Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

So, you might have of heard about this new genetically-modified salmon (called AquAdvantage Salmon). Basically, it's an Atlantic salmon that's had two genetic tweaks:

1. Inserting a gene from an ocean pout (an eel-like fish) that triggers the production of the salmon's growth hormone even in cold water. The salmon naturally produces growth hormone only in warm water, so it grows very slowly in the winter.
2. The gene that encodes that actual hormone is from a Chinook salmon (not sure why...maybe more potent than Atlantic salmon hormone?)

The end result is a salmon that grows to market weight in half the time (18 months instead of three years).

The controversy is mainly over two issues: labelling, and consumer safety. The FDA is considering whether to approve the fish for human consumption, and also whether to require that it be labeled such to disclose its GM nature.

I'd be interested to know peoples' thoughts on this. For my part, I'm 100% unequivocally in favor of mandatory labelling. But I'm also unopposed to allowing it for consumption *IF* the mandatory labelling is included. I think each individual has the right to decide whether they want to ingest a GM animal, but I'm not opposed to GM animals in principle. Mankind has been engaging in genetic engineering of our foodstuff for thousands of years (domestication and selective breeding), just in a slower and less precise fashion.

I think we need to proceed with some caution, but after hearing arguments from both sides, a lot of the anti-GM arguments seem to boil down to "YOU AM PLAY GODS!" rhetoric rather than objections based on solid science.

[SHAD0Wdump]

Eh... So long as those things don't get out of control and snuff out other species(like that carp debacle), or the new breed isn't more susceptible to transmittable diseases, it should be fine.

[Armok]

I'm for transparency of everything, in general, that every irrelevant fact should be marked, so therefore the fact that it's GM should to.
There is really no danger what so ever from this. it might taste worse however, things that grow faster often do, would have if it had been done through slower methods as well.
Anyone who think GM is anything new simply Fail Biology Forever.

[G-Flex]

Eh... So long as those things don't get out of control and snuff out other species(like that carp debacle), or the new breed isn't more susceptible to transmittable diseases, it should be fine.

The problem is, can we adequately predict this?


There's also the issue of companies being able to hold patents for living beings in the first place, which can get fairly tricky.

[Sergius]

I think the problem with people wanting to ban GE animals and plants, is that they think that to genetically alter an animal involves some sort of atomic radiation or mutagen a la Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and somehow the changes will become a virus that will turn people into salmon-men or grow gills or something...

It is true however, that the plant/animal itself could have unintended genetic flaws or problems adapting to the natural environment. But how that affects consumption, I don't quite get.

But yes, just label the stuff and let the damn hippies avoid them if they want and eat raw soybean sludge or whatever it is they do.

[scriver]

The problem is, can we adequately predict this?

Maybe not. But we can make laws that say that the owner company/patent holders are the ones responsible to make sure it doesn't happen, and the one's that should be punished if it did.

There's also the issue of companies being able to hold patents for living beings in the first place, which can get fairly tricky.

Especially if those companies are allowed to sue other people/companies if "their" beings spread to other peoples/companies land.
Yeah, I'm looking at you, South America.
_{No closer label used as I can not remember what country it involved.}

I think the problem with people wanting to ban GE animals and plants, is that they think that to genetically alter an animal involves some sort of atomic radiation or mutagen a la Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and somehow the changes will become a virus that will turn people into salmon-men or grow gills or something...

The problem is more about people making the world their playground. Some people believe that life (and "natural" wildlife) is worth something in itself, apart from it's economical value.

[DJ]

I see no problem with selling these for human consumption as long as they're marked as GM food. I do see a problem with these escaping into the wild and outcompeting the wild salmon, though. Could they build in some kind of a disadvantage that'd make them unsuccessful in the wild? Like blaring colours, dulled instincts, extra tastiness for sharks or something like that?

[RedKing]

I see no problem with selling these for human consumption as long as they're marked as GM food. I do see a problem with these escaping into the wild and outcompeting the wild salmon, though. Could they build in some kind of a disadvantage that'd make them unsuccessful in the wild? Like blaring colours, dulled instincts, extra tastiness for sharks or something like that?

They are supposedly 98% sterile. So they wouldn't be likely to establish a breeding population in the wild. Also, they supposedly have a negative predator avoidance response (in layman's terms...when a fish sees a big shadow, it usually runs away to avoid being eaten. When these see a big shadow, they move towards it because so far in their existence, it's meant feeding time. How much of that is learned behavior vs. genetically inherent is unclear to me.)

[Zangi]

Salmon, the new 'chicken' of the fish industry? 
Granted, most chicken are bred and not genetically engineered...

If they are genetically inclined to get themselves eaten, don't see much of a problem with them surviving long....  Unless they are poisonous to traditional Salmon predators...

[Virex]

There's also the issue of companies being able to hold patents for living beings in the first place, which can get fairly tricky.

I'm still wondering who's idea it was to go directly against the very core of patent law (being that it must be original, which an original gene isn't) in the first place. I mean aren't you supposed to adhere to guidelines as a patent office? Else people will start to patent the wheel or each others noses...

[Il Palazzo]

@Virex: If you'll happen to create a new alloy of steel, should you not be allowed to patent it on the grounds that it's composed from elements that already exist in nature?
It's the new arrangement of genes, as well as(or?) the technology required to make use of such an arrangement, that is being patented, not the gene itself.

I say, mark the bejesus out of those GM salmon. But be through with it, and mark all the existing breeds of cows, sheep, chicken, dogs and whatever else people eat these days too.

[Virex]

Well, that's a different case. In such a case you're not patenting the genes themselves, but the combining of specific genes to attain a specific purpose, which is much closer to a method patent then an object patent anyway. It might be just that the discussion's I've heard so far are very warped, but usually it's about companies patenting a specific, already existing gene, instead of a whole package deal. For example, patenting a growth hormone producing gene would be impossible because it already exists. Patenting the application of a growth hormone plus trigger hormones could be possible but is probably not novel. But that's not what people are making a fuz about....

[G-Flex]

There's also the issue of companies being able to hold patents for living beings in the first place, which can get fairly tricky.

I'm still wondering who's idea it was to go directly against the very core of patent law (being that it must be original, which an original gene isn't) in the first place. I mean aren't you supposed to adhere to guidelines as a patent office? Else people will start to patent the wheel or each others noses...

There was a research company (Myriad Genetics Inc.) that tried to patent parts of the natural human genome related to breast cancer. In fact, they actually did. The courts eventually threw it out, which bodes well, at least.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As long as the FDA decides to do their fucking job this time, I have no issue with the selling of genetically modified food. But it should be marked, like organic products are.

[Eagleon]

I eye-rolled forever at 'frankenfish'.

The problem is more about people making the world their playground. Some people believe that life (and "natural" wildlife) is worth something in itself, apart from it's economical value.

Look at the poll results.
27%
Yes. The FDA has already said that genetically altered salmon is as safe to eat as the traditional kind.
50%
No. Altered fish has never been eaten before -- we don't know what it could do to us.
23%
I'll wait and see. If it hits the market and there are no problems, I may try it.

We know exactly what it can do to us. We eat chinook salmon. We eat ocean pout. The article itself brings up 'new allergies' as a concern - do you know anyone that's only allergic to ocean pout? I'll just assume you don't, msnbc, because fish allergies are caused by a specific protein, parvalbumin, present in most fish.

The environmental concern is real, and when I saw this it spooked me a little. But it's addressed adequately by their measures. They're breeding female salmon with hormone-altered female salmon, meaning they're all female. The triploid method is statistically reliable and established as producing fish that are extremely unlikely to survive - At absolute most, you'd have 5% of fish (almost certainly less) fighting against the odds that the 95% other fish are escaping instead, trying to fight their way through chlorine kill-zones, heat exchangers, nets, several hydroelectic plants down-stream, etc. etc. Then -those- have to compete against native salmon, which statistically easily outcompete triploid salmon in mating. Take a look at this, which is a lot more informative than nbc's article. The tactic for news agencies that want to boil up some fear over this is the standard 'scientists don't know what they're doing and neither do you'. Well, there you go msnbc. Get reading, poll-takers, or shut up and let the grownups put food on your plates

Regarding patents, I actually see it as somewhat beneficial (if troubling) in GM foods specifically. Simply because it makes companies less likely to slip in some "trade secret" alterations to their products, which might alter any number of factors. If they're required to publish the sequenced genome of their product as a part of their patent, it's straight-forward for a regulatory body to check it against what's on the shelf.