Would You Eat Genetically Modified Salmon?

Interesting blog topic.

The only differences from the GM salmon and 'natural' salmon are the rate of growth and hormone production of the GM salmon. As you stated, there is no nutritional difference, and its cultivation would ease pressure on wild stocks.

So, from that perspective, I probably would eat GM salmon _{(however, I don't much like salmon anyway).}

That said, there is still the risk of GM salmon escaping and becoming an invasive species. There is also some concern about the risk of increased human allergic response to the GM product.

Now, if they could genetically engineer some extra-special lobsters or soft-shelled crabs or crawfish.....

sure I would eat them. They also make them sterile, so if they escape they can not breed up a replacement population

You're right--they're infertile. That's what I get for PWR. _{(pressurized water reactor?)}

Posting without reading.

I wonder if they are capable of mating with natural salmon in the ritual sense, but do not have sperm/ova that will fertilize each other.

That means that if you have a population of 100 of each, (50 males and 50 females of each), then 25% of matings will be between natural fish and will produce offspring and the other 75% will be mixed or pure gene mongered fish and will be sterile.

So a large escape, say from a large breached tank offshore, could release enough fish to affect an area, by depressing the natural hatch. Fish escape is the only way, because that is the only way for a wild population to exist of GM fish.

I wonder how secure their infertility method is?

I know the hybrid corn infertility is quite secure.

They indicate they will only sell sterile female small fish to farmers.

http://www.aquabounty.com/technology/faq-297.aspx

If the parents were artificially modified to be the size that they are, then wouldn't any offspring just be that of the original species? Just normal sized salmon, so what's the difference if they breed?

I think if they were to reproduce more of the same sized salmon on their own it would be cheaper than going through the troubles of modifying them.

If the next generation of salmon that were reproduced by the genetically altered salmon grew to the same size, they wouldn't have the same chemicals in them that were artificially introduced into the parents.

If they did escape into the wild, it's not like they wouldn't have a preditor to keep them under control, both man and bears will still love to sink their hooks and teeth in them babies. However they might have trouble spawning, I would assume that size would hinder their returning to their spawning locations.

When the genes are modified, a modified fish grows from the egg. This fish is sterile, but is able to participate in barren matings which produce no hatch.

Thus a large wild population cannot emerge.

If a major farm was flooded, it would release all those fish, which would be capable of barren matings. Once a females eggs are expelled, barren mating or not, she will not spawn again that year. Males may not multiply mate either?

If the number of escaped fish is small, say 1 million and will wild population is 100 million, it will not be a problem. If the wild population is also 1 million, then wild reproduction will be 25% of what it could be. fewer hatchlings might mean each will do better with less competition, or the predation might get them all?? or something in between

I'm perfectly aware of all that. My point is if they didn't sterilze them and they got loose.

Yes, they must be made intrinsically sterile, with no chance at all of fertile unions.

I will look up their method of sterility and see how robust it is in the minds of other critics, filtering out the yahoos

http://www.gaalliance.org/mag/JanFebAdvocate.pdf

Interesting magazine, with references and links

All the crud we have dump in to our waters over the last couple hundred years don't you think that we have already genetically modified them. They have had to change some how to learn how to tolerate it. We still eat them so whats the big change?

At this point we should start worrying about reeling in a fish and it looks up and you and says "No! Please don't eat me. If you let me go I'll round up a bunch of other fish for you to eat, just don't eat me."

One problem, generally, is that farm raised animals are fed inferior diets compared to animals living in nature, which lowers nutritional value. However, feeding so many people makes this type of option necessary to consider.

Update from Time Healthland. The studies didn't have a large enough sample size for the FDA to make a conclusive decision.

Hi,

GM food that has been approved is still considered by many as a likely hazard.

This is focusing mostly on corn, soy and rape (canola).

On the Mercola website - intended to support your approach to live healthy - there is a report about a Russian research team that did feed these GM-foods for 3 or 4 generations to mice and other small animals.

In the first generation nothing was detected but in the second generation a considerable percent was infertile and from the third generation on the majority was infertile.

If this is true and also valid for humans then this will solve the Earths overpopulation problem.

I would not hesitate to test-taste GM-salmon. But I would refrain from GM vegetables as far as possible as these include more genetic changes than a growth hormone.

Does somebody know how this overexpressed growth hormone is working in other creatures?

RHABE

I have no hesitation in consuming GMO foods at all. If people plan to continue to feed the world, hopefully feed it a bit better, GMO foods are the only option.

Almost none of the foods we eat today existed in their present form 200 years back. A slower form of mutation was used that was in it's own way even more dangerous.

The green sites and Europe go nuts whenever someone mentions GMO for reasons they can't explain. If you ask why you just get a bunch of meaningless phrases dumped on you that no one can understand.

The horror stories about contamination, patent problems and all are generally blown up to suit the site that is spouting off such trash.

I don't see what the big deal is. Humans have been eating genetically modified food for thousands of years already. Look at corn when it was first found by native americans it was originally a perennial about 3-4 inches in size. Now it an annual with hundreds of subspecies: some are disease resistant, others are drought resistant, then you have some are used for feed, my favorite fresh "sweet" corn, etc. Look at the modern day carrot it's a cross between a sugar beet and a carrot. Compare it to a wild carrot like night and day. The new methods are just a little bit faster.

I would rather not eat genetically modified food until it has been studied in animal tests for several years. I understand the position of the Europeans concerning this, and I suspect that if you gave Amercians the information about what foods are genetically engineered, many would pay a premium to avoid it.

The thing is, is anyone making money by doing this? If so, they are anxious to skip the due diligence and start getting their return on investment. This is hard for many people to believe, but sociopaths simply dont care if you get sick. Just because you are a sociopath, doesnt mean you arent smart or run a giant company. When I was a child, the studies said that most of the DNA sequences were irrelevant, that they didnt do anythinng, and that they were vestigial leftovers that are pointless. Then a few years later they discovered that, actually, no, it turns out some of these sequences intereacted with others in ways they didnt understand, and that they do come in to play under certain circumstances, that they were triggers, or reactionary if the animal were subjected to something in the environment.

So, do they now understand the entire Salmon sequence, they have the whole thing mapped out and they know what each and every sequence does and why? I thought I recently heard that they have now just ran the whole sequence for the turkey? Not sure, but its clear that they are just now doing a complete genome sequence on a very few animals. Odds are Salmon hasnt been done yet, and if it has, they are still determining what it means. They can manipulate the sequences to make milk that has a drug in it, so why isnt it possible to make a poison accidently? So the people that have money invested will want to refute any reason to hesitate, and history has many examples where industry rushed to market and people were hurt.

What would happen if an entire generation got weird cancers only to relearn that you cant trust people who have money on the line? Why not study it? What is the Hurry? And as a side note, this sequence is probably owned by Monsanto Aquatics or something like that, which will mean that after we are dependant on it, only Monsanto will be able to feed us, and that if they do escape and you happen to catch one, you will be breaking the law if you dont send them a check before you eat it. Ask a soybean farmer about this one....

Oh gee! What worries -

I recommend you hide under the bed rather than not getting out - might be safer - except for the dust bunnies that might attack.

How many would pay a premium to avoid GMO foods? About the same as pay extra for organic? Certainly not more.

The soybean story is a bit silly but is a staple of your types. Each time it is repeated it gets better. Pretty soon Jack will enter looking for the bean stock.

Yes, dust can be dangerous.....

The soybean reference was mentioned as an example of the control the patent holders have on the food chain. Soybean farmers may not retain any soybeans from this years crop for next years planting. This is verified by the company going in to the fields and doing genetic testing for marker genes. But these plants cross polinate in the wind, and these markers turn up in other plants. So ultimately, Monsanto will have a legal position to sue anyone who has plants with their marker, no matter how it happened. You really want international corporate entities to control what you eat?

I apprecaite your comments, and I appreciate you volunteering to be the Beta test to determine if we can trust profit centric companies with our health. Let us know how it turns out.

PS. Not sure what you mean by "your types". I doubt if I fit neatly in to any of the "types" you have categorized. I dont see how it adds to the discourse. That being said, I like your candid response, and I appreciate comments by people of your type. Thanks.

I know what the soybean example is - a hypothetical example dreamed up by the anti group.

One sad part is that some of the groups most against GMO foods are the same ones screaming about world hunger.

Most commercial crops today are hybrid and either sterile or don't reproduce true. The story about the 'international corporate entities' has little basis.

I don't mind being the beta test but don't plan on me sharing the outcome - just assume it is OK.

Then dont read this article from Purdue (A bunch of egghead agri engineers) about the the mechanisms used to mitigate the 'theortetical" cross polination of corn.

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/articles.00/GMO_Issues-000307.html

Oops, is that another dream? Seriously, before you just assume you have all the facts, try doing a little research. Cross pollination is real, lawyers are real, corporate greed is real, and opinionated ignorance is real.

Its clear your closed minded on the topic, I surrender. Remember, Teusday is Soylet Green day.

There are continual tests to be done - continual science to be examined. No one questions that. What I do question is the johnny come lately types (the green and health orgs) that just discover what others have been looking at for years.

University sites are great for the kids learning but a peer reviewed and published paper means something. The sites publish what ever is current thought - often times it is nothing more.

Actually I am quite open on the topic but don't expect me to listen to 'the sky is falling' and believe it. I read on the topic daily and from sites that have eco in their name as well as mainline sites.

The true believers in the dangers of everything are a couple percent of the population but they scream so loud they really sound like they have people behind them.

I'll agree with you on the "beta testing". I don't think there is going to be any harm noticeable in the short term (... meaning in any of the current "testers" lifetime). There are plenty of environmental "stresses" -- less than optimal diet being just one -- that are going to kill us all at some point in time. But as stubborn and adaptable as "life" seems to be, we have managed to witness the extinction of a number of species.

It can also be informative to look at the statistics over the last 20 years. (All I could find in short surfing was statistics over 10 years old. But the trends are probably similar.)

TRENDS IN CAUSES OF DEATH FROM 1979 TO 1998, USA

And of course the problem with "statistics" is it can be misleading (Oh, my God! Who would try to do that??!!) If the death toll goes up from 1 to 2, then there's been a 100% increase in deaths!

Suffice it to say, no matter how adamant anyone is on either side of the argument over GMO, no one has enough data over a long enough period of time to say they know, unequivocally, that it is good or bad. I do think the spirit of being cautious and skeptical is driven by just that -- being cautious and skeptical. After all, we've been so far-sighted with our use of anitbiotics haven't we? The threat of so-called "super bugs" is real. I'm much more on the side of caution and skepticism than "all hail technology!" Let's see... how many corners have we painted ourselves in to during the golden days of science? Oil dependency? Check. Drugs that don't do what they are supposed to do -- in fact may do more harm than good? Check. Developing transportation that dumps "pollutants" into the air and water we ingest? Check. The nay-sayers to being cautious don't have any better statistics to prove the harmlessness of these technologies than people who want to "prove" global warming. But if I'm in a room that has air that is making me cough, I'm not going to try to discover exactly what the substance might be at first. Anybody with any sense will just run out of the room before they asphyxiate. I think that's what skeptics of GMO and other "scientific advancements" are really saying. Be prudent. Be cautious. Maybe the only really good way to determine these things is mass "beta testing." Of course, as a for instance, tobacco companies had internal documents showing that they knew the harm of smoking, while testifying to Congress that the jury was still out -- not enough conclusive testing. Ditto for pharmaceutical companies. I don't necessarily mistrust scientist. But I have a healthy mistrust of big business.

I gave you a GA! I don't see it as fear or "hiding under the bed" as some have implied. It is better to understand the full consequences of a product before it is approved for use. Look at the recent trend in plastics (BPA to be specific). The plastics industry is still saying that polycarbonate plastics are safe.

I personally try not to eat GM foods. They have not had any valid long term studies to prove that there will be no effect on humans. Good luck getting one. The political powers have squashed past studies with their own paid studies that meet their requested outcome and agenda.

There are very few things in our daily lives that we fully understand or know the exact safety of.

BPA - last of my worries. I like the stories about little boys growing boobs - fat boys had boobs 60 years back as well.

Try to offer some 'fact' other than telling others to prove a negative if you want to convince any thinking person. The quashed studies are another green rumor that have taken lives of their own.

True - sierra club, EWG, greenpeace are hazardous to your health!

Russ123, anyone who's seen your responses across threads of this nature will notice that your attitude is, pretty much, "I don't think it's going to kill me, and I could care less about anyone in the future."

If you can prove the safety of GMO, etc. by all means, CR4 would be an excellent place to lay out your evidence. If not, then you're pretty much in the same boat as those you seem to detest... you're just ranting because it upsets you when you think someone is being "unscientific." On GMO foods, if you say the evidence is that there has been no harm so far, is pretty lame evidence. I don't see any real data one way or the other because it may take a long interval to see any effect. Your horse is really no higher than "tree huggers."

Sorry friend - I am not about to try to prove a negative just because a tree hugger happens to think it is necessary.

The FDA is from from perfect but they have not done that bad of a job and they work to improve.

I just love it when some one dreams up a problem and then tries to throw the burden of proof on others or better yet, on those they are trying to discredit.

The tree huggers horse has no legs! It is a hobby horse but they don't know it.

I'd say a couple thousand years of humans genetically altering animals and plants with very little harm to us is pretty good.

We have all these new cancer causing health problems and yet the average lifespan for humans on average continues to get longer.

good point there, monsantos producer of roundup weed killer, now we have genetically hardy weeds, there is a lot to be said on the issue of epigenetics and gene expression generations later, little is known on the impact of the salmon in the wild if released, better to provide wild salmon with the water needed to survive, my gp doctor does not eat farm salmon for the reason of lack of essential fatty acids wild salmon get from krill that derives it from phytoplankton, and farm salmon has pcb's/dioxins from recirculating over waste area, we just don't know.. and the few that have the resources to sue big corporate powers for survivor benefits when things go sadly wrong will profit from others misery, they add color to the feed of farm salmon to give it the red color of wild salmon and we don't even know the impact of this practise, red dye and it's effect on the immune system? allergies and reproductive problems aside we just don't know and arrogance is the worst form of

Yes, preferably plank grilled over a hickory smoke fire. Makes me hungry just thinking about it.

I already eat GM fish. They were modified by all the mercury dumped into their breeding areas over the years.

This is completely retarded. If people could smarten up and only eat wild salmon. Oh yeah, and yank all the damn dams on the mighty Columbia river. I used to own a Scuba Dive shop and I pledged to eat only wild salmon after hearing about how the sea floor under the farmed fish pens is a completely sterile wasteland. Mother nature has so much to provide, why can't man pull his head out of his derier and work with what she has already provided?

They need to move the pens in a slow path, and then the detritus would nourish a secondary population of scavengers, crabs, etc.

It would be easy to make pens you could move 1 diameter per day.

A goofy comment by whoever is using the post anon feature!

Speaking of retarded - suggesting removing the dams from the Columbia is just that!

Greens suggest the like hydro power and would like even more of it - except they propose removing dams everywhere which is total nonsense.

Agriculture, all life in the area, all business in the area (really the entire west coast) would be turned upside down.

If people could smarten up and only eat wild salmon.

The wild salmon would go extinct. No more salmon I guess that would be more to the liking of the Guess.

Send us your address I'll send you some wild stripe bass and atlantic salmon from the Hudson. Have fun choking them down.

If I understand what is written here correctly, the GMO salmon is nutritionally the same but has extra growth hormone. I would avoid eating it for the reason, that excess growth hormone in the food is a health risk.

The impact on markets for wild fisheries is also something to be considered. A salmon that grows twice as fast would give the company the opportunity to undersell other producers and potentially put wild fisheries out of business because the price is too low. Other fish farmers could be forced to switch to GMO to stay in business. You could very quickly end up with GMO salmon monopoly in the fish market. And this could not be considered a secure food supply. Lack of natural genetic variation is a problem - a specific susceptibility could wipe out the lot.

It doesn't have and extra growth hormone, it has a gene that has been tweaked. This shouldn't cause any health problem unless you plan on breeding with it then your offspring might have some issues; besides the tail, gills, scales, etc.

The gene that has been 'tweaked' is the gene that regulates the amount of growth hormone in the fish. The gene upregulates growth hormone, therefore there will be more growth hormone in the fish than there would be in a normal salmon. Anyway, if you really do get too much growth hormone, you won't have to worry about 'breeding with it' or with anything else, apparently.

Granted you would probably have to eat a lot of GMO salmon to affect your endocrine system with too much growth hormone. But of course, salmon is not the only candidate for GMO to increase the growth rate. If all our food animals were modified to 'supersize' em, there would be a lot of extra growth hormone in our diet. This is the sort of thing that people don't think about when the first approval goes through for a transgenic food animal, but this is where the road leads.

I don't personally support the industry. It is not on a single health issue, but more on the big picture of what happens to agriculture, impact on the environment, and biggest of all the prospect of big corporate monopolies on food, seeds, etc. I will be putting my dollar behind the non-gmo food producers.

Please re-read the article there is no mention of growth hormones. It states that the genes (not growth hormone) that regulate the growth of one fish was tweak and modified with the gene of a salmon.

Hormones are proteins release from glandes that regulate different functions in the body.

The chances of a hormone from a fish affecting a mammal let alone a specific mammal i.e human beings is highly unlikely.

Another fact growth hormone would not have any affect on if you could breed with a salmon our not. Physically it's impossible for a human to have sex with a fish genetically our DNA and RNA do not match up to one and other.

Our food has already been affect by added growth hormones injected into beef and pork.

GM food has been around for thousands of years it's what our agriculture is based on you can't get away from it.

In a small portion of my blog, I did mention growth hormones. This source indicates that AquAdvantage salmon have high levels of hormones versus "conventionally-raised salmon." From Fooducate: "What the genetic modification has done is make the farmed salmon grow at twice the speed as a normal salmon, this by a very cool trick (if you're into science, you have to admire the ingenuity). Turns out salmon grows only in warm weather, this by the presence of a certain growth hormone. Scientists were able to manipulate the gene that regulates the turning on/off of the growth hormone , and leave it permanently on, letting the salmon grow year round instead of just 6 months."

Modifying a gene that keeps growth hormones flowing may or may not result in more growth hormone being in the final product, I do not know. I do not know if any studies would support this claim right now. No one quite knows the effect that these fish may or may not have on humans or the environment. Just because they can't reproduce doesn't mean they can't cause problems to animals that eat them or consume too much of the food supply that a natural fish would use.

I was going on what was written in the article above. I don't have access to any of source articles. The other poster only mention your article so in truth growth hormones were not mentioned in this article.

It has high levels of salmon growth hormones not human growth hormones or even mammal growth hormones.

The affect of certain mammal growth hormones on us have been the increase of muscle mass. I doubt salmon hormones are going to do anything to us. They would have to match exactly to our growth receptors in our genes.

I don't have access to any of source articles.

Of course you do, I always list the articles that I use under "Resources" at the bottom of every blog entry.

I was just pointing out that not much is known about the effects of these modified salmon at all. The effects of these fish could be immediate, or they might arise generations later.

Of course you do.

Not really the computer I use at work has software on it that limits the internet usage. I'm assign so many approved web site that I can use and that's it. If I want to use addition sites I need to get written permission from the owner.

Got to love the corporate world, it's getting as bad as the government.

My understanding is that it has two new genes, one to make it grow all year, and another that switches that gene on. As you say, it "shouldnt" cause any health issues. Doctors used to do commercials for cigarettes, they used to say hydrogentated vegatable oil in the form of margarine was better for you than butter. At least in this case the new genes are from another fish, as opposed to the tomatoe that has a human gene. I am old enough to have seen several of these capitulations, and several cases where greed has trumped ethics. Like when Ford did the calculation that the Pinto lawsuits would be less than the profit they would make on selling that knowingly dangerous car. In my home town, three teenage girls died when they were in a minor rear end collision that jammed the doors shut and set the gas tank on fire (Bloomington Indiana circa 1975).

If you would have asked one of those extremely intelligent automotive engineers or executives if it was safe to drive that car, I am absolutely certain they woulds have said, "well, it shouldnt cause you any health issues".

Caution eating can be hazardous to your health! Choking potential is always there!

If we plan to feed the population of the world in years to come agricultural production has to continue to improve. If not there will be starvation though that would probably be limited to Africa and parts of Asia - at least to start with - unless that is acceptable.

Plants engineered to require less fertilizer, less water, use saline water, less pesticides, fix nutrients better are needed and urgently.

Plant pests constantly evolve - crops must evolve at an equal or faster rate or we lose.

The part about farmers saving their own seed is totally bogus - that has not been much of a consideration for the past 50 years.

Its not bogus, its real. They are not allowed to replant the extra seeds from last year if they use GM seeds.

99.9% of all crops planted are hybrids. Meaning if the farmer decided to collect the seeds for replanting it wouldn't work. The seeds are sterile. So the point is mute. I have several farmers around me all use GM seeds for Corn and Soy since that's all there is. None replant any extra seeds. If it doesn't sell it goes to the animals.

The only group I know that might use the seed from last year are the Amish in my area.

GA

Reasonably good answer.

You are correct on the dictionary points. You are pointing out that you are a plant biologist?

As you (and I have pointed out) hybrid seeds usually do not reproduce true.

The older methods of intentionally causing random breaks in the DNA sequence through chemicals or radiation were not gradual changes. Not exactly a fruitful behavior as random breaks would normally not be a positive thing. GM is a much more intelligent approach.

The saving of seeds - each year the plants tend to degrade a bit more - become weaker, more susceptible to disease? The 3rd world farmers don't go back to the old style as the new is more fruitful.

The debate is highly charged in the US where the education and knowledge level of those involved in the debate ranges from low to reasonable - with a few that actually have some knowledge on the topic. In the 3rd world, the peasant most likely 'makes his mark' for a signature. Little knowledge is involved but lots of politics.

I don't believe the average person in the US is competent to vote - just look at the arguments and candidates in present election - some real clowns from all extremes and very few 'good' candidates. Almost anyone with any sense stays away from politics!

The organic farming and saving of those seeds is fine but losing the ability will bother me zero. Organic farming has nothing to do with our survival and a lot to do with fads and wishes for old times.

The willingness to adopt change is one major difference between 'old Europe or the old world' and the new.

For mankind to survive great changes will be made to living and eating styles. Earlier someone mentioned eating wild salmon - those days are going away.

Russ,

"The saving of seeds - each year the plants tend to degrade a bit more - become weaker, more susceptible to disease? "

No this is not generally the case. What happens is that the second generation hybrids (F2) will be diverse in their traits including vigor or disease susceptibility. There is nothing to stop the grower from using the selective breeding process - culling weak or diseased plants early in the season, and collecting seed from the plants with the most desirable traits at the end of the season. This is how crops were developed from wild plants early in the history of agriculture.

There are some varieties of crops which have a robust phenotype and come true to seed, and these are popularly known as "heirloom" varieties, available these days in almost any seed catalogue.

Some crops can't be grown true from seed ever - potatoes for example. The seed tends to revert to wild type. This is why we use "seed potatoes" to propagate, that is little tubers, instead of seeds.

Third world farmers have been prevented from switching back to the old ways because of multi-year contracts with the GMO seed supplier, not because the old ways aren't fruitful. I have read about cases in India, specifically, where the GMO plants did not do well in the local conditions. They required a lot more water and fertilizer than the crops that were grown from locally adapted seed. Seed breeding techniques are far superior to genetic engineering, because they allow selection for multiple traits instead of making a single or a few modifications to introduce foreign genes.

I have no objections in principle to genetic engineering techniques, but I think the potential applications for real benefit are limited, and I see that it has been applied in ways that are irresponsible without regard for the consequences.

George Bernard Shaw said there were two things in a man's life: Women and Politics.

Sometimes women have complained to me that politics are terrible and dirty and too much to bother with. Round here we are not even supposed to discuss the political ramifications of engineering and science, and stick to the topic?

What ought I ask? What is the topic?

"Almost anyone with any sense stays away from politics!"

Garthh and I participated in a Can We Make a Better Government Thread he started for years.

We are working on determining the role of the Technocrat. My theory is that a bureaucrat is of less status than a technocrat in government, and that in Transcendia bureaucrats will be encouraged to gain Technocrat status.

At any rate I have no degrees of any great status and even I know from reading what questions to ask about something, anything, supposedly "New and Improved!"

These exercises in making this or making that from what gifts we have do end up at the doorstep of philosophy and ethics, and theology. It is not at all unethical for me to eat genetically altered Salmon if I want to buy it, but it may be unethical for me to give it to someone else to eat.

Certainly I am for it to be knowable from the label whether or not the Salmon is the new 18 month variety of Salmon, as opposed to the regular old 3 year Salmon.

I also want to know what hormonal difference there is between the too.

As you all know pregnant women are advised these days not to eat much fish period, due to mercury dangers in the fish.

It was a great thing that lead paint, and leaded gasoline have been diminished over the years in the US due to actions of the Federal Government. Politics are involved in these events, and if we don't deal with that fact we are essentially being cowardly.

We are in a significant era of history as self conscious creatures. I am often saddened that CR4 rules about politics in discussions allow for deletions by administration that really day in and day out are hypocritical considering the official rules and the approved blogs that consistently call for political answers to the discussion headline.

Far as I'm concerned I'm as big as anybody else here.

Yeah, I'd eat the fish, but maybe not everyday, and maybe not give it to children below a certain age, if I could help it...

"I also want to know what hormonal difference there is between the too."

It looks like there would not be a substantial difference in the expected hormone level with this genetic modification. But there would be a substantial difference in the amount of fat.

The normal salmon only produces growth hormone in the summer. The GMO salmon would produce growth hormone year round.

Growth hormone is used by body builders because it builds muscle, and drives the biochemical pathway to convert fat into muscle instead of storing fat. The normal salmon is storing up fats when not producing growth hormone. Fats keep the fish insulated and warm in winter, and they provide the normal salmon with an energy reserve for the swim upstream to spawn in the spring.

Salmon is a health food because of the fats - the omega three oils. And that is what makes it delicious as well IMHO. So although it is true I wouldn't eat it because I don't support the GMO-food industry, it is also true that I would personally prefer the food value and taste experience of a normal salmon.

I am a biologist with with a bachelor and one of my masters is in Biology and I have had also had couple classes in genetics. How about you? Our did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

We have been altering the genes of both animals and plants for thousands of years. Whether if its through natural reproduction, artificial insemination, or gene splicing you are still altering the genetic make-up of that species.

Most hybrids that the farmers use near me in PA use sterile hybrid seeds. Why do I know this because I'm friends with them. I hunt and patrol their properties, help maintain their properties, work on environmental compliance issues, and sit down and talk to them. I also have a half acre garden that I work on most of my plants are hybrids. For example I usually have 6-8 different species of tomatoes a total of 48-64 plants: some are roma plums; some are beef steak, some are yellow; orange; etc. I've saved seeds from them and tried to start them in my green house. 85% of the seeds grow. I plant them in the garden away from my new tomatoes. August rolls around out of 24 plants that I used the seeds from none bear any fruit. Why because they're sterile.

We eat every day genetically altered food. Whether its done by the old fashion way or by the new high tech way in the lab, they have been alter at a genetic level.

Holiday Inn Express?

My biology degree was earned at an ordinary physical university with a three hour lab every week in addition to the usual course work and classes. Graduated Y2K, genetics and evolution were required courses in the program. Yes, I have even wrangled fruit flies in the lab. I did farming and seed selection work after I graduated.

You say " I am a biologist with with a bachelor and one of my masters is in Biology and I have had also had couple classes in genetics." I can hardly imagine you would need a "couple classes in genetics" after a bachelor and masters in Biology. Go ahead, post an image of your diplomas for all to admire.

You refuse to accept scientific conventions about nomenclature, and this alone tells me you do not have a legitimate higher education in biology. I don't believe you will find a single peer-reviewed publication in which a hybrid is referred to as "genetically modified" or "transgenic". Go ahead, link us to some junk site to demonstrate that you don't understand "peer-reviewed publication" in spite of your supposed advanced degrees. Or link us up to a peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates I am wrong.

People who are emotional about their uninformed opinions and run around making personal attacks on other people to prop themselves up are a giant bore.

Don't hold back Art Tell us how you really feel...

no question that we as humans have been modifying our environment forever

so do animals

the question is are some methods too dangerous?[ice nine anyone?] if there is a line, how can you enforce it

[climbs back up on well worn soap box] there are laws/rules in place which are probably adequate in spirit

the problem is that ADM/Monsanto/Basf [insert {MC}mega corp of your choice] have rights equal to individuals. couple that with ridiculous court rulings equating money to free speech & MC's have more rights than most states

the peer review community is in an eternal scramble for funding & also can't help but favor the deep pockets

How I really feel....

I don't have any fanatical concerns about genetic engineering as a method. I am not a purist nor do I desire a world without change, modification and adaptation that improves human conditions.

There are still some open questions about the safety of the method, but they are less of a concern than the scale of the application and the way in which it is to be used.

The news that BT is leaching from corn waste into streams is very disturbing, for example. The potential to harm bees and other pollinators and beneficial insects is obvious. I personally think "BT-corn" is an example of a bad application for the technology with obvious risks that the corporate promoters refused to consider, and we are all forced to live with the consequences. And since the scale of the application has been so huge, the consequences will also be widespread.

One big problem with the laws is that patented genetic modifications that escape into the general gene pool make wild organisms the property of the corporation. I think patent law is the root of much evil....

I am very thankful that the organic farming business has continued to grow and to offer consumers another choice, and when I buy groceries I do my best to support that industry. Likewise, I will avoid GMO product to the extent that is possible, because I have no desire to send money to those corporations I consider to be greedy and irresponsible.

Yes, it's a damn shame that the deep pockets have too much influence on what science is or isn't done, or how many years it takes to confirm a risk that was really obvious from the get go - years spent filling those deep pockets at the expense of public health and safety.

/feel.

Most commercial crops are hybrids these days - generally don't reproduce true.

This 'saving seed' thing is a big green whining point has zero validity.

The hybrids started in the 50's that I know of - farmers didn't mind as the production improved.

I apologize to Russ123 for having a little fun with him. It felt to me as though he has an idealogical basis for refuting anything that could be construed as being "green" or "organic". So I am sorry.

My point is that the incremental changes from animal to animal are minor, and that we, as animals, are suited to these small changes. Occasionally you might have a steak that tastes a little off, but it probably wont give you cancer. I guess it comes down to trust. I understand that people with lots of money invested thinks its great and that it may very well solve many problems. I understand that goverment official who get paid by these people will also be biased and not want to have to speculate on the safety. The FDA is supposed to promote safety and the agri-business, some might say conflicting roles. Let me ask you this; if the scientists could create a chicken with four breasts and no wings through genetic engineering, and they assure you in a very breif time that its completly safe, would you eat it? Today they grow fast salmon, what if they could grow a salmon the size of a manatee?

Down the street from where I live they breed turkeys. The turkeys are breed to weigh up to 65 + lbs, wild turkeys only weigh about 25 lbs max. Yet people eat them every year at Thankgiving. I haven't people growing to abnormal sizes in my area.

If The body of the salmon can physically handle the size of a manatee I say why not. Easier to feed more people.

Carrots have been GM with sugar beets since the 1700's. We eat 100's of millions a year. Farmer's and agricultural companies make a nice chunk of change. Doctors for years have been saying that we need to eat more vegetables. It must all be a conspiracy.

If I were you I wouldn't eat any food that agriculture produces because GM produce just can't be trusted. Live off the wild.

Everything we consume if it has been domesticity in any way has been genetically altered. So I hope you like wild carrots.

I got here in the thread and voted a GA, for my reservations were with the hormones.

My first reaction to the whole thread was more: Would you feed Genetically Modified Salmon to your Children?

Your, Artsmiths mention of political considerations and pressure on others to adopt the new fish is wise to bring up.

I have read that there are dangers to the food supply in fruits and vegetables as a direct result of market desirable traits, and diminished diversity. Apparently bananas are particularly threatened due to this series of events.

There have been cases of tainted and second class or poisonous baby foods since I can remember, so it is not at all out of the question that some will sell anything regardless of ethics. Some Moonshiner said, "I make it to sell, I don't make it to drink." A legal and sort of safe version of Moonshine, is Everclear.

The critical thinker always considers the source of the supposedly true information. I know when I see a Car Ad on the TV, the deal. If I want the real truth I'll ask someone who has such a car, or read Consumer Reports.

P.S. I once advocated genetically modifying humans so they could run around naked on Mars. My reasoning rested on how miserable living on Mars would be for me, as I am, since I am made to live on Earth.

probably not after hearing about it, but I will eat it if there is no more wild salmon left on the shelf.

...Just wonder about the possibilities of human genetically modified in the future ...

It would be pretty cool to grow back a limb or change the color of your eyes wouldn't it. No more genetic diseases i.e cancer.