Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, FDA, P.E.I., genetically modified food, Atlantic Salmon  
•       •       •

6137 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2012 at 11:59 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
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 16 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report