Transgenic fish go large

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Michael, Sep 15, 2010.

?

Are you going to eat transgenic salmon?

  1. Yes

    8 vote(s)
    57.1%
  2. No

    4 vote(s)
    28.6%
  3. I would but I don't like salmon so no.

    2 vote(s)
    14.3%
  1. keith1 Guest

    I was waiting for you to refute my stance that there has been little, if any testing of plant-to-animal and fish-to-fish. I hope the government isn't basing on such an incomplete study.

    These are the things that I, who want to enjoy their meal, time and time again require, to achieve that continuing result.
    Perhaps if I were a plant, I would sluff it off as a minor issue. Or the victim of some continuing mass hypnosis by those who don't care to know.

    This is not a vegan conspiracy.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    So... 1000 years is a bit lengthly.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Why?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Keith

    You do not have a stance. You have a dogma.

    Genes are composed of nucleic acids, and they manufacture proteins. The GM salmon involves a chinook salmon gene being placed into an Atlantic salmon. That means that the GM Atlantic salmon has a chinook salmon gene and some chinook salmon protein.

    Eating the GM salmon is therefore nutritionally the same as eating two kinds of salmon at once. If someone placed on my dinner plate, a little chinook salmon flesh alongside a little Atlantic salmon flesh, I would have no problem eating them both.

    If it was GM salmon instead, I would eat it with gusto, and the end result would be no different to eating the two kinds of salmon together.

    If you say that gene mixing creates a result different to what I have just described, then you believe in magic. Something scientifically impossible. And that is pure superstition.
     
  8. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Well, they won't be using any fake eggs in the manufactoring of these beauties. Afterall, I doubt the long exposure to the natural incredients of the casing would have the same effect on industrial chemicals as a protein-filled egg yolk would.
     
  9. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I agree, however, did you see Doreen's video post on aspartame?

    Scientists are every shade of white like anyone else. Sure, the food is probably safe, however, what I worry about is how unbiased the data is. PNAS publishes without review if you're a member of the academy - and I know people who have tidy little "arrangements" that see they get published. Peer review is also subject to peer pressure, even seeing the authors and schools influences how much they "trust" that the data they are reading is real. Some scientists are starved for funding and will "interpret" their experiments in a way that gets more of it. Others want glory. Others want money. Some are diluted. Still others wouldn't know Science if it slapped them upside their PCR machine

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    The underlying issue is human over-population, IMO.
     
  10. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Michael

    In spite of your scepticism about peer review, the best guide we have to the quality of data is that it is published by a reputable, peer reviewed journal. I do admit, though, that I often refer to secondary sources. Such things as Scientific American, Sciencedaily, New Scientist. These usually report on research that has been published in proper journals. I also refer to web sites from reputable sources such as universities, research institutes, government departments, and a few specialist sites like the Mayo Clinic.

    Once you get away from reputable sources, there is a vast sewer pond of dubious writings out there. The internet is full of it. Yes, I mean scientific bullsh!t.

    We need to be very careful what we accept as valid. I do not believe, for example, that there is anything wrong with aspartame, since I have never seen any reference to its "evils" in a sound and reputable source. I have even read a note in Food Facts, the journal of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, a statement that there is no sound scientific data to implicate aspartame.

    Unsound data, of course, is another matter.
     
  11. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Its all good and well to blame over-population for the demise of natural foods but you offer no credible suggestions. At the end of the day its easier to manipulate foods than it is to stop people from having children.
     
  12. keith1 Guest

    If the manipulated food has not been tested, and no warning labels applied, if future generations show signs of "provable genetic damage" by these products, then the GM food companies have no protection against massive litigation (similar to the tobacco company litigations of the past).
     
  13. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Those are a lot of 'ifs'
     
  14. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720
    If you want to start trolling I’ll be more than happy to deal with you as such.


    Of course not, and I never said as much. It’s just one of many data that demonstrate you are ignorant of the science you are trying to discuss.


    Case in point.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The source of the exogenous DNA is irrelevant. DNA is DNA. The very reason why exogenous genes can be functionally inserted into another species is because the cells cannot distinguish the difference between its own DNA and the inserted DNA. It’s the entire basis of genetic engineering.

    From the point of view of human digestion, inserting a transgene from another species into a GM organism is no different to eating each of the organisms separately. Eating GM carrots with an inserted cow gene is no different to eating ‘normal’ carrots with a ‘normal’ steak. The only possible basis for concern, from a human health perspective, is that the act of inserting the transgene (regardless of its species of origin) has somehow altered expression of other genes in the genome. But as I have shown you, this can be done without any such effects.


    Given your ignorance, I’m not the least bit surprised you have such a faulty evaluation of the material you were provided with.
     
  15. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720
    No.

    To publish in PNAS you need to be a member of the Academy, but all submissions are reviewed. PNAS Submission Guidelines state:

     
  16. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    PNAS recently changed their submission criteria (in July actually). That said, I know two members who review one another's papers. They first go for the top ranked journal in their field, when (if) knocked back they submit to their mate and are published in PNAS. They get a lot of funding (partly for having PNAS papers) and so are able to hire postdocs and continue their labs. In my mind, any scientist would LOVE to be in on that scam. It's certainly not uncommon.


    --
    As the popularity of the Direct Submission path increased, many members declined to communicate papers and instead asked authors to send their work directly to PNAS, naming a member as a potential editor. Through a process called “Prearranged Editor,” an author may ask an NAS member to edit a Direct Submission paper, as they would have done for a Communicated paper. When the manuscript is received by PNAS, the NAS member designated as the Prearranged Editor is asked to comment on the significance of the work and recommend a final decision on publication after peer review, which is handled—as for all Direct Submissions—by the PNAS office. Before the peer-review process is initiated, a member of the PNAS Editorial Board is asked to confirm that the Prearranged Editor has the requisite expertise and the paper is appropriate for publication in PNAS (see the PNAS Information for Authors at www.pnas.org/site/misc/inforc.shtml).


    --
    --
    So, in the case I mentioned the authors review one another's papers - which are NEVER knocked back.




    --
    That aside, new thought experiment: Suppose we can grow a transgenic cow without a head and with 6 legs. Let's say it's fed with a tube and grows at 10 times the rate being fed pure human waste product. From the toilet to the cow. It's an ecological boon because it's methane is harvested for energy (one tube in, one tube out, meat in the middle). Suppose the meat taste fine, and hey, there's 10 trillion people living in 3 meter boxes wired into a virtual world that need fed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You going to happy to eat this cow? I'm thinking I'd say no..... EVEN if it is safe?!? Call me superstitious!

    I have eaten ants, bees, scorpion, tequila worm, whale, dolphin, love raw oysters etc... and ordered dog in China once but it was out of season (winter is the time of year for dog).
     
  17. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Michael

    Bring on the cow! I love a good steak.

    I would not eat dolphin, though, since it is an intelligent animal. It would be like eating that other intelligent animal, Homo sapiens, and encouraging cannibalism. I have eaten crocodile, emu, ostritch, kangaroo, and also love raw oysters. Thus, I think I can say that I am not picky if the meat tastes good.
     
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Amen about eating intelligent animals, why no one eats chimps, but Pig is a big hypocracy.
     
  19. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Intelligent life is life that manages to outwit his predator.

    Until then, You're all just potential food...


    [salivates]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    hahaha...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Croc is good, the emu I ate was too dry and very red, kangaroo is yum

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I made breaded lamb brain once... yuck!

    What's ostrich taste like?
     
  21. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Michael

    Emu and ostrich are very similar. Both are red meats. How nice they are depends on who cooks them. They can be utterly delicious if prepared well. Since I have eaten them only in restaurants, please do not ask me how to prepare them! Google it instead.
     
  22. keith1 Guest

    Please give me a list of the SciForums areas you monitor, and you won't see me any more.

    Never mind:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showgroups.php
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2010
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    If humans dont get "provable genetic damage" already from the food they eat then i dont see how that would change. In the tobacco company lawsuits the only reason they lost is because the industry downplayed the risks but that was going back 40 to 70 years ago and now peoploe smoking can hardly claim ignorance.
     

Share This Page