The Pros and Cons of Genetically Altered Salmon
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-22/pros-and-cons-genetically-altered-salmon
Salmon that grows twice as fast as conventionally farmed fish could become the first genetically modified animal approved for American consumption. The benefits and risks -- and concerns over how the product might be labeled.
Guests
Michael Hansen
senior staff scientist, Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports.
Andrew Pollack
biotechnology reporter, The New York Times.
Val Giddings
president, PrometheusAB Inc., and a former consultant to AquaBounty Technologies.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Is genetically altered salmon going to be the same as the altered corn, wheat, soybeans, etc.? Meaning, there is a patent on the product, so that if someone who is not authorized to catch, raise, etc. will be sued or even put into prision for catching, raising, etc. these items? My biggest fear is the loss of even more ability to grow, catch, eat our own food. That we will have to go to big agri business to beg for food, pay their prices, lose our freedom to eat what we want.
Tasha
Merrimack, NH
I see less concern with adjusting the growth hormone and more concern with the dies that are injected in the flesh to bolster the pink color lost in farmed salmon. Will this practice continue in this genetically modified version?
Most genetically altered foods that are not labeled in the US, are not even allowed in to other countries like Canada and many European countries. Furthermore, the FDA is not qualified to determine long term health risk to the US population. This works to the benefit of companies that are constantly manipulating the genetic make up of food supply. Many studies indicate that it may take 3 generations to see the health fall out from these types of 'foods'. There is a rule from the Native American oral tradition called 'Original Instructions'. The rule is, 'that which you did not create, you must respect'. These modifications are a gross lack of respect to the natural order of things, which have up held human life for thousands and thousands of years.
Why the reluctance in clearly labeling GMO products? People should have the right to know what they are consuming!
It seems that the campaign should be for a change in the labeling laws. Why is there not a labeling law that discloses production practices??? This would be the only way for the public to show that we don't want genetically engineered fish, or feed lot beef, or crowded chicken farms, etc.
Our supermarket chain in Texas (a great one, privately owned) tends to provide plenty of info on fruits, vegs, fish and meat. Like many others, I don't buy unless I know where the food comes from, what it is. I don't like farmed salmon (too fatty, bland) and probably won't even try genetically-altered fish. I don't mind having fewer choices if they're good choices.
Does anyone actually trust the FDA anymore? Fool me once...!
It is absolutely necessary to tell the public of any alteration of any food. Have it on the label and us make our decision with our pocketbooks,
If not many like me will not buy anything except USDA certified organic. There is already too much Franken-farming of our foods
Bruce Deuley
Organic Matters
In regards to the comment on the allergens in salmon possibly increasing in genetically altered salmon, shouldn't people who are allergic not be eating either. Also, if they are making the allergens increase in the salmon, couldn't they also make another that has less than normal salmon? Finally, with all of the environmental issues going on, isn't all salmon and nature altered in some way or another?
It is absolutely necessary to label! They know if they label it, many people won't buy it. As usual, the FDA is owned by the corporations it is expected to regulate.
The problem as I understand it from my friends with PhDs in applied math is related to control theory and I never see any guests with the ability to assess or address this. Let me try to put it in simple terms. In any given system there is a level of randomness that is known. When you introduce new elements to that system the predictability begins to vary in an unknown direction. We see this when we introduce new species to an ecosystem where the change creates new balances between predator and prey that cannot be predicted before the introduction. Doing this at the genetic level creates an analogous problem but at a level that is exponentially greater in terms of potential - and irreversible - harm. We cannot know what harm is created by reordering the genetic code because the mutations created later will be in a random direction that is no longer systematically predictable. They say that these salmon will not be able to get out of the controlled environment but that pretends that is no such a thing as human error or chance. I don't buy it. I think the assessment that there is low risk is a result of the lack of serious communication between geneticists and mathematicians on issues like this. I am sorry I have tried to provide this explanation in as simple a form as possible. The formal logic is in mathematics.
Ouch! Don't cut Hansen off. He has some of the most interesting info.
Not everyone is eating farm raised salmon, I won't buy it and look for wild caught exclusively. I want to know where my food comes from and depend on labeling for this information.
What about the comparative fat content between wild salmon, ge salmon, and farm raised salmon?
The companies know that people won't buy it if they knew what they were eating. That is why they are fighting the GM label so hard. Other countries around the world allow full disclosure to it's citizens, we should have it to!
Many canned salmon are wild. My family and I prefer unadulterated food (why not?) and that includes salmon.
It is much safer.
What about Murcury levels?
I can think of no other large food source what we go out in ot the environment and and harvest them, this is a great and needed advancement that will help feed the world. Congratulations to AquaBounty.
They've created a GE salmon to eat more feeder fish such as, anchoveta, sardines, jack mackerel -- which are now becoming over-exploited, and subsequently has consequences for the entire ocean food chain.
I personally, do not purchase farmed salmon for this very reason -- the feeder fish populations are over-fished. Labelling is at the very least a must, to allow for informed purchasing.
Being a biologist, I want to know if the company has done any comparative analysis or profiling assay on miRNA (mciroRNA) in the GM and natural fishes? IF not, why> if yes, what does FDA thinks f?
Has the company done any experiements with respect to Melanin-Concentrating Hormone (MCH) pathway genes since these are integrated into fish's normal circadian system, growth, predatory escape, and many more.
As more and more data are pointing to abnormality in miRNA to a disease state or cancer formation, it is imperative for the company to shield itself from future legal action by performing this assay in both Canada and Panama samples.
ALL GMO products should be labeled; it would seem the government and courts are conspiring to protect Agribusiness. I am purchasing organic sugar, flour and other products in order to avoid GMO consumption. We avoid processed food due to preservatives, and chemical additives or contamination (Bis-Phenol-A). My greatest concern with GMO science is the ecological effects. These scientists DO NOT KNOW all the ecological implications of their 'playing God'.
Bob, you make perfect sense. If anyone needs a more simple projection of the idea, remember the 'chaos theory' in Jurassic Park? Also, I live in Illinois where we have a HUGE problem with silver carp, which escaped from a fish farm, entered the Kaskaskia River, and are now in the Great Lakes. This has been disasterous for the native fish in all these areas.
I would like the guests to comment on the Purdue study that showed if genetically modified salmon escaped in the wild, that would result in the extinction of wild salmon after 40 fish generations.
I eat a lot of salmon and I always buy wild if it is available. I will never eat salmon that is genetically altered and if that means that I no longer eat salmon, then that is just too bad.
This discussion reminds me of the gradual shift in my household's food consumption due to rising food prices for years and the impact of the recession over the past two years. We eat better and we eat much less. In other words, wild salmon costs a packet but a little (33 oz) serving of wild salmon is much yummier than a chunk of farm salmon. This is also true of fresh veggies and fruits.
Result, happier eating and significant weight loss. Cholesterol a non-event.
Diane, everyone is not eating farmed salmon. I stopped when I read about the environmental dangers of salmon farms. If this product is not labeled, I will avoid all salmon except wild caught alaskan salmon, not considering any salmon dishes in restaurants or any atlantic salmon for sale, labeled or not. Farming is dangerous, and moreover, if a consumer has to be fooled into buying the fish, how safe can it actually be? The argument that it is an environmental boon is so wrong, since farming destroys habitat and risks the destruction of species. But more important, who counts here? The consumer or the company who can't seem to schedule its production to wait three years for a crop? The company whose only interest is profit? So, for each product that is not labeled, as GM, I have to drop one food from my list to be safe. Great plan!
Question for your guest: How does Aqua Bounty plan to deal with the disease inherent in fish farming? Does this pose a threat to Humans? Particularly as Val Giddings said that the Salmon are raised in a "closed concrete building"?
Not quite right! Unless you know how the miRNA or regulatory small RNA affect in your body FDA is simply taking pro-biz action in *absence* of future conceived data. I hope you do not eat uncook or rarely cooked, or sushi from this GM salmon. Be prepared for surprise for huge tumor formation in colon or liver.
With the increasing concern about early puberty among young girls, how can the FDA encourage the use of a food which has a modified growth hormone as part of its makeup?
Also, when this fish gets out, and they will get out -who is his predator? This is much bigger than one fish, an entire ecosystem/eco-cycle must be considered.
A paid lobbyist is concerned about the consumers best interests? I find that hard to believe, the data is not adequate and numerous scientific groups have stated this point.
So what is the urgency to approve this now???
As consumers, what can we do at this point to submit comments to FDA/government, etc. to provide our opinions? Will there be public comment period announced in Federal Register and how does the average person learn about this and have the opportunity to comment? This is a very important health and safety issue and awareness needs to be broader than the few who are reviewing data in Washington.