E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSalmon that's genetically modified to grow twice as fast as normal could soon show up on your dinner plate. That is, if the company that makes the fish can stay afloat.
After weathering concerns about everything from the safety of humans eating the salmon to their impact on the environment, Aquabounty was poised to become the world's first company to sell fish whose DNA has been altered to speed up growth.
The Food and Drug Administration in 2010 concluded that Aquabounty's salmon was as safe to eat as the traditional variety. The agency also said that there's little chance that the salmon could escape and breed with wild fish, which could disrupt the fragile relationships between plants and animals in the wild. But more than two years later the FDA has still not approved the fish, and Aquabounty is running out of money.
"It's threatening our very survival," says CEO Ron Stotish, chief executive of the Maynard, Mass.-based company. "We only have enough money to survive until January 2013, so we have to raise more. But the unexplained delay has made raising money very difficult."
The FDA says it's still working on the final piece of its review, a report on the potential environmental impact of the salmon that must be published for comment before an approval can be issued. That means a final decision could be months, even years away. While the delay could mean that the faster-growing salmon will never wind up on American dinner tables, there's more at stake than seafood.
Aquabounty is the only U.S. company publicly seeking approval for a genetically-modified animal that is raised to be eaten by humans. And scientists worry that its experience with the FDA's lengthy review process could discourage other U.S. companies from investing in animal biotechnology, or the science of manipulating animal DNA to produce a desirable trait. That would put the U.S. at a disadvantage at a time when China, India and other foreign governments are pouring millions of dollars each year into the potentially lucrative field that could help reduce food costs and improve food safety.
Already, biotech scientists are changing their plans to avoid getting stuck in FDA-related regulatory limbo. Researchers at the University of California, Davis have transferred an experimental herd of genetically-engineered goats that produce protein-enriched milk to Brazil, due to concerns about delays at the FDA. And after investors raised concerns about the slow pace of the FDA's Aquabounty review, Canadian researchers in April pulled their FDA application for a biotech pig that would produce environmentally-friendly waste.
"The story of Aquabounty is disappointing because everyone was hoping the company would be a clear signal that genetic modification in animals is now acceptable in the U.S.," said Professor Helen Sang, a geneticist at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland who is working to develop genetically modified chickens that are resistant to bird flu. "Because it's gotten so bogged down — and presumably cost AquaBounty a huge amount of money — I think people will be put off."
Against the current
The science behind genetic modification is not new. Biotech scientists say that genetic manipulation is a proven way to reduce disease and enrich plants and animals, raising productivity and increasing the global food supply. Genetically modified corn, cotton and soybeans account for more than four-fifths of those crops grown in the U.S., according to the National Academies of Sciences.
But there have always been critics who are wary of tinkering with the genes of living animals. They say the risk is too great that modified organisms can escape into the wild and breed with native species. Not that we don't already eat genetically altered animals. Researchers say the centuries-old practice of selective breeding is its own form of genetic engineering, producing the plumper cows, pigs and poultry we eat today.
"You drive a hybrid car because you want the most efficient vehicle you can have. So why wouldn't you want the most efficient agriculture you can have?" asks Alison Van Eenennaam, a professor of animal science at University of California, Davis.
Aquabounty executives say their aim is to make the U.S. fish farming industry, or aquaculture, more efficient, environmentally friendly and profitable. After all, the U.S. imports about 86 percent of its seafood, in part, because it has a relatively small aquaculture industry. Aquaculture has faced pushback in the U.S. because of concerns about pollution from large fish pens in the ocean, which generate fish waste and leftover food.
Aquabounty executives figure that the U.S. aquaculture industry can be transformed by speeding up the growth of seafood. The company picked Atlantic salmon because they are the most widely-consumed salmon in the U.S. and are farmed throughout the world: In 2010, the U.S. imported more than 200,000 tons of Atlantic salmon, worth over $1.5 billion, from countries like Norway, Canada and Chile.
Using gene-manipulating technology, Aquabounty adds a growth hormone to the Atlantic salmon from another type of salmon called the Chinook. The process, company executives say, causes its salmon to reach maturity in about two years, compared with three to four years for a conventional salmon.
Aquabounty executives say if their fish are approved for commercial sale, there are several safeguards designed to prevent the fish from escaping and breeding with wild salmon. The salmon are bred as sterile females. They also are confined to pools where the potential for escape would be low: The inland pens are isolated from natural bodies of water.
And the company says that these pens would be affordable thanks to the fast-growing nature of Aquabounty's fish, which allows farmers to raise more salmon in less time. Overall, the company estimates that it would cost 30 percent less to grow its fish than traditional salmon.
Tough sale
But getting the fish to market hasn't been easy.
The company began discussions with the FDA in 1993. But the agency did not yet have a formal system for reviewing genetically-modified food animals.
So Aquabounty spent the next decade conducting more than two dozen studies on everything from the molecular structure of the salmon's DNA to the potential allergic reactions in humans who would eat it. By the time the FDA completed its roadmap for reviewing genetically-modified animals in 2009, Aquabounty was the first company to submit its data.
After reviewing the company's data, the FDA said in a public hearing in September of 2010 that Aquabounty's salmon is "as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon." The FDA also said the fish "are not expected to have a significant impact" on the environment.
But as the company has inched toward FDA approval it has faced increasing pushback from natural food advocates, environmentalists and politicians from salmon-producing states. In fact, following the FDA's positive review of the fish, the House of Representatives passed a budget that included language barring the FDA from spending funds to approve a genetically-engineered salmon.
"Frankenfish is uncertain and unnecessary," said Rep. Don Young of Alaska, who authored the language. The Senate did not adopt the measure.
Despite such opposition, environmental groups such as the Food and Water Watch say that FDA approval seems inevitable. "We think there is a clear bias toward approving genetically modified animals within the FDA," said Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit that promotes environmental-friendly fishing and farming practices. "This thing is trapped in a regulatory process that is predisposed toward approving it."
But the delay could cause Aquabounty to go bankrupt before its salmon reaches supermarkets.
Aquabounty, which started in 1991 focusing on proteins used to preserve human cells, changed direction after acquiring the rights to gene-manipulation technology from researchers at the University of Toronto and Memorial University of Newfoundland. Aquabounty's Initial financing came from Boston-area investors and biotech-focused venture capital funds, but the company has burned through more than $67 million since it started.
According to its mid-year financial report, Aquabounty had less than $1.5 million in cash and stock. And it has no other products besides genetically-modified salmon in development.
In February, the cash-strapped company agreed to sell its research and development arm to its largest single shareholder, Kakha Bendukidze, a former Republic of Georgia finance minister turned investor, in return for his help raising $2 million in cash to stay afloat. Aquabounty's CEO Stotish fretted that Bendukidze, who controlled nearly 48 percent of Aquabounty's public stock, would move the company overseas. But in October Bendukidze's investment fund sold its shares to Intrexon, a biotech firm headquartered in Germantown, Md.
Stotish views the sale as a positive development, but he still worries that the U.S. government is unwilling to approve the technology at the heart of his company's work.
"This is about more than Aquabounty and more than salmon," Stotish says. "And shame on us if we allow this to slip away because of partisan bickering and people who oppose new technology."
More health news from NBCNews.com:
- Flu season could be a bad one, health officials say
- Brain study shows why older people fall for scams
- Why we talk supplements, even when they don't work
Leave a Comment:
Sound to me like Aquabounty didn't have enough money in " lobbying" projects & people in the FDA
I have a plan to genetically alter chickens. I want a chicken that has 12 legs and 12 wings. They'd look like white, feathery centipedes that can fly!
Sounds more like the FDA is burning them down. Most company's are running the fine line of destruction. The FDA knows this and wants to make it harder on everyone. If this company goes under they should sue the FDA for billions. Those people have a job and do not care about others.
Don't understand the resistance to engineered plants and animals. They will help drastically with the upcoming global food crisis. Should we just let companies throw them in to the environment? No, but that is what regulation is for.
Better yet, lets eat more small fish, which already grow and breed faster, instead of eating these top-of-the-food-chain fish that need to be fed ten times their own weight to grow to harvest weight
There is no global food crisis. Its a global food DISTRIBUTION crisis.
I agree -- there is no global food crisis. It's greed and power that prevents food from getting to starving people -- they're paying the price. If you trust the FDA, you're a fool.
Yes pGT and GEM, there is no crisis now, but there will be and Frugal specifically said "upcoming".
Read better next time.
Mitchell
Using genetic engineering to increase profits sounds like a bad idea to me. Where would it stop? Golden rice with Vitamin A has a somewhat different goal. Still, there are just too many variables to really evaluate what the environmental impact will be.
Many of the changes to food are negative, and do enter the environment. This is a lot more than nectarines or golden rice; many of the insect and disease "resistant" strains of corn, beans, etc. have built-in chemicals that make them resistant, and people either allergic or at risk of carcinogens. Cancer is going up; do we really want that? And anything that makes tissue grow twice as fast will make cancer grow twice as fast too.
Frankenfish are already here though: the radioactive fish near Japan are swimming in an ocean near you.
Our bodies are not equiped to remove genetically changed foods. These foods also could have an effect on the aging process. Could they speed our aging process up. We already know that some chemicals in our foods have helped to cause children to mature so much earlier than they use too. I'd rather not try it myself.
Also, does anyone out there remember what a really good apple tasted like. All these genetically engineered fruit trees and veggie plant bear fruits and vegetables that have no or little flavor. I miss the real fruits and vegetables. What a loss that we will probably never be able to get back.
I dont mind if GMO foods are allowed to be consumed by the masses - they just need to be labelled as such, so that people like myself can stay FAR FAR FAR away from them.
I'll eat the traditional stuff, even if it cost me more...
and you all can eat the food that's bred to grow twice as fast, and then dont complain when your cancer grows just as fast too (and your children end up sterile).
@vupstate - Unless you're eating one celled animals from over 3 billion years ago, you already are eating genetically changed foods.
Mutations abound. Some ended up resulting in the existence of humans, cows, chickens, and wheat. Others (most) were unsuccessful and are nowhere to be seen today and some resulted in organisms that are poisonous to humans.
People have been selectively breeding animals for centuries - that's simply the process of speeding up the "natural" selection process and taking advantage of random mutations. Why do you believe that a few mutations designed and introduced by man are any more dangerous than those made naturally and randomly billions of times a day?
Some of you are so paranoid! Genetically modified foods are not going to affect you one iota. A fish growing twice as fast will not cause cancer, much less make cancer grow twice as fast. It is not a chemical in the fish, it is a gene that causes higher metabolism in the fish. The flesh of the fish is identical. Sheesh!
Successful mutations are the animals and plants that we see around us now!!!!!
If salmon that grew twice as fast were necessary to fill an ecologic niche, they' d be here already. Ask the Australians about niches and rabbits. Cautionary tales are best heeded rather than ignored!
Engineered plants and animals aren't about making the world better. They are about making patents so some people can make money from something that nature has provided for free. Take a look at Genetic Chili if you get the chance. I guess people have been quick to forget that GMO corn pollen almost wiped out the Monarch butterfly. I remember a time when there where Monarch(when they migrated through) and Tiger Swallowtail butterflies were all over the place. Now if I see one it's a rare occasion. Of course most people seem to forget what happens after a year.
"Green" pffft.
Be aware of any 'industry' trying to manipulate billions of dollars (ours) to fund 'green' projects. All it is, is a 'legal extortion' of our hard earned dollars.
Wind projects... for example, Don't 'add' a dang thing. period. The money needed to purchase, erect, and distribute ANY kw's to the grid will never be recouped in the expected lifespan of the average mill. Where does the 'money' come from?? Oh, US of course! either increased national debt, or much higher electricity costs to the US consumer.... So, 'our' investment in the future is only paying a buttload of dollars to an industry who is 'milking' the consumer.
The article said 'we drive hybrids' to have the most efficient cars. No, it's because they are cheap to drive/mile. How efficient are they when higher energy costs from 'needed' grid capacities force the masses to double their energy bill??
Corn hybrids have been genetically improved, and the resulting 'glut' of corn in the 80's and 90's was 'convienantly' converted to car fuel. Not much worry then or now about 'feeding' people 'car fuel'.. Now, more than half the ethanol distilleries are sitting idle because profit margins are negative. (drought induced corn shortage)... and farmers continue to plow up very marginal ground to 'cash' in. We have lost a LOT of natural grasslands in last 4 years. Mark my words, when it starts raining again, the bins will be overflowing with corn again, but there wont be enough livestock left to feed it to.... unless we (USA) imports a lot of cattle from S america, Australia, etc.. How effiecient is this? Quality/safety will be 'out the window' I for one do not want to eat JackRabbit and Kangaroo.
The point of all my ramblings is, we should be very wary of these 'green' projects. I can't see anything but 'today's profit' driving these. And, at what cost to our LAND, (our REAL future) is 'making sure' we have cheap fuel for our cars, more important??
It's one thing if nature triggers changes in genetics and a completely different thing when man plays with genetics...
"the question isn't can we, but should we" (paraphrasing Jurassic Park)
"It's threatening our very survival," says CEO Ron Stotish, chief executive of the Maynard, Mass.-based company. "We only have enough money to survive until January 2013, so we have to raise more. But the unexplained delay has made raising money very difficult."
Awwww, too bad. I would never ever eat that fish. I would be very happy if this fish never sees a dinner table, escapes into the wild, or is secretly smuggled into dog and cat food.
People need to spend a LOT more time studying the effects of genetic engineering on the environment and people's health for the long term devastating effects. The FDA has approved it is no comfort to me. FDA and EPA were bought out a long time ago by big business and to hell with the general public's health problems or opinions.
Maybe I wouldn't be so upset by chemicals and GMOs if I didn't have to see FAT, SICK, Americans everywhere I look, then of course all the "hand-wringing" by the medical establishment that just can't figure it out but, make tons of money off our mysterious illnesses?
Shame on American politics, business, and medicine for allowing so much corruption in our food and environment. There is a tipping point and we may have already reached that point.
I marked you "no value".
You're upset that you see "FAT, SICK, Americans everywhere" and blame chemicals and GMO's without a single mention of lifestyle? That right there says you do not understand the problem at all.
Secondly, this isn't the late 70's-early 80's anymore, we have extensive knowledge and experience in DNA manipulation now that's 30 year's worth of growth, you're implied idea of where is stands isn't close at all. Just because you don't know what's going on doesn't mean other people don't.
Mitchell
Yes all those but never the lazy dufus population that does nothing but over indulge, let their bodies deteriorate and continue to be taken advantage of.
the fish would be fine to eat. Id eat it and personally love me some pink slime. this could be a future solution to many problems and a point to where our tax money should be investing along with green energy. Food is not a renewable resource at this point, we are stripping this planet dry of everything and using crappy insane laws to keep solutions from seeing the light of day so others can get rich. even if it escapes its life span is extremely short. It would naturally weed itself out.
No, it must be the GMO and chemical-laden foods, not all of the McDonald's and low-cost, high-fat, high-sugar food that we eat. We've been eating "GMO" foods for centuries. As examples see domesticated cows, chickens, turkeys, yellow corn, tomatoes, beans, etc., etc. Just because it's done in a lab instead of a farm via cross-breeding and cross-pollination doesn't make it all that much different.
Adults can be blamed for diet choices, but there aren't very many parents who let their kids stuff themselves with junk. But kids get hormone enhanced milk at their school lunches. Don't blame all those big companies though, they can't be poisoning us, right?
There is one difference - cross-breeding and cross-pollination animals of plants takes considerably longer than direct genetic modification. Because it takes longer, and is gradual, the effects and ill-effects have more time to manifest themselves.
This could be a fairly significant difference. Do you have experience with any engineering? If not, ask any engineer: when was the first time something just worked off the bat? And of course, if you have experience with engineering, you can easily understand what I am saying.
Our real problem is that we don't really know how long the appropriate time period is to fully test out these changes. The field of direct genetic modification is too new.
? what the heck? I really hate it when people don't understand science. Sorry but all evolution is genetic drift and change. Cross breeding is genetic engineering. You make it sound as if eating genetic modified food will somehow effect your health, wrong! Now I can agree that GM products bred to withstand specific pesticides is sick, and that those foods may have residue. Unless you have bred to produce specified toxins and poisons, the GM foods proteins, polypeptides, sugars and fats are the same base composition as to whats in the wild. Look I'm not saying everyone needs to be an expert in biochem (it can get dull), and I don't expect most people to understand Grignard reactions, but would it be too much to learn a little more science so that you are better informed? Example, high fructose corn syrup, bad or good? It's just fructose, it's not some strange chemical you don't find naturally. The HFC material was processed in such a fashion that more fructose is produced from corn than regular extraction. It's also overused in our foods, but that doesn't make fructose unhealthy or poisonous. You'd do well to study more science. Actually we all do better when we study everything.
craxedengineer -- Yes, eating genetically modified food does affect our health. After years of experimenting on the public (us guinea pigs), serious health problems are showing up. No, the GM foods aren't the same as what's in the wild -- if so, they wouldn't be "GM" then, would they? No, high fructose corn syrup is not something found in nature. It's manipulated into something the body doesn't know what to do with. Here's a study from Princeton University a couple years ago that goes into it in detail If you really are an engineer, then your paycheck depends on the next idea to come along and you're not about to criticize anything engineered. We understand that and take that into consideration.
Sharktopussie -- You're spot on with everything you wrote. Obviously your paycheck doesn't depend on GM "products" (note that I didn't write GM "food".
The website I mentioned in # 3.7 wasn't saved when I posted. Here's what to Google:
A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain
Posted March 22, 2010; 10:00 a.m.
Do you even know what HFCS is agreement? Your education seems lacking.
yeah, HFCS is bad for your body.
try cutting any items with HFCS and Partialy-Hydroginated Oil (of any kind) and high sodium out of your diet, just don't buy them and don't consume them, for one month, I did and I lost weight and have been able to keep it off...also, I don't feel so wiped out and blah all the time
I think what he was getting at is that it's pretty much the same as either table sugar or honey (depending of the item) as far as the sugar type and content goes.
Mitchell
Just make a decision so the company can either cut their losses or continue to seek financing depending on what the decision is. Gridlock...aaarrrggghhh!
It's because of things like this - BGH in our cattle, genetically-engineered tomatoes that a red as cherries, firm, bounce like a tennis ball and taste like toilet paper, that our children are turning out autisic, going through puberty at 9, and voting republican.
Stop trying to improve nature - nature did it right the first time.
Obviously you have no clue how evolution works.
why.... why did you bring political parties into this? all political parties are crap and should be eliminated.
Oh I've a real good idea how evolution works, Howy, and it's clear you came out of the shallow end of the gene pool. Either that, or you just suck at reading.
TEvil: It's called "Comic Relief". You break up a tense situation with some light humor and the only ones who go away butthurt from it had no business there in the first place. See, I did it again.
does this fish have bolts coming out of it's gills?
and screw up the eco system....
When will we learn to stop messing around with nature?
Farmed fish in general are a blight on our environment, are not decent table fare and the idea of eating an altered salmon makes me throw up in my mouth. Farm raised Atlantic salmon has to be artifically colored or it won't sell and it is mussy. In my opinion, farmed fish should not be allowed as not only do the farmed fish infect the natural occuring salmon smolt, the seabed under the pens are a waste land covered with wasted fish food containing antibiotics and feces, there has been escapment from the pens regardless of what the proponents say.
Or you can over fish to the point of extinction and then all there will be is farmed fish.
how are you on that Corn feed Beef with antibiotics fattened up in pens.
Sorry to disrupt your ignorant rant, Codger, but you clearly don't have the slightest ounce of reading comprehension. If you did, you would have noticed that the Aquabounty pens are located INLAND, which means they are not connected to the ocean at all. So unless they're breeding fish with legs...the only way one could escape is if someone took one to the beach in a cooler. And they're sterile. That means no new little fishies, if that's too complicated a word for your peabrain to comprehend.
Oh, and as for them tasting flabby? Well, yes, farmed Atlantic salmon that are farmed in offshore pens do taste like crap. But not all farmed fish do. In fact, I can offer you three species that don't: 1) American catfish. All American catfish sold in stores is farmed. All of it. 2) Swai. This is a Vietnamese catfish species (not allowed to be sold in the US as catfish, as its better flavor might hurt American catfish sales) that is farmed and is well known for its light, sweet flavor. 3) Arctic char. It's a cousin of salmon that is never sold harvested from the wild; all Arctic char you find sold in stores is farmed in inland pens. And it's all good.
So in other words, STFU, Codger. You're an ignorant disgrace.
Sorry if my post kicked sand in your vag, noyb. I did get a good laugh at your post. Are you shill for the fish farm industry? From the article - "There is little chance one could escape". Penned fish have escaped into Puget sound and the Salish Sea. If the salmon hasn't been in the wild, we don't eat it. Catfish and Swai suck as does talapia unless you put so much seasoning on them they have flavor. You can have mine because of the antibiotics the fish are fed in their food. Char is good as I've eaten fresh from the water. Now go get fu'd and thanks again for the laugh.
"how are you on that Corn feed Beef with antibiotics fattened up in pens." I don't eat it. I get my beef from my brother and it's grass fed.
Right. Same said of Snakeheads, Asian Carp, Burmese Pythons, House Sparrows, Dandelions, etc., etc., ad nauseum.............
and we can and should be eating all of those. each one of those is high in some positive nutrient and vitaman but yet our ignorance and "ewww factor" stops us.
didnt jurassic park breed just sterile females only??
The problem with any artificial growth (not that I am against it) is it allows the earth to support more people than it naturally could. We are already at the tipping point, where fertilizers and pesticides are not optional, but required to sustain the worlds population. When the production of chemicals for food growth is interrupted, and history has shown that this will happen, we are screwed.
It looks like the FDA has no clue about the history of animals that "cannot escape into the wild". If these fish do get approved, and WHEN THEY ESCAPE, the administrators should have their pensions taken from them. That is how serious this decision is. If the administrators had that threat hanging over them, perhaps they would make the correct decision.
The FDA has not approved it unless that happened since I read the article. I hope they don't.
"safeguards designed to prevent the fish from escaping and breeding with wild salmon. The salmon are bred as sterile females"
If the above quote is correct, is there still a problem with them escaping? I realize that in the past, just about every animal or plant that is either modified or moved into a new habitat eventually creates havoc...but sterile females?
Just asking
Okay. Voice of reason here. Scared is one thing, but cautious is fine. No one knows what changes, really CHANGES, in a modified organism. You may turn on a gene that doesn't work now on the way to a bigger fish, that triggers other changes, generations down the line. This year's crop may be fine, but eating it for a few years may have unhealthy consequences.
Example. My sister and I both have a weird rash, that just kinda came out of nowhere, near the shins and ankles. The same doctor that prescribed a particular, constant antibiotic for us when we were little is now informing us that a lot of the children prescribed said drug and kept on it for several years, now have weird rashes all over them, due to decreased immune deficiency. He was trying to decrease the frequency of our ear aches, and because little study was done on long term effects, we now get to deal with an ichy nasty rash that won't really ever leave. Thanks FDA. Really.
Now you want everyone to look the other way while you shovel untested food into the whatever and wherever? Will the scales and eyes be mashed up and given to my pet? Will my children come out looking like blinky from the simpsons because I ate a bunch of it? Too many questions, and to be honest, we really should let this dog lie. Curing diseases is a bigger problem than feeding the world and lets be honest, these folks dont really want to feed the world. They want to turn a profit off of a lifeform. Not that I see it that way, but no one seems to mention the divine. Funny how money turns off that part of the conservative brain. Would God want you to make his fish grow twice as fast? Think about it.
scratch scratch scratch. @!$%#
And BTW. Did God grant Monsanto the right to copyright something that could feed my family? Oh. The government did. Freedom to eat should always overcome the freedom to do business. Always. Like Walmart. Always......
Actually the opposite is true in terms of genetic changes, there's a reason why biological children always look like their parents, and that's because weather the gene is in a fish, or if it's in a plant, or if its in a human it will do exactly the same thing in every case. When it comes to medications that's a different animal.
We are certainly trapped between a rock and a hard place. Common sense must be leveled in both cases....
This is the way things will be as we move forward with more and bigger government. More regulations. More palm greasing. More "committees" and "looking onto" to "publish" the report that no one will read. In the meantime.... we throw money at failed businesses and rush into $47,000 cars that can travel 37 miles. But create a new drug that could cure a fatal disease or a new food source that won't deplete the oceans and it is stonewalled....
Yep... we need more, bigger government.... just the folks we need running the health care around here.
Thalidomide.
Article Title : Frankenfish may never make it to your plate
First Sentence : Salmon that's genetically modified to grow twice as fast as normal could soon show up on your dinner plate.
Congratulations on only reading only one sentence in the article. try five
It's just poor editing that's all. Discredits the entire article before the reader even begins
Poor editing implies there is an editor.
Dubbing advancements in food production with the prefix "Franken" is a fine way to promote starvation in developing nations. Under pressure from Green folks and food Nazis, the UK turned its back on numerous developments in crop production, and many African nations followed their lead. We stand on the brink of eliminating hunger, yet ridiculous, ignorant calls for only "natural" food by people who consider themselves enlightened as they lambaste heartless "corporations," coupled with some who coldly consider starvation an acceptable form of birth control, kill more children than wars.
I'm trying not to laugh at your sponsorship of corporate greed by ignorance. They've already noticed that genetically modified corn impacts the environment in all sorts of unexpected negative ways and yet these companies move blindly ahead. Just because science can do something doesn't mean they should.
Twenty bucks says nobody on the FDA has eaten any of this fish or is willing to try it.
Soon all food will be Monsato-ized. God help us.
And they wont label it "genetically modified fish". We just saw Monsanto convince the public here in California that it was in the people's best interest to hide the fact that the cotton, corn, etc. was genetically modified. But there is one pesky question that wont go away: if the genetically modified food is so great why dont you put on the package label? I know why. They dont put it on because they think the public is too stupid to decide if they want to eat it or not. Not to worry - Monsanto says it's OK.
We seem to have missed one point here in the discussion: The length of time it takes a U.S. Government Agency to "make up its mind". In this case, it's been so long that the company is going broke after spending $67M to stay afloat. You can't stay in business if you cannot sell your product. Since the FDA said in 2010 that it was safe to eat, what has caused the continued delay in approval?
I understand personal concerns over the quality, taste and long term effects of genetically altered foods, but unless you're growing your own these days, you are probably already ingesting huge quantities of genetically altered food items - from milk products from cows that have been inbred (genetically altered just as dogs are by controlled breeding) so that they produce 10 gallons a day instead of 1, to disease resistant strains of corn and wheat (and rice), etc. etc. I also understand the concerns about the ecology if some get loose and breed in the wild - and as trite as it sounds, we should take that lesson from Jurassic Park: life will find a way.
But the exposure of just how bogged down our Government agencies are from their own weight is something that needs to be explored in depth. I figure Congress could probably set up a committee to do the investigating and sometime around 2025 we should have the answer after several million person-hours of data gathering, collating and analysis combined with a few billion-$$ to fund it all: and the answer is - In any Government Agency, the number of conflicting directives, rules, regulations and traditions will grow as required to render the agency totally ineffective within 2 decades.
Inbred cattle end up with the same amount of chromosomes as their parents. Genetically modified is completely different and the end products, such as wheat, corn, etc., usually have many times more chromosomes, mixed from plants and animals both, hence the term Frankenfood. The health effects of eating that garbage is going to take years to assess. As far as engineered, not found in nature, fast-growing, gigantic salmon, who wants to eat that without knowing what the long-term effects are?
Not even close agreement. I'm willing to bet either a) you didn't even have high school biology, or b) you slept through it to say nothing of actually taking collegiate level courses.
Mitchell
What I wrote is true. Try to keep up with the latest info.
Nope.
Nice try though.
Mitchell
Completely wrong. It appears you don't even have the basic understanding of the nucleus of a cell. It makes the rest of your argument rather suspicious.
If you eat in the US you are consuming GMO food. If you are in Europe then you probably have eaten GMO food. GMO is here now and like computers and cell phones and the internet, it is here to stay. In 20 years if you eat anywhere in the world you will be consuming GMO. Cross pollination and all those ways that genes scurry between the individuals of a species.
In a decade it would be a good bet that the technology to manipulate the genetics of an organism will become cheap and available to "biological hackers". Now that will be interesting. And maybe not in a good way.
Somehow I can't see farmed, GM salmon as being the choice food of the poor. How about hi-protein rice or grain instead ??
Atlantic Salmon? ? ? Now THAT'S a joke! There are no more Atlantic salmon!! They were interbred with genetically modified salmon over 30 yrs. ago when a storm hit Norway, exploded their "captive" pens and allowed their salmon to escape into the ocean. They knew back then that if this fish got into the eco-system, it would eventually out-eat and breed the natural Atlantic salmon into extinction! They knew that then, they know it now but with so much time spent, no one talks about that anymore!
These so-called geniuses think they're saving the world? Bah! They are LYING about results everywhere! You wanna know how long the fiends at Monsanto tested their Round-Up Ready Corn on rats? THREE MONTHS! And you know how long it took the rats in an identical study in Europe to develope tumors? FOUR MONTHS! And yes, I know there's a bit of controversy over how that study was done, but it wasn't the only study and other studies have turned up the same evidence - that a diet of only GMOs will kill rats over a two year period. In this country, farmers who raise milk cows on GMO corn are finding that spontaneous abortions of calves have gone up 300%. I know that since my husband and I have gone 80% organic, non-GMO, we've both lost 12% of our body weight over 4 months without any other modifications to our diet or exercise regimen.
And to those who keep insisting that genetic modifications have been going on since life began - you're right. But it hasn't been from corn mating with fish and azaleas. It hasn't been from goats mating with plants or insects. C'mon now, be reasonable. These companies are also playing God by creating new life forms. YES, the science has come that far. And for these companies, they scream "Proprietary Secret" so you are not allowed to even know what types of DNA are being spliced into the genes of your favorite dinner!
The foods are being genetically altered. Have you been? I know I haven't. Ah, sweet mystery of life.
Science - you have only some of the clues and you damn well know it. Don't say it until you've PROVEN it.
IM LIBERAL AS ALL GET OUT. I praise all advances. This would be a huge mistake. Plus what if it gets into our waters. It will screw the balance of fish in rivers streams and lakes. Not to mention we dont want to eat screwy food. Its bad enough what has been done to chicken.
The FDA can not be trusted!!! Just like the federal government they are OWNED and CONTROLLED by big business and the wealthy greedy 1% bastages....
Just another ignorant lie, repeated often enough by the clueless and moronic to have risen to the level of Big Lie.