Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Genetically Engineered Seafood Coming To a Restaurant Near You (indianapublicmedia.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the superfish dept.

"The first genetically-modified animal for human consumption could be arriving in grocery stores across the United States as early as next year." Long-time Slashdot reader tomhath tipped us off to Indiana Public Media's report on AquaBounty Technologies: AquaBounty will produce a GMO salmon that CEO Ron Stotish says will grow faster than freshwater-raised fish. "It does so because we've given it the ability, using the same biological process that regulates growth in the unmodified salmon, to grow about twice as fast reaching market rate about half the time," Stotish says. The technology has been around since the 1990s, but it took until 2015 to receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, due to concerns about people eating genetically-modified animals. The genetic makeup of the biotech fish takes a growth-hormone regulatory gene from the Pacific Chinook salmon with a promoter gene from an ocean pout and puts it into the genome of an Atlantic salmon. The result causes for the growth hormone to remain on leading to faster growth rate than non GMO salmon.

The modified fish is able to grow to market size using 25 percent less feed than the traditional salmon, increasing cost efficiency... Stotish says his operation causes less harm than traditional fish farming. "We're not using coastal waterways, we're not putting antibiotics and medications into the water," Stotish says. "Our fish are in a controlled environment, we don't need antibiotics, we don't have to treat for sea lice."
The company says that every year Americans consume about 350,000 tons of Atlantic salmon -- more than 95% of which has to be imported.

140 comments

  1. What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see why don't we alter the natural progression of growth and see what happens. I guess we will be the guinea pigs for this experiment.

    1. Re:What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Been doing it for a while now. Still alive.

      I bet you are an anti vaxxer too.

      Was the moon landing a hoax to you?

    2. Re: What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GMO crops could save banana farms in Africa but I suppose you'd rather see millions of people suffer rather than succeed at the hands of scientific discovery https://m.sfgate.com/business/article/Without-a-genetic-fix-the-banana-may-be-history-2798156.php

    3. Re:What could go wrong?? by Aighearach · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let's see why don't we alter the natural progression of growth and see what happens

      I'll tell you what happens right now, you get all the meat and very little of the flavor, just like with over-fertilized vegetables.

      The regular farmed fish already has mushy flesh with little flavor compared to wild fish. This is going to taste more like pollack than salmon; it will just be boring. But it will be fish, and it will taste like "a fish."

      I'm not gonna be the guinea pig for this experiment either, if I wanted to eat bland mushy fish I'd go down to the river a catch a Northern Pikeminnow or 50.

    4. Re:What could go wrong?? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Let's see why don't we alter the natural progression of growth and see what happens.

      If you compare almost any crop or animal grown for food, to the wild type it came from, there are dramatic differences, especially in the progression of growth. We have been adapting food crops to our needs for at least 10,000 years.

      These salmon are bred to grow quickly, but that means they are more dependent than ever on a steady supply of food and an absence of predators. So if there is an accidental release, they are less likely to survive in the wild than non-GMO salmon, and less likely to interbreed with wild fish, so they are environmentally safer.

    5. Re:What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you compare almost any crop or animal grown for food, to the wild type it came from, there are dramatic differences, especially in the progression of growth. We have been adapting food crops to our needs for at least 10,000 years.

      Before domestication, maize plants grew only small, 25 millimetres (1 in) long corn cobs, and only one per plant.

    6. Re: What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is all fun and games until someone loses a gene.

    7. Re:What could go wrong?? by skoskav · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Wild salmon tasting better may just be a myth based on a preconceived judgement. The firmer texture argument you brought up may instead be explained by whether the fish was packed in a saline solution:

      Chef-restaurateur Kaz Okochi mentioned that salt does not only affect flavor but also helps make the texture of the fish firmer.

    8. Re:What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have been adapting food crops to our needs for at least 10,000 years.

      Yes, we've been doing it slowly and carefully, practically on natural timescales. So what's the rush today, except the crazy drive for profits?

    9. Re:What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more a crazy drive to end famine and starvation. It's worked pretty well too.

    10. Re: What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The better question to ask yourself is why does banana need saving. Who brought the risk of demise upon it. Answer this, and you'll begin to understand why it is not a good idea to let the untamed capitalism interfere with our food chain. It has already gone too far.

    11. Re:What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      may just be a myth

      Salmon tasting better may "just be a myth", but it is beyond doubt that you're a sad troll shilling here for the BIO.

    12. Re:What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need GMO to "end famine and starvation", and GMO has done nothing in the effort so far. But keep on shilling.

    13. Re:What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I can tell the difference between farm and fresh by the taste, not texture. It's the feed they give the farm raised. It tastes more chemical-y and less buttery-fatty, for lack of a more accurate description.

      And they dye it pink for chrissake!

    14. Re:What could go wrong?? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm happy I'm more or less migrating to Thailand.

      Most fish is "farmed" here, and is rather boring, just Nil perch and catfish. But it is so delicious made on char coal. (Obviously I can buy sea fish and trouts farmed in the Chiang Mai area).

      Farmed means: everyone has a pond, full with fish. No need to GMO anything, and I bet you could do the same in the US ... but alas ... profit profit profit.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:What could go wrong?? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      So if there is an accidental release, they are less likely to survive in the wild than non-GMO salmon, and less likely to interbreed with wild fish, so they are environmentally safer.
      That is probably the biggest nonsense you ever wrote ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re: What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banana cropping is a great example, particularly since mono-culture planting has exposed it to Panama disease.

      This has resulted in entire cultivars being wiped out while breeders attempt to develop hardier strains.

      The root problem is that bananas are really hard to breed naturally and all harvested fields are propagated from a single cutting, in order to get consistent fruit... leaving all of the fields susceptible to the same diseases.

      The most practical way to develop new cultivars is to identify and splice in the traits that you want your new cultivar to exhibit.

      I, for one, welcome our gmo-banana overlords.

    17. Re:What could go wrong?? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      I can taste the difference in farmed and wild caught salmon. Perhaps I could be less skeptical of your position if your first link wasn't to Alltech, an aquaculture proponent site, and your 2nd link wasn't to a fish farm management site.

      While taste is a consideration, it is not the only one. I consume some healthy things that do not satisfy the taste buds nearly as well as many of the things thought to be most unhealthy. Wild caught salmon seem to have spent less time marinading in a broth of antibiotic soup than their farmed cousins.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    18. Re:What could go wrong?? by skoskav · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They don't dye the flesh. That's one of the myths listed in the first article I linked -- tl;dr: farmed salmon is fed with the same caroteniods that wild salmon gets from crustaceans.

      Personally, I can't taste the difference between farmed and wild, nor frozen or fresh. But uncontrolled anecdotes are next to useless.

    19. Re:What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was the moon landing a hoax to you?

      The universe is likely a simulation.

    20. Re:What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life is a hoax!

    21. Re:What could go wrong?? by skoskav · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the scrutiny of my sources for potential bias and conflicts of interest. I was worried about this as well, which was why I aimed for three corroborating sources. But you didn't specifically refute any points that were made, and instead just dismissed the authority of the article writers.

      As for your claims, which contradicts my first reference, what are your counter-evidence that farmed salmon spend a considerable time swimming in antibiotics? And what is your evidence that use of said fish-specific antibiotic is detrimental to human health?

    22. Re:What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can taste the difference in farmed and wild caught salmon.

      You you can’t. You’re just a retarded moron that thinks they can.

    23. Re:What could go wrong?? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      "...what are your counter-evidence that farmed salmon spend a considerable time swimming in antibiotics? And what is your evidence that use of said fish-specific antibiotic is detrimental to human health?"

      Well, first... it seems unlikely fish not swimming in antibiotics would need to be defended and/or prosecuted to the standard of not detrimental to human health.

      2ndly through fourthly: Farmed salmon full of antibiotics

      wild salmon vs farmed

      Salmon farming in crisis: 'We are seeing a chemical arms race in the seas'"

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    24. Re: What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the real problem is the technique used by the large business to drive costs lower, and you want more of the same, only on orders of magnitude more, so that you can "solve" it? You're really a /. space cadet, boy.

    25. Re:What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I can't taste the difference between farmed and wild

      Well, they obviously don't pay shills enough to eat good fish. Not sorry for your loss, you, like the other paid shills here, fully deserve being poor.

    26. Re: What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      They don't dye the flesh.

      Yep, they don't. That's why if you put a raw piece of fresh farmed salmon on a plate, in a few hours it is sinking into a pool of pinky orange liquid, something unknown to happen to the wild one.

    27. Re:What could go wrong?? by skoskav · · Score: 1

      Well, first... it seems unlikely fish not swimming in antibiotics would need to be defended and/or prosecuted to the standard of not detrimental to human health.

      Antibiotics are administered to the salmon as medicated feed. A responsible farm would only administer it when a bacterial infection is detected. Farmed fish doesn't "swim in it," as you make it out to be. Norway, which produces about 1 million out of 3.2 million tonnes of globally farmed salmon,[1] [2], also use alternatives to antibiotics, such as vaccinations and separating generations, and disinfecting empty holdings.[2] The quantity of antibiotic use in Norway has dropped from 48 tons in 1987[3, page 271] to 1 ton in 2015[2], and the total antibiotic quantity used in 2009 was one twentieth of what the meat industry used per unit of meat produced in Norway. Then there's indoor tanks as mentioned in the article, which have little to fear from sea-borne bacterial infections, and don't use antibiotics.

      The antibiotics used in farming in general also tend to be different from ones given to humans, and those farm animals that have been treated aren't slaughtered until a while after the antibiotics has run its course. So again, can you show that fish farming practices in general is detrimental to human health? It seems to me that it can indeed be done responsibly.

      2ndly through fourthly: Farmed salmon full of antibiotics

      So the specific claim (at 1:50):

      [...] since the fish don’t like eating soy and corn, the quality of this meat is very low. To compensate for that, farmers use antibiotics which keep the fish healthy, but these antibiotics end up in our bodies when we consume them.

      This doesn't make sense to me. What does a purported food preference have to do with microbial infections? Neither the video nor the article it's referencing elaborates on that. It also assumes that fish being treated with antibiotics will be sent to the slaughter before the antibiotics have run their course, which isn't necessarily the case if, again, the fish farm is acting responsibly.

      wild salmon vs farmed

      Salmon farming in crisis: 'We are seeing a chemical arms race in the seas'"

      These articles present a lot of text about antibiotics. Could you extract the specific argument you wanted to make? I'm not going to do your job for you.

    28. Re: What could go wrong?? by skoskav · · Score: 2

      Do you happen to have some video evidence of this? Why doesn't it happen when its refrigerated at the store, is there a specific temperature where this occurs? Why isn't its scale dyed? And why would the farmers go through the trouble of dying flesh, when feeding them carotenoids is so much simpler?

    29. Re: What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monoculture GMOs predate capitalism by thousands of years.

    30. Re:What could go wrong?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, Thailand's seafood farming industry (particularly shrimp, but other species as well) is among the most environmentally damaging in the world. Huge areas of mangrove forests are dying due to the increased salinity and pollutants left over from poorly managed seafood farms.

  2. and queue Ian Malcolm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in 3... 2... 1...

    1. Re:and queue Ian Malcolm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Cue Ian Malcolm.

      But you can queue him if you really want to.

  3. all you need to do is refuse to order it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothling like ordering fresh wild samon, If you know seafood you can tell the difference. Salmon should be a dark salmon/orange color. farm raised
    and gmo has lighter colored meat.

    1. Re:all you need to do is refuse to order it. by skoskav · · Score: 4, Informative

      The salmon's orange color comes from the caroteniods in its food, and has nothing to do with GMOs. Wild salmon *tends* to pick up an orange color if it has eaten a lot of krill and shrimp, while farmed salmon almost always is orange because carotenoids are added to its feed, as the customers expect it.

    2. Re: all you need to do is refuse to order it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shills be shillin'!

  4. Yeah this makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Currently civilization world wide know nothing about nutrition and can't extend lifespan or avoid illness, can even live healthy lives(see USA)

    Yet the vanity exists to believe we can create or engineer our own food.

    Cool.

    1. Re:Yeah this makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "With Monsanto, you can bribe anything! I mean do anything to anyone! I mean anything is possible via greed. Shit, this slogan thing is hard, I need a tall frosty glass of Roundup to clear my mind..."

  5. Not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    *sigh* Practically all food are GMO. Whether it exists by cross breeding or direct DNA manipulation. Very few of our foods are original. Fish is rarer but farm fish is technically GMO. So not new or first.

    1. Re:Not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Practically all food are GMO.

      Please keep singing that biotech industry mantra, but only call me back when the billionaires that invest in GMO for the masses start eating it.

    2. Re:Not the first by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We hear this argument from GMO shills but its a fallacious argument. Most foods are not GMO. GMO specifically refers to direct intentional manipulation of DNA by inserting or removing DNA. We've been doing selective breeding for a long time, this is NOT GMO, and the process cannot produce the same effects and dangers of GMO. Also selective breeding isnt necessarily safe, you can end up with toxic effects. The probabilities with GMOs are much higher because it allows changes which would never occur due to a sexual process and allows it to happen with a severity and rapidity that would not occur with breeding. Selective breeding imposes certain limits and constraints on things because genes can only transfer within the same species and the mutations happen at a lower rate.

      That you refer to selective breeding breeding as GMO destroys your credibility and your just trying to mislead people.

    3. Re:Not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genetic modification goes back thousands of years...

    4. Re:Not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Genetic modification goes back thousands of years..."
      And the genetic modification is still ongoing. The human race did not evolve and then stop evolving when we reached are current state. Over thousands of years the environmental conditions, nutritional options, breeding patterns, and the introduction of artificial constructs such as drugs can cause genetic mutations. If the human race hasn't killed itself and is still around 200,000 years from now today's humans will look like Neanderthals to our future descendants.

    5. Re:Not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? Please show us an example of purposeful lateral gene transfer from "thousands of years" ago. Best if you can cite a real scientific paper about it.

      I'll be waiting.

    6. Re:Not the first by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      We've been doing selective breeding for a long time, this is NOT GMO, and the process cannot produce the same effects and dangers of GMO.

      Well that's a lie.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re: Not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd "that's a lie" why do we need genetic engineering then?

    8. Re:Not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lateral gene transfer is hardly the only means of genetic modification, but triticale was created in the 19th century, without the aid of gene splicing.

      Look, I get it. "GMO" is used now almost exclusively to refer to "frankenfoods" made from direct genetic manipulations, but only the techniques have changed. The goals are largely the same as they've always been: heartier varieties, more nutritious, less need for intervention against weeds and pests.

    9. Re:Not the first by philmarcracken · · Score: 2

      So selective breeding is not 'genetically modifying' an organism? What is it doing then?

    10. Re:Not the first by skoskav · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wouldn't be so harsh on people for using the term "GMO" incorrectly, as the term itself is unspecific, and is often broadened to include anything that has had its genes altered[1], even by nature.[2] [3]

      It would be so much simpler if people just referred to the specific technologies being utilized, as they all suffer from risk/reward issues, and there aren't clear ethical borders. An incomplete list of the technologies used include:
      * Nature's own technique of random mutations with a natural selection filter on top
      * Artificial selection by humans, which in ~10,000 years gave us massive, delicious mutants like the modern wheat and corn crops, and docile cows, pigs and dogs
      * Cloning started around the 1800s in order to perpetuate popular varieties of e.g. apples, oranges and bananas, whereby a branch of the tree is cut off and re-planted
      * Forced hybridization has been around the 1900s, where two distinctly inbred parental lineages are perpetually bred to produce sterile offspring (e.g. seedless watermelons, or mules for use by the British Empire as amazing pack animals)
      * Radiation-induced mutation breeding (mutagenesis) has been around since around the 1930s, which forcefully increases the mutation rate and splits chromosomes in order to allow breeding with other species -- a technique the EU even calls GMO (see [1])
      -- a lot of western staple crops are based on, or hybridized from, crops produced from this technique
      * Chemically-induced mutation breeding is a more modern version of mutagenesis that's doesn't cause as much DNA damage -- still a GMO in the EU though (see [1])
      * Transgenic modifications, where specific genes can be takes from unrelated species, was invented in the 1970s
      * Cisgenic modifications, where the specific genes are taken from a species where it would have been possible to acquire it naturally through conventional breeding,[4] have been a classification of GMOs since around the year 2000

      So GMO debates could be untangled massively if people just spoke about the specific technologies. For instance, I suspect based on your comment that you would be against transgenic GMOs and mutagenesis, but for cisgenic GMOs... while being on the fence about forced hybridization?

    11. Re: Not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, weaseling out of our claims so fast?

      Come on, don't be like that. Triticale has nothing to do with modern genetic engineering.

      Show us an example of genetically engineered products from "thousand years" ago, or admit you're a little, filthy GMO liar.

    12. Re: Not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Go get an education, please. It picks existing trait and enhances its expression.

      Outside of random mutation or a virus infection you don't get gene modifications.

      And these two are mostly fatal (that's how you get the cancer), and don't happen on a large scale.

    13. Re: Not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      âoeIf you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.â

      - Joseph Goebbels

      https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot

    14. Re:Not the first by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 2

      We've been doing selective breeding for a long time, this is NOT GMO, and the process cannot produce the same effects and dangers of GMO.

      It's not that simple, even just selective breeding can accidentally produce or spread very dangerous organisms such as Heracleum sosnowskyi. The main dangers of any modified organism (regardless of its GMO status) is toxicity and damage to the ecosystems from its rapid spreading. GMO organisms are very carefully tested/studied before entering market, this can even sometimes take decades. Even after entering market if any issue is reported, the product will be recalled. Most people who are scared of GMO usually have very limited knowledge about genetics and the process of food digestion. All normal proteins are fully broken down into amino acids in the digestive system, so the original protein doesn't even matter (except for very few exceptions). You can even drink very toxic snake venom and not die for same reason, of course, if there are no wounds in the mouth or in the stomach.

    15. Re: Not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selective breeding (as selected by the natural environment) produced humanity, and everything else. You can make anything with enough of it. The only drawback is it might take millions of years to get you there.

      Direct genetic modification is just way cheaper and surer than playing the reproduction lottery a few tens of thousands of times and hoping you get what you want without getting other random persistent mutations as well. Less time, less resources, better result. No, it's not perfect, but it's a straight improvement over traditional genetic engineering.

  6. Tuna by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, tuna and salmon are the 2 most eaten fish in world. Tuna should also be farmed, so fast growth is useful.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re: Tuna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I likk yerr fluffy tow cheez

    2. Re:Tuna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Growing faster means less time to absorb toxins like mercury.

    3. Re:Tuna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both tuna and salmon are farmed successfully without any "biotech" bullshit.

    4. Re:Tuna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tuna should also be farmed, so fast growth is useful.

      Tuna is not easy to farm because it's a top predator, but the Japanese, who will pay over $50,000 for a single top-quality individual at the Tokyo fish exchange, are working on it.

      If they do succeed in farming tuna, they will also eliminate the most important problem with wild top predators: their flesh incorporates all environmental heavy metals that may be in all the species they eat. Thet's where the mercury problem comes from. Farmed tuna can be fed a controlled, toxin-free diet.

    5. Re:Tuna by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The USA is not the world, and even in America, it can be argued that Pollock is more eaten. All those crab sticks and such.
      Going by harvest levels, various types of carp (grass silver and common), along with the Peruvian Anchovy and even Tiapia out number Tuna, which out numbers salmon.
      Then there is shrimp.
      Note that the carp and tiapia are mostly farmed.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:Tuna by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      I think they just feed farmed fish wild caught fish, so the mercury is still there. There might be a difference in amount.

    7. Re: Tuna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tuna is farmed you idiot.

  7. You're a climate change denialist/propagandist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You get no say in this either.

  8. Misleading title by Maelwryth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies has developed a biotech salmon that it plans to grow near no major body of water, in a production facility in the small town of Albany, Indiana. The company producing the breed of high-tech fish hopes to change the aquaculture industry."

    Not seafood.

    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.
    1. Re:Misleading title by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Not seafood.

      Good luck convincing me to say "waterfood" without the quotes, though.

    2. Re:Misleading title by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The GMO salmon will be initially grown inland on a small scale. Once it is no longer a novelty, the operation will be scaled up and the fish will be raised in the ocean. They are taking it slow to avoid a backlash.

    3. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...plans to grow near no major body of water, in a production facility in the small town of Albany, Indiana.

      No major body of water, just the Missisinewa River, which eventually feeds into the Mississippi River.

    4. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have dumped enough shit into the ocean without GMO, to the point where we don't know what to do about it. Because of "technology" shills like yourself. Maybe we should throw these "investors" to their fish instead, and add you to the party for good measure.

    5. Re:Misleading title by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Not seafood.

      Walleye and trout are freshwater fish, but you'll still find them in the seafood section of the menu.

  9. Mod parent up please. by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All the fools speaking against GMO have no idea where the real issues are. The objection to gmo in plants has been about increased use of pesticide, namely Roundup, which IS a concern. But the actual GMO is not the real issue other than Gene transfer to weeds, which is happening. But corn made drought-resistant is useful. Or plants made to resist certain pests by transferring genes from other edible plants(iow, we already eat that protein) ARE useful. Now, we are looking at seafood that is being destroyed in the oceans and now we have the ability to farm these economically and stop depleting our salmon. Ideally, we would do the same for tuna, and soon. This would also allow us to stop the massive commercial fishing going on by other nations, who are depleting these fish.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Mod parent up please. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The main difference is that tuna is used mostly as a filler fish, not a main course, so it makes sense to intensively farm it.

      When you do that, you're going to sacrifice a lot of flavor, but canning already does that, so canned farmed tuna might not be much different from canned wild tuna.

      But salmon isn't usually canned, and when it is, it loses most of its price premium. GMO farmed salmon is really risky bet, because they might only be able to get lower prices comparable to canned pink salmon. Also the fact that they're comparing their flavor to freshwater-farmed salmon, which taste more like trout than salmon, instead of the more common saltwater-farmed salmon, suggests they already know the flavor will be weak.

      As far as broader food supply issues go, doing this same work with a vegetarian freshwater fish could really improve protein access in many parts of the world; imagine a tilapia that grows like a salmon! And those already taste bad, they might taste better if grown fast.

    2. Re:Mod parent up please. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      The objection to gmo in plants has been about increased use of pesticide, namely Roundup

      1. Roundup/Glyphosate is not a pesticide. It is an herbicide.

      2. Roundup-Ready crops allow herbicides to be applied more effectively after germination, rather than using much harsher herbicides to kill weeds in the seed stage. In many cases, herbicide use goes down, and Roundup is much less persistent in the environment than the chemicals it replaced.

      3. Roundup-Ready crops allow for much less environmentally damaging "no-till" farming methods, that reduce erosion, and improve soil nutrient and carbon retention.

    3. Re: Mod parent up please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pesticides are substances that are meant to control pests, including weeds.[1] The term pesticide includes all of the following: herbicide, insecticides (which may include insect growth regulators, termiticides, etc.) nematicide, molluscicide, piscicide, avicide, rodenticide, bactericide, insect repellent, animal repellent, antimicrobial, fungicide and disinfectant (antimicrobial).[2] The most common of these are herbicides which account for approximately 80% of all pesticide use.[3] Most pesticides are intended to serve as plant protection products (also known as crop protection products), which in general, protect plants from weeds, fungi, or insects.

      Round-up is a pesticide. It literally says so on the label. Stop being a nerf herder.

    4. Re:Mod parent up please. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Oh, I was mistaken.

      This is the dumbest post you ever made ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Mod parent up please. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The main difference is that tuna is used mostly as a filler fish, not a main course,
      Strange, in Europe and Asia it is a main dish.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Mod parent up please. by puck01 · · Score: 1

      A herbicide is by many considered a type of pesticide. This includes the EPA. Calling glyphosate a pesticide isn't wrong; its just less specific.

      https://www.beyondpesticides.o....

      https://www.epa.gov/minimum-ri...

      Otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree.

    7. Re:Mod parent up please. by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      Roundup-Ready crops allow herbicides to be applied more effectively after germination, rather than using much harsher herbicides to kill weeds in the seed stage.

      Considering that glyphosate can show up in foods, this isn't exactly extolling a benefit of Roundup-Ready GMOs.

      This is exactly the same concept which gave the anti-vaxxers movement traction. Instead of immediately acknowledging that some people might not like mercury compounds in their vaccines, the medical community responded with "But this mercury isn't harmful at all!". We all know how that turned out.

      GMOs have some positive benefits for both humanity and the environment but enabling the agri-biz to sell more glyphosate isn't one of them.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    8. Re: Mod parent up please. by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Informative

      While you may eat tuna sandwiches, most tuna sold throughout the world eat it as main dish.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re: Mod parent up please. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      First, as others said, herbicides ARE pesticides. Most farmers I know, including my nephew ( flies crop dusters) cousins (multiple with dairy operations), uncle( dairy ), grandfather's( 1 ran dairy, other was more hobby farm ) and dad ( he grew up on farm ), simply refer to all chemicals designed to kill insects, fungus, bacteria, weeds, other plants, etc, as pesticides. Just easier than explaining why needed.
      But, what happens with GMO being about pesticides restistance is that various genes have been inserted into various crops ( such as sugar beets ), so that a lot of roundup can be used to kill off weeds. Problem is, that the genes are now being transferred to weeds, most likely by viruses (evolution). So now, the effectiveness of roundup is dropping. Far better approach is robotics, using lasers, combined with a micro sprayer of roundup. If small enough, laser can kill weed. Otoh, if too big, then laser punches hole into plant, and then sprays small roundup whiff on to plant.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    10. Re: Mod parent up please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if hick farmers don't understand English, the rest of us may as well not learn it either.

    11. Re: Mod parent up please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People eat a lot more than just protein, why single that out and claim the rest is safe?
      Oh you're WindBourne, you always claim stupid things. Nevermind.

  10. GMOcean by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Imagine tuna stack vertically in cages like chickens all in farm in the basement of the amazon warehouse.
    PrimeSashimi delivered by drone. No parasites to worry about.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:GMOcean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make it out of stupid Republican propagandists like Windbourne and get back to me. I'll pay top dollar per pound, especially if you tenderize the stupid head-in-ass lying faggots before you slaughter them.

  11. Windbourne you're a very stupid propagandist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    You are one of the faggot apologists who claimed forever that Roundup was "harmless" and all that dumb shit. You're a well known climate denialist/apologist/propagandist. You don't get a say in science, sorry bitch!

    You lied too many times you dumb punk ass faggot propagandist

  12. Sell whatever GMO you want, by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    as long as it is clearly labeled so that I can make an informed choice.

    1. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      So you can make an informed choice, by weighing up all the misinformation you're being told from both sides.

    2. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      It looks like you're projecting straight from your experience. Please go on...

    3. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they don't even label a quarter of seafood correctly as-is, and there are patchwork piecemeal efforts to fix that, so expect GMO crap to have the same or worse problems. Drink your Roundup, Republicans say it's safe.

      And you know you can trust those lying faggots, right?

    4. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not try a clearly-labeled GMO Nature's Turkey(TM)?

    5. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      I know I can trust any global holding to try to fuck me as hard as it can, yeah.

    6. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      I wish I had teeth like these.

    7. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      So you can make an informed choice, by weighing up all the misinformation you're being told from both sides.

      This is the level of philosophy that slashdot is capable of, right here.

      "I cannot understand, therefore you cannot understand."

      Sad. But also true.

    8. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      as long as it is clearly labeled so that I can make an informed choice.

      Even the non-GMO salmon is fed pellets made from GMO-corn and GMO-soybean meal.

      If you want to avoid all GMO you need to buy "Organic" or "Wild".

      Another way to make an informed choice by reading information on the topic instead of listening to nonsense from Greenpeace.

      People opposed to GMOs know the least about them

    9. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 2

      Another way to make an informed choice by reading information on the topic

      Yeah, reading information is always good. Now, let's see how unbiased is this "Biotechnology Innovation Organization"....

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://www.sourcewatch.org/in...

      Yep, an entirely unbiased source of "information", this one.

    10. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad you were modded offtopic by someone with more modpoints than sense. The observation is spot on.

    11. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Here is a link from Nature: Opponents of GMO know the least, but think they know the most

    12. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 2

      What does this link have to do with my point? I'll bold the relevant part of my comment for you, because you obviously lack reading comprehension: Sell whatever GMO you want, as long as it is clearly labeled so that I can make an informed choice.

      I am not pro or against GMO, I am not interested in your (or anyone's) opinion as to it safety. When I say informed, I mean one specific thing - a label on the product that makes it clear if I'm buying a GMO or not.

      When I decide how to spend my money it is my right as a consumer to know what is being sold to me.

    13. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does this link have to do with my point?

      The point is you’re a retarded moron.

    14. Re: Sell whatever GMO you want, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, Shanghai Bill has no point, just flinging shite.

    15. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      as long as it is clearly labeled

      Regulations should be based on scientific evidence. They should not pander to superstitions. There is zero evidence that GMO salmon is harmful, and no reason to believe that it is.

      If someone wants to grow non-GMO salmon, and label it as such, they are free to do so. This is exactly how it works with other GMO foods. If you go into any grocery store, there are plenty of products labeled "GMO Free", or "Organic" which implies GMO-Free.

    16. Re: Sell whatever GMO you want, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But muh SCIENCE(tm)!!!!1!!

    17. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      They will lobby for laws to prevent laws that require labeling.

    18. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 2

      Regulations should be based on scientific evidence.

      Not really, the regulations of the market should first and foremost reflect the preferences of the participants. That you choose to disparage such preferences as "superstition" is your value judgement, and it is just as valid as the opposite one.

      But since you insist on "scientific evidence" as a basis of a regulation, let's see what is available. urns out there is plenty. First, the evidence that markets operate best when full information is available to the participants is overwhelming and incontrovertible, and therefore labeling food according to its origin and nature is not only warranted, but a very common practice. In fact, when such information is withdrawn from the public this usually results in public harm. I'm sure GMO product manufacturers are proud of their achievements and do not need to pretend their food is the same as the fish caught in the wild. In fact, by not labeling it, they make it difficult for people with preference for their product to buy it, and therefore harm their customers. Besides, this will not be an arbitrary and "superstitious" rule - there are objective, scientific tests that will immediately show the difference between a "wild" food and a GM one.

      If someone wants to grow non-GMO salmon, and label it as such, they are free to do so.

      There is no need to explicitly label non-GMO foods as such, since this is not a new development, practically all food that is on the market today is non-GMO and that is the default the consumer should expect. This is the traditional, long-standing grandfathering rule, which is customarily applied when new regulations become necesary.

    19. Re: Sell whatever GMO you want, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people may strongly prefer that Jews not touch their food. Do they not have a right to know whether one has? It's just information to assist the free and informed choices of individuals; how could that hurt anybody? I'd bet that if you took a poll, it would be a more widely desired label than a GMO warning, and, world-wide, more likely to influence a shopper's actual choice if implemented. All good, then, right?

    20. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If you want to avoid all GMO you need to buy "Organic" or "Wild".
      But "wild" is also synonymous with "has ingested plastic and other garbage from the polluted ocean".

    21. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Not really, the regulations of the market should first and foremost reflect the preferences of the participants.

      Poppycock. Mandating information based on verifiable justification, perhaps. But mandating information just because people have unfounded fears from misinformation campaigns is not required.

      Next you'll tell us that manufacturers should be required to label all "gluten free" products as such because some people are gluten-sensitive -- even products that cannot possibly contain gluten. It's really pretty funny looking at labels today, where companies freely demonstrate an ignorance of what gluten is. I've seen a package of dried seaweed labeled "gluten free", for God's sake.

      People who need to stay away from gluten already know (or should know for their own self-interest) what products can and cannot contain gluten, so voluntary "gluten-free" labeling panders only to stupid people who hear "gluten bad" messages and think they need to stay away. It's marketing based on fear, and mandating fear-based marketing is just ridiculous.

      There is no need to explicitly label non-GMO foods as such,

      What happened to being able to make an informed choice?

      practically all food that is on the market today is non-GMO

      Uhhh. Ok. Sure. Wandered down the snack aisle lately? Here's an amazing fact: not even Popsicle will deny that their products contain GMO ingredients, and there's not much to a popsicle that could be GMO. They won't even claim "gluten-free", despite many of their products containing no grain at all. (Umm, I just LOVE those oat-flavored popsicles!)

    22. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Mandating information based on verifiable justification.

      Mandating information because there is material, easily ascertainable difference in the origin of what you buy, you mean? Yeah, even you seem to agree with that, in abstract. Until it comes to your pet peeves :)

      But mandating information just because people have unfounded fears... Next you'll tell us that manufacturers should be required to label all "gluten free" products as such

      That's a good, two-paragraph strawman that is also a false analogy. Congratulations. Let me try one on my own then - gluten-free will be unnecessary unless, of course, we get to the point where gluten genes are inserted in everything green because they let it look "fresh" longer. Then we'll need "gluten-free" labeling, which today is obviously unnecessary, for everything, just because you won't know what to expect.

      What happened to being able to make an informed choice?

      Another strawman with selective quoting. 10 bonus points.

      Wandered down the snack aisle lately? Here's an amazing fact: not even Popsicle will deny that their products contain GMO ingredients

      See, that's how it is in a country where you let the cat out of the bag and lack of information removes the choice from the market. Where I live, things are a bit different, we have legal requirements for proper labeling, and it is a lot easier to pick the sweets with the GMO ingredients and HFCS. Or not to pick it. Incidentally, when friends who visit me from the US sit at our table, they can't get enough, because the food is so much better.

      This is what informed choice is about.

    23. Re:Sell whatever GMO you want, by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Mandating information because there is material, easily ascertainable difference in the origin of what you buy, you mean?

      No. Not even close. And you know it. Do you really think that there should be mandatory labeling of corn chips to identify which state of the US the corn was grown in, for example? That's a difference in the origin that makes no difference in any scientifically discernible way. "Maltodextrin" which comes from GMO corn is identical to that which comes from non-GMO, and is thus indiscernible in any scientific way, but according to you, it has to be labeled because it is an "easily ascertainable difference in the origin".

      That's a good, two-paragraph strawman that is also a false analogy.

      Complete accurate analogy. Some people fear gluten needlessly. Some people fear GMO needlessly. Presence or lack of gluten, according to your argument, is a difference that must be documented so that they can make "an informed choice".

      Let me try one on my own then - gluten-free will be unnecessary unless, of course, we get to the point where gluten genes are inserted in everything green because they let it look "fresh" longer.

      Incorrect. "Gluten-free" will be necessary because it will, according to you, allow "informed choice" for the consumer. Who knows, that dried seaweed product may have gluten in it somehow magically. Maybe it is dried on a layer of wheat flour? But even if there is no possible way there is gluten in the product, it is "information" to support the "choice". You cannot get away from the natural result of the "informed choice" argument you are making.

      Another strawman with selective quoting. 10 bonus points.

      So "informed choice" is not as important as you pretend. Noted.

      Where I live, things are a bit different, we have legal requirements for proper labeling, and it is a lot easier to pick the sweets with the GMO ingredients and HFCS.

      Straw man, this HFCS stuff. And no, it is not trivial to pick out which components of something are GMO without specific information one way or the other. Is the corn in your corn chip from a GMO variety? How about the wheat in your bread? The ingredient requirements say you list "corn meal" or "white flour", but not whether it's GMO or not. Is the "maltodextrin" (which comes from corn) from a GMO strain or not? You cannot tell.

      Where I live, things are a bit different,

      The product being discussed is US-based, and the context is US. Sorry to confuse you. I guess from your statement that you live in a place with extreme labeling requirements, not "proper" ones, and every speck of every GMO-potential ingredient demands a large "GMO! DANGER!" label. (That may not be the language, but it's the effect. There is no reason to label GMO other than the fear factor.)

      This is what informed choice is about.

      "Informed choice" is a straw man, you say.

  13. BS - I saw it in TOPPS grocery stores... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BS - I saw it in TOPPS grocery stores LONG ago, like 3++ yrs. now noted as so (1st w/ no warning for YEARS & NOW it has one that "this is 'gm'" etc.) on 'crab meat' (not really crab NOR is it natural fish it was made from but rather gm).

    * Needless to say I stopped eating it (not that I did a lot anyhow).

    ANYTHING for the "holy dollar" from corporations (which I do understand, as a businessman myself BUT You have to have ethics & "do it right" or get burnt - I've SEEN how it all works in courts of law when a GIANT pharmaceutical nearby gets PERIODICALLY VIOLATED for not disposing of KETONE wastes etc. - leaking it into a creek near the plant hidden under bushes with "NO TRESPASS" sign threats near it - 1 summer DECADES ago while in school I worked for a construction & clean up firm - ALL theatre & the HOLY DOLLAR!

    * WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD FOLKS!

    APK

    P.S.=> We were there taking a break near a creek next to the plant. A security guard threatened to have us arrested for it!

    Giant dude who I was LUCKY used to play poker w/ my Pop in the 1950's, recalled my Dad's name (they were pals) & I asked him "Are you THAT Pete?" He said yea otherwise we'd be arrested BUT he told us WHY (let us go too):

    They get violated, go to a LOCAL 'industrial cleanup/environmental science firm' I've done codework for no less after that - they write up what SHOULD be done but it NEVER GETS DONE PROPERLY! It costs MORE to dispose of properly than the FINES cost is why.

    EVER - they just pay the fine until the city needs more CA$H & violates them AGAIN ad-infinitum - so 'so much for CLEAN EARTH' percy pureheart sentiments - enjoy your water folks)... apk

    1. Re:BS - I saw it in TOPPS grocery stores... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APK, take you meds.

  14. Just say NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TO GMO!

    1. Re:Just say NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

  15. please stop fucking with our food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing I'm allergic to seafood anyway

    1. Re:please stop fucking with our food by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What if they manage to engineer seafood that you won't be allergic to?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re: please stop fucking with our food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about cows in scuba gear?

  16. Dangerous expirement by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A lot of things can go wrong here. No, its not something that you can say with high confidence is safe. Likely what happened was that someone with big bags of cash paid off someone in the agencies to approve this thing. Money talks, and big business will play fast and loose.

    It will end up in the environment and it would probably overproliferate and have some devastating effect on the food web.

    The growth hormones could have disasterous effects on humans including promoting cancers. All around a foolish and dangerous expirement.

    1. Re:Dangerous expirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will end up in the environment and it would probably overproliferate and have some devastating effect on the food web.

      This could be very bad for oceans of Albany, Indiana.

  17. "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    You got caught lying 12-25 times repeatedly stating "Blood plasma is sterile" and then later that "The Chinese Govt does not directly censor Chinese citizens" and other absolute bullshit head-in-ass retard-level lies. You're not trustworthy.

    You are not a source of information that anyone should or even could trust, knowing your dishonest history. Sorry. That's what accountability means when you get caught lying repeatedly, over and over, even after directly corrected.

    You're a liar, Bill.

  18. Another example of technology that nobody asks for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1
    • GMO anything
    • AI
    • Facial recognision software (OK - government asks for it)
    • Backdoors in everything
    • Smart TVs
    • IoT devices
    • Self-driving cars
    • "Technology" companies out there selling your information (Google/Facebook/Amazon)
    • Human cloning
  19. "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill got caught lying 12-25 times repeatedly stating "Blood plasma is sterile" and then later that "The Chinese Govt does not directly censor Chinese citizens" and other absolute bullshit head-in-ass retard-level lies. You're not trustworthy.

    You are not a source of information that anyone should or even could trust, knowing your dishonest history. Sorry. That's what accountability means when you get caught lying repeatedly, over and over, even after directly corrected.

    You're a liar, Bill.

  20. Re:Another example of technology that nobody asks by skoskav · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm guessing no one asked for GMO insulin and GMO cheese 30-40 years ago either, but dropping society's dependence on chopped-up cow pancreases and calf stomachs allowed us to significantly ramp up production and lower costs.

  21. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    The first genetically-modified animal for human consumption could be arriving in grocery stores across the United States

    Would there be the possibility that some of it may be kindly purveyed upon us in the soon-to-be 51st state?
    --
    J. Rees-Mogg c/o The Houses Of Parliament, London.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  22. "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill got caught lying 12-25 times repeatedly stating "Blood plasma is sterile" and then later that "The Chinese Govt does not directly censor Chinese citizens" and other absolute bullshit head-in-ass retard-level lies. Not trustworthy.

    You are not a source of information that anyone should or even could trust, knowing your dishonest history. Sorry. That's what accountability means when you get caught lying repeatedly, over and over, even after directly corrected.

    You're a liar, Billshitter.

  23. Re:Another example of technology that nobody asks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    allowed us to significantly ramp up production and lower costs

    GMO rennet is used on a wide scale only in the US and almost nowhere else. Besides, let's not compare a product like a single peptide hormone, separated from the organisms that produce it and made in a closely controlled environment on one hand, and a full-blown organism grown in the wild and sold as food on the other.

    The two have nothing in common.

  24. "Shanghai" Billsh is a known liar many times over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill got caught lying 12-25 times repeatedly stating "Blood plasma is sterile" and then later that "The Chinese Govt does not directly censor Chinese citizens" and other absolute bullshit head-in-ass retard-level lies. You're not trustworthy.

    You are not a source of information that anyone should or even could trust, knowing your dishonest history. Sorry. That's what accountability means when you get caught lying repeatedly, over and over, even after directly corrected.

    You're a liar, Bill.

  25. "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Bill got caught lying 12-25 times repeatedly stating "Blood plasma is sterile" and then later that "The Chinese Govt does not directly censor Chinese citizens" and other absolute bullshit head-in-ass retard-level lies. You're not trustworthy.

    You are not a source of information that anyone should or even could trust, knowing your dishonest history. Sorry. That's what accountability means when you get caught lying repeatedly, over and over, even after directly corrected.

    You're nothing but a liar now, Bill you bullshitter.

  26. Sounds fantastic! by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    ... If you're not one of those salmon.

  27. Yeah, I wouldn't eat it by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    That's just asking for trouble. Predicted over 18 years ago, too!

  28. Dear unidentiafiable anonymous worm, lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK, take you meds. - by Anonymous WHITE MOUSE Coward on Sunday March 10, 2019 @06:13PM (#58249210)

    See subject & it's "take your meds" imbecile - ones you project YOU are dependent on, not I, lol... fool.

    * Know what I really like? I'll tell you: Showing the planet your kind are "white mice" intellect levels, lol - that's what, hahahaha!

    APK

    P.S.=> I do respect that "your kind" (do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" ZEROS, whimps) aren't gifted w/ @ least NORMAL intelligence - I can accept it - you? CAN'T (Lol, sucks to be you)... apk

  29. When will the US try to force the EU to buy/sell by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

    Like with GMO or hormone poisoned beef, I wonder how long it takes the US will try to force the EU (or asian countries) to allow to sell it there.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  30. Re: "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times ove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI, I worked in the blood industry for over a decade, there are certainly irradiated blood plasma products, which are sterile.

    This both extends shelf life and prevents graft-vs-host disease due to donor lymphocytes in the plasma.

    It really depends on the medical environment and how much time they can waste on tests vs spending money on products that are universally usable.

  31. Re:Another example of technology that nobody asks by skoskav · · Score: 1

    Where are you getting the info that GMO rennet is mostly used by the US? It's widely used in Denmark and Sweden as well. I would almost assume the same for any western country where the demand for hard cheese outpaces the demand for veal.

    As for the comparison made, the parent I responded to specifically said "GMO anything," which I saw as fair game. But I think you're right in that topic which the article is about, this has been an unnecessary tangent.

  32. Re: When will the US try to force the EU to buy/se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still can't get my head around them making their chocolate taste like sick, on purpose.

  33. Re:Another example of technology that nobody asks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's widely used in Denmark and Sweden as well

    The largest manufacturers, as well as the places which make the best cheese, like Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Italy, France, Spain, Greece don't use GMO ingredients, and it is quite easy to taste the difference.

    Of the top 20 producers in the world, only the US, which is midway on the list, uses GMO ingredients in "cheese" production on a large scale. But then, US mostly produces "processed cheese" for inclusion in Mickey-Dee sandwiches, which ain't exactly the upper end of the market. In fact, I've never-ever seen US cheese outside of the US, except maybe the processed slices in the low-end supermarkets in the poorer countries in Asia-Pacific.

    The reason why is really simple. Shitty taste == GMO & the US. Good taste == No GMO.

    Now fuck off, shill.

  34. Re:Another example of technology that nobody asks by skoskav · · Score: 1

    One study estimated that GMO rennet (a.k.a. FDC/FPC) could account for up to 80% of the global market share of rennet.

    As for taste, there shouldn't be a difference between the chymosin enzyme produced in calf stomachs and the chymosin enzyme produced by microbes. As described in a comparison of Gouda and Cheddar cheese making, there was no major sensory difference between bovine rennet and bovine FPC. Though camel-based FPC interestingly led to reduced bitterness.

    What do you propose is the mechanism for your claim that non-GMO cheese taste better? It seems to me that you're engaging in some motivated reasoning.

  35. Tuna is already farmed idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tuna is already farmed idiot.

  36. That ain't English Ivan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That ain't English Ivan.

  37. Cows are tasty someone should farm them too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is my insightful mod?
    Oh unlike windbourne I don't have any sockpuppets.

  38. Why not something useful with this tech? by fygment · · Score: 1

    We have enough natural and farmed salmon. Why not genetically modify a 'problem' fish like silver carp . It's a problem fish here in North America where it also has low culinary value (even though it has high culinary value in China). Why not change silver carp to address some of its shortcomings?

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  39. CaffeinatedBacon, go suck Xi's knob. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, CaffeinatedBacon(Crimson tsunami).
    You are the biggest knob-ends that exists on slashdot.
    Proteins are what are indirectly genetically modified by GE.
    Why do you Cheena whankers run around here pretending that you know what is going on?
    You really are a knobs-end. Xi has pounded your head too many times against the wall.