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
Neverfly said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was waiting for you to refute my stance that there has been little, if any testing of plant-to-animal and fish-to-fish. I hope the government isn't basing on such an incomplete study.

These are the things that I, who want to enjoy their meal, time and time again require, to achieve that continuing result.
Perhaps if I were a plant, I would sluff it off as a minor issue. Or the victim of some continuing mass hypnosis by those who don't care to know.

This is not a vegan conspiracy.
 
Keith

You do not have a stance. You have a dogma.

Genes are composed of nucleic acids, and they manufacture proteins. The GM salmon involves a chinook salmon gene being placed into an Atlantic salmon. That means that the GM Atlantic salmon has a chinook salmon gene and some chinook salmon protein.

Eating the GM salmon is therefore nutritionally the same as eating two kinds of salmon at once. If someone placed on my dinner plate, a little chinook salmon flesh alongside a little Atlantic salmon flesh, I would have no problem eating them both.

If it was GM salmon instead, I would eat it with gusto, and the end result would be no different to eating the two kinds of salmon together.

If you say that gene mixing creates a result different to what I have just described, then you believe in magic. Something scientifically impossible. And that is pure superstition.
 
Well, they won't be using any fake eggs in the manufactoring of these beauties. Afterall, I doubt the long exposure to the natural incredients of the casing would have the same effect on industrial chemicals as a protein-filled egg yolk would.
 
Skeptical said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree, however, did you see Doreen's video post on aspartame?

Scientists are every shade of white like anyone else. Sure, the food is probably safe, however, what I worry about is how unbiased the data is. PNAS publishes without review if you're a member of the academy - and I know people who have tidy little "arrangements" that see they get published. Peer review is also subject to peer pressure, even seeing the authors and schools influences how much they "trust" that the data they are reading is real. Some scientists are starved for funding and will "interpret" their experiments in a way that gets more of it. Others want glory. Others want money. Some are diluted. Still others wouldn't know Science if it slapped them upside their PCR machine :p


The underlying issue is human over-population, IMO.
 
Michael

In spite of your scepticism about peer review, the best guide we have to the quality of data is that it is published by a reputable, peer reviewed journal. I do admit, though, that I often refer to secondary sources. Such things as Scientific American, Sciencedaily, New Scientist. These usually report on research that has been published in proper journals. I also refer to web sites from reputable sources such as universities, research institutes, government departments, and a few specialist sites like the Mayo Clinic.

Once you get away from reputable sources, there is a vast sewer pond of dubious writings out there. The internet is full of it. Yes, I mean scientific bullsh!t.

We need to be very careful what we accept as valid. I do not believe, for example, that there is anything wrong with aspartame, since I have never seen any reference to its "evils" in a sound and reputable source. I have even read a note in Food Facts, the journal of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, a statement that there is no sound scientific data to implicate aspartame.

Unsound data, of course, is another matter.
 
Michael said:
The underlying issue is human over-population, IMO.
Click to expand...

Its all good and well to blame over-population for the demise of natural foods but you offer no credible suggestions. At the end of the day its easier to manipulate foods than it is to stop people from having children.
 
Lucysnow said:
Its all good and well to blame over-population for the demise of natural foods but you offer no credible suggestions. At the end of the day its easier to manipulate foods than it is to stop people from having children.
Click to expand...

If the manipulated food has not been tested, and no warning labels applied, if future generations show signs of "provable genetic damage" by these products, then the GM food companies have no protection against massive litigation (similar to the tobacco company litigations of the past).
 
keith1 said:
If the manipulated food has not been tested, and no warning labels applied, if future generations show signs of "provable genetic damage" by these products, then the GM food companies have no protection against massive litigation (similar to the tobacco company litigations of the past).
Click to expand...

Those are a lot of 'ifs'
 
keith1 said:
Herc, your teasing me. Where's the rest of it? This is barley on barley.
Where's the beef?
Click to expand...

If you want to start trolling I’ll be more than happy to deal with you as such.


keith1 said:
Your basing your stance strictly with this data?
Click to expand...

Of course not, and I never said as much. It’s just one of many data that demonstrate you are ignorant of the science you are trying to discuss.


keith1 said:
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)?
Click to expand...

Case in point. :rolleyes: The source of the exogenous DNA is irrelevant. DNA is DNA. The very reason why exogenous genes can be functionally inserted into another species is because the cells cannot distinguish the difference between its own DNA and the inserted DNA. It’s the entire basis of genetic engineering.

From the point of view of human digestion, inserting a transgene from another species into a GM organism is no different to eating each of the organisms separately. Eating GM carrots with an inserted cow gene is no different to eating ‘normal’ carrots with a ‘normal’ steak. The only possible basis for concern, from a human health perspective, is that the act of inserting the transgene (regardless of its species of origin) has somehow altered expression of other genes in the genome. But as I have shown you, this can be done without any such effects.


keith1 said:
I expected a more vigorous counter.
Click to expand...

Given your ignorance, I’m not the least bit surprised you have such a faulty evaluation of the material you were provided with.
 
Michael said:
PNAS publishes without review if you're a member of the academy.....
Click to expand...

No.

To publish in PNAS you need to be a member of the Academy, but all submissions are reviewed. PNAS Submission Guidelines state:

The standard mode of transmitting manuscripts is for authors to submit them directly to PNAS. Authors must recommend three appropriate Editorial Board members, three NAS members who are expert in the paper's scientific area, and five qualified referees. .....All manuscripts are evaluated by the Editorial Board.
Click to expand...
 
PNAS recently changed their submission criteria (in July actually). That said, I know two members who review one another's papers. They first go for the top ranked journal in their field, when (if) knocked back they submit to their mate and are published in PNAS. They get a lot of funding (partly for having PNAS papers) and so are able to hire postdocs and continue their labs. In my mind, any scientist would LOVE to be in on that scam. It's certainly not uncommon.


--
As the popularity of the Direct Submission path increased, many members declined to communicate papers and instead asked authors to send their work directly to PNAS, naming a member as a potential editor. Through a process called “Prearranged Editor,” an author may ask an NAS member to edit a Direct Submission paper, as they would have done for a Communicated paper. When the manuscript is received by PNAS, the NAS member designated as the Prearranged Editor is asked to comment on the significance of the work and recommend a final decision on publication after peer review, which is handled—as for all Direct Submissions—by the PNAS office. Before the peer-review process is initiated, a member of the PNAS Editorial Board is asked to confirm that the Prearranged Editor has the requisite expertise and the paper is appropriate for publication in PNAS (see the PNAS Information for Authors at www.pnas.org/site/misc/inforc.shtml).


--
--
So, in the case I mentioned the authors review one another's papers - which are NEVER knocked back.




--
That aside, new thought experiment: Suppose we can grow a transgenic cow without a head and with 6 legs. Let's say it's fed with a tube and grows at 10 times the rate being fed pure human waste product. From the toilet to the cow. It's an ecological boon because it's methane is harvested for energy (one tube in, one tube out, meat in the middle). Suppose the meat taste fine, and hey, there's 10 trillion people living in 3 meter boxes wired into a virtual world that need fed :)

You going to happy to eat this cow? I'm thinking I'd say no..... EVEN if it is safe?!? Call me superstitious!

I have eaten ants, bees, scorpion, tequila worm, whale, dolphin, love raw oysters etc... and ordered dog in China once but it was out of season (winter is the time of year for dog).
 
Michael

Bring on the cow! I love a good steak.

I would not eat dolphin, though, since it is an intelligent animal. It would be like eating that other intelligent animal, Homo sapiens, and encouraging cannibalism. I have eaten crocodile, emu, ostritch, kangaroo, and also love raw oysters. Thus, I think I can say that I am not picky if the meat tastes good.
 
Amen about eating intelligent animals, why no one eats chimps, but Pig is a big hypocracy.
 
Intelligent life is life that manages to outwit his predator.

Until then, You're all just potential food...


[salivates]
38.gif
 
Skeptical said:
Michael

Bring on the cow! I love a good steak.

I would not eat dolphin, though, since it is an intelligent animal. It would be like eating that other intelligent animal, Homo sapiens, and encouraging cannibalism. I have eaten crocodile, emu, ostritch, kangaroo, and also love raw oysters. Thus, I think I can say that I am not picky if the meat tastes good.
Click to expand...
hahaha... :)

Croc is good, the emu I ate was too dry and very red, kangaroo is yum :)
I made breaded lamb brain once... yuck!

What's ostrich taste like?
 
Michael

Emu and ostrich are very similar. Both are red meats. How nice they are depends on who cooks them. They can be utterly delicious if prepared well. Since I have eaten them only in restaurants, please do not ask me how to prepare them! Google it instead.
 
keith1 said:
if future generations show signs of "provable genetic damage" by these products, then the GM food companies have no protection against massive litigation (similar to the tobacco company litigations of the past).
Click to expand...

If humans dont get "provable genetic damage" already from the food they eat then i dont see how that would change. In the tobacco company lawsuits the only reason they lost is because the industry downplayed the risks but that was going back 40 to 70 years ago and now peoploe smoking can hardly claim ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top