Genetically Modified Salmon

[3wt]

No, I'm not a geneticist. I am a biochemical process engineer and don't nor have I ever worked in any kind of food industry. I have been against the anti-GMO crowd because people with an agenda want to demonize the concept of GMO as food without sound basis (it's dangerous, it's infected with viruses, you don't know what it's made of etc.) These are the things we should take to the FDA, and I really do think asking them to overstep will errode their calling and credibility.

I just am left wondering what point you are arguing. The prolifertion of the GMO or their genetic material, or other ecological concers that should be considered. OR, is it the safety of GM salmon as a foodstuff.

I still say that the FDA should not listen to public opinion or political pressure. Maybe deep pockets buy politician and affect policy. But the FDA should be above that garbage. The food is either scientifically safe or not. If it's safe then we move on to the next argument with the applicable agency. They won't fail to address arguments, but they can address them as being beyond their scope.

Maybe the USDA is a better option if the concern is infiltration of an existing food animal population. That sounds closer. Shouldn't there be some way to get this slowed down with environmental impact studies? This surely seems more legit than many studies that have been affective in the past? I guess that's the EPA though.

And I do question TU on this one. I think they have the right idea, but like many environmental organizations, they're willing to do what it takes to move their agenda. Even if it's not quite on the intellectually honest side. Are they really concerened that GM salmon is dangerous? I doubt it. If there was a way to do it where none could ever be released TU wouldn't be concerned. Their agenda is the wild salmon population.

Now for a dose of reality - isn't it true that the plan that is being approved includes raising the fish in Panama in an inland farm? So once more is this about the real environmental concern or fearmongering of a "frankenfish."

[troutfiend1985]

Now for a dose of reality - isn't it true that the plan that is being approved includes raising the fish in Panama in an inland farm? So once more is this about the real environmental concern or fearmongering of a "frankenfish."

If that is so, then I have no problem with the GM salmon. Only concern that I have with GM salmon is if they escape and compete with wild Salmon that can/do reproduce. A set up in Panama, wouldn't that be an expensive set up? I would hope that these companies are required to put a tag on these salmon in order to identify whether they escape.

If this set up is in Panama, then we might actually be doing Salmon a favor by decreasing harvest pressure on wild salmon. And if the set up is in Panama, then TU is out of bounds in this one IMO, how would salmon survive the hot water in Panama and then be able to make it up to wild salmon and compete? This actually could be a good thing, but I would want to see where this set up is and what are the possibilities of the GM to escape/compete with wild salmon. I like the TU, and I think generally they do a good job for their interests. But they are a special interest group, and sometimes I wonder if I only like them because they represent what I am interested in.

[Quillback]

Speaking of agendas, last year there was a lot of finger pointing by enviro organizations at salmon farms in the Pac NW. Salmon populations were down and the enviros came up with a theory that it was due to increased sea lice populations caused by fish farms. The enviro groups were screaming for fish farms to be shut down..well it turns out after some sound research was done that the declines were not at all related to sea lice or fish farms. Most of the enviro groups involved receive donations from wild salmon netters who see fish farms as competition. There are many agendas involved that are not apparent on the surface. Not that I am accusing TU of fronting for the commercial fishing industry, but I have grown cynical about enviro groups lately, they seem to be more money driven these days. And I'm all for a clean, healthy environment with lots of fish to catch, but I admit I've gotten somewhat cynical about these organizations.

[Tim Smith]

Speaking of agendas, last year there was a lot of finger pointing by enviro organizations at salmon farms in the Pac NW. Salmon populations were down and the enviros came up with a theory that it was due to increased sea lice populations caused by fish farms. The enviro groups were screaming for fish farms to be shut down..well it turns out after some sound research was done that the declines were not at all related to sea lice or fish farms. Most of the enviro groups involved receive donations from wild salmon netters who see fish farms as competition. There are many agendas involved that are not apparent on the surface. Not that I am accusing TU of fronting for the commercial fishing industry, but I have grown cynical about enviro groups lately, they seem to be more money driven these days. And I'm all for a clean, healthy environment with lots of fish to catch, but I admit I've gotten somewhat cynical about these organizations.

Quill I agree with you that money (and politics) are unfortunate features in all this, but that's the way of the world. Salmon fishers do oppose aquaculture, primarily for economic reasons. TU and other fisheries conservation groups have concerns about cultured salmon that have nothing to do with that. The best you can hope for from advocacy groups is transparency and good science. TU provides both of these here.

Environmental groups have oppposed salmon farms on numerous grounds, not just lice. Compared to dams the salmon farms probably haven't done much of the total damage on wild salmon so far but sea lice were wiping out cultured salmon for a while and pollution from feed waste and competition for spawning sites from escaped fish are concerns that will only grow over time.

Efforts like the WWF aquaculture dialogues are improving aquaculture practices, but without input from outside, none of those improvements could have happened.

[Tim Smith]

I have been against the anti-GMO crowd because people with an agenda want to demonize the concept of GMO as food without sound basis (it's dangerous, it's infected with viruses, you don't know what it's made of etc.) These are the things we should take to the FDA, and I really do think asking them to overstep will errode their calling and credibility.

Again, as things stand the FDA has been charged with evaluating environmental effects along with food safety issues. TU has no option but to work through them.

From Aquabounty's website:

The FDA must provide premarket approval and examine the environmental impact of any genetically engineered food animal before it can be made available commercially

The Pew link above has a summary of GMO regulatory responsibilities.

The food is either scientifically safe or not. If it's safe then we move on to the next argument with the applicable agency. They won't fail to address arguments, but they can address them as being beyond their scope.

I agree someone else should do this rather than the FDA, but again, as things stand now, the FDA has been charged to evaluate environmental effects. Unless you are saying the environmental concerns are garbage (and it seems here you are not) then the petition is aimed at the proper agency for now.

I just am left wondering what point you are arguing. The prolifertion of the GMO or their genetic material, or other ecological concers that should be considered. OR, is it the safety of GM salmon as a foodstuff.

I am not especially concerned about the health effects of GMOs as food as I see the science now. It seems doubtful to me that modifying a single gene somehow makes an animal toxic.

I also strongly support the development of aquaculture when it is done sustainably. As TF says, some kinds of aquaculture can actually benefit wild stocks of fish. However, I have researched the effects of aquaculture on ecosystems for years now. The potential harm of aquaculture is just as well established as the benefits. The environmental effects of GMO animals that can potentially escape back into the wild and interbreed with wild stock is a very real concern.

- isn't it true that the plan that is being approved includes raising the fish in Panama in an inland farm? So once more is this about the real environmental concern or fearmongering of a "frankenfish."

No. This has nothing to do with Panama. Aqua Bounty makes no claims for physical isolation of their product in Panama. If the FDA approves this product they will be produced all over the world and sold here in the US.

I still say that the FDA should not listen to public opinion or political pressure.

We will have to just agree to disagree about whether or not the public should be able to influence the federal bureocracy.

At the moment environmental science isn't getting a hearing in the FDA, so all those environmental issues you agree should be addressed right now also fall into the realm of "public" opinion.

I'm glad TU is taking that on.

[woodman]

You can not improve on what the creator has provided, crossbreeding is one thing, the Native Americans came up with all kinds of variety's of food we eat today.

But genetics has crossed the line and we are suffering for it...

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/TheGMOTrilogy/index.cfm

[3wt]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_40/b4197021491547.htm

I guess you should withdraw your name from the list then.

Fishfarm to be in Panama. Multiple other citations available if you google it.

[Tim Smith]

Glad to see your concerns about petitioning the FDA are off the table now.

I thought we would agree there once the facts were on the table.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_40/b4197021491547.htm

I guess you should withdraw your name from the list then.

Fishfarm to be in Panama. Multiple other citations available if you google it.

Aquabounty can and will sell those eggs to whoever wants to buy them. That's common practice in aquaculture and the Panama farm is beside the point.

[3wt]

Glad to see your concerns about petitioning the FDA are off the table now.

I thought we would agree there once the facts were on the table.

Aquabounty can and will sell those eggs to whoever wants to buy them. That's common practice in aquaculture and the Panama farm is beside the point.

If the FDA is charged with overseeing the environmental impact then I don't disagree that they should be the ones petitioned. That shouldn't be the case but if it is, then that's the messed up system in place. We do disagree that the FDA should be swayed by public opinion. Safety is not a fickle concept and public opinion is.

Is that what the FDA is being asked to approve or the plan for sale to the US that involves the panama farm, or any possible sale of eggs? That would make a difference.

[Tim Smith]

Is that what the FDA is being asked to approve or the plan for sale to the US that involves the panama farm, or any possible sale of eggs? That would make a difference.

Yes, that is my understanding. It's approval for a new product with no stipulation as to specific source.

If the FDA is charged with overseeing the environmental impact then I don't disagree that they should be the ones petitioned. That shouldn't be the case but if it is, then that's the messed up system in place. We do disagree that the FDA should be swayed by public opinion. Safety is not a fickle concept and public opinion is.

I agree the system is messed up. Getting it fixed might be one outcome here.

I think we're also not far off on the public opinion issue. Random ideas out of left field aren't the same as careful scientific study and the opinion of experts. The input of environmental scientists on this issue (and others) deserves a better hearing than it has gotten to this point.