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 32
    More: Interesting, FDA, P.E.I., genetically modified food, Atlantic Salmon  
•       •       •

6105 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-31 12:23:26 PM
3 votes:

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 12:06:18 PM
3 votes:

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 01:04:15 PM
2 votes:

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 12:22:15 PM
2 votes:
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 12:20:36 PM
2 votes:

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


Most food policy is.
2012-12-31 12:15:24 PM
2 votes:

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 12:08:14 PM
2 votes:

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 12:02:45 PM
2 votes:
I understand the concern over genetically modified food but this seems to be a real accomplishment.
2012-12-31 05:10:45 PM
1 votes:

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 03:54:14 PM
1 votes:

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 03:14:45 PM
1 votes:
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 02:50:43 PM
1 votes:
"Put! Zee candle! Beck!"
picpost.postjung.com
"He would have a tremendous schwanshtucker."

/hot like a roll in the hay
2012-12-31 02:15:09 PM
1 votes:

whither_apophis: Selective breeding != gene splicing


Don't think so, huh? What's the difference, biochemically?
2012-12-31 01:51:34 PM
1 votes:

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 01:48:07 PM
1 votes:

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 01:12:17 PM
1 votes:

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 01:05:09 PM
1 votes:

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 01:03:29 PM
1 votes:
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 12:54:51 PM
1 votes:

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 12:45:43 PM
1 votes:
That's fine, just as long as it has a label on it.

/perfect knowledge ftw
2012-12-31 12:35:53 PM
1 votes:
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 12:25:29 PM
1 votes:
Wonderful--"salmon: now with three times the growth hormone!"
2012-12-31 12:23:03 PM
1 votes:
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?
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-12-31 12:17:14 PM
1 votes:
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 12:16:16 PM
1 votes:
Tell Asia they are an aphrodisiac and they'll be extinct next week. Problem solved.
2012-12-31 12:15:13 PM
1 votes:
Anti-GMO is Anti-Africa. That is all.
2012-12-31 12:15:05 PM
1 votes:
Coming this January, on Sci-Fi...
2012-12-31 12:14:47 PM
1 votes:

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 12:08:38 PM
1 votes:

Slartibeerfest: understand the concern over genetically modified food


You do? Because it seems like uninformed fear-mongering to me.
2012-12-31 12:05:47 PM
1 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com
2012-12-31 12:04:52 PM
1 votes:

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 12:04:46 PM
1 votes:
blog.photos2view.com
With a taste that can't be beat! MMM-MMM!
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report