So now we get to eat Genetically-Modified Salmon...."WTF"

So I have spent some time on a site that reports all things Fishing, called the Underwater Times. I have to say that some of the discussions on this forum are disturbing enough, but I'm afraid this next one kind of takes the cake. What do you guys/Gals think about this. The link to the newspaper article in the Montreal Gazette is here:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/heal...st+ever+food+approved+sale/9066912/story.html

Here's just a bit of the article.

9066920.jpg

The AquAdvantage salmon (background), which contains genes from an eel-like fish and from another breed of salmon, grows twice as fast as its natural alternative (foreground), allowing for increased and more robust supplies.

Photograph by: Handout/AquaBounty Technologies , AFP/Getty Images


Article Excerpt:


A new "super salmon" is expected to be approved for sale in the US within the next few weeks, reigniting a heated debate over genetically-modified food.

The salmon would be the first GM animal ever approved for human consumption, and has been under development in Massachusetts for 18 years. It is expected to be cleared for sale soon by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and now American supermarkets are coming under increasing pressure to refuse to stock the fish.

The AquAdvantage salmon, which contains genes from an eel-like fish and from another breed of salmon, grows twice as fast as its natural alternative, allowing for increased and more robust supplies.

British firms are closely following its progress for indications on whether genetically-modified meat and fish can make it to the supermarket shelf - and whether consumers are prepared to eat it.

Last year the FDA concluded that the salmon, which has been labelled "Frankenfish" by campaigners, was "as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon" and did not threaten the environment.

Faced with its likely approval, opponents such as Friends of the Earth have shifted their attention to America's major retailers - demanding that they refuse to stock the new seafood.

"The approval of genetically engineered salmon will set a precedent that could open the floodgates for other genetically engineered animals," the campaign group said, in a statement urging supermarkets to sign a pledge for GM-free seafood.

The opponents claim the fish poses a risk of cancer to consumers and could destroy other breeds. They also point to polling suggesting that some 90 per cent of Americans do not want GM fish to go on sale.

While the salmon's manufacturer insists it is producing only sterile female fish, campaigners argue that as fish have been known to change sex under stress, there is a risk of contamination with wild salmon.

So far a dozen major retailers, including Whole Foods, Trader Joe's and Target, have promised to boycott the salmon, bred by the GM firm AquaBounty in Canada.

A statement by Kroger, the parent company of six popular chains of US supermarkets, saying that it had "no intention" to sell genetically engineered salmon was dismissed as "weak" by campaigners who directed 27,000 supporters to write to the company's management.

Urging them to "create a tsunami of messages", Friends of the Earth have now called on supporters to tweet at Kroger's brands or make complaints via telephone using a script provided by the group.

The campaign has been joined by the two US senators for Alaska, where old-fashioned salmon fishing remains a crucial industry. "These so-called 'Frankenfish' pose a real risk to ocean ecosystems," said Senator Mark Begich. "Well-managed, wild salmon are one of our nation's richest resources." An approval and successful launch of AquAdvantage could persuade food companies in Britain to lobby for the right to apply for their own licences to begin producing GM fish or meat..........read more of the article at the link above.
 
Thus is old news and honestly its only a matter of time. Remember, money trumps everything.
 
Thus is old news and honestly its only a matter of time. Remember, money trumps everything.

GDW, yes it was reported last year, the new part is the approval in the USA in a few weeks that really bugs me. How long before we are fighting that here, seeing its a Canadian Company behind its breeding.
 
I'm not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing. Either way, hope this salmon hybrid won't turn out to be another science mistake.
 
Environmental groups want a court to decide if the federal government violated its own law by permitting the manufacture of genetically modified salmon in Canada.


“Canadians expect their government to implement, not ignore, the laws that protect our ecosystems from harm,” said Tanya Nayler, one of the Ecojustice lawyers representing Ecology Action Centre and Living Oceans Society. “By granting approval for this genetically modified species without obtaining all the legally required information, the government has once again failed the environment and Canadians.”

The groups assert the approval is unlawful because it failed to assess whether genetically modified salmon could become invasive, potentially putting ecosystems and species such as wild salmon at risk. Both groups are asking the court to set aside the government’s assessment and require the government to comply with the law before permitting the manufacture of these genetically modified organisms.
http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/01...dian-government-court-gm-salmon/#.Ut1rWBcWIeF
 
how is this worse that eating diseased net pen salmon full of pesticides??

Good point highlighting that the Harper government has once again failed the environment and Canadians. Politicians don't work for Canadian interests - I guess we'll see if the courts do.
 
While the salmon's manufacturer insists it is producing only sterile female fish, campaigners argue that as fish have been known to change sex under stress, there is a risk of contamination with wild salmon.

Campaigners are likely referring to studies like this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3820965/

In the above study, changes in behaviour, physiology, morphology and hormones in some teleost fishes have been shown to change a male fish into a female fish or from a female fish into a male fish. However, this is completely different from what this company is doing to these salmon which is to make them genetically sterile. If they are sterile they are not going to suddenly turn into reproductively functional fish once again producing eggs and milt. These campaigners don’t know what they are talking about. The Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC hatcheries annually produces triploid Rainbow and Eastern Brook Trout. Both males and female trout produced are sterile following hydrostatic pressure shocking or heated water. If some folks are afraid of genetically modified fish causing cancer then they should likely stay away from fishing the many, many BC small lakes that have triploid Rainbow and Eastern Brook Trout. The benefit of these genetically modified trout is two-fold: prevent genetic interactions with wild fish and to provide enhanced sport fishing opportunities. Diploid trout that do not have adequate spawning habitat can be come egg-bound and can be lost to the sport fishery.
 
Genetic fish been on farms for years, neutered Coho, mono Chinook. How would this be any different?
 
Genetic fish been on farms for years, neutered Coho, mono Chinook. How would this be any different?

Pretty sure they are using DNA from different species (Salmon and eel like fish)and making a frankenfish. I am not that informed but what little I have read makes me not want to see this on our coast. Might be a safer alternative but still mucking with mother nature.
 
Genetic fish been on farms for years, neutered Coho, mono Chinook. How would this be any different?
Good question, Bones...

From: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2013/2013_023-eng.pdf

" AquaBounty has genetically engineered an Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) referred to as AquAdvantage salmon (AAS hereinafter) intended for human food consumption that is claimed to grow faster than its non-genetically engineered counterpart.

AAS was developed by micro-injecting a gene construct (opAFP-GHc2) comprised of an ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) anti-freeze protein (AFP) promoter and a Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) growth hormone (GH) gene into the egg of a wild Atlantic salmon.

AquaBounty has indicated its intent to commercially produce all-female triploid, transgenic AAS eyed-eggs at their PEI facility and to export no more than 100,000 eggs annually to a contained, land-based, grow-out facility in the highlands of Panama (ABT 2013). AAS will be grown to a commercial weight of 1 to 3 kg, then harvested, euthanized and transported to a processing plant in close proximity to the Panamanian grow-out facility, where they will be processed for retail sale in approved markets for food consumption.
".

This is the part where I have some concerns:

"Although the proposed AAS product for export to Panama is all-female triploid eyed-eggs from the EO-1α line bearing a single copy of the opAFC-GHc2 transgene, other life-stages (gametes through to sexually mature adults), genotypes (i.e. diploids, triploids, hemizygotes, homozygotes) and genders (females and masculinized females) are required.

The saline condition of the marine environment is the principal factor limiting the survival and dispersal of AAS at the potential point of entry in Canada. Though salinities of 20 to 30 parts per thousand will likely prevent the survival of AAS during obligate freshwater life-stages (embryos to fry), conditions in the Bay Fortune estuary are not expected to prevent the survival and dispersal of AAS at later life-stages (parr to adult). Therefore, potential exposure resulting from the survival, dispersal and persistence of AAS parr, smolts, post-smolts or adults that may be unintentionally released from the PEI facility is concluded to be high. The availability of peer reviewed data describing the environmental requirements and tolerances of Atlantic salmon parr, smolts, post-smolts and adults and detailed information about the environmental parameters of the receiving environment, make this conclusion highly certain.

Exposure that could result from the reproduction, establishment and spread of fertile AAS smolts, post-smolts or adults that disperse from the Fortune River watershed into the marine environment is also concluded to be high with reasonable uncertainty. There is abundant evidence supporting the opinion that escaped domesticated Atlantic salmon can migrate to suitable habitat and successfully reproduce with wild Atlantic salmon. There is also experimental evidence suggesting that, despite diminished reproductive fitness, AAS has the capacity to successfully reproduce with wild Atlantic salmon. However, limited knowledge regarding the fate of AAS, AAS relatives and Atlantic salmon in the marine environment and the high likelihood of low propagule pressure add substantial uncertainty to this conclusion.
".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
well i mean i get it where gene crossing two different fish, etc.

but.... we've been sortta been doing this already for years and millions of fish a year. 1989 we mono'd chinook. ever cut open a salmon and it was sexless? ever cut open a salmon and it had both sexes? how is it any different? fish have been changed for one reason or another for years and its to make them bigger at market or to bring more to market. the only difference i see is we didn't have to tell anyone because it was all the same species and scientists weren't involved. the reason it didn't fly was the coho and chinook were very susceptible to disease so it was counter productive (we would loose more fish to disease than spawners).

do i agree with it no..... donate all the money to hatcheries and get them producing smolts, lots of them
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well bones - to give you my non-scientific and gut reaction to the differences in what "gene manipulation" means:

Yes - humans have been screwing with our own gene pool and other animals for many years. The biggest differences are to me between a "breeding program" verses actual "gene manipulation/editing" is that:

a) As "breeders" - we encourage "traits" by breeding - but "nature" determines how that is accomplished and usually kills off the failures over time, sometimes very quickly;

b) strait-up "gene manipulation/editing" is another level of "do we really know what the f*ck we are doing?" - not that this has ever stopped humans from doing things - AND - I'm ok with that - as long as the "propagules" are contained securely. That's not what Monsanto does with their genetic pollution in the form of pollen - and in this case - it doesn't appear to be that secure either after reading the report above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty sure they are using DNA from different species (Salmon and eel like fish)and making a frankenfish. I am not that informed but what little I have read makes me not want to see this on our coast. Might be a safer alternative but still mucking with mother nature.

Wonder if it's even salmon anymore?
Can't see it happening but if it makes it to market I hope they have to say on the label,
"Ingredients: Contains genetically modified so and so fish and may contain such and such percent eel fish". Or something to let the consumer know.
 
The fat lady has sung. Remember your government and scientists said it is ok. You do believe them, right?
 
CFIA putting priorities on TRADE verses public safety and service after industry puts pressure on - NOT a surprise...

Exclusive
CFIA fast-tracked tests on genetically modified salmon eggs for exports, documents suggest
Documents show health inspectors scrambled to meet deadline for time-sensitive salmon egg test
By Margo McDiarmid, CBC News Posted: Jan 11, 2017 5:00 AM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/genetically-modified-salmon-cfia-aquabounty-1.3929571
 
CFIA putting priorities on TRADE verses public safety and service after industry puts pressure on - NOT a surprise...

Exclusive
CFIA fast-tracked tests on genetically modified salmon eggs for exports, documents suggest
Documents show health inspectors scrambled to meet deadline for time-sensitive salmon egg test
By Margo McDiarmid, CBC News Posted: Jan 11, 2017 5:00 AM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/genetically-modified-salmon-cfia-aquabounty-1.3929571
Where is the factual evidence in the document obtained by critics that the CFIA put trade ahead of public safety? Where is the factual evidence that testing was inadequate in this case? Personally, I think it's unfair for critics mentioned in the story to criticize the CFIA of wrongdoing and negligence with no facts to back it up - only suspicions based on their interpretation of the document.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top