Genetically Modified Fish

[Sahib Punjabi]

I would like to find out fellow AQ members opinions and standings as to Genetically Modified Fish (I guess seeds too although that would be under a different discussion).

Do you agree with it?
Would you grow genetically modified fish?
Would you eat genetically modified fish?
What if the FDA approved the genetic modification, would that change your stand?
I guess this then leads to the bigger question, do you trust decisions by the FDA?
Would your answer / opinion change if the FDA approved the genetically modified fish on the basis that not only were there no negative effects found during research trials, would increase food availability and allow the fish to be to be grown in greater climatic zones, but that all growers would have to be licensed and inspected to ensure that the do not release these fish back to the wild.?

[Sylvia Bernstein]

Great post, Sahib. I tweeted, facebooked, etc. Just intensified my concern about this fish getting out into our oceans. It also led me to discovering a couple more good links.

First, this is a good post called GMO Salmon and the Banality of Corruption at FDA about the approval process at the FDA. Did you know that it is the FDA Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee that is overseeing this?!?! Nothing to do with food safety, or ocean safety, but the health of the fish. Amazing.

Also, here is a link to a petition being circulated by the Center for Environmental Health - http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6016/p/dia/action/public/?actio... that I'll post on the home page here.

[Sahib Punjabi]

Thank you :-)

I have posted a link to the petition on my Facebook page. Suggest we all do that if we are of the same opinion :-)

God bless,

Sylvia Bernstein said:

Great post, Sahib. I tweeted, facebooked, etc. Just intensified my concern about this fish getting out into our oceans. It also led me to discovering a couple more good links.

First, this is a good post called GMO Salmon and the Banality of Corruption at FDA about the approval process at the FDA. Did you know that it is the FDA Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee that is overseeing this?!?! Nothing to do with food safety, or ocean safety, but the health of the fish. Amazing.

Also, here is a link to a petition being circulated by the Center for Environmental Health - http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6016/p/dia/action/public/?actio... that I'll post on the home page here.

[Two Jay]

I stole the picture and added it as my profile picture on FaceBook. ( : A week or so ago I had already posted information about the evil fish, nobody cared, all my friends are gonna grow scales instead of skin and hair.... oh well, I warned em.

[Sahib Punjabi]

Ha,ha ha ;-)

Two Jay said:

I stole the picture and added it as my profile picture on FaceBook. ( : A week or so ago I had already posted information about the evil fish, nobody cared, all my friends are gonna grow scales instead of skin and hair.... oh well, I warned em.

[John R]

I attended a talk at Purdue University by a researcher doing genetic engineering on talapia. I was surprised that they still use what I like to call a 'shotgun' approach to genetic engineering. They mix the genes then shock the egg with electricity to see what comes together. They inserted a growth gene from one species (trout I think) into the talapia. This allows the fish to grow much faster because the talapia gene that would normally regulate the growth gene is not able to slow down the gene from the other species. He compared geneticly engineered species to any invasive species. Most do not compete well against the local population and die out. We only hear about the few that take off.

Concerning the GM salmon, from what I've read there were a large number of deformities present in the population and that may have been one reason that a relative small number of fish were presented for testing. It appears that has been a reason for a lot of problems with this application in general.

In my opinion, genetic modification in this manner is extremely dangerous. Other methods, such as hybridization, are clearly safer if slower. Knowledge of genetics can aid this effort greatly but just randomly mixing genes from different species or even different phyla is crazy in the long term. Eventually, something will go very wrong.

Regardless, we should all have the choice concerning GM organisms. They definitely should be labeled as such.

[Two Jay]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/10-freakiest-things-ab...

10. Frankenfish Aren't Animals, They're "Animal Drugs"

Obama's FDA is regulating genetically engineered salmon, a genetically modified organism (GMO) that is the first of its kind, not as an animal, but as an animal drug.

Normally, a veterinary drug would be used for health purposes, but there's no therapeutic benefit associated with jacking up salmon with the genes of an ocean pout to make it grow twice as fast. On the contrary, genetic engineering increases the poor salmon's mortality, disease and deformity.

So, why would the FDA treat a the first genetically engineered animal for human consumption like a drug? The idea came from the biotech industry. They knew that the FDA's animal drug process would keep companies' "proprietary" information secret, while limiting public participation and downplaying food safety concerns. Genius.


9. The GMO Part of the GMO Salmon Isn't Being Safety Tested

Since 1992, the FDA has operated under the legal fiction created by the Bush-Qualye Administration that there is no risk associated with the human consumption of genetically engineered plants and animals. The FDA explains that DNA is Generally Recognized as Safe, so genetically engineered DNA is safe, too, and it doesn't have to be safety tested.


8. Frankenfish DNA Could Change the Bacteria of Your Gut

A human study conducted by the UK's Food Standards Agency found that consuming genetically engineered soy can result in "horizontal gene transfer," where the bacteria of the gut takes up the soy's modified DNA. With GMO salmon, the bacteria of our digestive tracks could take up the modified genes of the eel-like ocean pout, but the FDA isn't looking whether this would happen or how it might effect our health, because...


7. If It Swims Like a Salmon, FDA Says It's Safe to Eat

Instead of reviewing the safety of consuming genetically engineered salmon DNA, the FDA food safety review is a simple quacks-like-a-duck-style comparison of genetically engineered and normal salmon for hormone levels, nutrition, and allergenic potency.


6. FDA Lets the Frankenfish Company Test Its Own Product's Safety

The FDA's food safety review of GMO salmon consists of collecting data produced by AquaBounty, the company that wants to sell it. Not surprisingly, that data is seriously flawed.

* AquaBounty did not always segregate, or even collect, data specific to their AquAdvantage GMO Salmon. And, FDA did not require AquaBounty to produce data in the actual conditions under which the salmon will be commercially produced, so we don't have food safety data on the Panama-raised, triploid, monosex AquAdvantage Salmon that people will be actually be eating if the FDA grants approval.

* FDA did not require AquaBounty to show that AquAdvantage and normal salmon were similar when raised under the same conditions. AquaBounty's food safety data for genetically engineered salmon did not have to match data for its control salmon. FDA compared AquaBounty's data for genetically engineered salmon to data for farmed salmon raised under unknown conditions and data for salmon from other scientific studies.

* AquaBounty only tested a few fish, making it less likely that its food safety studies would reveal statistically significant differences between genetically engineered and normal salmon.

* AquaBounty's detection levels were often set too low to produce food safety data for comparison.

* AquaBounty selected which fish to test, and unblinded samples.

But, even with all of the flaws and biases that likely hid differences between GMO and normal salmon, it's clear that Frankenfish isn't same...


5. Frankenfish Is More Carcinogenic

GMO salmon has 40% more IGF1, a hormone linked to prostate, breast and colon cancers in humans.


4. Frankenfish Is Less Nutritious

GE salmon is less nutritious than normal salmon. It has the lowest omega-3 to omega-6 ratio of all the salmon in the studies FDA reviewed.


3. Frankenfish Is More Allergenic

GE salmon have mean allergenic potencies that are 20% and 52% higher than normal salmon, increasing the risk of potentially deadly allergic reactions.


2. GMOs Can Mess a Fish Up! (But, Salmon Are Already Deformed by Factory Farming)

The FDA notes evidence of "increased frequency of skeletal malformations, and increased prevalence of jaw erosions and multisystemic, focal inflammation" in the tissues of GMO salmon.

Most people wouldn't be too surprised to learn that genetic engineering can mess a fish up. What might shock you is that the FDA dismisses these findings as "within the range observed in rapid growth phenotypes of non-genetically engineered Atlantic salmon."

The abnormalities FDA found weren't much worse than those currently plaguing the factory farmed salmon selected for rapid growth and subjected to the physiological stress of intensive production. "Screamer disease" deforms 80% of Chilean salmon and "humpback" spinal compression is found in 70% of Norwegian salmon operations.

Thanks, FDA, for letting us know that factory farmed salmon are so messed up! But, that's no reason to turn them into Frankenfish!


But the freakiest thing about all of this is ...

1. The Government Wants More Transgenic Fish and Less Wild Fish

The main justification for GMO salmon is that it could "reduce the pressure on wild fish stocks". But, consumption isn't the primary pressure on wild Alaskan salmon, which gets a "best choice" rating from the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program. The biggest threat to wild Alaskan salmon is the destruction of their habitat.

Ironically, as Paul Greenberg, author of the new book "Four Fish," explains, "While the government seeks to boost farmed salmon supplies through transgenics, it is simultaneously letting wild salmon go to pot."

The spawning grounds of wild salmon in Bristol Bay, Alaska, are threatened by the international mining giant, Anglo-American, which plans to construct Pebble Mine, the largest open-pit copper and gold mine in the US. Two months ago, a copper mine failure in China's TingRiver killed millions of fish. A similar disaster at Pebble Mine could mean the destruction of a quarter of a billion pounds of salmon, curiously, about the same amount of GMO salmon Aqua Bounty hopes to produce. The EPA could stop Pebble Mine through the Clean Water Act but has failed to act.

Greenberg writes, "More transgenic fish, less wild fish. You have to scratch your head at a government that's planning that kind of seafood menu for its citizens. Instead of endorsing a risky experiment in genetic salmon modification wouldn't it be better if our leaders protected wild salmon habitat? In the end we'd have just as much fish on our plates and a safer environment to boot."

[Sahib Punjabi]

WOW!

Brilliant! Great post 2 Jay :-)

Two Jay said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/10-freakiest-things-ab...

10. Frankenfish Aren't Animals, They're "Animal Drugs"

Obama's FDA is regulating genetically engineered salmon, a genetically modified organism (GMO) that is the first of its kind, not as an animal, but as an animal drug.

Normally, a veterinary drug would be used for health purposes, but there's no therapeutic benefit associated with jacking up salmon with the genes of an ocean pout to make it grow twice as fast. On the contrary, genetic engineering increases the poor salmon's mortality, disease and deformity.

So, why would the FDA treat a the first genetically engineered animal for human consumption like a drug? The idea came from the biotech industry. They knew that the FDA's animal drug process would keep companies' "proprietary" information secret, while limiting public participation and downplaying food safety concerns. Genius.


9. The GMO Part of the GMO Salmon Isn't Being Safety Tested

Since 1992, the FDA has operated under the legal fiction created by the Bush-Qualye Administration that there is no risk associated with the human consumption of genetically engineered plants and animals. The FDA explains that DNA is Generally Recognized as Safe, so genetically engineered DNA is safe, too, and it doesn't have to be safety tested.


8. Frankenfish DNA Could Change the Bacteria of Your Gut

A human study conducted by the UK's Food Standards Agency found that consuming genetically engineered soy can result in "horizontal gene transfer," where the bacteria of the gut takes up the soy's modified DNA. With GMO salmon, the bacteria of our digestive tracks could take up the modified genes of the eel-like ocean pout, but the FDA isn't looking whether this would happen or how it might effect our health, because...


7. If It Swims Like a Salmon, FDA Says It's Safe to Eat

Instead of reviewing the safety of consuming genetically engineered salmon DNA, the FDA food safety review is a simple quacks-like-a-duck-style comparison of genetically engineered and normal salmon for hormone levels, nutrition, and allergenic potency.


6. FDA Lets the Frankenfish Company Test Its Own Product's Safety

The FDA's food safety review of GMO salmon consists of collecting data produced by AquaBounty, the company that wants to sell it. Not surprisingly, that data is seriously flawed.

* AquaBounty did not always segregate, or even collect, data specific to their AquAdvantage GMO Salmon. And, FDA did not require AquaBounty to produce data in the actual conditions under which the salmon will be commercially produced, so we don't have food safety data on the Panama-raised, triploid, monosex AquAdvantage Salmon that people will be actually be eating if the FDA grants approval.

* FDA did not require AquaBounty to show that AquAdvantage and normal salmon were similar when raised under the same conditions. AquaBounty's food safety data for genetically engineered salmon did not have to match data for its control salmon. FDA compared AquaBounty's data for genetically engineered salmon to data for farmed salmon raised under unknown conditions and data for salmon from other scientific studies.

* AquaBounty only tested a few fish, making it less likely that its food safety studies would reveal statistically significant differences between genetically engineered and normal salmon.

* AquaBounty's detection levels were often set too low to produce food safety data for comparison.

* AquaBounty selected which fish to test, and unblinded samples.

But, even with all of the flaws and biases that likely hid differences between GMO and normal salmon, it's clear that Frankenfish isn't same...


5. Frankenfish Is More Carcinogenic

GMO salmon has 40% more IGF1, a hormone linked to prostate, breast and colon cancers in humans.


4. Frankenfish Is Less Nutritious

GE salmon is less nutritious than normal salmon. It has the lowest omega-3 to omega-6 ratio of all the salmon in the studies FDA reviewed.


3. Frankenfish Is More Allergenic

GE salmon have mean allergenic potencies that are 20% and 52% higher than normal salmon, increasing the risk of potentially deadly allergic reactions.


2. GMOs Can Mess a Fish Up! (But, Salmon Are Already Deformed by Factory Farming)

The FDA notes evidence of "increased frequency of skeletal malformations, and increased prevalence of jaw erosions and multisystemic, focal inflammation" in the tissues of GMO salmon.

Most people wouldn't be too surprised to learn that genetic engineering can mess a fish up. What might shock you is that the FDA dismisses these findings as "within the range observed in rapid growth phenotypes of non-genetically engineered Atlantic salmon."

The abnormalities FDA found weren't much worse than those currently plaguing the factory farmed salmon selected for rapid growth and subjected to the physiological stress of intensive production. "Screamer disease" deforms 80% of Chilean salmon and "humpback" spinal compression is found in 70% of Norwegian salmon operations.

Thanks, FDA, for letting us know that factory farmed salmon are so messed up! But, that's no reason to turn them into Frankenfish!


But the freakiest thing about all of this is ...

1. The Government Wants More Transgenic Fish and Less Wild Fish

The main justification for GMO salmon is that it could "reduce the pressure on wild fish stocks". But, consumption isn't the primary pressure on wild Alaskan salmon, which gets a "best choice" rating from the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program. The biggest threat to wild Alaskan salmon is the destruction of their habitat.

Ironically, as Paul Greenberg, author of the new book "Four Fish," explains, "While the government seeks to boost farmed salmon supplies through transgenics, it is simultaneously letting wild salmon go to pot."

The spawning grounds of wild salmon in Bristol Bay, Alaska, are threatened by the international mining giant, Anglo-American, which plans to construct Pebble Mine, the largest open-pit copper and gold mine in the US. Two months ago, a copper mine failure in China's TingRiver killed millions of fish. A similar disaster at Pebble Mine could mean the destruction of a quarter of a billion pounds of salmon, curiously, about the same amount of GMO salmon Aqua Bounty hopes to produce. The EPA could stop Pebble Mine through the Clean Water Act but has failed to act.

Greenberg writes, "More transgenic fish, less wild fish. You have to scratch your head at a government that's planning that kind of seafood menu for its citizens. Instead of endorsing a risky experiment in genetic salmon modification wouldn't it be better if our leaders protected wild salmon habitat? In the end we'd have just as much fish on our plates and a safer environment to boot."

[Sylvia Bernstein]

Powerful stuff, Two Jay. Thanks for sharing this. I'll spread it through my social network sites.

[Sahib Punjabi]

No Label, Says FDA

Following the approval hearing, which the FDA has already conducted, a hearing was held regarding the labeling of genetically modified salmon. “The FDA is arguing that this genetic construct is just the same as natural constructs, and therefore it doesn’t need to be labeled because it’s the same thing that we’ve been eating,” ...

So how is the consumer to choose...short of producers who do not raise genetically modified salmon becoming pro-active and labeling such...and wait for it...getting sued by FDA for labeling such (:

Here is the full article :
Genetically Modified Salmon Has Less Nutritional Value
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/genetically-modified-salmon-has-less...

[TCLynx]

Yea, cause if they were to label things as Genetically Modified, then people wouldn't want to eat them and Monsanto would have difficulty selling it's stuff that is already in a huge amount of our food anyway and well we couldn't have that now could we?
-hear the sarcasm here-
The whole labeling issue about GM stuff kinda stirs me up. Most people have no idea how much of it we already eat.

And of course there will be no getting rid of the GM corn since it's pollen has already contaminated most all other corn making it really hard to legally grow corn without infringing on Monsanto's patent. Same goes for canola. I'm not sure about the contamination from sugar beat or soy.

[Sylvia Bernstein]

thanks for sharing that article, Sahib. Got my blood moving better than 3 cups of coffee this morning!. What I found so new and disturbing in there is that it the flavor and nutritional profiles against even farm raised salmon are so poor!! So they can't even make the argument with a straight face that this is an identical product so therefore requires no labeling. I'm going to be pissed the first time I think I'm buying delicious, nutritious salmon for my families dinner and find out that I've been duped into buying this crap.

[Sahib Punjabi]

The horror continues...just in case you missed this in the article...

“This is just a way for them to get a running start on genetically modifying animals,” Hanson concluded. “AquaBounty has two other fish it wants approval on: one a trout and one a tilapia. These are of the same genetic machinery. I think their thought is if they get the salmon approved it should be easy to get the other fish approved.

“Elsewhere, the University of Guelph in Canada has developed a pig with a gene from a fungus introduced into it that breaks down phosphorous. Their idea is this pig could be crowded together with other pigs and not produce as much pollution. They’re calling it the ‘enviro-pig.’

“Yet another company has actually developed what they call a mad-cow-resistant cow—to which I say, we already know how to keep cows from getting mad cow disease: don’t feed them ground-up sheep!”

What can we do...let your voice be heard...get involved NOW!

Visit http://ge-fish.org to get the latest in the fight against genetically modified salmon and to find out how you can help.
For more information on the Center for Food Safety and their projects, visit http://truefoodnow.org.