

Interesting,educational and scary video.What to do,what to do.

Real food, is that too much to ask?

http://www.wimp.com/realfood/

 

X-Man2: The video by Robyn O'Brien was interesting. Thanx for the link. A bit of Web Searching indicates that she is a credible person, rather than a Quack with some agenda (as were those at links provided by others).

She seems very sincere in her crusade triggered by the food allergies of one of her children. She cites some statistics which suggest an increase in the number of children with food allergies.

It is not clear that said allergies are due to genetically modified food or other modern techniques associated with the chain of events from original food sources & agricultural methods to the food being put on the dining room table.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find any good statistical studies related to this potential problem. In the absence of pertinent studies, it seems that one must rely on general knowledge & logical analysis.

It should be noted that sufferers are almost always allergic to very specific foods: Peanuts, milk, whatever. This strongly suggests that their problem is due to their immune system or overall biochemistry being different from the norm.

I think but am not certain that allergic reactions to peanuts occurred long before we had genetic tinkering & other modern agricultural methods. Similar comments apply to various other allergies.

Intolerance to bovine milk is related to certain cultural backgrounds. The ability of some to thrive on cows milk has been mentioned as an example of recent human evolution. Those with milk intolerance are from cultures with no history of raising cattle for meat & dairy products.

Circa 1935-1939 I was violently allergic to so called poison ivy, while none of my peers had such a problem. It was an allergy which ceased to bother me by the time I was circa 10-14. I am sure that the poison ivy was not genetically modified, irradiated, nor doused with any modern artificial fertilizer products. I contacted it in wooded areas.

While some never cease to have allergic reactions to their nemesis products, many children grow up to be immune. This surely suggests an immature immune system which becomes stronger after exposure to problem substances.​

The above surely suggests that modern technological tinkering with agricultural products is not a threat to our health.

BTW: Every time I hear mention of the virtues of so called natural/organic food, I remember that cobra venom & poison ivy are natural/organic products.

It seems to me that the down sides of modern agricultural methods are surely outweighed by increased productivity & decreases in prices. In particular, I think (not certain) that the use of genetically modified seeds has been very beneficial to various poorer third world cultures due to increased crop yields.

Certainly, the poorer cultures cannot afford the increased price of organic/natural farm products. My life partner Gloria & I are sensitive to the increased price of such products. I have read various articles claiming that there is little (if any) difference in either the nutritional value or the safety of natural/organic products. I do not remember the source of such articles. I hope they are from Scientific American or the NY Times Science section rather than from some publication backed by the farming industry.

The views of Robyn O’Brien cannot be arbitrarily dismissed, although to me they seem to be a weak argument against modern agricultural technology.

 

I dont think that people should genetically modificate anything, i tried a genetically modified tomato, and honestly it looks nice, but its taste suck, people shouldn't mess with nature

 

Ilija: Note the bold part of the following.

I dont think that people should genetically modificate anything, i tried a genetically modified tomato, and honestly it looks nice, but its taste suck, people shouldn't mess with nature​

The last Homo Sapiens who did not mess with nature were called "Hunter/gatherers" They survived without domesticating animals or planting crops.

BTW: I did not know that a geneticaly altered tomato was available. Can you provide some details?

So far, I am happy with the taste of modern fruits & vegetables which have been "messed with" in various ways. They compare favorably with those I ate 50-60 years ago.

 

And how do you know that gm food is healthy, you can't really say now but in the next several centuries, none should mess up with food and water, this is where the limit should be.
We're talking about genetic modification, what makes you think that this gm food will not change your genes artificially?
Gm food should be banned that's for sure.
It's like opening pandora's box when it comes to human health.

 

The difference is they didn't put bacteria/virus directly into the plant or animal meat.

 

It's also likely to save billions of lives of people who would otherwise starve. Your concerns over GM food is the same sort of hysterical, irrational reaction that people have to vaccines. It's the leftwing version of creationism and global warming denialism: a rejection of science that is impervious to facts. It you are a fan of people *not* starving to death, then GM foods should be spread around the world, that's for sure.

 

You can talk about whatever you want but the fact is health and medicine are the prisoners of one god-and that one god is money, it's not in their interest for us to be healthy at all, this is why people today don't believe in science like they used to. Science has become some sort of religion because it's right only what science says, but the fact remains, I and everyone else who eat food today are merely lab rats in a multi-billion dollar industry (and what makes you think they don't pay FDA for test results, but there is more than just gm food, you have artificial chemistry, pollution and etc (now we have nanotechnology to create artificial food...)...
In the end my body reacts to the food to see how it will handle it, "I'm the best doctor for my own body", because if I eat food that is generally claimed as safe and healthy by science, and when I start to eat it and find that I have some health problems with this food/medicine or whatever, than of course I will reject it, despite what science says.

Science is only as good how far you are ready to experiment and to check if someone's statements are true or false without the pressure of the ones who give money, and that's not the case. For example why do multinational companies do not want to test cannabis oil? My friend who has multiple sclerosis drinks oil from cannabis, and so far the results are excellent at preventing and protecting multiple sclerosis. Even if multinational companies had the permission to produce the medicine, it would be a "watered down" version of it. I also remember when I read articles that multinational companies did not want to produce an medicine (I forgot which one) because it would be TOO CHEAP.
http://santacruz.patch.com/articles/cannabis-oil-fights-cancer
http://cannabiscureuk.wordpress.com...annabis-oil-shrinks-one-of-the-worst-cancers/

I simply cannot believe that gm food is healthy, sorry, but I can't. That's my right, and I do have the right to reject gm food as a consumer and all of gm products should be labeled as well.
As for the starving, the fact is that today we today produce food (conventional and organic, I'm not talking about gm food) for 12 billion people, so gm food is totally unnecessary. It is a matter of food distribution, it's not a matter of can we feed entire population (because as I said we today produce enough food for 12 billion people), it's a matter of distribution of food, politics and economics of each country, not to mention the war leaders who don't allow to distribute the food for those who really need it.
Bungling with mother nature cannot end good (one way or the other), only bad. Also, people used to eat much healthier food 50-60 years ago.
Like I said it's my right to reject gm food or anything else that concerns my own personal health.
Cheers.