Transgenic fish go large

Are you going to eat transgenic salmon?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 57.1%
  • No

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • I would but I don't like salmon so no.

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Total voters
    14

Michael

歌舞伎
Valued Senior Member
Transgenic fish go large

I don't know why, but I just do not want to eat this fish? I LOVE salmon. I buy a whole salmon once every month or so in steaks for around $70 and snap freeze the steaks. As much as I love to eat salmon I don't want to eat a transgenic salmon. Why? I have no problem with the technology. But the thought of eating one seems disgusting somehow.

Would you be happy to eat a fast growing salmon: yea or nay?
 
“.....seems disgusting somehow” isn’t much of an answer to the question you posed yourself. Can you elaborate on why you do not want to eat such a fish? Some specifics would make discussion somewhat easier.
 
Would you be happy to eat a fast growing salmon: yea or nay?
Hm. Would I like to be part of the generation, or first generation of guinea pigs? Hm....No.

As a very simple problem with the fish, they are designed to be tolerant to toxins. So they may seem to be just fine after building up higher levels of toxins than their natural 'cousins'. Have to wonder what the plans are also if they are being designed to be tolerant of toxins.

Another problem, which could be made by making them sterile is if they escape and breed out there.

Salmon farming in general - GM or not - is pretty devastating for the local environment around these farms.

And then there is the crap shoot of what these multispecies hybrids actually have chemically in their bodies.
 
Hm. Would I like to be part of the generation, or first generation of guinea pigs? Hm....No.

As a very simple problem with the fish, they are designed to be tolerant to toxins. So they may seem to be just fine after building up higher levels of toxins than their natural 'cousins'. Have to wonder what the plans are also if they are being designed to be tolerant of toxins.

Another problem, which could be made by making them sterile is if they escape and breed out there.

Salmon farming in general - GM or not - is pretty devastating for the local environment around these farms.

And then there is the crap shoot of what these multispecies hybrids actually have chemically in their bodies.

I'd be cool with it, so long as the science is solid. It sounds like they just have increased metabolisms and eat a lot all year, thus letting them grow faster. Nothing too weird there. I know a few genetics researchers and none of them seem too concerned with such things. Sure, while development is underway they are super careful to make sure no weird transgenic creatures escape into the environment, but once sufficient testing is done to make sure the things aren't going to devastate the natural environment if they escape I see no real problem with it. Especially these fish, it sounds like their enhancements are poorly suited to life in the wild and they wouldn't outcompete natural salmon even if they did escape.

But as for the original question, yes I'd eat them, so long as I had faith in the regulatory system. Although I hear there are all kinds of drugs and things floating around in the US system that shouldn't be so maybe you guys do have cause for concern. I don't really know much about that though.

Oh, and they are farmed fish so they shouldn't accumulate much in the way of heavy metals or anything, just want to make sure that not too much pesticide or other chemical garbage gets washed into their pens...

Oh and I am curious, why are Salmon farms as destructive as you say to the environment around the farms? I don't know much about this. Is it just the original development of the farm? Or the water usage or whatever they put in the water to feed the salmon which drains off into random places? Or something else?
 
I'd be cool with it, so long as the science is solid. It sounds like they just have increased metabolisms and eat a lot all year, thus letting them grow faster. Nothing too weird there. I know a few genetics researchers and none of them seem too concerned with such things. Sure, while development is underway they are super careful to make sure no weird transgenic creatures escape into the environment, but once sufficient testing is done to make sure the things aren't going to devastate the natural environment if they escape I see no real problem with it.
You have more faith in how concerned companies are and what their priorities are. I also have little faith in goverment oversight, given the revolving door between industry and government, amongst other 'influences'.
Oh, and they are farmed fish so they shouldn't accumulate much in the way of heavy metals or anything, just want to make sure that not too much pesticide or other chemical garbage gets washed into their pens...
you can have farms in the ocean. I think the Norweigen Salmon industry does it that way.

Oh and I am curious, why are Salmon farms as destructive as you say to the environment around the farms? I don't know much about this. Is it just the original development of the farm? Or the water usage or whatever they put in the water to feed the salmon which drains off into random places? Or something else?[/QUOTE]

Some info on that...
Salmon Farming
by author The David Suzuki Foundation

Salmon farming - the placement of large metal or mesh net cages in the ocean to grow fish - was pioneered in Norway in the 1960s. Since then the industry has expanded to Scotland, Ireland, Canada, the United States, and Chile, but is dominated by the same multinational corporations.

Wherever it is practised, net-cage salmon farming is controversial and raises serious environmental concerns.

The David Suzuki Foundation does not oppose salmon farming, but is opposed to practices that negatively affect marine and freshwater habitats, wild fish species, and other industries that rely on a healthy marine environment like tourism, sports and commercial fishing.

Summary of Problems

Since the 1980s, aquaculture-the aquatic version of industrial agriculture-has been the fastest-growing supplier of fish worldwide. Some observers see aquaculture as an opportunity to take the pressure off wild fish stocks, while addressing the growing imbalance between fish production and food requirements for an expanding world population. While aquaculture can be beneficial in some cases, this is not the case when carnivorous species are farmed.

Salmon are carnivores. So besides the ecological and health concerns associated with salmon farming, farmed salmon actually represent a “net loss” of protein in the global food supply as it takes from two to five kilos of wild fish to grow one kilo of salmon. Highly nutritious fish like herring, mackerel, sardines, and anchovy are used to produce the feed for farmed salmon, which is essentially luxury fare for the North American, European and Japanese markets.

The vast majority of global aquaculture production, about 85 percent, uses non-carnivorous fish species - like tilapia and catfish - produced in land-based ponds for domestic markets. Most ponds are ecologically integrated into the agricultural, industrial, and community fabric, meaning, for example, that wastes become fertilizers rather than pollutants.

Instead of net cages, the David Suzuki Foundation believes that the salmon farming industry must be transformed to use safe, fully enclosed systems that trap wastes. Farmed salmon feed often contains antibiotics, other drugs, and pesticides, and excess feed and feces smother the ocean floor beneath and around the net cages, causing significant habitat damage. Fish escapement and the transfer of disease from farms to the marine environment are other serious concerns. In British Columbia, it is estimated that well over one million fish have escaped from net cages since the early 1980s.

A unique problem caused by the British Columbia industry is the introduction of a non-native species - Atlantic salmon - into the Pacific Ocean. The United Nations has declared that the introduction of exotic - or alien- species is the greatest threat to global biodiversity after habitat loss. So why Atlantic salmon in the Pacific? It all goes back to Norway where the industry was born, and an expansion of Norwegian interests into BC in the early 1980s.

Norway was the world leader in farmed salmon production and created markets that previously did not exist using Atlantic salmon. Therefore, Atlantic salmon became the favoured farmed variety, and with decades of experience culturing Atlantics, Norwegian companies decided to introduce the foreign species instead of starting anew in BC with Pacific stocks. These companies had invested heavily in developing markets for Atlantic salmon and products from Pacific stocks did not easily fit into this marketing strategy. Also, Atlantic salmon convert feed to meat more efficiently and are less aggressive - leading to greater growth and lower mortality than chinook or coho salmon, two species farmed in BC's nascent domestic industry.

Worldwide, the salmon net-cage industry uses publicly owned coastal waters to support what are essentially intensive private feedlot operations that dump drug-laced sewage into the ocean. Governments looking for new opportunities in rural, economically depressed coastal areas often have encouraged the industry. But increasingly, citizens are questioning if any benefits are offset by the alarming array of environmental, social, economic, and health costs.

Recent research has focussed on the health differences between wild and farmed salmon. A pilot study by the Suzuki Foundation was one of the first examinations of this issue, and we will soon issue a new report looking at the difference in quality of omega-3 fatty acids found in wild and farmed salmon.

Problems Associated With Salmon Farming Practices

*
Sewage from farms pollutes surrounding waters.
*
Drugs are required to keep farmed fish healthy.
*
Escapes of farmed fish threaten native wild fish.
*
Net Loss: Salmon farming depletes other fish species.
Probably no where near the problems of factory pig farms, at least not yet.
 
Hm. Would I like to be part of the generation, or first generation of guinea pigs? Hm....No.

The usual automatic anti-GM mantra utilising the logically fallacious tactic of scaremongering. :rolleyes: “Normal” livestock and poultry are routinely pumped full of hormones. This isn’t going to impact the general public’s exogenous hormone consumption at all.


Have to wonder what the plans are also if they are being designed to be tolerant of toxins.

Who’s talking about toxins? The article in question has nothing to do with toxins.


And then there is the crap shoot of what these multispecies hybrids actually have chemically in their bodies.

More nonsense. There is no such “crap shoot”. What random “chemicals” do you suggest will be present in such a GM salmon as opposed to a non-GM salmon grown side-by-side? C’mon, give us specifics for once instead of vague references to ‘chemicals’.
 
The usual automatic anti-GM mantra utilising the logically fallacious tactic of scaremongering. :rolleyes: “Normal” livestock and poultry are routinely pumped full of hormones. This isn’t going to impact the general public’s exogenous hormone consumption at all.
Interesting. 1) I didn't mention hormones. 2) I was asked a personal question about what I would do or not do. I don't think government oversight is properly handled and there is too much revolving door between industry and government. I think companies will do what they are supposed to do. Make the best returns on investments. I do not have your faith they will take all the precautions necessary and they have a strong motivation to get their products out earlier than more drawn out and thorough testing would allow. There was nothing fallacious about my argument. You and I may disagree about whether appropriate precaution will take place, but that does not make my argument fallacious. Labelling something without responding to it, however, is a fallacious argument.

Who’s talking about toxins? The article in question has nothing to do with toxins.
I mentioned toxins. Am I supposed to only refer to issues in the OP? Am I allowed to bring in new issues? Well, gosh, yes I am.

http://www.science.gu.se/english/Ne...=100001&contentId=889631&disableRedirect=true

More nonsense. There is no such “crap shoot”.
So you think that Salmon with added genes from other species will have the same chemical make up as natural salmon. You must think the designers are morons. I mean why go to the trouble of genetically modifying them.

All you do is act like a shill for the industry. Any critique you label. You have little to add, but you know that by attacking the people who are critical of an industry which you have FAITH in you can reduce the debate to a pissing match. It is as if, in the current world, it is inconceivable that companies might take short cuts or that government oversight is unduly influenced by industry. To even raise the issues is an outrage to you.

How dare we not just nod our heads and eat these products and question them.

Yes, massah.
 
If you live in the western world you have eaten GM corn. You have used GM medication.

Why GM corn and not GM salmon?'

And who doesn't like salmon!?!?!
 
Interesting. 1) I didn't mention hormones.

Why not? It’s the pertinent issue with the GM salmon in question. Instead of actually addressing the relevant science you launch into your typical anti-GM rhetoric at any mention of the application of any sort of GM technology.


2) I was asked a personal question about what I would do or not do. I don't think government oversight is properly handled and there is too much revolving door between industry and government. I think companies will do what they are supposed to do. Make the best returns on investments. I do not have your faith they will take all the precautions necessary and they have a strong motivation to get their products out earlier than more drawn out and thorough testing would allow. There was nothing fallacious about my argument.

You didn’t say any of that. In response to the question you alluded to the totally unsupported notion that the public are being used as guinea pigs instead of actually addressing any of the science in question. This is the Biology and Genetics forum, after all. That’s why your statement about guinea pigs is fallacious.


I mentioned toxins. Am I supposed to only refer to issues in the OP? Am I allowed to bring in new issues? Well, gosh, yes I am.

Okay, fair enough.


So you think that Salmon with added genes from other species will have the same chemical make up as natural salmon.

No, I don’t and have never said as much. But that’s not the issue and is a strawman argument. We know that the GM salmon will have elevated fish growth hormone levels. The issue is whether that poses any risks.


You must think the designers are morons. I mean why go to the trouble of genetically modifying them.

More strawman/fallacious arguments.


All you do is act like a shill for the industry.

And you act like a brainwashed stooge for the anti-government, anti-industry, anti-scientific establishment. And probably a load of other anti-‘s as well.


You have little to add,

I can discuss the science behind this issue, whereas all you seem to have is your automatic industry-is-evil conspiracy corruption mantra. One of these lines of argument belongs in B&G.


but you know that by attacking the people who are critical of an industry which you have FAITH in you can reduce the debate to a pissing match.

Wrong again. I don’t have faith, I have an understanding of the underlying technology/science and an understanding of the risk-benefit processes that are involved in bringing GM products to the market.


It is as if, in the current world, it is inconceivable that companies might take short cuts or that government oversight is unduly influenced by industry.

I have never said that this cannot occur. However, I take situations on their merit, you automatically play the big-business-corruption-conspiracy card every time. It should be said that I do not automatically favour the introduction of every GM animal or foodstuff that is created.


To even raise the issues is an outrage to you.

I’m not outraged; I’m quite calm.


How dare we not just nod our heads and eat these products and question them.

Strawman/fallacious argument, again.
 
“.....seems disgusting somehow” isn’t much of an answer to the question you posed yourself. Can you elaborate on why you do not want to eat such a fish? Some specifics would make discussion somewhat easier.
I'm not sure, I just feel like it's gross. It shouldn't be harmful, I mean, triploidie transgenic animals are still made out of the same bits and peaces of all natural protein and DNA at the end of the day :shrug:


But, I can't help but think of Blinky:

Blinky%2Bthe%2Bthree%2Beyed%2Bfish.jpg
 
Last edited:
As I swig my transgenic vodka, puffing my modified tobacco, and getting high on the heavily manipulated THC plants. I would rather eat a transgenic fish then stand on a street corner and inhale all that car exhaust.
 
As I swig my transgenic vodka, puffing my modified tobacco, and getting high on the heavily manipulated THC plants. I would rather eat a transgenic fish then stand on a street corner and inhale all that car exhaust.
The difference is the effects of car exhaust on health was exhaustively (pun) tested over time, so that the debate could lead to a realistic discussion of realistic cures to the problem. Not the same for effects of GM products.

Laboratory testing results on rats are available on the internet, are not very conclusive, in that they were not extensive enough. Conclusions do show a needed lengthy examination. If signs of "digestive system and breeding malfunction after four generations" is found to be conclusive, in further testing, that should clearly show reason for the need for that further testing.
 
An article I read a few years back suggested that, before any transgenic food is released to the public, it must undergo about 1000 laboratory and field tests. In the 1050's and 1960's chemical and radiation mutagenesis was used as a tool to develop new, higher producing foods. I believe that we all now eat mutant tomatoes from that era. I can guarantee that the mutants did not get tested to anywhere near the degree that transgenic foods are.

We all eat transgenic foods. Not just the GM corn previously mentioned, but also soy flour, which is added to a hell of a lot of the processed foods, including bread, that we eat daily. After 15 years of eating GM foods, there is still no evidence that any are harmful.

The human body is actually very adaptable in relation to food intake. We eat substantial amounts of toxins all the time. Plants produce these toxins to fend off insect attack. Potatoes contain solanine. Celery psoralin. Tomatoes contain tomatin. Zucchinis cucurbitacin. etc etc. All those toxins do us no harm at all. And there is no credible evidence that anything in GM foods causes us any harm at all either.
 
Keith

The reason why I was vague about the source is that I no longer have the article. It was a part of the email newsletter Agbioview, but I deleted it. As I am sure you will appreciate, we get so much stuff via the internet these days that if I did not push the delete button often, we would be inundated.

It does not matter, though, about the exact figures. 1000 tests is probably a round up or round down of the actual number. The point is that GM foods are extremely thoroughly tested.
 
...The point is that GM foods are extremely thoroughly tested...
I question the accuracy of that statement. But it is in your interest to further substantiate it, since it is your statement. I have other fish to fry (pun).
 
The difference is the effects of car exhaust on health was exhaustively (pun) tested over time, so that the debate could lead to a realistic discussion of realistic cures to the problem. Not the same for effects of GM products.

Your analogy is not valid. The effects of car exhaust on health may well have been exhaustively tested over time, but the key point here is that the widespread introduction of cars was not delayed until that testing had been completed. The testing was performed parallel to the phased introduction of cars. As is the same for GM organisms. As is the same for all new technologies.


Source please.
I question the accuracy of that statement. But it is in your interest to further substantiate it, since it is your statement. I have other fish to fry (pun).

Be careful about playing the “support your statements with references” card. You posted first with a series of unsupported statements. If you’re going to insist on referenced statements from others, I’m going to insist on them from you also.
 
Laboratory testing results on rats are available on the internet, are not very conclusive, in that they were not extensive enough. Conclusions do show a needed lengthy examination. If signs of "digestive system and breeding malfunction after four generations" is found to be conclusive, in further testing, that should clearly show reason for the need for that further testing.

"...As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on the effects of genetically modified foods..."
courtesy: wikipedia

"...Most feeding trials were short-term and restricted to a single generation or a single breeding cycle..."
courtesy: FBAE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, there have been numerous feeding studies on humans. Duration : 15 years. Numbers : at least one billion.
Results : no harm.
 
Back
Top