Genetically Modified Salmon for Americans

[Jerome Scuggs]

The price of the genetically modified fish wouldnt be any cheaper than what we pay for salmon today however the price of 'organic wild' salmon will be raised : (

this, of course, is assuming that the salmon is, in fact, harmful or less desirable. granted, the studies were performed by the company that produced the GM salmon, but the FDA has also performed studies, and their method is as follows:

( http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Advisor.../UCM224762.pdf )

The assessment of an application for approval by FDA is performed by an interdisciplinary
team of agency subject-matter experts drawn from across the Center. In general, these teams
include molecular biologists, animal scientists, veterinarians, toxicologists, chemists,
statisticians, risk assessors, and other specialists, as required by the technical nature of each
component of the hierarchical review process. In general, this interdisciplinary team is
assembled as sponsors begin their interactions with the agency. Depending on the nature of
the submission, in-depth reviewers (at least two) are assigned to each submission, each of
whom prepares an initial individual evaluation of the data and information. For example, the
components that address the characterization of the construct generally have molecular
biologists acting as in-depth reviewers, while the phenotypic characterizations could have
veterinarians, animal scientists, and statisticians as in-depth reviewers. The evaluations
performed by the in-depth reviewers are presented to the full team, which has had the
submission available for review; the larger group acts as a peer-review panel for the in-depth
reviewers’ evaluations. Following discussion, the in-depth reviewers prepare a written
review, which is again subjected to peer review by the entire group. Once concurrence is
reached, the entire team signs off on the review. Each step in the hierarchical review process
is carried out in the same manner.

the only significant impact that could be of concern is the environmental impact. the FDA concluded that up to 5% of the eggs sold to farms could be fertile. unlike GM crops though, it would be difficult for a fish to be carried away by winds and deposited.

of course, it seems to me that if it was advantageous to grow that fast... then the forces of nature would have selected genes like that, no? it seems like a trait which shuts off growing in certain conditions would have been evolved deliberately as a survival trait. disable that and the chances of survival would decrease...?

[Jerome Scuggs]

so i read through the FDA report and from what i gather, the actual growth hormone itself isn't an issue at all - actually, as the salmon increased in size, levels of GH actually shrank. the biggest risk was something called IGF1 which was some sort of insulin hormone or something.

We conclude that even if the expression of IGF1 were present at the highest levels
measured, and even if expected high consumers of salmon ate nothing but ABT salmon
containing this likely upper bound level of IGF1, the margin of exposure to this
endogenous component of food would be well within levels of exposure from other
dietary sources of salmon, and poses no additional risk.

[Jason]

+1, tilapia is really good....what state are you in?

reppin' PA since 1984

[TagMor]

blindly defending corrupt government and scientific organisations whilst they gamble with the planet's entire ecology - I hope your children are jellyfish mutants.

[Fit of Rage]

Hybrid Salmon, well atleast they aren't smart salmon, fucking liberals.

I just made a dollar.

[paradise!]

Food, Inc: turnin' boys into men and vegetarians into vegans since 2009(?).

Is that Blanca in his younger years?

hahaha

[Jerome Scuggs]

blindly defending corrupt government and scientific organisations whilst they gamble with the planet's entire ecology - I hope your children are jellyfish mutants.

see, this is funny because i went through the scientific data, while you make a blanket statement assuming every single person affiliated with government is corrupt. who's being blind here?

i mean i feel you, but let's get this clear: if the government was always out to get us, if it's sole purpose was repression and evil - we would all be dead. yes, the net effect of the machine is generally less rights and more violence, and yes, individual freedom and government means are directly opposed to eachother, but let's be real here: somewhere, sometimes, there are people who want to help. and they want to do good. and they want to make a living. and the only way they can do that (or so they think) is by working for the man.

i will always prefer less government to more government and no government to any government. if this was an ideal world, then an independent organization like Consumer Reports would get their hands on the data, and then other independent accreditation services and consumer organizations would double-check the data, and the net effect would produce affordable and high-quality goods and services which go through a transparent process. but we don't have that, yet.

i am not defending the FDA, i am defending the data.

[Tigron-X]

see, this is funny because i went through the scientific data, while you make a blanket statement assuming every single person affiliated with government is corrupt. who's being blind here?

i mean i feel you, but let's get this clear: if the government was always out to get us, if it's sole purpose was repression and evil - we would all be dead. yes, the net effect of the machine is generally less rights and more violence, and yes, individual freedom and government means are directly opposed to eachother, but let's be real here: somewhere, sometimes, there are people who want to help. and they want to do good. and they want to make a living. and the only way they can do that (or so they think) is by working for the man.

i will always prefer less government to more government and no government to any government. if this was an ideal world, then an independent organization like Consumer Reports would get their hands on the data, and then other independent accreditation services and consumer organizations would double-check the data, and the net effect would produce affordable and high-quality goods and services which go through a transparent process. but we don't have that, yet.

i am not defending the FDA, i am defending the data.

[Jerome Scuggs]

i mean i hate to hate, but the government is just a particular group of individuals. to put them all in one category would be to make the same mistake that underlies the concepts behind statism, and that sort of thinking can't fix or destroy a system, only replicate it.

mad props to robert pirsig for this insight

[Galleleo]

I'm not going to go into a whole big discussion here, but IMO, without a government harmful products would be in the market before any independent organisation ever got around to testing it, and even if it did test there, they have no power to stop organizations from putting it on the market.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I'm not going to go into a whole big discussion here, but IMO, without a government harmful products would be in the market before any independent organisation ever got around to testing it, and even if it did test there, they have no power to stop organizations from putting it on the market.

see, i've definitely come to understand that people will have to change and people's perception of people will have to change, otherwise anarchism really wouldn't work. the idea that the individuals in today's society could organize themselves and be responsible is pretty far-fetched... but definitely possible. of course, you also have to accept the fact that sometimes tragedy strikes and there's nothing that can really be done, someone somewhere will eat something and die because of it, and no person or governmental entity could prevent it. that's a hard one to come to terms with because people have souls and "doing nothing", even if there's nothing that could be done, just doesn't sit well with certain people.

but yeah, to avoid being sucked into a discussion, i'll leave it at that.

[kthx]

The problem is that today is today, we let ourselves become entrapped in the current system and there is almost no way out besides pure revolution. But that would once again require people to be able to fend for themselves which probably wouldn't happen in todays world of entitlements.

Not to mention most jobs would cease to be important, as would much of the economy. It would just go back to simpler times. I prefer giving powers back to local governments to govern small sections of people over having a large government in control of everything as it is now in the US or the EU because a large government can't help but make large over encompassing laws that not every culture within the government can agree with. It's like trying to make a law that Texas and California agree with, we are different people. I prefer that over anarchy though.

[vaped]

I welcome our new salmon overlords.

[Jerome Scuggs]

well if you believe the more pessimistic views about the economy, federalism might come into play as governments devolve powers to lower authorities in pursuit of economic efficiency. the problem is, though, that many people refuse to allow what paul krugman calls "economic pain" - ignoring that making small sacrifices now prevent widespread losses later.

but see, that's what i meant about perceptions needing to change. for instance, the perception that the economy can only be strong as long as it grows, because that creates the "growth for growth's sake" mentality, which is a big factor in why, say, Obama is going to give another $50 billion to the nation's most inefficient infrastructures.

it kinda sucks but in order for perceptions to change, people gotta learn the hard way. for instance, look at the new york times. you can read through my posts around the end of 2008 and find many criticisms of the housing bailout and the NYT's collective opinion that the government should do everything it can to prop up housing prices, but now that time has passed, it looks like they have finally learned the lesson. sadly, such singular events will rarely generate some sort of underlying ideas (such as the fact that the government shouldn't prop up any price or market), but that's where you gotta step in and drop some knowledge bombs.

[saetep]

If the U.S. doesn't capitalize on this then countries like China will. "Genetically modified in China" label on every fish in the supermarket, except for a small section that's made in America for a few dollars more.