If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   FDA approves "frankenfish" for human consumption. Throw the switch, Igor   (cbc.ca) divider line 116
    More: Interesting, FDA, P.E.I., genetically modified food, Atlantic Salmon  
•       •       •

6119 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2012 at 11:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-31 11:16:14 AM  
...opening the door for a scientifically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as normal.


What the new breeding facility may look like:

s9.postimage.org
 
2012-12-31 11:17:18 AM  
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says genetically modified salmon eggs from P.E.I. are unlikely to harm the environment, opening the door for a scientifically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as normal.


What could go wrong?
 
2012-12-31 12:02:07 PM  
We're just giving "evolution" a little jump-start, is all.
 
2012-12-31 12:02:18 PM  
"We have to recognize that North America is the only place in the world where genetic engineering is an accepted form of food production. In the European Union it's banned,"

Banned in the EU? That's good enough for me.
Bring on the Frankenfish!
 
2012-12-31 12:02:45 PM  
I understand the concern over genetically modified food but this seems to be a real accomplishment.
 
2012-12-31 12:02:50 PM  

old_toole: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says genetically modified salmon eggs from P.E.I. are unlikely to harm the environment, opening the door for a scientifically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as normal.


What could go wrong?


images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-31 12:04:00 PM  

old_toole: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says genetically modified salmon eggs from P.E.I. are unlikely to harm the environment, opening the door for a scientifically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as normal.


What could go wrong?



www.badassoftheweek.com
 
2012-12-31 12:04:38 PM  

old_toole: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says genetically modified salmon eggs from P.E.I. are unlikely to harm the environment, opening the door for a scientifically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as normal.


What could go wrong?


Absolutely nothing. FTA: "In its report the FDA said the facilities in P.E.I. and Panama are secure."

And you doubt?
 
2012-12-31 12:04:46 PM  
blog.photos2view.com
With a taste that can't be beat! MMM-MMM!
 
2012-12-31 12:04:52 PM  

old_toole: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says genetically modified salmon eggs from P.E.I. are unlikely to harm the environment, opening the door for a scientifically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as normal.


What could go wrong?


...possibly go wrong.

Also:

It's alive!
IT'S ALIIIIVE!!!
 
2012-12-31 12:05:47 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-31 12:06:13 PM  
It's sort of weird to ban genetically modified food when most calories that go into our bodies come from a source that looks nothing like the original wild plant or animal before human tinkering.
 
2012-12-31 12:06:18 PM  

crabsno termites: old_toole: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says genetically modified salmon eggs from P.E.I. are unlikely to harm the environment, opening the door for a scientifically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as normal.


What could go wrong?

Absolutely nothing. FTA: "In its report the FDA said the facilities in P.E.I. and Panama are secure."

And you doubt?


images.cheezburger.com
 
2012-12-31 12:06:24 PM  
www.matrix-explained.com
 
2012-12-31 12:08:14 PM  

you have pee hands: It's sort of weird to ban genetically modified food when most calories that go into our bodies come from a source that looks nothing like the original wild plant or animal before human tinkering.



Selective breeding is one thing - inserting the genes of an eel into a salmon is something else.

/Whatever
 
2012-12-31 12:08:38 PM  

Slartibeerfest: understand the concern over genetically modified food


You do? Because it seems like uninformed fear-mongering to me.
 
2012-12-31 12:09:05 PM  
 
2012-12-31 12:09:57 PM  
Werewolf!

Werewolf?

There.

What?

There, wolf. There, castle.

Why are you talking that way?

I thought you wanted to.

No, I don't want to.

Suit yourself. I'm easy.
 
2012-12-31 12:11:23 PM  
They didn't have an actor playing Charles Darwin make the announcement?

How am I supposed to be convinced this is safe?
 
2012-12-31 12:13:44 PM  
Throw the switch, Igor

Push the button, Max!
 
2012-12-31 12:14:47 PM  

Amos Quito: We're just giving "evolution" a little jump-start, is all.


I thought we already did. One of the effects of throwing the little fish back is that you don't get as many big fish in the first place.

In other words, we're UNDOING evolution.
 
2012-12-31 12:15:05 PM  
Coming this January, on Sci-Fi...
 
2012-12-31 12:15:13 PM  
Anti-GMO is Anti-Africa. That is all.
 
2012-12-31 12:15:24 PM  

Hobo Jr.: They didn't have an actor playing Charles Darwin make the announcement?

How am I supposed to be convinced this is safe?



I don't see why it wouldn't be safe - to eat.

When they start reproducing and get loose (and they will) who knows?
 
2012-12-31 12:15:56 PM  
Throw the switch, Igor

"It's pronounced eye-gor"
 
2012-12-31 12:16:16 PM  
Tell Asia they are an aphrodisiac and they'll be extinct next week. Problem solved.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-12-31 12:17:14 PM  
It's hard to have any confidence in an organization that does NOTHING but what their big corporate buddies tell them to do.

Disband them and start it again anew.
 
2012-12-31 12:19:39 PM  

3825968: Throw the switch, Igor

Push the button, Max!


Push the button, Frank!
 
2012-12-31 12:20:36 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Anti-GMO is Anti-Africa. That is all.


Most food policy is.
 
2012-12-31 12:22:15 PM  
Good. Now lets find a way to use this technology to improve access to food worldwide and eradicate hunger.

Who am I kidding, the only thing this will do is line the pockets of corporations in the "West".
 
2012-12-31 12:23:03 PM  
How far along in genetic modification are we? I know we've been able to clone with some success and cross goats with spiders but what would be the "man on the moon" moment where we could take a step forward and be able to tinker with genetic code with confidence? Have we already come that far? If not is it 5 years away? 50 years? Never?
 
2012-12-31 12:23:04 PM  

nealzebub: Throw the switch, Igor

"It's pronounced eye-gor"


You're putting me on.

No, it's pronounced "Fronkensteen."

Do you also say "Froderick"?

No. . ."Frederick."

Well, why isn't it "Froderick Fronkensteen"?

It isn't; it's "Frederick Fronkensteen."

I see
 
2012-12-31 12:23:26 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Banned in the EU? That's good enough for me.
Bring on the Frankenfishia


the EU's ban on GMo Crops and Food has little to do with science or medical risk, and a lot to do with ignorant NIMBYism.

Fred Pierce and Yale360 has some things to say about it.
 
2012-12-31 12:23:46 PM  
500motivators.com

/oblig
 
2012-12-31 12:24:11 PM  
I don't care about all this scientific malarkey. What I want to know, is it tasty?

/smoked salmon
//pickled salmon
//salmonella
 
2012-12-31 12:25:29 PM  
Wonderful--"salmon: now with three times the growth hormone!"
 
2012-12-31 12:30:09 PM  
.

old_toole: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says genetically modified salmon eggs from P.E.I. are unlikely to harm the environment, opening the door for a scientifically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as normal.


What could go wrong?


the price of Lox could drop
 
2012-12-31 12:34:13 PM  

you have pee hands: It's sort of weird to ban genetically modified food when most calories that go into our bodies come from a source that looks nothing like the original wild plant or animal before human tinkering.


Or to look at it another way, genetic modifications of food-organisms isn't actually banned. You can hapazardly throw species and species-hybrids together repeatedly for years in hopes of getting the combination of traits you want without the traits you don't want with little or no understanding of the underlying mechanisms that form those traits, and it's perfectly fine. It's only banned if you know precisely what trait you want and how to get it directly.

Or put yet another way: Genetic modifications of food is perfectly fine if you are sufficiently clumsy at it.

/Africanized Bees FTW!
 
2012-12-31 12:35:38 PM  

YixilTesiphon: Slartibeerfest: understand the concern over genetically modified food

You do? Because it seems like uninformed fear-mongering to me.


He said he  understood it, not  respected it.

I get what the critics are saying, I just don't think they have a strong case for their paranoia.
 
2012-12-31 12:35:50 PM  

Epicanis: Or to look at it another way, genetic modifications of food-organisms isn't actually banned. You can hapazardly throw species and species-hybrids together repeatedly for years in hopes of getting the combination of traits you want without the traits you don't want with little or no understanding of the underlying mechanisms that form those traits, and it's perfectly fine. It's only banned if you know precisely what trait you want and how to get it directly.

Or put yet another way: Genetic modifications of food is perfectly fine if you are sufficiently clumsy at it.


Except that's now how modern GMO works, and there are massive hurdles to clear in most first world countries to bring GMO foods to the consumer food marketplace.
 
2012-12-31 12:35:53 PM  
It's just a growth hormone, people.  You already produce this hormone in your own body; it's how you grew up from when you were a kid.  It's not going to harm you.  The hormone will not survive your stomach acid, and once it is in your gut, your body will break it down into its components and use those components for something else.

And if that doesn't convince you that it's safe, then how about this:  If you are so afraid to eat this fish because it has this growth hormone added to it, then why the hell do you eat Chinoook Salmon (aka King Salmon), where the gene for the hormone came from, or even normal Atlantic Salmon (this "frankenfish" in question before the gene was added) who already have the hormone but only use it for part of the year instead of the whole year?
 
2012-12-31 12:37:12 PM  

Resident Muslim: old_toole: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says genetically modified salmon eggs from P.E.I. are unlikely to harm the environment, opening the door for a scientifically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as normal.


What could go wrong?

...possibly go wrong.

Also:

It's alive!
IT'S ALIIIIVE!!!


Now I know what it feels like to be God!

But, really, in all seriousness, don't let those salmon bite you; because if you do, you will change on the next full moon.
 
2012-12-31 12:38:05 PM  
Bigger fish?
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-31 12:39:14 PM  
I only eat salmon from a can, cooked in patties in large amounts of CRISCO.

So I won't be affected....
 
2012-12-31 12:42:14 PM  
I was going to post something political but then I realized that this isn't the politics tab.

So, I'll put it like this: You want to be a Luddite, go ahead. Don't you dare try to put your anti-science idiocy into law and force it on me.
 
2012-12-31 12:45:24 PM  
There is actually a Frankenfish movie. It is awful, 15 minutes and I had to turn it off (late night TV, nothing else on, could not sleep)
 
2012-12-31 12:45:43 PM  
That's fine, just as long as it has a label on it.

/perfect knowledge ftw
 
2012-12-31 12:47:28 PM  
We need stranger and stranger foods to feed more and more and more new people. There's simply no other way.
 
2012-12-31 12:47:50 PM  

whither_apophis: That's fine, just as long as it has a label on it.

/perfect knowledge ftw


Sure. No prob. Just as long as you realize that every single fruit and vegetable you consume will have that label. So will all cow and chicken products.  In fact, every food product involved in agriculture has been modified over the past ten thousand years of human tinkering.
 
2012-12-31 12:48:40 PM  
t0.gstatic.com

Human beings are a GMO that has succeeded in creating other GMOs.

/Through the looking glass, people
 
2012-12-31 12:50:31 PM  
I ain't eatin' that Farkin' shiat!
 
2012-12-31 12:51:26 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "We have to recognize that North America is the only place in the world where genetic engineering is an accepted form of food production. In the European Union it's banned,"

Banned in the EU? That's good enough for me.
Bring on the Frankenfish!


And we are overweight and they for the most part are not. Think it might have something to do with it?
 
2012-12-31 12:52:10 PM  
I've even heard about some people who use eels in a carnal way and get eel DNA all up inside themselves.
 
2012-12-31 12:52:48 PM  
/ \ throws switch
 
2012-12-31 12:54:51 PM  

Inquisitive Inquisitor: Good. Now lets find a way to use this technology to improve access to food worldwide and eradicate hunger.

Who am I kidding, the only thing this will do is line the pockets of corporations in the "West".


Yes, damn those foul blackguards who want to be rewarded for selling people something they want and are willing to pay for. Damn them to HELL.

/But we don't hate them enough not to rake in our take by taxing the profits from their foul deeds.
 
2012-12-31 12:56:42 PM  

mgshamster: whither_apophis: That's fine, just as long as it has a label on it.

/perfect knowledge ftw

Sure. No prob. Just as long as you realize that every single fruit and vegetable you consume will have that label. So will all cow and chicken products.  In fact, every food product involved in agriculture has been modified over the past ten thousand years of human tinkering.



Yes, and nuclear weapons are just big firecrackers.
 
2012-12-31 12:56:49 PM  
Brave New World, hah! this is boring now if it turns people into crazy killers like prozac did then I'll watch. I can admit it.
 
2012-12-31 12:57:22 PM  

YixilTesiphon: Slartibeerfest: understand the concern over genetically modified food

You do? Because it seems like uninformed fear-mongering to me.


Ever heard of systemic pesticides? Yeah, they're killing bees. Look it up, oh ignorant one.

Just in case you need proof that pesticides affect bees.
http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/intheworks/honeybee.htm
 
2012-12-31 01:01:49 PM  

stirfrybry: YixilTesiphon: Slartibeerfest: understand the concern over genetically modified food

You do? Because it seems like uninformed fear-mongering to me.

Ever heard of systemic pesticides? Yeah, they're killing bees. Look it up, oh ignorant one.

Just in case you need proof that pesticides affect bees.
http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/intheworks/honeybee.htm


Wait wait, are you trying to tell me that insecticides can kill insects? I am shocked... SHOCKED to learn this.

What's that have to do with GMO one way or the other again?
 
2012-12-31 01:01:57 PM  

Amos Quito: crabsno termites: old_toole: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says genetically modified salmon eggs from P.E.I. are unlikely to harm the environment, opening the door for a scientifically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as normal.


What could go wrong?

Absolutely nothing. FTA: "In its report the FDA said the facilities in P.E.I. and Panama are secure."

And you doubt?

[images.cheezburger.com image 470x572]


Must. Grow. Faster.


iheartscotch: nealzebub: Throw the switch, Igor

"It's pronounced eye-gor"

You're putting me on.

No, it's pronounced "Fronkensteen."

Do you also say "Froderick"?

No. . ."Frederick."

Well, why isn't it "Froderick Fronkensteen"?

It isn't; it's "Frederick Fronkensteen."

I see


Frau Blucher
 
2012-12-31 01:03:09 PM  

Prattle Assassin: Amos Quito: crabsno termites: old_toole: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says genetically modified salmon eggs from P.E.I. are unlikely to harm the environment, opening the door for a scientifically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as normal.


What could go wrong?

Absolutely nothing. FTA: "In its report the FDA said the facilities in P.E.I. and Panama are secure."

And you doubt?

[images.cheezburger.com image 470x572]

Must. Grow. Faster.


iheartscotch: nealzebub: Throw the switch, Igor

"It's pronounced eye-gor"

You're putting me on.

No, it's pronounced "Fronkensteen."

Do you also say "Froderick"?

No. . ."Frederick."

Well, why isn't it "Froderick Fronkensteen"?

It isn't; it's "Frederick Fronkensteen."

I see

Frau Blucher


Neeeeeah!
 
2012-12-31 01:03:29 PM  
Also:

A lot of the cheap seafood in the US comes from barely regulated and inspected Asian processing factories and aquaculture.

When you stuff that cheap shrimp into your gaping American maw, you're getting God-knows-what pollutants and bacteria and junk. Have you seen how Asians live? Just think what their average fish-processing factory or farm looks like.

FDA barely inspects imported seafood
 
2012-12-31 01:04:15 PM  

mgshamster: whither_apophis: That's fine, just as long as it has a label on it.

/perfect knowledge ftw

Sure. No prob. Just as long as you realize that every single fruit and vegetable you consume will have that label. So will all cow and chicken products.  In fact, every food product involved in agriculture has been modified over the past ten thousand years of human tinkering.


Thanks to California Prop 65 some years back, buildings everywhere are festooned with this sign:
i47.tinypic.com

They might as well add the warning to the "Open" signs, that's how common it is. It's essentially become background noise, like Muzak only less useful.
 
2012-12-31 01:05:09 PM  

Anthracite: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "We have to recognize that North America is the only place in the world where genetic engineering is an accepted form of food production. In the European Union it's banned,"

Banned in the EU? That's good enough for me.
Bring on the Frankenfish!

And we are overweight and they for the most part are not. Think it might have something to do with it?


They are overweight there as well. Don't let the US vs Europe debate people make you think otherwise. Obesity is an entire first-world problem.

And the US is likely more obese due to corn subsidies and lack of exercise than GMO food. GMO food isn't going to make someone obese on its own.
 
2012-12-31 01:05:32 PM  
img.thesun.co.uk

Not... the third switch!
 
2012-12-31 01:09:18 PM  

CavalierEternal: 3825968: Throw the switch, Igor

Push the button, Max!

Push the button, Frank!


Here, fishy fishy.
 
2012-12-31 01:12:17 PM  

jjorsett: mgshamster: whither_apophis: That's fine, just as long as it has a label on it.

/perfect knowledge ftw

Sure. No prob. Just as long as you realize that every single fruit and vegetable you consume will have that label. So will all cow and chicken products.  In fact, every food product involved in agriculture has been modified over the past ten thousand years of human tinkering.

Thanks to California Prop 65 some years back, buildings everywhere are festooned with this sign:


They might as well add the warning to the "Open" signs, that's how common it is. It's essentially become background noise, like Muzak only less useful.


To be fair to the signs, there are a shiat ton of chemicals that do at least one of those three things. Of course, you have to have a sufficient dose, but that doesn't stop the interest groups and lawmakers from passing such a law.

/I've always been torn on the prop 65 labels; on one hand, they can be extremely useful, on the other, it's just background noise for so many of its applications.
 
2012-12-31 01:18:03 PM  
Good, now leave my people alone.
 
2012-12-31 01:20:46 PM  

old_toole: What could go wrong?


i236.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-31 01:25:31 PM  

jjorsett: mgshamster: whither_apophis: That's fine, just as long as it has a label on it.

/perfect knowledge ftw

Sure. No prob. Just as long as you realize that every single fruit and vegetable you consume will have that label. So will all cow and chicken products.  In fact, every food product involved in agriculture has been modified over the past ten thousand years of human tinkering.

Thanks to California Prop 65 some years back, buildings everywhere are festooned with this sign:
[i47.tinypic.com image 175x175]

They might as well add the warning to the "Open" signs, that's how common it is. It's essentially become background noise, like Muzak only less useful.


Then there's this one. It's got to be one of the least useless warnings I've ever seen:
850digital.com
/hot
 
2012-12-31 01:26:21 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Then there's this one. It's got to be one of the least useless warnings I've ever seen:


Least useful, most useless. Pick one while I find some coffee.
 
2012-12-31 01:37:08 PM  

BronyMedic: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Banned in the EU? That's good enough for me.
Bring on the Frankenfishia

the EU's ban on GMo Crops and Food has little to do with science or medical risk, and a lot to do with ignorant NIMBYism.

Fred Pierce and Yale360 has some things to say about it.


Excellent points, Brony. I find myself on the fence in this debate. I don't want to ban GMOs, but I do want them labeled as such so I can choose to not eat them.
 
2012-12-31 01:38:38 PM  
Monsanto laughs at your puny amateurish attempts to destroy the world through irresponsible genetic manipulation.
 
2012-12-31 01:44:15 PM  

ProfessorOhki: jjorsett: mgshamster: whither_apophis: That's fine, just as long as it has a label on it.

/perfect knowledge ftw

Sure. No prob. Just as long as you realize that every single fruit and vegetable you consume will have that label. So will all cow and chicken products.  In fact, every food product involved in agriculture has been modified over the past ten thousand years of human tinkering.

Thanks to California Prop 65 some years back, buildings everywhere are festooned with this sign:
[i47.tinypic.com image 175x175]

They might as well add the warning to the "Open" signs, that's how common it is. It's essentially become background noise, like Muzak only less useful.

Then there's this one. It's got to be one of the least useless warnings I've ever seen:
[850digital.com image 600x450]
/hot


Wow that is a retarded (and fear-mongering) warning. Considering almost every food when cooked has that, it should also be on the warning label of every pot, pan and stove. Did the raw vegan movement lobby for that?
 
2012-12-31 01:48:07 PM  

machoprogrammer: ProfessorOhki: jjorsett: mgshamster: whither_apophis: That's fine, just as long as it has a label on it.

/perfect knowledge ftw

Sure. No prob. Just as long as you realize that every single fruit and vegetable you consume will have that label. So will all cow and chicken products.  In fact, every food product involved in agriculture has been modified over the past ten thousand years of human tinkering.

Thanks to California Prop 65 some years back, buildings everywhere are festooned with this sign:
[i47.tinypic.com image 175x175]

They might as well add the warning to the "Open" signs, that's how common it is. It's essentially become background noise, like Muzak only less useful.

Then there's this one. It's got to be one of the least useless warnings I've ever seen:
[850digital.com image 600x450]
/hot

Wow that is a retarded (and fear-mongering) warning. Considering almost every food when cooked has that, it should also be on the warning label of every pot, pan and stove. Did the raw vegan movement lobby for that?


It is a good example how legislation to label foods can go awry.  People want labels on GM foods in order to be informed, but at the same time these labels will just produce fear-mongering rather than actually informing people.
 
2012-12-31 01:49:56 PM  
None of you ever complained when FrankenBerry came out.
 
2012-12-31 01:50:27 PM  

mgshamster: whither_apophis: That's fine, just as long as it has a label on it.

/perfect knowledge ftw

Sure. No prob. Just as long as you realize that every single fruit and vegetable you consume will have that label. So will all cow and chicken products.  In fact, every food product involved in agriculture has been modified over the past ten thousand years of human tinkering.


Selective breeding != gene splicing.

/and if you really think it does you're more of the problem than the solution.
//what's wrong with labels anyway? Do you only buy beer beer
//community supported agriculture rulez
 
2012-12-31 01:51:34 PM  

Amos Quito: Selective breeding is one thing - inserting the genes of an eel into a salmon is something else.


Most of our staple foods, especially cereal grains, were formed by cross-breeding different species of grasses; the reason they are as they are is because of wide-spread gene transfer between different species.

That's a much larger impact than simply modifying one gene. We created entirely new species of crops for our consumption.

whither_apophis: That's fine, just as long as it has a label on it.

/perfect knowledge ftw


It's not perfect knowledge, though. The fact that something is GMO conveys no information about the quality or safety of the product for many reasons:

1. The person reading it doesn't have the necessary information to make an informed decision based upon it - only a relatively tiny fraction of the populace is educated enough to even understand the information.

2. "This product contains GM foods" would be as useful as "this product contains plant matter" in terms of judging safety or quality. It paints with a brush so broad as to be meaningless. Many plants are perfectly safe to eat, while others contain extremely deadly toxins - likewise, many possible GMOs are perfectly safe (in fact, they could make the product safer, for example potatoes with the solanine gene inactivated), while others certainly in theory could be very harmful (i.e. one could imagine splicing a toxin-producing gene into an otherwise non-toxic organism). The simple "this is GM" tells you absolutely nothing about the nature or safety of the modification.

3. There is no useful information in the label, but there is definitely the potential for knee-jerk illogical reactions based on prejudice, not fact. You could also require food manufacturers to label each product with the race of the farmer who grew it, but that knowledge is not useful for anything except knee-jerk reactions of the bigoted.
 
2012-12-31 01:54:55 PM  
It's "Igor, THROW THE SWITCH!!!"

/Igor for the win
 
2012-12-31 02:15:09 PM  

whither_apophis: Selective breeding != gene splicing


Don't think so, huh? What's the difference, biochemically?
 
2012-12-31 02:26:56 PM  

mgshamster: whither_apophis: Selective breeding != gene splicing

Don't think so, huh? What's the difference, biochemically?



There's a reason that crossbreeding moose with penguins is illegal.
 
2012-12-31 02:29:09 PM  

Amos Quito: mgshamster: whither_apophis: Selective breeding != gene splicing

Don't think so, huh? What's the difference, biochemically?


There's a reason that crossbreeding moose with penguins is illegal.


High-speed downhill tobogganing + antlers is a recipe for disaster?
 
2012-12-31 02:30:44 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: Amos Quito: Selective breeding is one thing - inserting the genes of an eel into a salmon is something else.

Most of our staple foods, especially cereal grains, were formed by cross-breeding different species of grasses; the reason they are as they are is because of wide-spread gene transfer between different species.

That's a much larger impact than simply modifying one gene. We created entirely new species of crops for our consumption.



Man has acquired the ability to manipulate the DNA of man and other animals.

As man is a "natural animal", it cannot be unnatural, but it can be unpredictable.

/Proceed with caution
//Expect the unexpected
///Evolution overdrive
 
2012-12-31 02:33:32 PM  

mgshamster: whither_apophis: Selective breeding != gene splicing

Don't think so, huh? What's the difference, biochemically?


oooh the "we all chemicals!" fifth grade rejoinder. But just to play along, if plants really needed the equivalent fish genes to survive they would have evolved them on their own.

/and in case you didn't notice, I'll repeat: go ahead and sell it, just let me know what I'm buying.
//do you seek out GMO soy and corn? Will you only eat GMO salmon?
 
2012-12-31 02:38:27 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: old_toole: What could go wrong?

[i236.photobucket.com image 640x396]


A big chicken
 
2012-12-31 02:44:24 PM  

Amos Quito: Man has acquired the ability to manipulate the DNA of man and other animals.

As man is a "natural animal", it cannot be unnatural, but it can be unpredictable.

/Proceed with caution
//Expect the unexpected
///Evolution overdrive



It's not really a new thing; only our degree of control over the results is new. Mankind has created many species of plants and animals already,and greatly modified others, which is a more unpredictable thing than making small modifications to existing species.

Of course each change needs to be made with proper care and caution, but I think we're more conscientious and more cautious than we've ever been in the past.
 
2012-12-31 02:49:56 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: Amos Quito: Man has acquired the ability to manipulate the DNA of man and other animals.

As man is a "natural animal", it cannot be unnatural, but it can be unpredictable.

/Proceed with caution
//Expect the unexpected
///Evolution overdrive


It's not really a new thing; only our degree of control over the results is new. Mankind has created many species of plants and animals already,and greatly modified others, which is a more unpredictable thing than making small modifications to existing species.

Of course each change needs to be made with proper care and caution, but I think we're more conscientious and more cautious than we've ever been in the past.



I would hope we proceed with caution, humility and wisdom, but in any case, it's going to go forward.

/Can't put the geneie back in the bottle
 
2012-12-31 02:50:43 PM  
"Put! Zee candle! Beck!"
picpost.postjung.com
"He would have a tremendous schwanshtucker."

/hot like a roll in the hay
 
2012-12-31 02:56:43 PM  

Primum: Also:

A lot of the cheap seafood in the US comes from barely regulated and inspected Asian processing factories and aquaculture.

When you stuff that cheap shrimp into your gaping American maw, you're getting God-knows-what pollutants and bacteria and junk. Have you seen how Asians live? Just think what their average fish-processing factory or farm looks like.

FDA barely inspects imported seafood


You ever eaten catfish freshly caught from a river? -smirk-
 
2012-12-31 03:07:07 PM  
I love this gem: We have to recognize that North America is the only place in the world where genetic engineering is an accepted form of food production. In the European Union it's banned," said Peter Bevan-Baker.

That is the hippy argument against genetically modified fish? The EU bans it so we should too? With that sort of idiocy it is no wonder the FDA ignored them.
 
2012-12-31 03:14:04 PM  

whither_apophis: But just to play along, if plants really needed the equivalent fish genes to survive they would have evolved them on their own.


It has nothing to do with "needing to survive" - in fact many of the crop species we've created are far less likely to survive on their own than the species we hybridized and selectively bred from. The purpose of all genetic modification, from creating new species to greatly shifting the gene pools of existing species, has been to make them better food sources for humans.

For example, say you make a new type of wheat that requires less water to grow. Now you can farm in areas too arid to previously farm, and you can change irrigation strategies for existing farmland, as well. Or, for example, you can make food more nutritious. White rice, for example, although a staple food in most of the world is rather nutritionally poor, and regions that eat primarily rice are prone to vitamin A and B deficiencies. You can genetically modify rice to contain these nutrients and thus improve the diets of those consuming the food.

/and in case you didn't notice, I'll repeat: go ahead and sell it, just let me know what I'm buying.

Again, that information is useless, since it gives you no clue whatsoever as to the safety or health effects of eating that food. Sometimes the GMO is going to be healthier (e.g. more vitamin rich) or safer (e.g. less toxic) than other strains of that species. In theory, one could certainly make a GMO that was toxic or otherwise harmful (there's no shortage of genes encoding toxins). Simply stating that the food is genetically modified wouldn't tell you anything one way or the other. And telling you specifics (for example - this food has a psy/crtl insertion expressed in endosperm) would be useless unless you were versed in the scientific literature on that exact type of GM food.

That's the real problem facing labeling - each and every type of modification needs to be evaluated on its own; the safety or efficacy of one tells you absolutely nothing about the safety or efficacy of another, in the same way that eating, say, berries from a blueberry bush tells you nothing about the safety of eating berries from a nightshade plant; each is a totally different thing that needs to be evaluated independently of the other. A general label is useless because it doesn't have the specifics, and the specific labels are useless except to the few dozen people in the country well-educated enough on that specific modification to make an actual statement.
 
2012-12-31 03:14:45 PM  
Invest in this company now! Great things will happen when their fish get loose, a la Monsanto.

"We own all the corn salmon in the world and you must pay us!"
 
2012-12-31 03:29:09 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: And telling you specifics (for example - this food has a psy/crtl insertion expressed in endosperm) would be useless unless you were versed in the scientific literature on that exact type of GM food.


Well, that and how many people are going to buy any food with "endosperm" on the label?
 
2012-12-31 03:43:24 PM  

Ima4nic8or: I love this gem: We have to recognize that North America is the only place in the world where genetic engineering is an accepted form of food production. In the European Union it's banned," said Peter Bevan-Baker.


Show me the science which says that GMo Foods are a danger to the people of the United States if properly regulated, and I'll support a ban. Otherwise, Peter Bevan-Baker is talking out of his ass with a bandwagon appeal.
 
2012-12-31 03:44:54 PM  

Ima4nic8or: I love this gem: We have to recognize that North America is the only place in the world where genetic engineering is an accepted form of food production. In the European Union it's banned," said Peter Bevan-Baker.

That is the hippy argument against genetically modified fish? The EU bans it so we should too? With that sort of idiocy it is no wonder the FDA ignored them.


Bevan-Baker is a very nice man and generally well-informed (I've met him several times, PEI is a small place...) so I'm inclined to think that they did not select the best statement from him.

Not that I agree with him, mind you. He just normally is much better at explaining his position on things than shown in this article. GM foods are necessary and, really, I am quite glad to see the science move forward in my own province. We actually have quite a lot of aquaculture research that goes on here. This kind of stuff helps bring sorely needed jobs to the Island.
 
2012-12-31 03:46:51 PM  

d23: It's hard to have any confidence in an organization that does NOTHING but what their big corporate buddies tell them to do.

Disband them and start it again anew.


Your hippy buddies or the liberal college professor who is telling you that could not be further off the mark. I have worked for three different medical device companies during the last 10 years or so and have had a small role in approximately half a dozen 510k and PMA submissions and half a dozen site audits. In general FDA auditors and reviewers are quite conservative. If anything they err on the side of caution.

I wouldnt say they are grossly overly cautious but they do often ask for additional testing that reveals no new information and results in no improvement in safety. Unfortunately those requests do add to product costs. I am not suggesting they could do otherwise given their current knowledge. Since most of the reviewers do not really understand the products involved, or seemingly basic physics or material science, they have no choice but to take a conservative approach when they are in doubt. If you would really like to improve the effectiveness of the FDA this would be an area to do so.

The idea that they are somehow bow down to whatever companies ask of them is laughable. Out of all the submission I have knowledge of (beyond actual involvment) I can only think of only one or two where FDA did not ask numerous questions or request additional testing. Similarly, the majority of auditors will not be satisfied until they find something to turn into an observation or at least a recommendation.
 
2012-12-31 03:47:39 PM  
We have to recognize that North America is the only place in the world where genetic engineering is an accepted form of food production. In the European Union it's banned," said Peter Bevan-Baker.


EU also bans forms of free speech we have here in the US of A. And other things we have. So I guess we should be more like Europe?
 
2012-12-31 03:54:14 PM  

machoprogrammer: So I guess we should be more like Europe?


Psh. I spent a year in Paris for my freshman semester. It really opened my eyes to how the world is run by those little Eichmans. You should be so lucky. */lisp*

mypetjawa.mu.nu
 
2012-12-31 03:55:39 PM  

kendelrio: It's "Igor, THROW THE SWITCH!!!"

/Igor for the win


I... I misquoted the movie in the headline? If I had TotalFark, I'd have to give it up. I humbly apologize for misquoting Igor.

/but hey, I got my little Island on Fark! Go me!
 
2012-12-31 04:03:32 PM  
latimesblogs.latimes.com
Not sure if approves
 
2012-12-31 04:18:35 PM  

Anthracite: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "We have to recognize that North America is the only place in the world where genetic engineering is an accepted form of food production. In the European Union it's banned,"

Banned in the EU? That's good enough for me.
Bring on the Frankenfish!

And we are overweight and they for the most part are not. Think it might have something to do with it?


No. Do you have brain damage?

ProfessorOhki: stirfrybry: YixilTesiphon: Slartibeerfest: understand the concern over genetically modified food

You do? Because it seems like uninformed fear-mongering to me.

Ever heard of systemic pesticides? Yeah, they're killing bees. Look it up, oh ignorant one.

Just in case you need proof that pesticides affect bees.
http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/intheworks/honeybee.htm

Wait wait, are you trying to tell me that insecticides can kill insects? I am shocked... SHOCKED to learn this.

What's that have to do with GMO one way or the other again?


Nothing quite like a GMO thread to bring out the idiots.

/of course, they are unconcerned that GMO crops generally require less chemicals, which is part of what makes them economically advantageous
 
2012-12-31 04:24:52 PM  

pedalphile: "Put! Zee candle! Beck!"
[picpost.postjung.com image 240x127]
"He would have a tremendous schwanshtucker."

/hot like a roll in the hay


"woof."
 
2012-12-31 05:10:45 PM  

whither_apophis: mgshamster: whither_apophis: Selective breeding != gene splicing

Don't think so, huh? What's the difference, biochemically?

oooh the "we all chemicals!" fifth grade rejoinder. But just to play along, if plants really needed the equivalent fish genes to survive they would have evolved them on their own.

/and in case you didn't notice, I'll repeat: go ahead and sell it, just let me know what I'm buying.
//do you seek out GMO soy and corn? Will you only eat GMO salmon?


Fifth grade, huh? Interesting.  I didn't know that fifth grade classes got that detailed into the biochemical makeup of the human body.  Hell, I didn't learn about that until I went to college.  Regardless, answer the question.  What's the difference, biochemically?

We're not talking about survival. We're not talking about natural selection. We're talking about artificial selection in order to produce a specific response.  It doesn't matter how we artificially select; whether we breed over generations selecting the one that produces the trait we're interested in, or if we insert a gene that already produces the effect we want and randomly apply it to the genome and then pick the one that got it right (because we can't control exactly where it's inserted into the genome, so only those that had it inserted in the correct place will allow the genomic sequence to work).  And it doesn't matter if we use a genomic sequence from one organism and put it another so long as the effect is the same.  Hell, we do this all the time by inserting, changing, or turning off or on genes in bacteria, rats, and other animals in the lab in order to study the effect of genes.  If you want to understand how this works, I recommend taking an introduction to genetics course at your local college.

In the case of the fish, we're not talking about some novel protein that we invented in order to make it grow faster (1.5 years vs 3 years), we're using natural proteins that came about via evolution.  We're just putting it in a different species of fish. We're also using another naturally produced genomic sequence (this time from an eel) in order to make sure the gene that produces the growth hormone doesn't turn off.  We already eat these from other animals, so we know there won't be a negative effect.  Regardless, there is still toxicological testing done to ensure its safety.

Now, when you talk about round-up resistant soy beans, that's a novel genomic sequence.  In that case, there needs to be further toxicological testing to ensure it is safe for human consumption.  And guess what? It's been done, and it has been shown to have a low toxicological response (in layman terms, that means it is safe to consume).

/Do I selectively pick out GMOs to consume? Nope, but I don't actively avoid them either.  You know why? Because there's no difference!
//Other farkers have giving a good response to the labels, so I won't bother, for example, Sum Dum Guy has a good response..
 
2012-12-31 05:24:47 PM  

Ima4nic8or: Your hippy buddies or the liberal college professor who is telling you that could not be further off the mark.


You should be careful with those stereotypes.  I'm very liberal, I work at a university, and I would like to work as a college professor one day.  Yet I am pro-GMO.

Ima4nic8or: [The FDA]

do often ask for additional testing that reveals no new information and results in no improvement in safety.

A lot of times, they just want repeated tests to ensure that the same results are acquired.  For non FDA work, I've seen quite a few companies try to cut corners by just doing a single test and claim, "Yup, it's good!"  Then my wife, who has to repeat their experiments for her company to ensure they can replicate it, often has a lot of frustration because the original company (her company's customers) can't be bothered to do it right the first time.  It wouldn't surprise me to find out that these same companies try to cut corners with the FDA as well, and the FDA would have to demand additional testing so an appropriate statistical analysis can be completed.  Note that I'm not saying that the companies you worked for did shoddy work, just giving one reason why they would demand additional work.
 
2012-12-31 05:27:34 PM  

mgshamster: jjorsett: mgshamster: whither_apophis: That's fine, just as long as it has a label on it.

/perfect knowledge ftw

Sure. No prob. Just as long as you realize that every single fruit and vegetable you consume will have that label. So will all cow and chicken products.  In fact, every food product involved in agriculture has been modified over the past ten thousand years of human tinkering.

Thanks to California Prop 65 some years back, buildings everywhere are festooned with this sign:


They might as well add the warning to the "Open" signs, that's how common it is. It's essentially become background noise, like Muzak only less useful.

To be fair to the signs, there are a shiat ton of chemicals that do at least one of those three things. Of course, you have to have a sufficient dose, but that doesn't stop the interest groups and lawmakers from passing such a law.

/I've always been torn on the prop 65 labels; on one hand, they can be extremely useful, on the other, it's just background noise for so many of its applications.


The warning becomes pretty much useless if it appears everywhere. I've talked to a couple of store owners who said they posted the notice because they didn't know if there were hazards present or there might be in the future, so they'd rather not take any chances. They could get away with that because the warning is ubiquitous and people just ignore it. If it was present where there was a genuine threat to health, then it would have much more of a stigma and owners wouldn't be putting the notice up by default.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-12-31 06:03:41 PM  

Ima4nic8or: d23: It's hard to have any confidence in an organization that does NOTHING but what their big corporate buddies tell them to do.

Disband them and start it again anew.

Your hippy buddies or the liberal college professor who is telling you that could not be further off the mark. I have worked for three different medical device companies during the last 10 years or so and have had a small role in approximately half a dozen 510k and PMA submissions and half a dozen site audits. In general FDA auditors and reviewers are quite conservative. If anything they err on the side of caution.

I wouldnt say they are grossly overly cautious but they do often ask for additional testing that reveals no new information and results in no improvement in safety. Unfortunately those requests do add to product costs. I am not suggesting they could do otherwise given their current knowledge. Since most of the reviewers do not really understand the products involved, or seemingly basic physics or material science, they have no choice but to take a conservative approach when they are in doubt. If you would really like to improve the effectiveness of the FDA this would be an area to do so.

The idea that they are somehow bow down to whatever companies ask of them is laughable. Out of all the submission I have knowledge of (beyond actual involvment) I can only think of only one or two where FDA did not ask numerous questions or request additional testing. Similarly, the majority of auditors will not be satisfied until they find something to turn into an observation or at least a recommendation.


Personally, I really don't care what a corporate sycophant like you thinks.
 
2012-12-31 07:08:07 PM  
d23:Personally, I really don't care what a corporate sycophant like you thinks.

Somehow, I'm sure you don't really care what anyone thinks unless it's to act like you're completely right in the matter. It's weird how conspiracy theorists work like that: anyone with an opposing opinion is either part of it, or has been "gotten to" by some nefarious group.

demotivationalpost.com
 
2012-12-31 07:18:39 PM  
We have two lines you can stand in.

One line is people that accept gen. engineered food with proper safety studies and checks ongoing no matter how long the product has been available.

The other line is people who want to be noble and sacrifice themselves by the millions making gen. engineered food unnecessary to feed a growing human population.

You can pick which line you want to be in.
 
2012-12-31 08:16:17 PM  

whither_apophis:
Selective breeding != gene splicing.

/and if you really think it does you're more of the problem than the solution.


Yes because it's not like "selective breeding" ever transferred things like toxins to potato plants while trying to transfer fungal resistance, thus making people deathly ill...oh wait

In conventional plant breeding, little attention has been paid to the possible impacts of new plant varieties on food safety or the environment. Conventional plant breeding and artificial selection can create gene combinations that would rarely survive in nature. In a few cases, such gene combinations have caused negative effects on human health. For example, a cultivated variety of potato was found to contain excessive levels of naturally occurring toxins.

i's much safer to trasnfer a single known gene than to use "selective breeding" and face the law of unintended consequences. As one farker previously mentioned, Killer bees are a result of "selective breeding"

Or are you actually claiming to know more about food safety than Joe Hotchkiss-professor of food science and toxicology at Cornell University,

Remember, GMO or transgenic foods, MUST BE PROVEN SAFE-conventional crossbreeding, is 100% unregulated.

"Another example of the risks of traditional breeding is celery. Celery naturally contains a photoactive toxicant, that is, a chemical that becomes toxic when it hits sunlight. There was a case in California where a new variety of celery was bred that, unknown to the people who bred it, had high levels of this toxicant in it. It was planted. People went along, harvested this, and the workers who harvested this came out with a very severe skin rash. Why? Because it had the high level of toxicant resulting from the commercial, normal kind of breeding"

And yes, I DO work in food safety(I'm a microbiologist)-what's your qualification?
 
2012-12-31 08:17:09 PM  
It's retarded to be afraid of eating GM foods, but we need to be really, really sure that these super salmon can't escape into the wild and compete with natural species. "Pretty sure" isn't good enough.
 
2012-12-31 08:19:53 PM  
1) maybe I went to a better school

2 tl:dr

3) if you don't like labels, I have some cans of excellent beluga cabier to sell you, may or may not contain cavier. Caveat emptor.
 
2012-12-31 08:21:00 PM  

whither_apophis: 1) maybe I went to a better school

2 tl:dr

3) if you don't like labels, I have some cans of excellent beluga cabier to sell you, may or may not contain cavier. Caveat emptor.


farking select all...
 
2012-12-31 09:49:58 PM  

BlaqueKatt: whither_apophis:
Selective breeding != gene splicing.

/and if you really think it does you're more of the problem than the solution.

Yes because it's not like "selective breeding" ever transferred things like toxins to potato plants while trying to transfer fungal resistance, thus making people deathly ill...oh wait

In conventional plant breeding, little attention has been paid to the possible impacts of new plant varieties on food safety or the environment. Conventional plant breeding and artificial selection can create gene combinations that would rarely survive in nature. In a few cases, such gene combinations have caused negative effects on human health. For example, a cultivated variety of potato was found to contain excessive levels of naturally occurring toxins.

i's much safer to trasnfer a single known gene than to use "selective breeding" and face the law of unintended consequences. As one farker previously mentioned, Killer bees are a result of "selective breeding"

Or are you actually claiming to know more about food safety than Joe Hotchkiss-professor of food science and toxicology at Cornell University,

Remember, GMO or transgenic foods, MUST BE PROVEN SAFE-conventional crossbreeding, is 100% unregulated.

"Another example of the risks of traditional breeding is celery. Celery naturally contains a photoactive toxicant, that is, a chemical that becomes toxic when it hits sunlight. There was a case in California where a new variety of celery was bred that, unknown to the people who bred it, had high levels of this toxicant in it. It was planted. People went along, harvested this, and the workers who harvested this came out with a very severe skin rash. Why? Because it had the high level of toxicant resulting from the commercial, normal kind of breeding"

And yes, I DO work in food safety(I'm a microbiologist)-what's your qualification?


I'm going with "reading comprehension" as mine qualification BECAUSE I NEVER SAID FARKING BOO ABOUT SAFETY!! Holy shiat is it that farking tough??
 
2012-12-31 10:14:30 PM  
BTW we've been doing Brave New World style embryo splitting cloning with cattle for a long time now.
 
2013-01-01 01:34:43 AM  

whither_apophis: 3) if you don't like labels, I have some cans of excellent beluga cabier to sell you, may or may not contain cavier. Caveat emptor.


Who says anything about not liking labels? My objection is to irrelevant or useless data on labels, not labels themselves.

Again, you could put labels on foods telling the racial heritage of the farmers who grew the crop, or the astrological sign the person who picked the crop was born under, or the ore smelting / plastic production techniques used to form the container, but while these are all facts, they are not information - they do not help you to make an informed decision about the product in question. If anything, they reduce your capacity to make logical decisions about the product, by data overload - many studies have proven that adding additional, irrelevant facts quickly degrades decision-making capabilities. Adding additional noise to the labels makes it harder to pick out any signal.

And yes, it's noise. Whether something is GMO or not tells you no information at all about its safety, nutrition, taste, or quality - it can't help you make a better decision on the foods you eat, so it doesn't belong on a label.
 
2013-01-01 12:22:59 PM  
www.freewebs.com
 
Displayed 116 of 116 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report