FDA Closer To Approving Biotech Salmon

An anonymous reader writes with a story about the possibility of genetically engineered salmon showing up on your table. "A controversial genetically engineered salmon has moved a step closer to the consumer's dining table after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Friday the fish didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it. AquAdvantage salmon eggs would produce fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon. If it gets a final go-ahead, it would be the first food from a transgenic animal - one whose genome has been altered - to be approved by the FDA."

Comments

"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[sugarmotor]

"... didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it" --- what kind of standard is that?

Then the article states "In a draft environmental assessment, the FDA affirmed earlier findings that the biotech salmon was not likely to be harmful. It said it would take comments from the public on its report for 60 days before making a final decision on approval."

So first poke a bit here and there, find no problems. Then ask the public if they have an idea what could go wrong !!??

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[jedidiah]

The very concept is just wrongful. It's already a species that doesn't do well farmed. You end up with an inferior product. Taking that a step further and introducing genetic meddling just seems silly.

Compound one bit of stupidity with another...

What happens when the patented fish contaminates the wild stock? Will fishermen be subject to the Monsanto effect? Will fishermen need a patent license to fish? Will fish farmers be stuck not able to breed their own fish?

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

"... didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it" --- what kind of standard is that?

Just about the same as the video replay rules in sports. If you don't have compelling video evidence then the play stands as called. If it's good enough for the NFL it's good enough for humanity.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[meerling]

It's pretty much the only scientific standard available for food. Nothing is absolute, including your existence, and science recognizes that. Additionally, 'food safety' is a pretty nebulous thing once you've excluded all known toxins. Well, those fish aren't toxic, and the tests haven't found anything else more dangerous than any other salmon. As to long term effect, well, we don't really have long term effects on human consumption of any salmon other than anecdotal stuff, and on the level we interact with the salmon, it's the same as other salmon. If I gave you 10 salmon steaks and one was from a genetically modified salmon, you couldn't tell which one it was. (That's if they were raised in the same environment on the same food. Different water temps and foods can change the texture and taste of salmon, but that's environment, not genetics.)

As a side note, I like mentioning corn. Do you really think our corn is 'natural'? Have you seen corn from a thousand years ago? I have, it looks like wheat. What we call corn now is a fast growing freakishly huge form that was created by the form of genetic manipulation techniques known as hybridization and selective breeding.

If you're afraid of eating something just because it's genetics have been changed, you had better stop eating commercial food because pretty much everything we grow and raise has been genetically modified. It's just those were done by slower and less accurate means in the past. It was a method that has even more unintended alterations than genetic engineering and also has to be repeated many many times in an attempt to target the specific change desired while attempting to weed out some of the unintended ones that were introduced at the same time. If you don't believe me, that's fine, go look up breeding and hybridization, you'll find haphazard and unregulated it actually is.
Now if you have a problem with something specific, like a pesticide being produced by the crop, then you might have something worth looking into. Of course, does it express in the part we eat? How do the quantities compare to 'normal' food we buy? (They get pesticide too, and in larger quantities. How much is still there after you take the food home and have washed it?) Of course, if you are just afraid because something is a 'frankenfood', your fears are baseless and I have to wonder if you enjoyed dying in your zombie apocalypse a few days ago?

Sorry about my post being a bit disorganized and rushed, I have to hurry up and get some last minute stuff done that just came up. Have fun, and don't have a staring contest with your food, even if the food started it. :)

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[umghhh]

I for one welcome our new GM Salmon Overlords

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[sugarmotor]

There's a difference between "doesn't appear likely to" and "appears likely not to". There is a whole spectrum of grades of certainty / uncertainty. The one chosen here looks pretty low.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[flayzernax]

My biggest complaint is companies dictating to farmers what to grow, how to grow it, and producing plants that cannot grow on their own, you must buy our special seeds and special "germination spray" each year.... My 2cnd concern, is in "corn" in even the hybridized selectively bread corn, no part of the plant is very toxic.

My 3rd concern is, we are doing something that could affect the planet as a whole. Wipe out all the naturally selected for fish. Its not baseless. Its not impossible. The chances aren't 0, or so close to 0 as to be un noticable.

Some tertiary arguments:
The FDA is not likely to be able to judge appropriately on these issues
Its going to happen somewhere by someone on the planet someway.
Were probably going to have to fix it by further genetic tinkering.

Currently the people rolling out these wonderful GMO products are bad people with a history of abusing everyone not at the top of their corporate pyramid, check out the lawsuits, and legal frenzy all over.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[crmarvin42]

FUD

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[PRMan]

There's a big difference between people selecting for genes that naturally occur in corn and people manipulating the DNA strands using deep-sea fish DNA to make the corn resistant to frost. I trust that the first can be done without much harm, but the second is cause for alarm, as you could have the corn creating chemicals corn never created before as a byproduct. I am happy to see the FDA involved with the salmon and for some decently rigorous testing to have gone on.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[fikx]

that is the same standard used for "regular" salmon, so best we got...

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

The patented fish is infertile.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Fastolfe]

The very concept is just wrongful. It's already a species that doesn't do well farmed. You end up with an inferior product.

What do you mean by "inferior"? Even assuming that the resulting salmon will be less tasty than the unfarmed, wild salmon, if the modified salmon is considerably cheaper, then people may still find that it's a better value. If the product is truly inferior and not worth the price, it will fail on the market and the problem will be solved that way.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

A) they're all female, B) they're almost all sterile. Even if they escaped, they wouldn't last for long in the wild.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[SuricouRaven]

Caught salmon is expensive, and fish stocks are already in a state of near-crisis. If the choice is between inferior salmon or no salmon at all, make do.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Fastolfe]

My biggest complaint is companies dictating to farmers what to grow, how to grow it, and producing plants that cannot grow on their own, you must buy our special seeds and special "germination spray" each year....

None of this is forced onto farmers. Farmers always have the ability to switch away from GM seed and are never required to start their farming business with GM seed. Farmers choose to buy seed from companies that dictate how they use it, because that seed produces a product that makes them more money, either by being more valuable, or costing less for them to grow. Generally, consumers prefer the GM produce, either because they feel it's "better", or because it's cheaper.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[PopeRatzo]

The very concept is just wrongful.

Even assuming that the biotech livestock is not harmful (or, in the language of this "research", "is not likely to be harmful" - and there's a fucking standard: "not likely to be harmful" based upon the fact that we're trying to promote this business and not upon the fact that we have determined that it's safe to eat), even if it's not harmful, creating proprietary animals is a fucking horrible idea.

Let's assume that there are no health risks (which I'm not prepared to assume, but go ahead) what fucking good can come from patented (or copyrighted?) organisms? Do the biggest corporations not yet have enough control over our lives that now they need to get money out of us for the "idea" of a fish? Or the "idea" of corn?

I understand that there's a readership here that grew up on science fiction and believes that technology can never go wrong, a readership that is entirely prepared to skip over all these biotech salmon and go straight to space-food sticks and packets of squeeze-out, petroleum-based pudding.

Don't be surprised when future generations look back on the first decades of the rise of biotech food in the same way we look back on putting radioactive paint on wristwatch hands and asbestos in home insulation and lead in house paint. Remember, those were seen as technological advances, too.

But of course, we're so much more enlightened today that such failures of commercialized technology could never possibly go wrong.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

The patented fish is infertile.

I seem to remember that GMO soy beans and corn supposed to be infertile too.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[ColdWetDog]

The patented fish is infertile.

I seem to remember that GMO soy beans and corn supposed to be infertile too.

Hopefully, nobody used any frog DNA ....

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[RedDeadThumb]

They said the same thing in Jurassic Park and we all know how that one turned out.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not FUD. Monsanto sues farmers who's corn gets cross pollinated by the wind from Monsanto's corn. None of the framers can afford the lawsuits so they all give in. Part of the license agreement with Monsanto to use their corn requires that you don't save seeds. Except this fish company to try to reduce egg or sperm output and you'll have to buy those eggs or sperm directly form the company.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

I am reminded of an episode of the Simpson's where Smithers doesn't care about the three-eyed fish until he has to eat one. Upon eating the three-eyed fish, he promptly spits it out... right in front of the press that are filming him.

Keep in mind the FDA doesn't care about the public first and foremost. They care about the food and drug vendors and only get involved with health and safety issues when a sufficient number of them occur AND it is brought to their attention.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[adolf]

As a side note, I like mentioning corn. Do you really think our corn is 'natural'? Have you seen corn from a thousand years ago? I have, it looks like wheat. What we call corn now is a fast growing freakishly huge form that was created by the form of genetic manipulation techniques known as hybridization and selective breeding.

I like mentioning domestic cows, chickens, and pigs: All of these have been selectively bred in order to produce more of whatever they're producing, and none of them have a whole lot of resemblance to their natural predecessors.

But I think that's kind of the point: I'm OK with eating the results of selective breeding and common hybrids. This includes grapes, bananas, tomatoes, and darn near everything else: While wild strawberries tend to be small and bitter, domestic strawberries are big and tasty. We, as humans, have been doing this for thousands of years, and we're made to eat the stuff that we've developed in this way.

But I'm not OK with eating the results of a program wherein man has manually diddled the structure of DNA. Such processes have nothing to do with the selection of the fittest survivors for higher-level breeding, or even cross-breeding, but instead are the result of very purposeful fuckery at the lowest level we can perceive.

We have the ability to produce entire new species of plants and animals on a broad scale. And that's very neat, and all, but it's so far removed from both the natural order and our normal mechanisms for steering it that I don't want it in my stomach any more than I want to slug down some soylent green.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[sneakyimp]

Given the fact that it causes vastly accelerated growth, I can't wait to hear about epidemics of pituitary problems, gigantism, and diabetes that follow in human species years after this fish appears in supermarkets. Or perhaps the fish cause havoc to related ecosystems when *one single female fish becomes fertile* and starts to have fertile offspring. This is a fucking piss-poor idea. What the hell is wrong with ordinary fish?

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[ne0n]

There's damned good reason for fear, uncertainty and doubt in this case. Precedent set by Monsanto should be a clear warning that these things cannot possibly go as planned. I just hope the FDA gets eaten by a resurrected pack of gender-switching velociraptors before this travesty can grow legs.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[sneakyimp]

FUD my ass. FUD is typically propagated by some political or corporate entity to undermine an opposing idealogy or business. In this case, I fail to see any political or business entity that would oppose such a move. I think you might be better off calling us naysayers luddites or technophobes or something. FUD is a tool of enfranchised groups. E.g, people who can genetically engineer fish.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[sneakyimp]

[sarcasm] Let the market handle it [/sarcasm]

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[ThatsMyNick]

The difference is thousand years of testing and a few days of testing.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[sneakyimp]

mod parent up. if people want to do genetic experiments, let them experiment on themselves, not us salmon-eaters.

Reminds me of a story by the way. A girl I met claimed that she met Jimmy Page and Robert Plant in a bar in Cambridge, MA ("Shay's) and, doubting that she even knew who they were, I told her I didn't believe her. I said, "how did you know it was them?" and she related the following conversation:

Girl: OMG! Jimmy Page and Robert Plant?? What are you guys doing here?
Robert Plant: Would you believe me if I told you we were fishing for salmon?
Girl: Um, I guess but I don't think you are going to catch any salmon in here.
Robert Plant: What if I told you we were fishing with very long rods?

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well played, sir. Well played indeed.

I haven't had mod points in years, but that deserves a +1 Funny. :)

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because political and corp entries use FUD, doesn't mean they are the only ones. Just calling something stupid and/or dangerous without any basis or backing because someone doesn't like the idea is FUD, regardless of source.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the same standard that allows Monsanto to sell genetically engineered corn that creates toxins using a bacterial gene extracted from Bacillus thurengiensis. It's unlikely that you'll suffer much more from looser stools since the U.S. routinely adds fluoride and chlorine to its water supply anway. And most people are consume enough wheat gluten and homogenized milk to cause gastrointestinal distress, anyway. (So take it like a man.)

FDA is underfunded, like most regulatory agencies, and they're pressured to cooperate with industry to, "foster commerce." So when you can't even depend on FDA or FTC to require that industry label GMO'd crops or processed foods they're used to make and you know that the labeling which is required is worthless without the secret decoder key, are you really surprised?

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[guspasho]

So every time someone points out why an idea is bad, it's FUD?

The article states the FDA can't find anything harmful about the fish. We can very easily think of something harmful. Monsanto-like licensing restrictions and lawsuits when the GM fish eventually enters the general population will be very harmful.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[uncqual]

This always intrigued me.

The neighboring farmer didn't sign a license agreement with Monsanto.

Perhaps Monsanto should go after the farmer who didn't control their "Monsanto Pollen and Seed" properly (that, of course, will never happen because they are Monsanto's customer!) if the license requires that the licensee exercises such control over the product.

It seems to me that the farmer whose crop got cross pollinated has no obligation to return or avoid use of that which someone distributed onto their property voluntarily -- much as if I leave a flyer on your front door, it's yours to do with as you like. This is not a case of "lost" property -- the distribution is expected, predictable, well known, and the actual item being distributed has no direct economic value.

It seems to me that the "cross pollinated" farmer has more of a cause of action against Monsanto (for knowingly distributing a manipulated organism that interferes with the farmer's ability to grow premium valued organic, non-GMO crops).

I'd be tempted to make an offer to Monsanto if I was a neighboring farmer whose crops had gotten cross pollinated: 'Monsanto, get every last bit of your pollution off my property. Access to do so will be granted at the rate of $x/acre per day until you return the land in an "as found" condition with the exception of getting your crap off it'

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It was an important documentary.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[saleenS281]

With absolutely no idea what the long-term health effects are going to be from human consumption of a modified genetic animal, they're just going to say go for it?? Given that they can't even reliably certify birth control pills... I'm wondering how they could possibly allow for such a significant change to take place. This is the sort of thing you can never take back...

And given how we're now finding out the honey bee collapse syndrome is a direct result of the Monsanto creations... how can we be certain this won't have much further reaching repercussions?

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[guspasho]

I don't have a problem with GM, it's the corporate licensing restriction and the threat that poses to our food supply and our freedom to manage it ourselves, a la Monsanto lawsuits against farmers whose crops were contaminated with their licensed GM.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

Random mutations can produce chemicals never seen before through natural processes. In fact, organic food contains far more pesticides than conventional and GM foods, and many of these pesticides are mutagenic and possibly carcinogenic.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[SuricouRaven]

Tried it. That's why fish stocks are in near-crisis.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not quite sure that the legal consequences are the main thing to worry about. What about the effect of these fish on the ecosystem? What effect would hybrids between patented and non-patented fish be? People have just ignored questions about the effect of various changes on the ecosystem many, many, many times, and how has that effected the environment? I live in Iowa, and the diversity of species there is fairly minimal, and visibly so. I doubt it is much different anywhere else. It hasn't been, wherever I've traveled in the US. Of course there's a much greater diversity if you peel beneath the surface, but it wasn't always the case that you had to do that, wasn't it?
  And if people have made such spectacularly poor decisions about the environment in the past, why should we believe that this time will be any different than those innumerable times that experts in their field have neglected to note the impact of their professional activities on the environment? The FDA isn't exactly an organization specializing in the inner-workings of the ecosystem. I haven't seen any proof to conclude otherwise. Does the Precautionary Principle mean nothing to the world? It is a truth that this technology is something which needs to be proven to be safe. And "doesn't appear likely", is not a proof by any metric.
  One of the worse scenarios is that the genes of this fish spread to other fish species, and other fish species spread their genes to other fish, which contaminate the fish gene-pool. Eventually, these fish species die out due to the contaminated genetics. And then the species relying on those fish species die out, and that creates a cascading effect. There are many bad scenarios that can be imagined, but one should be enough, so I'll skip the rest.
  Quite simply, there should be proof that this technology doesn't completely screw over the planet a hundred thousand years down the line, because it influences, perhaps quite strongly, what entities are up and about one hundred thousand years down the line. Or a mere hundred. Or even just one. I doubt anyone's ever proven that, I doubt anybody's able to prove that, and I believe that such a thing needs to be proven, so I'm going to have to say that I quite seriously doubt the viability of genetic technology if it were subject to my standards, if they remain as stated.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously all these people are eating ancient grains only, or they would not be espousing such hypocrisy. Enjoy you Amaranth and Quinoa.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[crmarvin42]

As I've pointed out many times before. The farmer in this case intentionally collected seeds only from the field closest to and down wind from a neighbor that he knew for certain had planted Monsanto corn. He is not as innocent as commonly portrayed. That being said, I am in full agreement that the patent system needs revision on the point. Doesn't change the fact that the OP is FUD.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[ChromeAeonium]

Too bad that doesn't happen. This comes up every time genetic engineering is mentioned, but that isn't what happened. Monsanto doesn't sue farmers for being cross pollinated (and even when it is undesirable, it is cross pollination, not contamination, quit trying to use loaded words, no one calls pollen from outcrossing heirloom varieties pollution when it screws up someone else open pollinated line). They have however sued for knowingly selecting for and propagating material. Every single case, the Schmeiser case, the Parr case, ect. it turned out more than just cross pollination happened.

It would be like if someone accidentally received a copyrighted DVD, then reasoned that Disney or whoever should be more careful with the DVDs that people buy and started producing there own copies, got sued for it, and a bunch of anti-DVD people claimed that people can get sued for receiving DVDs as a way of attaching DVDs to make their position, which also claims that DVDs cause cancer, sound more reasonable.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[crmarvin42]

It is not the FDA's bailiwick to consider the legal framework under which these fish might be marketed. They can only comment and decide based on the biology. Therefore, it IS FUD, since the only concerns raised relate to policy outside of their preview or their control.

Furthermore, despite all of the hand-wringing by /. and others not directly connected to large scale agriculture, farmers have the choice of which seed to buy every year. They consistently vote with their wallets FOR Monsanto's seeds. There are alternatives, my parent company has a seed division, and Monsanto is the clear market leader because their customers (farmers) believe that Monsanto creates more value for them at the end of the year than the competition.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[hibiki_r]

Most of the things you eat have their DNA fiddled with, in many ways that occur in nature. Heck, chances are you have different DNA in different parts of you, because mitosis doesn't get a perfect result all the time. We also do hybridization across species using natural means: Just look at the fruit industry.

So, the issue then becomes if the cross-species genetic manipulations are done by sticking a branch of a tree into another, or by letting maize seeds spend time in contact with a slightly manipulated agrobacterium. Something that is done to tens of thousands of seeds, which are tested and traditionally bred for 6-8 years until they ever get sold to a farmer anywhere.

The natural order is for species to modify others: ask the HIV. All we have to do is regulate enough to make sure whatever we are fed is reasonably safe.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[climb_no_fear]

The patented fish are diploid and fertile. Female triploid salmon are sterile and cannot cross-breed with wildtype stocks. They are produced by heat shock and other methods (they have to be produced, as they are sterile). The female triploids are produced from the diploids for production purposes, so that if they escape, they cannot reproduce. Triploids even occur naturally but rarely (0.6%) in natural salmon populations.

However, several questions come to my mind:
1.What if someone, sometime, accidentally releases the diploid GMO fish? These fish grow faster than the normal salmon and therefore might have introduce a selective advantage to the introduced genes, even if the original GMO fish are reportedly less fecund.
2. Is the triploid production method 100% effective or might you have 0.1% diploids in there, capable of reproduction?
3. Male triploid salmon do have gonads and are are potentially (even if at a very low rate) slightly fertile. How long until a male escapes? I know that the males appear obviously different than the females (I used to fish for salmon in Canada as a youth) nevertheless, I cite Murphy's Law ...

A bit of reading for the interested:

A simple, clear presentation:
http://www.salmotrip.stir.ac.uk/downloads/SSPOpresentation.pdf

More hardcore molecular biology:
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v104/n2/full/hdy2009108a.html

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[ChromeAeonium]

what fucking good can come from patented (or copyrighted?) organisms?

This. That is Snowsweet, my all time favorite apple. I would choose it over any other variety. Notice the royalty fee and patent? It is a patented organism. It was produced by the same people who developed Honey Crisp, which was also patented (was, the patent has expired). It was produced after Honey Crisp, using the royalties form the Honey Crisp patent. I doubt my favorite apple would exist without patents. What good does patented food do? It generates income for the people who make food better, enabling future development. There's nothing wrong with that.

Do the biggest corporations not yet have enough control over our lives that now they need to get money out of us for the "idea" of a fish? Or the "idea" of corn?

Not even close to what happens. Just like Snowsweet's patent doesn't affect Red Delicious, those patents don't affect any other fish or corn, just the varieties covered by the respective patents.

Don't be surprised when future generations look back on the first decades of the rise of biotech food in the same way we look back on putting radioactive paint on wristwatch hands and asbestos in home insulation and lead in house paint

Or look back on the opposition to it like we look back on people who futilely opposed every other technology.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[nospam007]

"Even assuming that the resulting salmon will be less tasty than the unfarmed, wild salmon,..."

Being less tasty to humans is a desirable trait for fish, they'll welcome that.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[ChromeAeonium]

That worked great for people with Celiacs. Or people who drink sassafras. Or the Lenape potato. There is a difference between rigorous testing and long term anecdotes. Unless you have reason to believe there is a danger, you're just setting up an unreachable moving goalpost.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[ChromeAeonium]

With absolutely no idea what the long-term health effects are going to be from human consumption of a modified genetic animal,

Appeal to ignorance. We have no reason to suspect long term harm, and you can claim unknown unknowns about anything. Can you prove that eating triploid seedless watermelons won't kill us all in a few decades? I can't. But I have no reason to suspect that is the case, so my inability to prove a negative won't stop me from eating them.

And given how we're now finding out the honey bee collapse syndrome is a direct result of the Monsanto creations

You do realize that CCD is happening even in areas with GE crops, yes? Last I heard the most likely culprit was neonicotinoids and overly stressed hives, possibly with the help of mites. The GE angle is nonsense preached by the anti-GE folks who blame GE crops for just about everything.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[murphtall]

I volunteered to said company to consume their product for a year to prove is safe. I'm not scared. Here is their quick response!! Thank you for your email. It is refreshing to receive positive and encouraging emails from people like you (who clearly understand that our salmon is safe to eat; we (in the company) have been eating it for years), rather than the insane rants from the clueless people who do not realize that they have been eating genetically modified food (plants) for the past 15 years, and that it is all safe to eat. If our salmon were FDA approved (hopefully sometime soon), then it would be a pleasure to send you some to eat, but for now, I am afraid you must wait patiently (we have been patiently waiting for more than 15 years !!) Hang in there, and your patience will be rewarded. Best regards, Henry Clifford

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[PopeRatzo]

That is Snowsweet, my all time favorite apple.

So, you're saying that the only way to get good apples is by letting corporations own their genetic code?

So I guess there has never been a good apple before.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[uncqual]

Ah... That does change the complexion of the case a bit. Although I don't think it changes my thoughts about what the general outcome should be.

I think it is the responsibility of someone who wants to protect their interests in something not to distribute that something onto other people's land. If I knowingly store cases of fresh fruit on your land, I would expect that you should be able to use it for almost any purpose you desire.

Given that the downwind farmer seemed to think there was extra value in the Monsanto derived seed, I wouldn't advocate that he could hold Monsanto's feet to the fire to pay for altering his crop's genetic makeup.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[uncqual]

I have no problem with eating GMO foods because I don't think there's likely to be any risks associated with them (I think it's more likely they are safer if they reduce the use of pesticides or herbicides on the crop).

However, the reality is that "GMO Free" foods are preferred by some and may therefore command a higher price.

If someone knowingly and intentionally introduces something new into the environment which would prevent nearby "GMO Free" farmers from being able to grow "GMO free" food and that has a negative economic impact on these farmers, the person introducing the item should be liable for damages and stop doing it.

It doesn't seem different to me than if one land owner sprays herbicides on their land and overspray drifts onto an adjacent farmer's and and stunts his crop reducing yield. I would think (but I have no idea what the law says) that the sprayer is liable for the reduction in value of the crop.

In the Disney case, right of first sale (or first giveaway?) should prevail. If Disney gives me a DVD for no reason that I can discern, it's mine to do what I like with it just as if I bought it. So, that precludes copying and selling unauthorized copies of it (not for reasons of contracts or license terms, for reasons of copyright law).

Receiving a single unsolicited DVD from Disney probably causes me indiscernible harm even if I don't want it. If it came in the mail, it's understood that junk mail is yours to do what you wish with but the sender has no liability for the simple cost of the recipient discarding it. If, however, a Disney truck (accidentally or intentionally) unloaded a 48 ft trailer full of DVDs onto your front lawn, it's their responsibility to remove it or compensate you for the cost of removal (and to repair/pay for repairs of any damage to your lawn) if you don't want them.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[climb_no_fear]

Actually, natural plants often have higher levels of toxins than cultivated ones but you can easily select for nasty genes with genetic engineering. Nature's chemicals and synthetic chemicals: Comparative toxicology*

Two examples from the paper:

A new potato cultivar had to be withdrawn from the market because of its acute toxicity to humans-a consequence of higher levels of two natural toxins, solanine and chaconine.

Also cassava root, a major food crop in Africa and South America, is quite resistant to pests and disease; however,it contains cyanide at such high levels that only a laborious process of washing, grinding, fermenting, and heating can make it edible.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[climb_no_fear]

Sorry, it's late here, I meant "you can easily select WITHOUT genetic engineering"

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[mrclevesque]

On the market, in the city of Utopia, on the planet of gross over simplifications, maybe.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

That was Mr Burns running for Governor in Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[mrclevesque]

Bio-genetics are not clear cut as you are implying.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[dbIII]

(that, of course, will never happen because they are Monsanto's customer!)

Consider what Microsoft do to their customers (audits and similar crap), then consider that on the scale of evil Microsoft are merely annoying and no threat to anyone's health while Monsanto have a much worse reputation.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[mrclevesque]

Plant or animal husbandry are not the same technique as the direct combining of genetic DNA. They differ in so many ways.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

So, it grows twice as fast. Does it taste twice as good?

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

(I think it's more likely they are safer if they reduce the use of pesticides or herbicides on the crop).

I may be wrong here (as I've not really paid much attention to this), but I thought the main GM trick Monsanto had was to enhance the resistance of the crop to their herbicides so that they'd survive the 'scorched earth' drenching of the fields with the stuff to kill off all other plant life. Not so much a case of less herbicides, but a stronger resistance to the stuff, as they're in the business of selling that too..

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Hentes]

As long as GMO are explicitly marked as such, the market will handle it fine. If it turns out to be harmful, people will not buy it. I still wish there were more excessive tests done with the effects of GMO food on humans (in fact, I think the clinical trials of GMO should be at least as strict as for pharmaceutical products), but realistically spreading in a natural habitat is a bigger threat so I'm glad that's the one that got priority, because that's the one the free market couldn't handle.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[nbauman]

A new potato cultivar had to be withdrawn from the market because of its acute toxicity to humans-a consequence of higher levels of two natural toxins, solanine and chaconine.

My favorite. The killer potato.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Alarash]

Because, clearly, stop eating salmon is not a solution.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

small screws that get caught in your teeth

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

With all due respect, please look up Recombinant DNA ( a keystone of GE/GM), before saying what you said. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common with what farmers have done to plant/breed certain characteristics.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and man can't fly so it's just stupidity to try.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[flayzernax]

Thanks for the informative response. Why farms buy into the GMO seeds makes more sense now.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to. However I'm no farmer. To me it just seems like a dangerous game to play in business. My brief time in IT, locked into proprietary products has taught me a great lesson to use the MIT liscenced stuff whenever you can. So I never looked at it from that perspective.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[rickb928]

Farmed salmon have already contaminated wild stock in the Northeast. the battle is lost. I and every fisherman I know have caught their last Atlantic Salmon in America, and soon Canada will also end sport fishing, I fear.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[rickb928]

Famous last words...

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

Luddite.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[ChromeAeonium]

If someone knowingly and intentionally introduces something new into the environment which would prevent nearby "GMO Free" farmers from being able to grow "GMO free" food and that has a negative economic impact on these farmers, the person introducing the item should be liable for damages and stop doing it.

That's a good point, and one with a lot of hard issues to consider. I think it gets confusing fast though. Say I'm growing Red Kuri squash. My neighbor grows Galeux d'Eysines. We cross pollinate. Both of those open pollinated would get a premium, but now the next generation is hybridized. Who has to pay up? What if a sweet and field corn mess each other up? Or two fields of parthenocarpic citrus varieties cross pollinate and result in seeded fruit? Those guys get by just fine through communicating with their neighbors and taking measures to prevent problems (like staggering their planting dates, collecting seed from the center of the field, ect). It is only now that we hear of cross pollination becoming an issue, strangely. On one hand, if you are producing a product a certain way, shouldn't the onus be on you to take care of your operations? A somewhat absurd example, imagine if someone was selling food grown outside the presence of wifi (which makes about as much sense as the anti-GE thing and had the professional activists who started the GE nonsense made that into a problem I guarantee would be a thing), should everyone else turn off their routers? On the other hand, yeah, there is something starting on field A and moving unwanted to field B, so I can certainty see your point. On the other other hand, it is pretty unreasonable to hold all farmers accountable for their pollen, no? Ultimately, given the nature and necessity of farming, I'm inclined to think it is. You certainty wouldn't want Monsanto taking action over simple cross pollination, so I'd apply the same for being cross pollinated.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[omfgnosis]

First of all, Luddism isn't relevant. Luddites sabotaged industrial equipment out of a pretty clear and direct sense of economic self-interest*, not a sense of skepticism toward technology per se—in other words, anti-globalization protectionism is far more akin to Luddism than skepticism about technological development.

Second of all, everyone should be proud to be labeled "Luddite" in the colloquial sense you're using it. It's a badge of critical thinking. New technological developments are not by definition good, and contrary to modern thinking on the subject technology certainly isn't universally neutral. Some technology is demonstrably, fundamentally harmful. In other words, technology is just like every other product of human activity, and just like every other thing in nature. It's wise to approach new developments, in any of those domains, with skepticism.

* You might argue that this expression of self-interest was short-sighted, but that's a different dispute, one I'd be glad to take on if you're interested.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[SuricouRaven]

And we could stop global warming if everyone in the world agreed to replace their car with a bicycle, stop taking holidays and buy a dressing gown rather than heat their homes. A solution is not a solution if you've little prospect of convincing people to go along with it.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem with eating GMO foods because I don't think there's likely to be any risks associated with them (I think it's more likely they are safer if they reduce the use of pesticides or herbicides on the crop).

The main GMOs on the market today are modified so that they can be sprayed with roundup and not absorb said roundup and thus be safe to eat. It's actually proliferating the use of herbicides.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

Good sir, it seems you sarcasm detector is broken. It doesn't even seem to detect sarcasm tags!

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Qzukk]

As I've pointed out many times before. The farmer in this case intentionally collected seeds only from the field closest to and down wind from a neighbor that he knew for certain had planted Monsanto corn.

Except that doesn't make a difference. If you drive by my house and throw a bag of shit and a diamond ring on my lawn, whether I keep the shit or not has no bearing at all on the laws that say whether I can keep the diamond ring or not.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

that is the same standard used for "regular" salmon, so best we got...

With the tiny difference that we have thousands of years of experience with natural salmon. And how much exactly do we have with this GM salmon? Zilch.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[guspasho]

I'm not making myself very clear. The problem is seed contamination. There have been several reports on /. of farmers whose crops were contaminated with GM genes through natural processes like pollination, from their neighbors' crops, even though they never intended to touch GM seed, and Monsanto sued them even though they had no contract with Monsanto. Because this problem stems from licensed genes that cannot be guaranteed to not propagate into the wild, this should already be within the FDA's purview, and they should be investigating it as a problem.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[dywolf]

Not to forget the common Bean. Know why you soak them overnight, then toss that water, before cooking them in a new pot of water? The lectin in beans (forget the specific name of this one) is toxic to people. Know why beans make you fart and have that reputation? The same lectin, the traces left after preparation to leech it out and deactivate the remainder, causes gas. Raw beans cause can extreme discomfort, vomits, nausea and diarhea. Fun stuff. Kidney beans ahve the most of the stuff, further adding to chili's reputation as a toot maker.

A minor thing, and not nearly as labor intensive or threatening as cassava root. But another example.

Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat"

[fikx]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the FDA and the standard used by them...

Did you notice the legalese?

[bogaboga]

after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Friday the fish didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it.

...the fish didn't appear likely to pose a threat ...

Emphasis mine...

Not appearing likely doesn't mean "will not!" And these people are playing with tax payers' tax dollars.

My hope is that they'll label the Biotech products as such at the point of sale, so that the consumer can choose. But the fellas on the other side and their supporters will oppose any such motion. After all they are about making money, Not serving interests of consumers.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[Attila Dimedici]

You do know that many foods that humans have eaten for centuries have been discovered to pose a threat in recent years? I have no objection to labeling foods that have been genetically engineered by modern techniques, but exactly how are you going to define that? I take it you do not eat corn? That is a "Biotech" food by certain definitions of the term "Biotech" (including some of the definitions used by those opposing "Biotech" foods).

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[Anonymous Coward]

You would rightly be criticizing them if they said categorically that the fish will not pose a threat.
They've done the science, and have the answer. But science doesn't say "will not".
It's amazing how easy it is to get anti-science comments on a tech site.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[crmarvin42]

How, pray tell, do you prove a negative? I.e. how do you prove that "GM salmon will never cause harm". If you set the bar impossibly high, then progress will never be made.

As to the labeling, the USDA guidelines for food labeling are designed to keep people honest about the differences in what are essentially commodities. If the USDA believed that there was a significant difference between GM crops and Conventional crops, then they would approve of a labeling initiative. However, one of the requirements for regulatory approval, is demonstrating that the GM crop is substantially similar to the conventional. Therefore, there is no need for a label, unless the label also makes it clear that the implied difference is insignificant. For example, Milk in the US frequently has a label indicating that no rBST was used in its production, but at the bottom of the label is a footnote indicating that their is no difference between milk produced with or without rBST. It is about battling FUD.

I'm currently involved in some FDA filings, and the hurdles for getting a new use approved for something already on the market and GRAS are prodigious, I can only imagine the hurdles that they've forced these GM salmon to jump through to show that the salmon do not appear likely to pose a threat.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's oh-so-difficult to differentiate between selective pollination or breeding and altering the genetic structure in a lab. It's practically an insurmountable task, not at all blatantly obvious to a farmer who never graduated high school much less highly educated lawyers and scientists who couldn't tell a gene from sexual reproduction if they were both right in front of them.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[Kergan]

You do know that many foods that humans have eaten for centuries have been discovered to pose a threat in recent years?

Excuse me for asking, but besides Mercury oxide (which was used as a poor man's sweetener until the early Middle Ages when its toxicity became obvious) and the Fool's Webcap (which kills weeks or months after being ingested, and was thus only identified as toxic in the industrial era), can you name any examples? (It's a genuine question, I'm actually curious to know others, since you mention many.)

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[ne0n]

Those hurdles you mentioned are called "empty bank accounts" and by simply filling the right ones you can get the "correct" result every time.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[Attila Dimedici]

Peanuts is an example. For most people they are a great food, for a significant subset, they are deadly.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[crmarvin42]

I realize that it is very stylish on /. to be cunical about both big business and the government, and to some extent i agree on both counts. However, when it comes to regulatory filings, neither side wants to be liable for anything going wrong for obvious reasons. As I said, I'm involved in several regulatory filings at the moment, and I can assure you that bribery isn't in it. If it were, then they wouldn't need me. Or my more expensive coleagues (PhD biochemists carrying law degrees are not exacly a dime a dozen) The high cost of regulatory filings is due to the close scrutiny, bureaucrats fear of blame if things go wrong, and the high cost of research used in assuaging their fears.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[Anonymous Coward]

We tried to get genetically modified food marked as such in California, and Monsanto (and other food related industries) spent millions to fight the proposition, which ultimately failed.

You have to ask yourself why the biggest players are desperate to ensure the public doesn't know what they are doing to the food they sell. Never mind that in many EU countries all modified foods have to be labeled as such so consumers can make an informed decision, yet somehow doing that in America was a bad thing according to these companies.

I agree, I wish they would label the food. But as I've just observed, they really don't want to let you know, and they will pump millions into ensuring you don't know.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[terec]

About as many people die from food poisoning each year in the US as from murder. Threats come from parasites, bacteria, and viruses, and we keep discovering new ones and new ways of transmitting them; of course, as soon as we do, we try to eliminate them, but many of these used to be "normal components" of those foods. Occasionally, old foods are also discovered to have new toxicities, but that's rare. (The sweetener you are thinking of is lead acetate, not mercury oxide).

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[terec]

Peanuts also frequently contain aflatoxins (from mold).

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[mrclevesque]

That's not a good example

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[Attila Dimedici]

Why not? If a genetically engineered food had exactly the same threat level as peanuts, do you believe it would have a chance of getting approved for human consumption?

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[nbauman]

Sugar of lead.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[Attila Dimedici]

Write that definition so that a lawyer is not able to use it to sue someone for violating it with a a plant or animal product from a plant or animal produced by selective pollination or breeding in a lab. What if someone alters the genetic structure but does not do it in what is defined as a laboratory? What exactly is the definition of a laboratory?
If you do not understand the problem with words that "everybody knows what they means", just look at the discussion over "assault weapons". An "assault rifle" is traditionally defined as a "selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine". "Assault weapons" on the other hand are weapons that some people think look like assault rifles, even though they have no functional equivalence.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then consider ALL products that do not specifically state that they do not contain GM substances to contain them. And avoid them. Pick up a book and learn how to garden. Learn how to barter. Two things the system hates because it can't survive when you do that.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[strikethree]

I have no objection to labeling foods that have been genetically engineered by modern techniques, but exactly how are you going to define that? I take it you do not eat corn? That is a "Biotech" food by certain definitions of the term "Biotech" (including some of the definitions used by those opposing "Biotech" foods).

Really, your argument is lying. There is a meaningful and substantial difference between breeding for characteristics and direct manipulation of genes. If people want to twist words then new words can be created so that your purposeful ambiguity is entirely eliminated.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[Attila Dimedici]

The people who redefined the original words to make them mean something else will just redefine the new words to the same effect. Define "direct manipulation of genes". I believe that I know what you mean, but if you are going to make a law, you must define it in a way that cannot be distorted by those seeking to profit from the distortion (whether corporations who want to make something you intended to be "genetic modification" not be genetic modification, or lawyers looking to sue someone over something as genetically modified that you never intended to be considered genetically modified).

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[mrclevesque]

"You do know that many foods that humans have eaten for centuries have been discovered to pose a threat in recent years?"

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[Attila Dimedici]

Considering the history of human consumption of food, WWII is "recent years". The awareness of serious peanut allergies is post-WWII.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[mrclevesque]

So it's serious peanut allergies now ? No matter.

I too think labeling foods that contain ingredients derived from DNA recombination is a good idea and easy to do.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, yes, since non-serious peanut allergies do not represent a threat, of course it is serious peanut allergies.

Re:Did you notice the legalese?

[mrclevesque]

"Well, yes, since non-serious peanut allergies do not represent a threat, of course it is serious peanut allergies."

: )

Well no, it's on a continuum : Very Serious --- Serious --- Moderately-Serious --- Lightly Serious --- Non-serious

No problem with the product

[__aaltlg1547]

This should not be a big deal for the FDA. It's clearly a safe food product, although I would be a little put off by a "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS GENETICALLY MODIFIED FISH" label that I think should be mandated.

The FDA isn't really even competent to judge whether the animals are safe to introduce into the environment. It's not their area of expertise. All they can tell us is if it's safe for people to eat them. It's the EPA that should be concerned about people making frankenfish. And since if they get loose they'd be in international waters, it's a subject for the whole world to decide, or at least every country that fishes in waters where these modified salmon can survive and reproduce.

What happens if they get released and hybridize with wild salmon? Will hybrid fish be off limits to fishermen? Will the fast-growth genes be weeded out in the wild, or will they spread across the whole wild population? (The former is more likely. If it were advantageous to the species to grow faster, they probably would grow faster.) Is this company going to come after salmon fishers the way Monsanto comes after farmers?

Re:No problem with the product

[nbauman]

It hasn't been a quick decision. The FDA has been considering their application since 1995.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503891676987232.html

The critics have raised every conceivable objection to GM food, and none of them has held up. I've talked with scientists on both sides of the issue, including the Natural Resources Defense Council. The critics have made their case. Good for them. That's their job. Every point has been answered. If they can come up with something new, I'd like to hear it. But they haven't.

I'm no fan of greedy businessmen, but I do believe in scientific progress. They have to overcome the burden of proof to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it's safe, and they've done so.

People who are several generations away from American (or any) agriculture don't realize that breeding and improvement of animals and plants has been going on for ten thousand years. They've done the same kind of thing with conventional breeding.

To answer your question, they can't reproduce with wild salmon because they're triploid; they have an extra set of chromosomes.

Even if they did -- maybe 1 out of a billion -- you'd have nothing more than the normal genetic variations in fish. Growth hormones are evolved to turn on and off in different cycles according to the environment in all kinds of animals. There are already animals with extra growth genes from conventional breeding, like Belgian bulls. It doesn't do any harm.

Hybrid seed corn, developed by Henry A. Wallace, revolutionized American agriculture.

It's a small improvement, and not that important by itself, but the problem with the anti-GM movement is that it's anti-science. They're in there with the anti-vaccine people. It comes down to, they don't trust corporations. I don't trust corporations either, but get your arguments right.

Re:No problem with the product

[Anonymous Coward]

Cross breeding corn plants to produce better corn is way different from genetically modifying the plant to produce insecticides at a cellular level.

Re:No problem with the product

[ColdWetDog]

Triploid? My God, they're mutants!

What happens if they run into some radioactive water from Fukashima? Has anyone checked on this? Anyone?

Re:No problem with the product

[ChromeAeonium]

although I would be a little put off by a "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS GENETICALLY MODIFIED FISH" label that I think should be mandated.

I disagree with that. Thing is, there is a lot of information you could add about food. tell me your last meal, and I'll tell you something about those plants you probably don't know. If I want to, I can make it sound scary. Did you know your citrus was produced by radiation? Or that many of your grapes were sprayed with plant hormones? Or that your tomatoes may have had non-tomato genes (despite being non-GE, by the way)? Or that your apples were spontaneous somatic mutations? Or that many of your vegetables were bred with gene altering chemicals? Perfectly safe, but what do you think would happen if you required that oranges be labeled as 'Produced with radiation' or that celery had to say 'Produced with chemicals'? It wouldn't tell you anything, but it would scare people who don't understand the science behind crop production. I think that to do so would be somewhat deceptive really, because without fully explaining it, that label is basically like a fact taken out of context. Lets say I tell you your peas have an insecticide in them. Sounds bad, right? What if I say I'm referring to PA1b, a naturally occurring defensive mechanism peas have? Now it sounds less scary. If I only told you the first part, even though what I said was perfectly true, it would have been deceptive of me.

So, I disagree with the notion that it should be labeled (by law anyway, anyone should be free to label as GE/non-GE as they see fit). It isn't informative, it unfairly selects one aspect of the food and singles it out as special, and it will do little more than scare people.

Re:No problem with the product

[Anonymous Coward]

Belgian bulls have all kinds of health problems. They really are abnormal, and wouldn't survive without human care.

Re:No problem with the product

[nbauman]

I think your concerns should be addressed to Saturday Night Live.

Re:No problem with the product

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>that breeding and improvement of animals and plants has been going on for ten thousand years.

GM/GE foods are made using recombinant DNA. Go look it up. It shares NOTHING in common which what farmers have been doing for thousands of years. Unless they were taking DNA from frogs and "recombining" it into cows.

Re:No problem with the product

[Anonymous Coward]

you are the one who is anti-science, are you a Monsanto stock shill? Europe is quite concerned about studies linking consumption of NK603 corn with increased cancer rates in rats.

Let me be the first...

[John3]

to welcome our new healthy, upstream swimming overlords.

What could possible go wrong?

Re:Let me be the first...

[Rotten]

Hail King Salmon!

This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[dryriver]

Not only does nobody know what kind of changes this genetically altered Salmon will affect in the ecosystem and food chain it is released into; We also won't know for sure, for maybe a decade or two, what eating this genetically modified FrankenSalmon will or won't do to a person's health. What if people eating this GM Fish suddenly start getting weird cancers and tumors in their bowels or elsewhere 10 years down the line? Who will be held accountable for this? And what if it takes years and years and dozens of cases before it can be demonstrated, conclusively, that this GM Fish causes the cancer? ---- I think that this whole thing smacks of putting profits before public health. Precisely _what_ is so wrong with regular Salmon that the world needs a FrankenSalmon that grows at twice the rate of the natural design? ----- What happens when eating this GM Fish starts killing people or making them sick? Will the "manufacturer" delve into the ecosystem and try to "recall" tens of thousands of GM Fish by catching them before someone eats them? ------ Some people will disagree with me, but the whole thing strikes me as an "extreme exercise in stupid", and "an accident waiting to happen". There is no way I would eat this FrankenSalmon, or let my kids eat it. Regular Salmon does just fine for me, thank you! ------

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[charlieo88]

Not only does nobody know what kind of changes this genetically altered Salmon will affect in the ecosystem and food chain it is released into;

I'm pretty sure the article was about farm raised salmon.

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[Trepidity]

Regular Salmon does just fine for me, thank you!

I hope you only buy wild-caught salmon, then, because farm-raised salmon is already unnaturally bred & raised for specific commercial goals.

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[NIK282000]

I see the tinfoil hat lobby is here. Where does this cancer threat come from? Is it because the media equates anything with "DNA" to cancer? If you are that concerned about the effects of GM foods on your health or the health of your kids then STOP BEING SCARED OF IT and DO SOME RESEARCH. Yelling "its going to kill us all" isn't going to help any one, sit down and do some serious google work. Read everything you find on GM foods and not just the alarmist knee jerk reactions of the uninformed. Just because it's not natural doesn't mean its bad.

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[larry bagina]

Farm fish have a tendency to escape into the wild.

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[nbauman]

What if people eating this GM Fish suddenly start getting weird cancers and tumors in their bowels or elsewhere 10 years down the line?

There's no plausible mechanism for that. The food basically gets digested in the stomach. They've done animal studies and nothing happened.

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[adolf]

I don't want to eat GM food because I don't want to. I have no rational basis for my opinion or mindset, but it is my opinion nonetheless.

No amount of research on my part is going to change my opinion on this matter, nor will any amount of argument. I will cheerfully vote with my dollars in order to avoid such food wherever possible.

Indeed, if GM salmon becomes genuinely impossible to distinguish from normal salmon at the consumer level, then I suppose salmon will drop completely off of my menu.

At this point in the discussion comes an obvious question: Why do you give a fuck about what I want don't want to eat? Do you feel that I, a free-thinking person, am somehow not entitled to my own opinion (however irrational it might be) about the food that I eat?

Please explain.

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[NIK282000]

You can chose to eat or not eat anything you want but trying to prevent others from doing exactly the same thing is a little fucky don't you think? I support research and development into GM because it has the potential to lower costs and increase the nutritional value of foods. If it is developed and approved by the FDA then you can choose to not eat it as you will but if near sighted kneejerkers block it from development and approval then I lose the ability to choose a cheaper source of nutrition.

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[ChromeAeonium]

Speaking as someone who is about as pro-GE as you're going to find (well, in the same sense that I'm pro-vaccine or pro-Pythagorean theorem anyway), I don't care one bit, as long as you put it like that. I'm not about to get on a Jew's case for following Kosher or complain about a Muslim who keeps Halal. I hope you're knowledgeable enough about crop genetics to know just how puzzling that stance is, but as long as you're not going around and saying things that aren't true, trying to stop agricultural progress, demanding special treatment for your lifestyle, or spreading fear to others, then hey, whatever floats your boat. You get your own opinion (just like how Johnny Appleseed believed that grafting trees, now a ubiquitous process in fruit production, was evil because it was 'against the will of God'), just don't make up your own facts.

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[mrclevesque]

Said the piper to his neighbor as they walked over the cliff.

But seriously, I'm not sure who is being more obtuse, you or the parent?

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[mrclevesque]

Ingested DNA has been found in the bowel basically intact.

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[nbauman]

Yes, it is possible for proteins to bind to DNA and pass through the digestive system. That's why I said "basically."

It's an interesting hypothesis that DNA from GM food could survive through the digestive tract and somehow cause harm. In science, when you get a hypothesis, you test it. That hypothesis has been tested in animal studies which couldn't confirm any effect. Some guy claimed to have found damage to rats, it was published in a major journal, other people tried to repeat his results, and they couldn't repeat it. That's science.

I once asked a NRDC scientist who opposed GM food whether she also thought people should avoid Ben & Jerry's ice cream -- since the effects of so much fats and sugar on the diet had a demonstrated harm (and because Ben & Jerry's had been supporting a ban on GM food). She couldn't give me an answer.

If you want to adopt this level of certainty, I can't imagine what you could eat. People have gotten fatal food poisoning from "organic" farms.

I think it should be labeled, and I think a lot of the corporations that were pushing GM foods acted like overbearing assholes. But it's as safe as any other food.

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[mrclevesque]

http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2012/01/plant-micrornas-in-your-blood.html?showComment=1325884165958#c8757155746212485557

From the link : "Granted, RNA may be less stable, but I'm not at all surprised we find it in the blood after a meal."

"But it's as safe as any other food."

Old ones [food stuff involving DNA recombinations] and each new one need to be tested with more stringent standards, for longer terms, and by more independent researchers in more independent labs.

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[nbauman]

Moran is appropriately skeptical.

The response is, so what? Even if it turns out to be true, it means that mRNA from non-GM rice will also wind up in your bloodstream. Even if it's true, there's no evidence here that the plant mRNAs are harmful. After all, we've been eating plants for how long, 300 million years?

One of the problems with working with DNA and RNA in the laboratory is that cells are full of enzymes that degrade them -- because over evolution, foreign nucleotides have usually been from pathogens. Even bacterial cells destroy foreign nucleotides. That's where we found restriction enzymes. So there are mechanisms in place to take care of these things.

But I don't know for sure. I'm not an expert in this stuff. If the experts thought it was a problem, I'd worry. I haven't seen anything about this in the context of GM foods in the journals since this was published a year ago.

It's possible to be too worried about DNA.

If we had listened to Jeremy Rifkin in the 1980s, we wouldn't have done any recombinant DNA work until it had been proven totally safe, which is impossible.

When AIDS hit, we wouldn't have known what to do. We wouldn't have had tests for AIDS, tissue culture techniques for T cells, screens for AIDS drugs, and we wouldn't have discovered AZT and the dozens of AIDS drugs that followed. Everybody you know with AIDS would be dead.

We wouldn't have had a whole generation of cancer drugs. I know a young woman who got acute myelocytic leukemia in her 30s. Life expectancy was 6 months. She was in the first trial of imatinib (Glevic). She's still alive now, which I think has been 10 years. Her life was saved by biotechnology. There are something like 10,000 or 20,000 people being kept alive on imatinib or its successors right now.

There are more drugs to treat and sometimes cure autoimmune diseases, also from biotechnology.

This is agricultural biotechnology, which is a little less critical than medical biotechnology, but if we had listened to guys like Rifkin, these people would be dead now.

Re:This is a seriously bad idea I think...

[jonadab]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan either. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'll be giving this product a miss. Salmon always has those nasty little pieces of ostensibly-edible bone in it, plus the meat isn't that tasty in the first place.

Now, if they were to do chicken or maybe pork...

Only problem...

[charlieo88]

...tastes like chicken.

Re:Only problem...

[blagooly]

Wow am I relieved. If it tasted like bacon, I would have had to buy it.

stop complaining

[Iamthecheese]

A hundred years ago it was said miracles of science would feed the world with an unbelievable array of giant, hearty and delicious foods. We're almost there. And we'll get there a lot faster without you kneejerk "anything with altered genes must be bad for you" reactionary luddites.

Stop complaining and take a moment to marvel at all science has wrought.

Re:stop complaining

[gonz]

"Anything with altered genes must be bad for your" is not an irrational fear of some new device or technology, it is a reasonable default position when considering a potentially irreversible change to the ecosystem and gene pool. Genetic engineering is not equivalent to selective breeding, because it can instantaneously produce radical changes that would normally take centuries to achieve. In many cases, the science is empirical, like a hacker making risky changes to a large code base because he "understands" the tiny fragment of code that he's changing, even though there may be unforeseen systemic effects. And what is the urgent problem that we are solving here? You're going to solve world hunger by creating more food? Isn't there an inherent flaw in that idea?

Re:stop complaining

[TubeSteak]

A hundred years ago it was said miracles of science would feed the world with an unbelievable array of giant, hearty and delicious foods. We're almost there. And we'll get there a lot faster without you kneejerk "anything with altered genes must be bad for you" reactionary luddites.

They could have made these bio-engineered fish grow bigger than their natural size, but they were more or less forced to genetically cap the growth at "market size" so that escaped fish would not outcompete natural stocks.

Re:stop complaining

[bill_mcgonigle]

miracles of science would feed the world with an unbelievable array of giant, hearty and delicious foods. We're almost there.

I was just talking about this with my daughter at the grocery store. We picked up some Polaner instead of the Smuckers because of their GMO positions.

The first GMO's were things like rice that grew Vitamin A so rural Asian children wouldn't go blind. That was good.

The logical next steps were to make all sorts of food that was healthy, tasty, vigorous, and efficient (able to grow in poor soils).

But instead, we got crops that are resistant to pesticides that are applied by the tanker load and vegetables that express their own pesticides, which, we're kinda-maybe-sure don't effect humans (but it hasn't really been studied).

Making fast-growing salmon is more like it's supposed to be, but the experience of the past decades shows that the critical vulnerability is the governments' Imaginary-Property system that their corporations are using to seize control of the food supply.

You're right about the science, but the governments have fucked it up (like pretty much everything else people ask them to save us from).

Re:stop complaining

[dbIII]

You are blaming governments for the greed of corporations?

Re:stop complaining

[mrclevesque]

"A hundred years ago it was said miracles of science would feed the world with an unbelievable array of giant, hearty and delicious foods"

Because it was said does not make it any closer today. Rhetorical florishes aside.

Re:stop complaining

[bill_mcgonigle]

You are blaming governments for the greed of corporations?

Corporations are creations of governments. They don't exist naturally (without a government charter). Monsanto is a just bunch of guys yelling into the wind without the Patent system, the Courts, and the guys with guns from the government who enforce that system.

With the government's backing, they're threatening the species's food supply.

Re:stop complaining

[Anonymous Coward]

Because what could possibly go wrong with a self-replicating organism built based on an incomplete understanding of its inner workings?

I would be a big fan of genetically-engineered products if the people making them literally understood the entire language of raw DNA. For example, if they could write a compiler/decompiler dev environment that would go from high-level "source" to DNA letters to a simulated organism. But scientists don't understand DNA at that level yet. They understand the gene level, sure. How much would you trust binary code where the developers weren't writing it from scratch - they were just aggregating together binary blobs based on a black-box understanding of their functionality? Especially if it was self-modifying, self-replicating program code?

"Oh, this is the blob that codes for bioluminescence. That's not a complex thing at all. There is literally no possibility that when combined with some other genetic code, it will do something horrific."

Re:stop complaining

[ChromeAeonium]

The first GMO's were things like rice that grew Vitamin A so rural Asian children wouldn't go blind. That was good.

Actually, that one isn't even on the market yet. The first GE crop was actually virus resistant tobacco, in China. the second was the Flavr Savr tomato, in the US. Do you think that Golden Rice is a good idea? Then keep in mind that, by and large, the same people opposing the other GE crops you mention are opposing Golden Rice.

But instead, we got crops that are resistant to pesticides that are applied by the tanker load

I agree that it sounds bad, but not when you consider things holistically. Those herbicide tolerant crops have increased the usage of some herbicides, but they've decreased the use of harsher herbicides and reduced the need for environmentally damaging tillage. They've actually been pretty beneficial. Note also that many of Benbrook's works have been often criticized. Obviously, spraying chemicals is never a good thing if it can be avoided, but if you've got a better way to control weeds a lot of farmers would love to hear it.

and vegetables that express their own pesticides, which, we're kinda-maybe-sure don't effect humans

They don't. It is the same protein that has been used in organic farming for years to no ill effect. We know very well how it works, and yes, there has been much study on the health effects. By the way, all plants produce pesticides. It's how they defend themselves. Even your non-GE corn is going to be full of insecticidal maysin.

Re:stop complaining

[manu0601]

Stop complaining and take a moment to marvel at all science has wrought.

The problem is that science came with a wicked little brother called intellectual property. And now we get patented food.

Re:stop complaining

[FoolishOwl]

Science has fed the world with an unbelievable array of giant, hearty and delicious foods. It's called agriculture, and it was invented 10,000 years ago.

Hunger and poverty are political weapons.

Re:stop complaining

[dbIII]

Meanwhile governments are the creation of society. We can keep on going in circles with the blame game forever if you like, but it just gets even more ridiculous with every shift. Without a government we'd still have warlords plus hangers on that would act like an uncontrolled corporation. Venetian Merchant Princes, Robber Barons, organised crime, how many examples do you need before you notice that it can't sanely be blamed on a government?

As long as it's labeled

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care

Re:As long as it's labeled

[mrclevesque]

It should be labelled. Please mod parent up.

Just label it

[Fuzzums]

If it's clear to me what king of food it it, it's fine with me.
If you want your future kids to have super human powers or gills, take the chance. Eat it!

There are numerous examples where commercial interest was greater than common sense. If anyone wants to gamble, PLEASE go ahead, but leave me out of it.

Re:Just label it

[Anonymous Coward]

"but leave me out of it."

This is america, land of the free, and you won't be given that option. Adequate labeling would have a chilling effect of corporate profits and so won't be mandated.

Re:Just label it

[Fastolfe]

Can't you buy organic-labeled food? Can't sellers of non-GMO food just label their food non-GMO? Why is that inadequate?

Re:Just label it

[slew]

FWIW, quite a bit of the fish sold in the US is mislabled already. Nobody seems to be doing much about it.

This report details how grim the situation is with non GM fish. There is probably no hope for labeling fish in general.

* 58 percent of the 81 retail outlets sampled sold mislabeled fish (three in five).
* Small markets had significantly higher fraud (40 percent) than national chain grocery stores (12 percent).
* 100 percent of the 16 sushi bars tested sold mislabeled fish.
* Tilefish, on the FDA’s do-not-eat list because of its high mercury content,1 was substituted for red snapper and halibut in a small market.
* 94 percent of the “white tuna” was not tuna at all, but escolar, a snake mackerel that has a toxin with purgative effects for people who eat more than a small amount of the fish.
* Thirteen different types of fish were sold as “red snapper,” including tilapia, white bass, goldbanded jobfish, tilefish, porgy/seabream, ocean perch and other less valuable snappers.

Re:Just label it

[ChromeAeonium]

People have made a lot of baseless claims about the safety of GE food. I've heard them accuse it of causing cancer, diabetes, and infertility. But turning you into Aquaman...now that's pretty bad.

Re:Just label it

[terec]

Prop 37 was defeated in California, in part because nobody actually knows what "adequate labeling" would even mean. Adequate for what?

good.

[drankr]

We in Europe think that you should eat this.

didnt appear

[ruir]

...is not good enough.

Re:didnt appear

[Attila Dimedici]

So, I guess you don't eat any food. Since that is the best standard we have for any food. It is not possible to scientifically arrive at "will not pose a threat." There are only two possible scientific answers when discussing safety: "will cause harm" and "does not appear to cause harm". Those are your choices.

Re:didnt appear

[ruir]

We arent discussing "normal" food year. Havent you heard about studies, conclusions, reality itself and the experiments were all mice developed cancer after being fed with GMO? We are talking about human lives here. I maintain "does not appear" is not enough, and less enough when there are sufficient proofs to contradict this affirmation.

Re:didnt appear

[Attila Dimedici]

THe answer to your question is, NO, I have not heard about credible studies where mice developed cancer after being fed with GMO.

Re:didnt appear

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the experiment (note that singular noun) where some (not all) mice fed Roundup-Ready GMO corn (not all GMOs are equivalent) and some mice fed non-GMO corn developed tumors?
Yes, I've read Seralini et al, 2012. I've concluded that it does not appear to provide any real evidence of anything.
Have you read it yourself?
More importantly, have you looked at the experimental design and the data provided yourself?

Pfizer shows interest.

[Fuzzums]

And in other news: If it can super size a fish, it might as well super size a snake, a Pfizer spokes man says.

It won't be approved

[ohnocitizen]

They are opening it up for public comment. Americans distrust science when there is no risk at all. If people get riled up over vaccines, genetically modified fish ought to start quite the fire.

Re:It won't be approved

[ChromeAeonium]

There's political opposition too, namely from Alaska where they don't want their fishing industry challenged by the new guy. Huzzah for crony capitalism.

Re:It won't be approved

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a lack of salmon in the market? Is this being created to feed hungry people that would otherwise have no means to do so? Or is it for greed only and growing animals faster for pure financial gain? Science is fun, when it has a decent purpose.

Sea lice from farmed salmon kill wild salmon

[kawabago]

Sea lice from farmed salmon are killing wild stocks off. Just imagine what frankenfish could do to the environment. Giant sea lice that attack swimmers. Overgrown sand sharks now man eaters. Pacific octopus, the worlds largest, could grow into something from Jules Verne imagination. Of course, none of these things are likely to occur. It is the things we can't think of that worry me.

Re:Sea lice from farmed salmon kill wild salmon

[jimbo]

Perhaps not that but I could imagine escaped fast growing salmon ravenously vacuuming the oceans for food, effectively leaving nothing for other species.
It is impossible to predict the effect of these guys getting out because of different behavior and needs.

We can only hope that their spawning instincts will somehow sabotage proliferation in the wild, otherwise we've introduced a new species into a vulnerable and already troubled Ecosystem.

Re:Sea lice from farmed salmon kill wild salmon

[ColdWetDog]

These things don't get bigger than wild King Salmon. They just get big, fast. So no Giant Vacuum Salmon. No epic battles between mutant Sea Lice and Sperm Whales. They'll probably end up tasting like cat food so I wouldn't get all bent out of shape with the concept.

Re:Sea lice from farmed salmon kill wild salmon

[Anonymous Coward]

The damn unknown unknowns are the real problems.

Chromosome count

[Anonymous Coward]

How about increasing the number of chromosomes (duplicating) in bioengineered salmon? Couldn't this create salmon that are not fertile with natural salmon, decreasing the possibility of contamination?

Re:Chromosome count

[Talderas]

That's exactly what they do.

FrankenFish!

[swschrad]

do NOT cook in an electric oven. you have been warned.

Just one question

[Anonymous Coward]

I have just one question - will it be served in the cafeteria at the FDA headquarters?

Genetically modified natural foods

[Anonymous Coward]

Raising salmons in captitvity or any other species will change the DNA structure of a "free" salmon, whose life long DNA strand is due to the will of nature to convey a fruitfull development without unatural barriers.
Genetically modified salmons will develop structural formations of toxins due to the life development of captivity in the same way animals at the zoo die because their DNA has changed in just a few generations due to the dvelopment of toxins. The toxins produced in these captivated could develop symtoms in humas which may some day become a desease of incurable potential.
If technology cannot free the oceans from trash deterrment, do not be surprised that someday you will be eating your own evacuations inside a contaminated fish or a genetically modified ocean creature developing anti -captivity toxins for survival.
One other thing, the moon controls the wave motion of oceans, so if there isa great tsunami, it will not be a natural disaster. Remember the moon is hallow and is controlled by a "higher intelligence" that controls the solar systemsfunctions movements and transformations.

Re:Genetically modified natural foods

[ColdWetDog]

Cool story, bro.

Take your meds.

Re:Genetically modified natural foods

[perceptual.cyclotron]

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Genetically modified natural foods

[Nidi62]

One other thing, the moon controls the wave motion of oceans, so if there isa great tsunami, it will not be a natural disaster. Remember the moon is hallow and is controlled by a "higher intelligence" that controls the solar systemsfunctions movements and transformations.

I bet you can't wait for the new season of Ancient Aliens, can you?

Polyploid vegetables

[dpbsmith]

As a kid reading about how they used colchicine, a toxic compound that interferes with cell division--to create polyploid varieties of fruits and vegetables that are much larger than those with the natural chromosome complement. And I realized that surely does qualify as "genetic engineering" of a sort.

That's just a stray synaptic firing. Please don't read any subtext into that. I'm not saying today's GM is the same thing. I'm not saying frankensalmon are safe. I'm not even saying polyploid vegetables are safe. And I happen to think there's a totally legitimate concern about allowing commercial interests to rush new technology into widespread use too quickly.

All I'm saying is that I suddenly realized that they've been doing genetic engineering all my life.

Re:Polyploid vegetables

[ColdWetDog]

We've been doing 'genetic engineering' ever since we domesticated whatever mankind first domesticated. Except for cats, it's been a pretty successful run.

Invasivespecies.gov

[Anonymous Coward]

The current existence of that domain name should have been enough warning. But in case it wasn't, here is a list of just the aquatic imported species that the US government says have already had a significant negative impact on our environment: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/main.shtml#aqan

We can already feed the world just fine

[Anonymous Coward]

but monsatan and corps like this hoard all of the food and means of feeding the world. The world's food supply as it stand can be sustainable for tens of billions of people without the need for science. The genetically modified part is to do only 1 thing: genetically modify humans.

it's not a knee jerk reaction, just common sense.

Re:We can already feed the world just fine

[BanHammor]

And if you eat an apple, you will inherit apple genes.
Your ideas are wildly intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:We can already feed the world just fine

[doug141]

Bravo!

Re:We can already feed the world just fine

[Anonymous Coward]

If their methods are not needed to feed the world, then how can they hoard all of the means? Just use older methods they have no control over.

Re:We can already feed the world just fine

[Anonymous Coward]

The genetically modified part is to do only 1 thing: genetically modify humans.

And if you eat an apple, you will inherit apple genes. Your ideas are wildly intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Ok... granted that GP's idea is a little off, inheriting apple genes isn't as far fetched as you might think:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/04/japanese-have-nori-eating-gene-we-dont/1

In short, the Japanese have a gene in the bacteria of their gut that American's don't. This gene came from seaweed that they ate.

I'm sure there are better articles. I just plucked the first one I saw on Google.

Re:We can already feed the world just fine

[mog007]

That's simply not true. Without genetically modified crops, and use of 100% of the available land for farming, we could only feed 4 billion people.

Genetically modified corn, wheat, and rice have saved the lives of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people.

Read up on Norman Borlaug.

deja vu...

[roc97007]

...would produce fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time...

I think I saw that movie. Or was it grasshoppers? I don't remember now.

Artificial vs natural selection/breeding

[Anonymous Coward]

Again and again crowds make the usual false arguments about that we have been eating genetically modified food ever since. While this is true, one seems to neglect to most basic and important point:

Food we currently eat usually has been "produced" by natural selection, that means conventional breeding and selection with a proper reproduction cycle. This cycle ensured that you cannot attach bunny ears to a frog, for example - or have wheat excrede a kind of poison to kill of certain vermin or fungi.

GM crops are artificially modified - there hasn't been a "natural" process that will filter out "strange" (there's no acurate word for what I mean) results, and suddenly wheat can do funny things or pigs can grow a human ear. Of course there's a limit to that, usually the result of those manipulations are infertile or extremely short-lived. But mutation is a wonderous thing, and the result cannot be predicted.
The resulting "gene assembly" has never been eaten by animals, and as such we cannot biologically "know" this assembly, because we had thousands of years of exposure.

I'm a strong believer that artificially modified food is dangerous, because nature's filtering mechanism has been eradicated.
As such I will not eat it under any circumstances, nor do I want it to be grown in my country.
Nature is funny, and Man has always found a way to kill himself.

when is the correct term

[dutchwhizzman]

When is the correct term, because it will happen, soon more likely than later. Practice has proven that all genetically modified species we have created for human consumption, have moved into the wild and started breeding there. No exceptions. What happens to the wild population, what happens to the species that prey upon salmon, what happens to the rest of the eco system? If those things aren't thoroughly researched, I'd say don't approve (yet). Lets have wildlife conservationists pick a renown research facility and let them do a counter study to the study chosen for and paid by the company applying for the admission. The the company pay for that as well. Only accept results that are in both studies, to get any bias or disagreement amongst scientists out of this. Then see what to do.

I'd eat it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather eat "genetically altered" salmon than "pink slime" any day... and yeah, literally all the food we eat has been altered. slowly. literally trial and error.

Which would you rather run on your network?

[Zaphod-AVA]

Which program would you rather run on your network? One with code that got corrupted at random, or one that had a change made by software developers?

I think we worry too much about the folly of man. We interact with nature all the time. We've created new organisms by breeding, moved them out of their natural habitat into other areas without any thought of consequences, and things are mostly fine. There are a lot of rabbits in Australia, and a lot of pythons in Florida, sure, but we have done an awful lot of good by tinkering with nature and our food supply. Now that we have a better understanding of genetics, why panic when applying it?

Ya that's what people don't seem to understand

[Sycraft-fu]

Is that there really is an extensive, long term, review of this kind of thing. Maybe the first YOU hear about it is when it is nearing final approval. That is your issue, that just means you haven't paid attention. Now that's fine, I'm not saying everyone should track everything submitted to the FDA, but if you care about this enough to get all worked up then you should look in to it.

These things are a long process. They really do spend a lot of time looking in to it. Now does that mean everything is perfectly safe? No, of course not, but then nothing is. Even normal food. Peanuts are deadly to some people. It is just how it goes.

Easy differentiation

[Anonymous Coward]

If it could have been obtained by hybridisation over say, 200 generations of culture/crossing/polinisation, then it should not be labelled specially, as it could have been obtained by normal farming hybridisation or plain natural evolution.

If it could NOT be obtained that way, and especially if it is putting fish gen in tomatoe or jellyfish gene in dog, it is definitively not something which could be obtained by evolution or natural hybridisation, then it is bio genetically engineered. Corn is of the fist category, and so is banane. On the other hand the pig with fluorescent skin is not and belogn to the second category.

Great example? Peanuts

[Sycraft-fu]

They are one of the most common food allergies, over 1% of the population is allergic in some form. Some people, it just causes watery eyes and other basic allergy symptoms. In severe cases, it causes anaphylactic shock. For some, the allergy is so strong that inhaling airborne particles of peanuts can cause anaphylactic shock. Given that peanuts date back at least 7600 years (that is the earliest evidence we have of them)...

Nothing is perfectly safe, that is just life. That doesn't mean we just say "fuck it, anything goes!" but it means that we need to accept that there can be problems and that even if there are that might be ok, as we have with peanuts. To some they are deadly (if the person isn't treated promptly) but yet we haven't banned them and gone on a world wide eradication campaign. We just make sure that those who are allergic are notified so they don't eat them.

Hybridisation is only a simple form of bioengineer

[Anonymous Coward]

What people rightfully ask that there are more study be done on is when you put gene of a totally different genera into another. Dog into plant. Plant into fish. Or human into mice. You will NOT get that with hybridisation. And saying that putting peanut gene into pig (random example) is the same as hybridysing variety to get a different bannana or corn is a lie. It isn't. I am not saying it is particularly dangerous (although the example given is if you have peanute allergy and the particular protein is the one which went into pig DNA), but saying they are identical is taking the public for idiot.

here we go

[Anonymous Coward]

don't eat meat
we can grow it for you
don't eat we can grow vegatable suppliments for you

This is what we say you must comply.

You will supply the information to V'ger.

Business Sense

[neurosine]

Of course once they license this animal, it would be to their shareholders benefit to see wild salmon perish so everytime someone buys or sells salmon, they get to tag on their licensing fee. It also opens the doors for the acceptance of more infertile animals guaranteed to die off in the name of profit. Sustained extinction. A truly sustainable Salmon farm would be considerably more sound for humanity, but not as profitable for the license holders.

Safety and trolls

[ruir]

I just make a comment...if this food is SO SAFE, and all GMOs are all that safe, why are all the threads in public places like slashdot and slate heavily populated with Monsantos trolls always commenting "ho this is perfectly safe, and it is only just food...blah blah"...

FDA is a fucking joke

[Anonymous Coward]

enough said

High standards

[Anonymous Coward]

"the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Friday the fish didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it."

I have always marveled at the high scientific standards held by corporate decision-makers in US government, but this one is a true achievement. Almost as good as what they tell us about vaccine safety.

Next, genetically engineered scientists to turn out more crap.

King apple

[justthinkit]

Anyone ever try a King apple? My grandparents had such a tree. Best apples I've ever had.
.

I'd be astonished if those apples made it "into production".

What to think?

[HHealthy]

To my eyes genetically altered salmon doesn't pose a treat. I mean, it will change its hormone levels, maybe the taste or texture but certainly wont generate anything toxic. Any suspicious dna will be disintegrated in our digestive tract into nucleic acids. What is more intriguing or concerning is the Frankestein part. First animal, then sooner or later first mammal, probably the first pig must be around the corner, and I don't need to mention what is pretty related to pigs... Knowledge vs Use of knowledge. By the way, growing twice as fast wont mean suffer for the salmon? For funding, research and peer finding please refer to the non-profit Aging Portfolio.

Monsanto, DOW, etc

[thejynxed]

GMOs, GMOs... leading producers of such, like DOW Chemical and Monsanto...yes, we should really be trusting such to not harm the food supply or hold it for ransom. Right.

Monsanto is still trying to claim Dioxin/Agent Orange doesn't harm humans, thus they have no responsibility for cleaning up the production sites in the southern USA or the results of that production in Vietnam.

They however, lost a class-action suit in WV this year (one of the production sites for AO amongst many other nasty chemicals).

http://wvgazette.com/News/201202230090?page=1

These are not the people we should be allowing anywhere near this type of research, let alone be granting them patents on organisms.

I am all for doing it in an ethical manner, with reasonable testing, etc. Many of these corporations doing this though, have proven many, MANY times over that they are not in the least bit ethical, and love skipping corners to boost share prices.