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"

[crmarvin42]

FUD

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"

[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"

[sneakyimp]

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

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

[SuricouRaven]

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

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?

[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.

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.

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: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.