WH Relents and Allows the FDA To Proceed with Genetically Modified Salmon
invite response
2012 Dec 21, 4:03am 63,532 views 235 comments
« First « Previous Comments 102 - 141 of 235 Next » Last » Search these comments
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 8:33am
I had many biology classes in college, including genetics and embryology and I just don't see how a salmon gene could ever turn up in a plant.
Please explain.
Well, technically it would be a plant gene if it evolved in a plant but they'd be identical. Random chance mutations would do the job.
Check out these structure diagrams:
http://lansbury.bwh.harvard.edu/structure_of_dha_and_epa.htm
DHA is mostly only found in sea life. EPA is found in plants. They are already almost identical. It does not take that many mutations to convert one to the other. In fact, if I looked a bit harder I'd bet there are already some plants with DHA.
Actually no, it's your failure of understanding. A gene for a salmon oil can turn up in a plant 'naturally' aka 'randomly' without help from any person.
Provide any evidence that this is true. This is simply your imagination. There are clear and very substantial built in barriers to inter-species breeding. In closely related species it does occur in divergent species such as salmon and plants it cannot occur... naturally
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 8:36am
A bit more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eicosapentaenoic_acid
"EPA is also a precursor to docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)"
It's virtually impossible for this change to not have occurred in some plant somewhere throughout time.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 8:39am
Provide any evidence that this is true. This is simply your imagination. There are clear and very substantial built in barriers to inter-species breeding. In closely related species it does occur in divergent species such as salmon and plants it cannot occur... naturally
I never said it would happen through inter-species breeding. Useful traits at the molecular level and macro level find their way and occur through evolution independently. For instance, bats, birds and insects all have wings but they are all unrelated - as far as wings are concerned.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 8:47am
I had many biology classes in college, including genetics and embryology and I just don't see how a salmon gene could ever turn up in a plant.
Please explain.
Well, technically it would be a plant gene if it evolved in a plant but they'd be identical. Random chance mutations would do the job.
Check out these structure diagrams:
http://lansbury.bwh.harvard.edu/structure_of_dha_and_epa.htm
DHA is mostly only found in sea life. EPA is found in plants. They are already almost identical. It does not take that many mutations to convert one to the other. In fact, if I looked a bit harder I'd bet there are already some plants with DHA.
By the way Pat, not to poke at you but they didn't teach you much about evolution apparently. If you believe in that and understood how it works and the implications then none of this would seem out of the ordinary at all.
I never said it would happen through inter-species breeding. Useful traits at the molecular level and macro level find their way and occur through evolution independently. For instance, bats, birds and insects all have wings but they are all unrelated - as far as wings are concerned.
Yes of course evolution can develop similar genes in plants and fish but they have evolved naturally over millions of years. Your post implied that an actual gene from a salmon could end up in a plant through some natural process. That is simply not true. This evolutionary natural selection creating desirable (for the species survival) is a far cry from "shooting" genetic material directly from a bacteria into a corn plant.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 9:00am
No, I didn't say "similar", I said, "identical". You just clearly don't understand and this is the source of your fear. No worries, kids are going to understand it as will successive generations.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 9:03am
I take that back rdm, I don't know if you are afraid of GM but do know you don't understand how these things work.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 9:18am
No arguments with you on any of that Zlxr... But it's all not GM. If you have an issue with a company or industrial process we might agree.
Simply freaking out about GM though is barking up the wrong tree. There are so many things in food to worry about. Transfats are one I look out for. I don't eat baked goods these days unless I can read the label etc..
I don't know if you are afraid of GM but do know you don't understand how these things work.
I have yet to see where you have shown me how I dont "know how these things work"
I have stated I am not totally opposed to GMO's. I think they can provide some great benefits. One being the almost complete end to the application of corn root worm insecticide. I think they have been unleashed upon us with minimal regard to the complex web of life that exists on earth. Yet the Earth is resilient and we will likely survive any negative consequences.
What I most object to is the scientific hubris proclaiming that you and others have all the answers and anyone questioning your reasoning doesnt have the background to argue rational points. Your posts generally end with such a statement. I am speaking from experience as an ex farmer and one that is currently involved in agriculture as well as having a fair amount of "book learnin" Scientists have been wrong many times when they felt they had all the answers, the stakes just get higher as our level technological expertise grows.
New Renter
2012 Dec 28, 9:52am
On glyphoshpate (RoundUP) specifically? Here is a 2 year study on the long term effects of Round up herbicide and GMO's in mammals.
B U L L S H I T!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294
Cancer of Corruption, Seeds of Destruction: The Monsanto GMO Whitewash
This is too easy:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512007922
New Renter
2012 Dec 28, 10:02am
A gene for a salmon oil can turn up in a plant 'naturally' aka 'randomly' without help from any person.
I had many biology classes in college, including genetics and embryology and I just don't see how a salmon gene could ever turn up in a plant.
Please explain.
http://blog.23andme.com/23andme-and-you/genetics-101/genetic-similarities-of-mice-and-men/
Does this help?
New Renter
2012 Dec 28, 10:06am
Maybe we'll hear about a big one attacking kids in New Jersey or something.
OMG, they SAID it was a bull shark... Could it have been a giant newly carnivorous salmon?
New Renter
2012 Dec 28, 10:18am
What I most object to is the scientific hubris proclaiming that you and others have all the answers and anyone questioning your reasoning doesnt have the background to argue rational points. Your posts generally end with such a statement. I am speaking from experience as an ex farmer and one that is currently involved in agriculture as well as having a fair amount of "book learnin" Scientists have been wrong many times when they felt they had all the answers, the stakes just get higher as our level technological expertise grows.
As an ex-farmer perhaps you can tell me - in your opinion can traditional farming methods provide food for the world as abundantly, reliably, cheaply and safely as the commercial methods used today? If not, how traditional can farming be without putting the worlds food supply at greater risk?
121212
2012 Dec 28, 11:23am
Thanks Renter
You think you can dismiss the entire argument with three links? This was contained in one of your links.
Séralini and his seven co-authors mount their own defense in Food and Chemical Toxicology. They dismissed most of the criticism as coming from industry sympathizers or corporate scientists, claiming they had “no right to review the results†because of their alleged conflicts of interest. They produced a chart to respond to some of the criticisms, and offered more substantive responses on some issues, for example defending the choice of a rat strain prone to tumors. They reiterated their refusal to release their raw data, yet concluding, defiantly, "GM NK603 and R cannot be regarded as safe as long as their safety is not proven by further investigations.â€
Some scientists (although few geneticists), almost all of them from the activist-scientist anti-GM community, have come to Séralini’s defense. Two anti-GM science groups, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) and the French Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (GRIIGEN), which partially funded the study, rebuked some of criticisms but generally mounted an ad hominem response over what it maintained were ad hominem attacks against Séralini.
The activist sizable anti-GM NGO and journalism communities, which have been the study’s most vigorous defenders have been stunned by the critical reaction to Seralini’s study and his attempt to manipulate media coverage. On the defensive for the first time on this issue, they came together to compose an “open letter,†apparently fearing that the public tide may turn decisively against GM critics—which in fact may be happening if the rejection of California Proposition 37 is any indication. Their tactic: frame mainstream scientists as corporate apologists and dismiss the overwhelming and unprecedented reaction by the science journalism community against Séralini’s tactics as manufactured by “corporate influence.â€
“When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk,†the letter concluded. The polemic concluded that both the peer review process and the public debate are “rigged in favour of [corporations and] backed up by systematic suppression of independent scientists working in the public interest.â€
In a just-released Nature commentary about the Séralini paper, Francois Houllier, President and Chief Executive of France’s public research Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), asked, “How do we address the questions about the impact of GM crops, and how do we prevent this kind of negative reaction?†He proposed a laser focus on rigorous science, including an emphasis on more public finding for risk-benefit analyses—a position generally rejected by anti-GM activists—as well as “proper academic standards.†He specifically called for allowing research data to be inspected and outside experts to comment on the results—standards notably lacking in the handling of the Séralini paper).
Houllier also noted the vehemence of the anti-GM activist community, citing a GM grapevine rootstock study that was publicly funded with no intention to develop a commercial variety, but nevertheless vandalized.
Considering the science-resistant views of many in the anti-GM community, it’s questionable whether Houllier’s appeal to reason will have any impact. A thoughtful post on the blog New Antropocene by an Australian research scientist highlights the skepticism. “[R]igour is by all means valuable and something academic research should strive for, however none of this has much to do with the proceedings of Séralini et al. (2012), the author wrote. “The paper clearly had a preconceived agenda that had nothing to do with improving our understand of and human application within the known universe.â€
The author continued: “Of course we want to know that the food we eat and give to our children is of the highest quality and safe, thus it seems plausible to conclude that the individuals behind this paper attempted to cash in on these rational fears by appealing to expert authority without submitting the basis for that authority to the critical review of the expert community! They took a short cut to maximise their impact—something that has, as Houllier states, undermined confidence in GM produce. This is unfair to the wealth of human knowledge as well as potential human well-being and entirely motivated by personal gain. … Rigour is not the point here at all; but instead it is academics knowingly subverting the course of public awareness of scientific understanding for personal gain. What needs to happen is more rigour in how science should be communicated to the public.â€
A recalibration of the ethics and practice of science journalism may be in order, the author suggests. “Science communication needs to live by the principle of fair weight, not equal weight, to various ideas,†he writes. In other words, giving “equal time†to discredited, suspect or unscientific ideas may damage public discourse.
Homeboy
2012 Dec 28, 11:33am
I think what you fail to understand is that what we are calling GMO is an organism that could not in any way develop "naturally" that is under natural circumstances. Much of the so called genetic manipulation prior to the relatively recent labortory insertion of genetic material from other species has been by selection and controlled selection. These varieties could theoretically occour in nature, by accident, it is just that they have been selected in situations where man has controlled their genetic makeup through selective breeding.
This makes no sense. How do you know what "could" or "could not" happen to genes in nature? All the selective breeding that has been done over thousands of years would not have happened without the intervention of man. This is just a different method of changing genetics. Your belief that it is somehow inherently evil isn't based on any facts.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 11:41am
@121212: Equal time such as creation science? Should we be teaching that in schools? People used to live with dinosaurs right?
Someone mentioned you're liberal so I would guess the answer is, "no".
As a moderate who's lived in the bay area for the past 15 years far left folks like you sound just as crazy.
That being said I think I saw you make some good posts in a dating/marriage forum earlier, so I know your aren't, you've just been drinking too much cool-aid. I really want to reply in that thread but I have a hot date! Woohoo, get me outta here!
Oh, BTW, that 'research' you pointed out was the laughing stock of our department a few months back. A French guy in the group blasted it out to all of us. Union of Concerned Scientists and similar groups are a bunch of quacks. Also, it's hard being a good scientist. You don't think it might be easier to write a book or something else to scare people and make much more money that way? You bet your a$$ it is.
As an ex-farmer perhaps you can tell me - in your opinion can traditional farming methods provide food for the world as abundantly, reliably, cheaply and safely as the commercial methods used today? If not, how traditional can farming be without putting the worlds food supply at greater risk?
A good and difficult question to which I will give a qualified; yes traditional farming/organic farming could feed the world. It would require a complete reconfiguration of how ag. is practiced including an end to mono-culture, more livestock integrated into individual farms, the use of acceptable technology ( such as hybrid seed, new mechanical weeding devices etc.) and many more people living and working on the land. Of course an end to corn based ethanol would occur. Many of these changes IMO would be positive but given the huge industrial complex built up around production, transport, processing and sale of food it would be incredibly disruptive to the economy.
I farmed both organically and conventionally. It is certainly possible to get very good yields organically. It takes more skill and labor to farm organically. Farm chemicals particularly herbicides and chemical fertilizers have allowed, in conjunction with enormous machinery one farmer to farm vast tracts of land. That just cant happen with traditional/organic methods. GMO crops have made this even easier but have provided little increase in crop yield. They have merely replaced other inputs that worked but took more time and or money to use. So GMO's could be dropped should society decide to do so with no threat to the food supply
This makes no sense. How do you know what "could" or "could not" happen to genes in nature? All the selective breeding that has been done over thousands of years would not have happened without the intervention of man. This is just a different method of changing genetics. Your belief that it is somehow inherently evil isn't based on any facts.
Yes I cant know what has occurred in nature over millions of years but there is a scientific understanding as to how various species evolved and to my knowledge no one has claimed that transmigration of genetic material from a plant to a fish has played a part in the evolution of life on Earth, as it is understood and accepted by science. If you have an example of this please provide.
If you think I feel GMO's are " inherently evil" you need to re read my posts because that is another fantasy you have concocted. I believe in questioning science, it is not infallible and we do not need to accept everything science offers as either desirable and or of value.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 12:22pm
@rdm: Have you read Cadillac Desert? It's a good read and makes many of the points you do and then some. I think it's wishful thinking though. I too come from a farming family but my parents didn't do that sort of work by the time I was around. (Iowa)
From what I've read we already produce enough food to feed the planet now and it's more of a distribution problem. About a decade ago a couple of countries in Africa were starving, we sent them food and their govt turned it down and let them starve simply because it was GM. Pretty sad.
When we add 1-2 more billion people I don't think we'll be able to not use everything we've got to feed people. It's also one of our biggest exports right now along with wood. A few years ago I found some cool maps on the web that displayed counties based on different parameters. The US was huge on the export maps showing wood and food but tiny for just about everything else. Japan was huge for cars, each country is 'sized' but 'topic' so the maps aren't scaled as you'd normally expect. I wish I could find it for you but I'm a bit busy getting ready to go out. It was about 5 years ago but what really stood out was nobody else was producing food in relative terms. It appeared that if we ever decided to not ship food every other country would literally starve.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 12:26pm
I think this is it and I don't remember China looking that large:
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 12:27pm
Actually this is it and they've subdivided by food stuff:
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=47
Click around there are lots of interesting things to see.
New Renter
2012 Dec 28, 12:31pm
Thanks Renter
You think you can dismiss the entire argument with three links? This was contained in one of your links.
Yes, the part where you presented this highly controversial paper as proof:
B U L L S H I T!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294
Cancer of Corruption, Seeds of Destruction: The Monsanto GMO Whitewash
The problems with the Séralini study are clearly outlined in links 1 and 2. Did you even read these?
Link 3 was an overview of the response from the Séralini team. In it they attack the objectivity of their critics and in a separate paper give a point by point defense.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512008149
Séralini and his team are doubling down on their work which should be expected at this point as they have little more to lose. If their research was indeed valid it will be reproduced in other labs, if not their work will likely join cold fusion and piltdown man as poster children of bad science.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 12:45pm
Here is a good one:
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=363
The US by far donates more food to the world than any other country. I don't think we'd be able to do it without current commercial methods.
I found another map showing how much Europeans protest:
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=361
Seralini and crew fit in nicely in that one haha...
I was wrong about wood, apparently that is Canada.
New Renter
2012 Dec 28, 12:49pm
Of course an end to corn based ethanol would occur.
I have heard that the mash (silage) from ethanol production is actually healthier animal feed than straight corn. Any truth to that?
New Renter
2012 Dec 28, 12:51pm
The US by far donates more food to the world than any other country. I don't think we'd be able to do it without current commercial methods.
That is my big concern as well.
Of course there is the argument that plentiful food just encourages population growth.
New Renter
2012 Dec 28, 1:02pm
Here is a good one:
Wow, I knew our nation was overweight but damn!
I have heard that the mash (silage) from ethanol production is actually healthier animal feed than straight corn. Any truth to that?
I dont have any direct experience with distillers grains. What the ethanol production does is remove much of the carbohydrates from the corn leaving a fiber rich high protein residue and it is highly valued as an animal feed. Corn protein is typically (there are specialty types) not a complete protein for ruminates as it lacks the amino acids Lysine and tryptophane. But this a still a valuable bi product of ethanol production, one often overlooked by critics
Homeboy
2012 Dec 28, 2:59pm
Yes I cant know what has occurred in nature over millions of years but there is a scientific understanding as to how various species evolved and to my knowledge no one has claimed that transmigration of genetic material from a plant to a fish has played a part in the evolution of life on Earth, as it is understood and accepted by science. If you have an example of this please provide.
What? Sorry, could you link to this source that says AquaBounty is inserting plant genes into the Salmon? According to them, they are not:
"AquAdvantage® Salmon (AAS) include a gene from the Chinook salmon, which provides the fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon. In all other respects, AAS are identical to other Atlantic salmon."
Having said that, yes, genes mutate in nature and could change to pretty much anything. A fish that grows faster could occur in nature, it could occur through selective breeding, or it could occur through direct genetic manipulation. Just because you don't understand the third of those is no reason to go slapping random labels on things. It is not necessary to warn people of something that is not a threat. If you feel we need to warn people of everything that didn't happen by "nature", it would pretty much require a special label for everything in the store.
If you think I feel GMO's are " inherently evil" you need to re read my posts because that is another fantasy you have concocted. I believe in questioning science, it is not infallible and we do not need to accept everything science offers as either desirable and or of value.
You seem to think we have to slap a warning label on everything produced that way, so yeah, it sounds like you think it's inherently evil. I DID read what you wrote, and it sounds like alarmist bullshit.
You seem to think we have to slap a warning label on everything produced that way, so yeah, it sounds like you think it's inherently evil.
Evil is essentially a religious term, dualistic (opposed to good) and without nuance and a term I would rarely if ever use or attach my opinions to. If you feel that the desire to label a product as genetically modified somehow throws one into a feeling that product must be considered evil then you have no sense of nuance and live in a Manichean mental world. Just as I want to know if salmon is farm raised and what the country of origin is, I want to know if it is a GMO product. This has noting to do with good or evil it is simply trying to maintain some modicum of control over what I put into my body. It is my body not yours, the government's or some corporation trying to make a buck.
New Renter
2012 Dec 29, 3:42am
So they used an animal gene to make faster growing salmon. What's to say it's going to stay species specific because of the method used? What if it allows salmon to cross breed with sharks or some other non salmon species? I think they say the female genetically altered salmon are infertile. But that doesn't mean that the male salmon sperm isn't viable and doesn't get out into ocean water.
Fish are friends (with benefits), not food!
I'd worry more about things like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_goat_marriage_incident
Shaman
2012 Dec 29, 3:54am
Having caught many Chinook salmon from which this gene splice was derived, I can attest that they are great examples of the species, being hard fighters and remarkably tasty. They can also get huge! Biggest one I caught was 65 lbs, but the record is over 100 lbs.
if this is what Atlantic salmon are becoming, I'm all for it!
Homeboy
2012 Dec 29, 3:55am
and since the nature of things is to evolve and reproduce and survive - how do the scientists know that what they genetically modify will stay modified the way they intended?
I think you watch too many science fiction movies.
New Renter
2012 Dec 29, 4:14am
and since the nature of things is to evolve and reproduce and survive - how do the scientists know that what they genetically modify will stay modified the way they intended?
I think you watch too many science fiction movies.
Like this one:
Please also explain how a gene that was spliced into the corn plant jumped over to make weeds Round Up Ready.
If genetically altered corn pollen can affect another plant group - how is that? Isn't that altering how nature works?
One of the problems they are having involves weeds becoming resistant to Roundup which is a non selective herbicide, it kills most everything and therein rests its value. This has nothing directly to do with the genetically altered corn plant or soybean plant. It is simply nature selecting plants that have more resistance to the herbicide. They survive go to seed and create new generations of more resistant weeds. This is a common problem with insecticides and a growing problem with certain highly used herbicides. The issue is rather small but growing in scope at present (in the mid west I think it worse in the South). The only connection is that there is vastly more Roundup being used then say 20 years ago. This may shorten the lifetime of this particular GMO.
Regarding corn pollen almost no farmers use open pollinated corn seed which would in the next generation indeed be affected by the a genetically altered pollen. The wind borne pollen could affect the genetic makeup of plant's seed, the corn grain. But I think this is a pretty minor and managable issue. Organic farmers are already required to have fairly sizable barriers between their crops and conventionally raised crops. There have been some cases of certain benign and or beneficial insects being killed after eating the pollen of BT corn, monarch butterflies in particular. This is an issue but a pretty minor one IMO. The use of air or soil borne insecticides is far more disruptive to the general beneficial insect population. Given our farming methods are not going to dramatically change there are some real environmental up sides to GMO crops. That doesn't make them safe or not safe but it certainly is a consideration in a debate over their use
OK - please explain why it was necessary to introduce the Round Up Ready gene into alfalfa.
I used to raise a fair amount of alfalfa. It is an incredible crop, deep rooted so drought resistant and pulling minerals from a depth typical row crops never reach. It is a legume so no nitrogen fertilizer is needed as bacteria living on the roots have a symbiotic relationship drawing nitrogen from the air making it available the plant and enriching the soil. The smell of curing alfalfa is one of the most wonderful scents I have ever experienced.
There is only one common reason to use herbicides on alfalfa and that would be in the initial establishment of the crop. Alfalfa is a tiny seed and the seedling can struggle to be established. There are several ways farmers have used to establish the crop without any herbicides but they yield little alfalfa the first year. Herbicides would probably allow for at least one decent cutting the year of establishment. Depending on ones use and rotation it is quite possible to get 5 years of hay off an alfalfa field before it thins to the point it needs to be "plowed" down. We typically cut it 3 times a year sometimes one can get a fourth cutting (in Illinois). After establishment there are typically no issues with weeds in alfalfa assuming a good stand has been obtained. It comes on in the spring early smothering sprouting weeds and after cutting comes back very quickly smothering weeds. I think this is a near frivolous use of gmo, not needed and one that will probably not be very popular.
Homeboy
2012 Dec 29, 2:46pm
And there is at least a 1% chance of the female fish being fertile. They plan to only create female fish because the male of this genetically modified fish is of inferior quality. What does this mean if the modified female fish get loose and breed with the wild population?
Or if the wild male salmon wastes his sperm on infertile eggs.
I also read one site that said the fish eat 5 times as much but only grow twice as big. I can't confirm this - but if it's true then it doesn't make sense that it's economically a good idea.
They are also more suceptible to parasites. And fish farms are helping to spread fish parasites.
Another issue is that some of the fish food is being brought in from other parts of the world - so that means bringing in other parasites and diseases as well.
Seems to me you are starting with the premise that GM is "bad" and then looking for things that might be wrong with it. I think you have already made an assumption and no amount of evidence will ever change your mind.
I happen to love salmon. However, I am appalled to learn about the farmed salmon living conditions. It's sort of like they are being raised in a septic tank and fed rather odd stuff. So other than wild caught I will probably give up salmon for the most part and it's disappointing.
It's also disconcerting to learn that it takes 3 pounds of fish to feed a salmon so that it can grow 1 lb. That's not a very good trade off. Because it means that someone somewhere is not eating so we can have salmon. It's also depleting other types of fish. And I don't like the idea of feeding chicken guts and feathers and stuff to the salmon either. At least not the one's I want to eat. My choice.
The GMO salmon is not a better or a healthier salmon - it just is ready to harvest at an earlier age. Also the fact that it has a weaker immune system and is largely sterile is a concern.
Scientists have released sterile female insects into the wild to destroy certain insect populations. So if that theory holds and these salmon escape into the wild - then we will see the wild salmon population decline or possibly become less healthy and also decline in a way that it cannot be saved. If I am wrong then that won't happen - but if it does happen - then what? Is it worth taking the chance?
The other questions that haven't been dealt with is if they keep increasing salmon production - then they'll either run out of other fish in the ocean to feed them - or salmon will have to become vegetarians and they aren't meant to be vegan. With decreasing fish populations - you would think it would be better for us people to take the 3 lbs of fish instead of feeding them to the salmon to get 1 lb. of salmon.
From everything I can find out - salmon are healthier in every way if they are free to follow their normal life cycles in an open ocean and have free access to the rivers to go back and spawn.
I think many fisherman have better ideas than I do about how to save the ocean - but they also have concerns about staying employed. So I think we should hire the fisherman to help restore the health of the ocean and help restore the fish populations. They may have to cut back on actual fishing for awhile but they'll still be employed and helping to restore the ocean so they'll have something to fish later on.
I agree about the alfalfa - it smells so good fresh or dried. I remember that - and the fact that we used to let the chickens run around in it all day and those were the best chicken eggs ever.
I remember walking through it when it was knee deep and not seeing any other weeds mixed in. I know it has roots to China because they were trying to convert a couple acres for a grape vineyard and the alfalfa just kept coming back.
So I really wondered what the heck Monsanto was up to with even attempting to genetically alter something that was already perfect.
New Renter
2012 Dec 30, 1:18am
I happen to love salmon. However, I am appalled to learn about the farmed salmon living conditions. It's sort of like they are being raised in a septic tank and fed rather odd stuff. So other than wild caught I will probably give up salmon for the most part and it's disappointing.
That sounds like most commercially farmed meat these days. Then again it also sounds WAY better than my goldfish bowl.
It's also disconcerting to learn that it takes 3 pounds of fish to feed a salmon so that it can grow 1 lb. That's not a very good trade off. Because it means that someone somewhere is not eating so we can have salmon. It's also depleting other types of fish. And I don't like the idea of feeding chicken guts and feathers and stuff to the salmon either. At least not the one's I want to eat. My choice.
Sure, its your choice and you are welcome to it. Keep in mind that this biomass inefficiency is true for ALL animals including wild salmon and you as well. As for the diet of the salmon why does the idea of a fish eating chicken guts and feathers bother you? Those wild salmon are eating fish guts, fish fins, scales and God knows what. Wild fish are also chock FULL of parasites. If the idea of animals eating chicken by products disturbs you don't read the ingredient list of your pets food and for heaven's sake DON'T EAT real Chinese food!
Keep in mind young salmon themselves are prey fish. Perhaps they give as good as they get.
Scientists have released sterile female insects into the wild to destroy certain insect populations. So if that theory holds and these salmon escape into the wild - then we will see the wild salmon population decline or possibly become less healthy and also decline in a way that it cannot be saved. If I am wrong then that won't happen - but if it does happen - then what? Is it worth taking the chance?
I believe salmon are famous for their instinct to return to the very stream from which they were hatched to spawn. By this nature modified salmon should avoid breeding with wild salmon from other streams.
I agree that the farmed salmon I have had in the past was not as good as the wild fish. I am hoping this is part of the learning curve in the making a better product.
Now if you want a really tasty sustainable fish you can raise yourself give Tilapia a shot.
http://www.tilapiafarmingathome.com/Pages/default.aspx
« First « Previous Comments 102 - 141 of 235 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/21/genetically_modified_salmon_white_house_had_blocked_fda_but_now_approval.html
White House Relents and Allows the FDA To Proceed with Genetically Modified Salmon
The Food and Drug Administration today released an electronic version of its environmental assessment for a genetically modified salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies—effectively giving its preliminary seal of approval on the first transgenic animal to be considered for federal approval.
#environment