Perhaps you should reread my post.. I never said I haven't tasted it..
I said I would never KNOWINGLY eat GM salmon. Hence a " Preference "
A far cry from what you call a superstition.
Transgenic fish go large
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Perhaps you should reread my post.. I never said I haven't tasted it..
I said I would never KNOWINGLY eat GM salmon. Hence a " Preference "
A far cry from what you call a superstition.
Pretty simple... 1st we engineer fish, or other animals to grow at an accelerated rate.. Gee John, what would you think would come next?
If man wants to mess with flora and fauna, go for it, I guess..
We both know the next thing would be altering humans.
We won't be happy till we destroy nature, and ourselves.
I just PREFER not to contribute..
What you call improvement, I call biting the hand that feeds you.
If man wants to mess with flora and fauna, go for it, I guess..
We both know the next thing would be altering humans.
We won't be happy till we destroy nature, and ourselves.
I just PREFER not to contribute..
What you call improvement, I call biting the hand that feeds you.
Its just tied into aquaculture. The picture i saw was a fish about four times the non gmo. The best way to learn about this is to read about aquaculture. It is better than overfishing but are not so easy to accomplish so it needs support and research. Some fish so far will not breed in captivity, so far.
Four times the size or even 3x takes a big load off of natural fish demand. Its a Frankenfish but i would be willing to test it.
Kat9Lives
Registered Senior Member
I'd rather eat dog.
Look I am not normally fussy I LOVE natto:
I'm a huge fan of blue cheese - YUM!!!
I buy 1000 year old eggs at least once every couple months...
I'm sure McFrankenfish-sticks with tartar sauce are fine to eat, but, I don't think I'll eat them.... I'd rather we reduce people to lighten the load on the environment....
Look I am not normally fussy I LOVE natto:
I'm a huge fan of blue cheese - YUM!!!
I buy 1000 year old eggs at least once every couple months...
I'm sure McFrankenfish-sticks with tartar sauce are fine to eat, but, I don't think I'll eat them.... I'd rather we reduce people to lighten the load on the environment....
What we have here are two ways of thinking.
1. The people who believe dogma and superstition and think with their emotions. These guys will never accept GM foods, fish or crops, because their superstitious beliefs forbid.
2. The people who believe science and rationality. Guys like this will go by good data, not emotional thinking. They will accept GM food, fish or crops, if the empirical data shows no harm.
Quite simply, there is no good scientific reason for rejecting any GM foods if they have been properly tested and approved by such organisations as the FDA, or the BFSA. As I pointed out before, GM foods have been eaten by hundreds of millions of people over the past 15 years. Epidemiologists have tried, on many occasions, to see if there was a correlation between such foods and any human ill. No such connection has ever been found.
The GM salmon have been engineered to continuously generate growth hormone. This causes rapid growth. From the viewpoint of human nutrition, this is not a problem. Fish growth hormone cannot affect humans, anyway, and it does not survive the digestive process. Even if it did, the amounts involved are tiny compared to our total food intake. If we eat that GM fish, it is no different nutritionally to eating non GM fish.
There have been a number of objections to GM salmon based on ecology, rather than nutrition, and these are a bit more credible. These potential problems are being looked at by the EPA and other organisations, and their hopefully expert conclusions should settle the issue.
1. The people who believe dogma and superstition and think with their emotions. These guys will never accept GM foods, fish or crops, because their superstitious beliefs forbid.
2. The people who believe science and rationality. Guys like this will go by good data, not emotional thinking. They will accept GM food, fish or crops, if the empirical data shows no harm.
Quite simply, there is no good scientific reason for rejecting any GM foods if they have been properly tested and approved by such organisations as the FDA, or the BFSA. As I pointed out before, GM foods have been eaten by hundreds of millions of people over the past 15 years. Epidemiologists have tried, on many occasions, to see if there was a correlation between such foods and any human ill. No such connection has ever been found.
The GM salmon have been engineered to continuously generate growth hormone. This causes rapid growth. From the viewpoint of human nutrition, this is not a problem. Fish growth hormone cannot affect humans, anyway, and it does not survive the digestive process. Even if it did, the amounts involved are tiny compared to our total food intake. If we eat that GM fish, it is no different nutritionally to eating non GM fish.
There have been a number of objections to GM salmon based on ecology, rather than nutrition, and these are a bit more credible. These potential problems are being looked at by the EPA and other organisations, and their hopefully expert conclusions should settle the issue.
K
keith1
Guest
John99 said:
If that were the case...but it is not.
The modification is from inserting a Chinook salmon gene into an Atlantic salmon. Both species are safe to eat. People have been eating both for hundreds of years. The presense of a small amount of Chinook in an Atlantic is not going to make it unsafe to eat.
Personally, I would have no hesitation in eating the modified fish, and I think anyone who refuses is either ignorant or silly.
Personally, I would have no hesitation in eating the modified fish, and I think anyone who refuses is either ignorant or silly.
This sums up how I see it as well.
K
keith1
Guest
The genetic similarities of the growth hormone part of the transfer is not the issue. It is the "switching genes" that are alien to the Atlantic fish. Or it would be producing the growth portion on its own, from its own natural complement of genetic material.
And how these "switches" will react within the new host. That is the issue here.
As far as ignorance and silliness goes, Styptic and Neverland were not making my list anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
I can tell from your language and terminology that you have no personal knowledge of what you’re talking about. You’re merely parroting something you’ve gleaned from biased sources such as self-published books or anti-GM websites (probably this “Seeds of Deception” book you’ve been on about). If you really want to discuss this issue, let’s look at a scientific source of information, shall we? Here’s a very recent publication on this subject....This is a publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), a prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal. It isn’t from a self-published non-peer-reviewed book.
They examined the effect of transgene (ie. the exogenous introduced gene) expression on the transcriptome of GM barely. In other words, they examined the consequences of transgene expression on the expression of every other endogenous gene that is expressed in the leaves of the plants. This is what they concluded...
In other words, they found that traditional selective breeding techniques had a greater differential effect on gene expression in the plant than did the introduction of a transgene!
Correct.
I am ignorant on this particular issue and I'm certainly no geneticist. You might notice I've barely posted in this thread. What I had posted expressed doubt that GM salmon are a health risk.
That is based on the little that I know and since I am ignorant about genetics, I could well be wrong.
Even so, a great deal of what I eat ain't exactly healthy.
I'm quite sure that most people can say that with coffee and bacon and poor eating habits, they are least concerned about the occasional GM salmon they might encounter.
So even if someone can say it's a risky food (No more than some of those things I ate in my life that were alive when I met it....) - it would not stop me from eating it.
Hell... You don't really want to know some of the things I've eaten.
To Hercules.
Nice to see someone here who knows what he is talking about.
However, I do not think this topic requires detailed knowledge of GM. What it requires is a bit of appreciation for actual science. Science is about rigorous testing. Once enough such testing is done, we derive conclusions that are sound. The conclusion that government approved GM foods are safe (or at least safer than bacon and coffee) is solid and sound.
To deny the results of proper scientific testing reflects a degree of dogma based thinking and superstition that this world does not need.
Nice to see someone here who knows what he is talking about.
However, I do not think this topic requires detailed knowledge of GM. What it requires is a bit of appreciation for actual science. Science is about rigorous testing. Once enough such testing is done, we derive conclusions that are sound. The conclusion that government approved GM foods are safe (or at least safer than bacon and coffee) is solid and sound.
To deny the results of proper scientific testing reflects a degree of dogma based thinking and superstition that this world does not need.
K
keith1
Guest
Hercules Rockefeller said:
Herc, your teasing me. Where's the rest of it? This is barley on barley.
Where's the beef?
From PNAS(your source): "...The aim of the present study was to assess possible adverse effects of transgene expression in leaves of field-grown barley relative to the influence of genetic background and the effect of plant interaction with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi..."
Your basing your stance strictly with this data?
Where's the plant-to-carnivore effects testing (let alone fish-to-carnivore tests)?
Where's the long term effects data on the transfer species (fish)?
I expected a more vigorous counter.
Pretending the counter argument was weak is an age old bluff.
I notice that you refuted none of it. Just pretended as though it didn't answer anything.
You have yet to put forth anything substantial, much less a peer reviewed finding. All he needed to do was post ONE link to one without any real commentary to best your arguments.
Last edited:
I buy 1000 year old eggs at least once every couple months...
My Lord! Am I mistaken, but is the white of the egg completely changed to... what looks like amber?
How does one find 1000 year old eggs? And I assume they are quite expensive? All I know is that the Chinese love them.
As I pointed out earlier, there are no doubts about the safety of eating the GM salmon. The potential problems are all ecological.
http://www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10652170
I quote :
" The main scientific controversy relates not to the safety of eating its flesh, which was given a clean bill of health by the FDA's scientists. At issue are the potential ecological consequences should fish escape."
http://www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10652170
I quote :
" The main scientific controversy relates not to the safety of eating its flesh, which was given a clean bill of health by the FDA's scientists. At issue are the potential ecological consequences should fish escape."
It crystallizes, yes... But they are usually preserved for about 3 months or so.
THey are made by coating the egg with clay. It preserves for several months and then the clay is removed- revealing the egg as pictured.