FDA approves genetically engineered salmon that grows twice as quickly

[Apollo]

And this is how the zombies begin.

you know it'll be a scientist who will fuck something up and cause the end of the world.

You and Lenny and all your swear words.

[SoulMonster]

Safe is a relative term. Considering the bad stuff farm raised contains I will pass. IMHO GMO's have not had sufficient time to be vetted as completely safe and the FDA has approved many drugs which caused serious health issues with time so you will excuse me if I don't ake their word as gospel.

Oh, I think that is a fine way of looking at it. Being a bit skeptical probably won't harm you in this case.

And yes, it is (probably) true that farmed salmon contains elevated levels of some toxins and harmful substances, but we mustn't forget that toxicity and harmfulness depends on dose, and that whatever elevated levels they may be at are still safe for human consumption. The levels must be higher for there to be a health risk of eating them. At the global scale, industrialized farming of salmon is completely beneficial to human nutrition because it is an affordable way for many people to get access to essential marine oils which they couldn't otherwise afford.

In my opinion, GMOs are completely safe to eat. This opinion doesn't solely rely on the fact that GM foods go through extensive testings before they are approved for market, but based on biochemical understanding of what separates a normal food from a GM food variety, and how this affects nutrition. Like in the case with wildtype salmon and engineered salmon, the only difference is elevated levels of a protein found in both. That protein in itself is completely safe to eat. I think a lot of the aversion to GM foods stem from a lack of understanding of basic biochemistry, nutrition, and genetic engineering. And from ignorance comes fear.

[SoulMonster]

And this is how the zombies begin.

you know it'll be a scientist who will fuck something up and cause the end of the world.

Most scientists work under pretty heavily regulated conditions. They rarely operate alone. They are typically funded by governmental bodies and whatever they develop are then subjected to control and approval by regulatory bodies. The idea of scientists as sinister or horribly naive people who work alone in the darkness of their cellars creating dangers to society, is a myth.

BUT, with mass production of instruments required for genetically engineering of organisms, it has become possible for laymen to start "garage laboratories" where they with simplified techniques and affordable mass-produce instruments can do pretty advanced stuff, like creating GMOs. This movement, aliken to the hacking movement in the IT world, may pose dangers to society since it operates outside of the normal scientific system with all its controls and surveilance mechanisms.

AND, this increased access to advanced machinery (both as a result of prices dropping but also because of companies and academia discarding old models) may be a problem with terrorist organizations who are interesting in creating engineered pathogenic bacteria and viruses.

In my opinion, these are the REAL problems we should be aware of, not the dated 19th century conception of Frankensteins.

[AxlisOld]

SoulMonster I don't know if you're familiar with US politics, but laws are subject to interpretation, lobbyists get regulations bent, and companies like Monsanto practically write the laws because they have former board members in congress or in cabinet. When the government says something is safe here, you take it with a grain of salt.

[SoulMonster]

SoulMonster I don't know if you're familiar with US politics, but laws are subject to interpretation, lobbyists get regulations bent, and companies like Monsanto practically write the laws because they have former board members in congress or in cabinet. When the government says something is safe here, you take it with a grain of salt.

I am fairly familiar with FDA and how the approval process is for foods and drugs. It is a very conservative system that rarely makes mistakes (very few approvals are ever withdrawn due to mistakes in the approval process).

Yes, the democratic system in the US is flawed in the sense that lobbyists have too much power. So yeah, laws can be bent. But the actual directive being used by FDA to approve GMO and drugs seems to me to be pretty good. I can't really think of any mistakes for these types of products made in recent times.

Anyway, again, not saying some skepticism isn't warranted and healthy. Just that it is time to accept that GMOs are safe.

What I hoped for was more a discussion on what will happen in the global fish industry when a product is allowed in one region where the assumed cost-of-goods must be halved. Can Norwehian and Chilean salmon producers compete on the US market now when this new salmon breed is introduced with, presumably, drastically lowered prices? And how long will it take for EMA (the European equivalent to FDA) to follow pursuit and allow the same salmon breed to be marketed in European countries? What happens then? Will other salmon producers develop their own GM version of salkon to compete? Will national barriers to adoption of GM animals prevent this causing collapse in the non-GM salmon fish industry?

[Rovim]

FDA approved genetically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast? sounds delicious!

[bran]

you should see what they do to chickens. i had to raise some in high school in AG class, the end result wasnt pretty.

[SoulMonster]

Good read: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/genetically_engineered_aquabounty_salmon_safe_fda_decides.html

Don’t Fear the Frankenfish
The FDA approved a genetically engineered animal for human consumption. The campaign against it is based on fear, not facts.
By William Saletan

On Thursday, for the first time, the Food and Drug Administration approved a genetically engineered animal for human consumption. It’s a salmon that grows much faster than other salmon, thanks to an inserted gene.

Some environmentalists are assailing the decision. They call the salmon “Frankenfish.” Their objections sound a lot like previous allegations against genetically engineered crops. The allegations against GE crops didn’t stand up, as a Slate investigation showed, and it doesn’t look as though the arguments against GE salmon will stand up, either. Let’s examine them.

One complaint against the salmon is that it endangers consumers’ “personal health,” that it “could cause human allergies,” and that it’s been approved based on “insufficient safety testing.” In the case of GE plants, these scary what-if arguments are unfalsifiable, based on speculation about chemical properties and ever-expanding demands for longer study periods and bigger samples. The GE salmon was initially submitted for FDA approval 20 years ago. The agency declared it safe in 2010 and then spent another five years reviewing objections. Thursday’s statement says the FDA has concluded that the salmon is “safe to eat” and is “as nutritious as food from other non-GE Atlantic salmon.” It also says the genetic change is “safe for the fish itself.”

A second worry is that the salmon could breed with other species and endanger “wild fish populations and ecosystems.” In a statement from Alaska’s congressional delegation, Sen. Lisa Murkowski calls the salmon a “science experiment” and a threat to “the health of Americans and the sustainability of our fisheries.” A press release from Friends of the Earth quotes a fish company owner, who says:

There were over 250 million wild salmon harvested in Alaska and Puget Sound this year. Why should we put this sustainable resource at risk for the benefit of a few multinational corporations who will, sooner or later, introduce GE salmon into their floating feed lots? Americans will be eating synthetic salmon, thinking they are receiving the nutritional benefits of wild salmon.

The FDA’s statement addresses this concern. It says that under restrictions imposed by the agency, the GE salmon “would not have a significant environmental impact because of the multiple and redundant measures being taken to contain the fish and prevent their escape and establishment in the environment.” The fish are all female and sterile, and they would be grown in landlocked tanks, which would be government-inspected.

It’s not a campaign to label the salmon. It’s a campaign to deny you access to the salmon.

But it’s also worth noting that the allegation about “a few multinational corporations” (along with the insinuation about “nutritional benefits”) is bogus—the company behind the salmon, AquaBounty, has 21 employees—and that this bogus charge is coming from the salmon fishing industry. Murkowski and her Alaska colleagues are defending that industry. So this isn’t a fight between environmentalists and multinationals. It’s a fight between a well-represented trade lobby and a small innovator. That’s another lesson to take from the debate over GE crops: Look for commercial motives on both sides.

A third objection to the salmon is that “people don’t want to eat it.” Friends of the Earth notes that “75 percent of respondents to a recent New York Times poll said they would not eat genetically engineered salmon.” This is an odd argument to hear from people who insist that science, not public opinion, should decide policy on matters such as climate change.

A fourth criticism is that the FDA isn’t requiring the salmon to be labeled as a genetically modified organism. Food and Water Watch says this omission violates “consumers’ fundamental right to know how our food is produced.” But the FDA, in its statement, says it can require labels on GE food only “if there is a material difference—such as a different nutritional profile—between the GE product and its non-GE counterpart. In the case of the AquAdvantage Salmon, the FDA did not find any such differences.”

In the context of GE crops, the “right to know” argument is often used simply to stigmatize the GE product. By slapping a label on the fish, anti-GMO activists can scare away all the ill-informed people who (as illustrated in the Times poll) say they wouldn’t eat such a thing. In the case of GE salmon, the activists are going further. Friends of the Earth says:

To avoid confusion in the marketplace, and ensure the consumer’s right to know, we are asking grocery stores, seafood restaurants, chefs and seafood companies to demonstrate their commitment to sustainably produced seafood and consumer choice by joining our Pledge for GE-Free Seafood, a commitment to not knowingly purchase or sell genetically engineered salmon or other genetically engineered seafood should it come to market.

That’s not a campaign to label the salmon. It’s a campaign to deny you access to the salmon. The FDA's approval allows AquaBounty to ship the salmon to the United States from its production facility in Panama, once production is geared up. But the company needs partners to sell the fish here, and that's where the anti-GMO movement is setting up a blockade. According to Friends of the Earth, “More than 60 grocery store chains representing more than 9,000 stores across the U.S. have made commitments to not sell the GMO salmon, including Safeway, Kroger, Target, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Aldi, and many others.”

Are these companies and environmentalists doing you a favor? Probably just the opposite. In Slate’s previous investigation of GMOs, we found that many of the arguments made against GE crops would have applied more directly to non-GE crops—but that the anti-GMO movement concealed this double standard. That seems to be the case with GE salmon as well. To begin with, because the GE salmon has a gene that makes it respond more effectively to growth hormone, it reaches mature weight more quickly than other farmed salmon (1½ years, as opposed to three years) and requires less feed. AquaBounty says the savings in feed is 25 percent. As the company observes, this is good for the environment, because “it requires less wild fish to be converted into salmon feed.”

AquaBounty claims that its landlocked water-control system “allows for removal of wastes (sludge) and recycling of greater than 95 percent of the water used.” The company also envisions “land-based facilities close to major metropolitan areas” so that fish can be delivered to market more quickly and efficiently, arriving fresher and with “a carbon footprint that is 23 to 25 times less” than conventional salmon.

As AquaBounty points out, the U.S. presently imports more than 95 percent of its salmon. Much of this cargo arrives by air from Chile and Norway. That’s a lot of fuel. Replacing airlifted ocean salmon someday with local land-farmed salmon might be bad for the Alaskan fishing industry, but it’s a net gain for the planet. It might also be good for the oceans. “Many of the world’s fisheries are being harvested at their maximum sustainable yield while some are in danger of collapse,” AquaBounty notes. “By providing a ready source of faster-growing fish, [GE salmon] can help reduce pressure on wild fish stocks.”

We shouldn’t accept everything this company says; it’s touting a product, after all. But we should scrutinize the conventional salmon industry just as carefully. What’s so safe or natural about depleting fisheries and flying in salmon from Norway? What’s so noble about insisting that 25 percent more fish be extracted from the ocean to feed your non-GE salmon? And what’s so progressive about suing the FDA to stop the approval of more genetically modified animals, such as disease-fighting mosquitoes or pigs that resist swine fever? Maybe, when self-styled environmentalists and “sustainable” grocery chains team up with salmon farmers and their Republican senators to block a better product, we ought to ask what’s going on. Something smells fishy.

[Strange Broue]

I am imagining this is for farm raised Salmon which I refuse to eat in any case as they contain bad stuff.

Farmed salmon is completely safe to eat. But they are not as healthy as wild-caught salmon, in particular they contain less omega-3 fatty acids. [side note, a few weeks back I took part in an application to the Norwegian Research Council to fund a project with the objective of producing omega-3 fatty acids for the fish feed industry through the use of geneticalyl engineered bacteria.]

The farmed salmon that has now been produced by the FDA (which is the regulatory body in the US meant to assess public danger and approve new foods) is also perfectly safe to eat.

I didn't really make this thread because "OMG genetically modified food is so unsafe!!" -- because that is SO 1990s -- but because of the change in dynamics introduction of this salmon may have in the global fish industry.

Then say goodbye to a good chunk of the norwegian GDP

[SoulMonster]

I am imagining this is for farm raised Salmon which I refuse to eat in any case as they contain bad stuff.

Farmed salmon is completely safe to eat. But they are not as healthy as wild-caught salmon, in particular they contain less omega-3 fatty acids. [side note, a few weeks back I took part in an application to the Norwegian Research Council to fund a project with the objective of producing omega-3 fatty acids for the fish feed industry through the use of geneticalyl engineered bacteria.]

The farmed salmon that has now been produced by the FDA (which is the regulatory body in the US meant to assess public danger and approve new foods) is also perfectly safe to eat.

I didn't really make this thread because "OMG genetically modified food is so unsafe!!" -- because that is SO 1990s -- but because of the change in dynamics introduction of this salmon may have in the global fish industry.

Then say goodbye to a good chunk of the norwegian GDP

Yeah, this is going to be interesting. Currently we are busy struggling with salmon lice.

[Apollo]

Just out of curiosity what does a Salmon dinner cost in your town? Here the avg is around $25.

Lower end will go for $20 and fancier restaurants will run up to $35. Which is sort of crazy as like I said, I can see wild salmon jumping from my work window.

From my house, you can walk 30 seconds and be at a river that runs through the park. It opens up for fishing in some summer months and runs of salmon run through it. Again, literally two minutes after walking out my front door I've bad a salmon in my net.

But because I live in a town that prospers in tourism, they jack the price up on all seafood items.

When tourism started here the restaurants "plan" was they would increase the price I. The summer tourist season but then lower it back to normal in the winter. But people are greedy bastards and eventually the prices never went down. Then non locals started buying tourist stores and restaurants and they jacked the price up even hire as they just focus on the tourist markets. The local owners followed suit and raised their prices to match the out of towners prices.

So even tho there is a huge abundance of salmon in my city and you can fish for them within minutes of any part if our city (we are on the ocean)........because of the tourism industry, you have to pay $25-30 at a restaurant to get a small piece of cooked salmon.

It's crazy.

[DieselDaisy]

Salmon? About similar in Britain, $20-30 at a lower-middle end restaurant.

On a positive note, I've heard North Sea cod stocks have started to recuperate, which means the British will not have to rely on imported cod for their staple of Fish n' Chips, quite so much. Good news for local fisherman also.

[SoulMonster]

On a positive note, I've heard North Sea cod stocks have started to recuperate, which means the British will not have to rely on imported cod for their staple of Fish n' Chips, quite so much. Good news for local fisherman also.

Fish stocks show a remarkable ability to recuperate after limits on fishing. That is very good news. We had to stop with the traditional herring fishing here in Norway, but the large shoals of herring are now returning That actually makes me happy just thinking about.

And on a sidenote, I am one of the biggest experts on the King-of-the-Herrings in the world. Besides collecting spikes from bus winter tires, researching that fish is probably the dorkiest hobby I have ever had

[AxlisOld]

you should see what they do to chickens. i had to raise some in high school in AG class, the end result wasnt pretty.

What annoys me are the companies that proudly advertise in huge letters, "NOT TREATED WITH ARTIFICIAL HORMONES"

...then in fine print..."Federal law prohibits the use of hormones in poultry."

So yea, no shit you don't treat them, it violates federal law.