Frankenfish approved by FDA...Chinook+eel

stones93

Well-Known Member
This has to stop folks!

VANCOUVER - Genetically engineered salmon created in Canada are getting closer to becoming the first transgenic animal to make it onto a menu, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found the fish will have no significant environmental impact.

The FDA published its draft environmental assessment on Boxing Day — one of the final steps in what has been a 17-year regulatory process.

It's a major step, said Ron Stotish, CEO of AquaBounty Technologies, the Massachusetts-based company that produces the GM salmon eggs at its AquaBounty Farms facility in Prince Edward Island and rears the fish at a fish farm in Panama.

"The revival of the science-based review process is encouraging and we look forward to a successful conclusion based on the merit of the product," Stotish, who was not immediately available for comment, said in a statement.

The U.S. agency notes in its 145-page report and an accompanying document that it has assessed the environmental impact of the salmon in the United States, not in Canada or Panama.

"FDA has carefully considered the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and at this time has made a preliminary determination that this action would not have significant effect on the quality of the human environment in the United States," the agency said.

The AquAdvantage salmon, developed at Memorial University and the University of Toronto, consists of an Atlantic salmon egg that includes genes from Chinook salmon and an eel-like fish called the ocean pout.

The genetically engineered salmon grow twice as fast as conventional fish, reducing the rearing period to about 18 months from three years.

Critics fear the "frankenfish" could escape their onshore fish farms and affect wild populations.

"Genetic modification is really sort of untested, and over and over again it seems to be unnecessary in order to either meet food needs of solve environmental problems," said Jay Ritchlin, western region director for the David Suzuki Foundation.

"I think that the risks involved in genetic modification for food — especially when you're using cross-species modification — are enough that it's not worth doing when they don't actually solve the problems we need to solve."

Opponents have allies in Washington. Lawmakers from Alaska have unanimously opposed FDA approval for the GM salmon.

"The notion that consuming frankenfish is safe for the public and our oceans is a joke," Sen. Mark Begich said in a statement after the FDA announced the decision.

"I will fight tooth and nail with my Alaska colleagues to make sure consumers have a clear choice when it comes to wild and sustainable versus lab-grown science projects."

Although their mandate does not include the environmental impacts in Canada or Panama, the FDA said the facilities in P.E.I. and Panama have been verified and validated by the agency, and the possibility that GE fish could escape and reproduce "is extremely remote."

While the first genetically modified plant crop was approved by the FDA in 1994, GM animals for human food consumption are highly controversial.

The FDA is accepting public comment on the draft environmental assessment until Feb. 25, before proceeding to a final decision.

"At this point, it is not possible to predict a timeline for when these decisions will be made," agency spokeswoman Morgan Liscinsky said Friday in an email.

It is not within the federal agency's mandate to weigh the ethics or policy around biotech foods, and the FDA has already found that the AquAdvantage salmon are safe to eat.

The agency does not examine ethical or policy issues around products up for approval.

"Basically all the boxes are ticked. It doesn't mean the broader consumer controversy is solved but as far as they're concerned that's not their mandate," said Alain Goubau, author of a research paper on the issue published by Harvard Law.
 

Seadna,

Interesting how the guy in the article has become a "born again" believer. GMO's like religion, are seductive.....

I remember back in the 60's the so-called Green Revolution. New varieties of fast growing and high yield kinds of wheat and other cereal crops were going to solve world hunger and poverty would be eliminated, or so went the hype.

But surprise, surprise, you cannot get something for nothing and it quickly became obvious all this high growth rapidly exhausted the soil!! The so-called Green Revolution could only be sustained by massive inputs of fertiliser and also pesticide because of all the pests that noticed the temporary food "bonanza". End of Revolution!

Fast forward to now. And where is all the food coming from to sustain this high growth GM fish? You cannot get something for nothing and so guess what, it will result in increased strip mining of the oceans for forage fish to feed all this high growth!

GMO's are dangerous, but not for the reasons the guy in the story may have originally thought. They are dangerous because they foster the following collective delusions:-

  1. There is no limit to the amount of living organic matter on this planet that can be turned into human flesh.
  2. That humanity can get something for nothing, and there is no “cost” to someone, or something, anywhere on the planet to more, faster growing, and intensely industrialised food production. (And in the particular case the delusion that is makes ecological sense to rear carnivores in pens!!)
  3. That the incredibly complex interactions that take place in the environment can be replicated in the lab. That any, and all interactions, are fully and completely controlled and understood!
  4. That humanity has god-like foresight and no unforeseen consequences can possibly occur, even in the complex ecological environment of this earth.
Those that cannot learn from history, are condemned to repeat it!!
 
Science can be good knowledge, in this case NOT! English as you say the proof is there, you cannot have weight gain without input.

Seadna,

Interesting how the guy in the article has become a "born again" believer. GMO's like religion, are seductive.....

I remember back in the 60's the so-called Green Revolution. New varieties of fast growing and high yield kinds of wheat and other cereal crops were going to solve world hunger and poverty would be eliminated, or so went the hype.

But surprise, surprise, you cannot get something for nothing and it quickly became obvious all this high growth rapidly exhausted the soil!! The so-called Green Revolution could only be sustained by massive inputs of fertiliser and also pesticide because of all the pests that noticed the temporary food "bonanza". End of Revolution!

Fast forward to now. And where is all the food coming from to sustain this high growth GM fish? You cannot get something for nothing and so guess what, it will result in increased strip mining of the oceans for forage fish to feed all this high growth!

GMO's are dangerous, but not for the reasons the guy in the story may have originally thought. They are dangerous because they foster the following collective delusions:-

  1. There is no limit to the amount of living organic matter on this planet that can be turned into human flesh.
  2. That humanity can get something for nothing, and there is no “cost” to someone, or something, anywhere on the planet to more, faster growing, and intensely industrialised food production. (And in the particular case the delusion that is makes ecological sense to rear carnivores in pens!!)
  3. That the incredibly complex interactions that take place in the environment can be replicated in the lab. That any, and all interactions, are fully and completely controlled and understood!
  4. That humanity has god-like foresight and no unforeseen consequences can possibly occur, even in the complex ecological environment of this earth.
Those that cannot learn from history, are condemned to repeat it!!
 
Well said. Faster growth=higher earnings=more corporate dominance. People are so naive. Look at how subtle the dominance of seed industry has become. When I was young we would set aside a few of our best tomatoes, cucumbers, beans, etc. for next year. Now, try and buy a non hybrid. You have to go to a seed exchange or a seed foundation. Not to a seed store. Every year we just keep going back to buy more. And one day something will interfere with that supply and where will we be? I suspect the same will happen with fish.
 
I'm not at all arguing that fish farming is a good thing - especially in net pens. I'm just arguing that GMO's are not all bad and the name "frankenfish" does little to aid in a sensible discussion. I made a longer post someplace on another thread about the pluses and minuses of GMO's. IMHO, GMO's get a bad name from those who don't really understand the science.

That said, I'm only eating salmon I caught regardless of what the industry does.
 
Seadna, you are right sort of. Not all gmo's are bad, but they all have problems. I don't eat wheat because the modern strains have proteins that we cannot break down. I am not celiac, I am fine with gluten, but my body produces an immune responce to wheat. I cut it completely from my diet 7 months ago (not as hard as it sounds) and have felt better since.

If anyone is interested, read the book "Wheat Belly" it explains it well.

Another good example is my grandfather. He has type two diabetes and many other problems. He has to take many pills every day. He started the wheat diet soon after I did. He went in for a blood test recently and everything is normal. The doctor was dumbfounded. When my grandpa goes back in 3 months, if the levels are still good, he will get his medication reduced. Diabetes normally does not go away, and another thing he had, thyroids, usually NEVER goes away. It is gone for him. The point of this long winded statement, is to point out problems that GMO's/hybridized foods have. They are not natural, so why would our bodies be designed to cope with them? I have a feeling that something will go wrong with these fish. They may escape, as some Atlantc Salmon have, and with the fast growth rate, take a huge toll in native stocks. They may have other problems, such as missing certain nutrients that wild salmon have. Like seadna, I will not be consuming them. And if I ever catch one, the sh*t will hit the fan.
 
Back
Top