Genetically Modified Salmon

[Tim Smith]

Quill, these GM salmon aren't like any other fish that has ever been stocked. The agendas on both sides of this debate have been in plain view for the decades this debate has been going on.

SIU and OB's post addresses the environmental reasons for TU's position very well. GM salmon have genes from entirely different species built into their DNA. They're programmed to never stop growing and that fundamentally changes everything about them. The chance those engineered genes could introgress back into wild populations makes them risky to wild salmon on an entirely different level. People who don't study wild populations of animals (molecular engineers and agriculturists) don't typically account for those things.

This is a typical engineer vs. biologists issue. Engineers are usually pretty proud of themselves when they figure out how to do something and pretty slow to admit that their "solutions" have some holes in them. Tripoloidy helps, but as has been pointed out, it's not perfect.

Wild salmon are already in serious decline. We should be trying to save what we have rather than adding additional risks. Beyond that, what will happen when some nimrod decides it would be a good idea to put these genes into Asian Carp or Northern Pike (as has already been tried). Imagine what kind of damage those kinds of freaks could do in your favorite lake. The salmon are just the camels' nose.

I actually think corporate aquaculture can be a good thing in some settings, but not when it threatens native stocks. Some fish ALWAYS escape from aquaculture. Triploidy ALWAYS eventually fails when you deal with millions and billions of animals. The logic that says this isn't possible is the same logic that gave us Asian carp.

The poster that asked what risk these fish pose to humans raised an important question. We can almost certainly eat these salmon safely, but they could cost us wild salmon stocks. If we get in the habit of reflexively re-engineering animals that will escape into the wild, we'll be in a position to do ourselves incalculable harm over the long haul.

That is their risk to us.

I'm signing.

[Tim Smith]

egad - gm triploid hogs - what would Sarah and the girls say?...

At least you have a good chance to find the hogs if they get away.

You'll never get those fish back once they're out.

[stlfisher]

I signed the petition as well.

[Quillback]

Hmmm, you guys are convincing me that it's pretty risky, I may think about signing, but want to be a little more informed. Not knocking anyone here, but sometimes when issues like this arise, the knees start jerking pretty quickly.

[Tim Smith]

Hmmm, you guys are convincing me that it's pretty risky, I may think about signing, but want to be a little more informed. Not knocking anyone here, but sometimes when issues like this arise, the knees start jerking pretty quickly.

Yeah, it's a good idea to research this issue in depth because the number of genetically modified products will be increasing quite a bit from this time forward. Be sure to consider the source when you sort through the information.

In my opinion the Europeans take this overboard and are afraid to even eat a genetically modified organism.

The ag industry is a mixed bag, but some of the folks there can be pretty cavalier when they start seeing dollar signs.

[exiledguide]

Yeah, it's a good idea to research this issue in depth because the number of genetically modified products will be increasing quite a bit from this time forward. Be sure to consider the source when you sort through the information.

In my opinion the Europeans take this overboard and are afraid to even eat a genetically modified organism.

The ag industry is a mixed bag, but some of the folks there can be pretty cavalier when they start seeing dollar signs.

I have a distrust for the scientific community, among other things i have been told that coal dust does not cause black lung disease during congresional hearings maybe 50 years ago same lies about smoking and of course Thalidomide was a perfectly drug to give pregnent women according to scientest. If you don't know what I am refering to ,Google Thaldomide babies and see, if you were born at that time, what could have happened to you if the FDA had listened to the scientest. I think that God or mother nature, if you don't believe in God, did a pretty good job and some things should be left alone by man. If any body cares check out Monsanto owning the genetic rights to potatoes and geneticly altering those potatoes so

they are resistent to Round Up herbicide and Round Up is the the only Herbicide that farmers would be allowed to use.

The other thing to consider is if a geneticly altered Salmon eliminated natural wild Salmon and an unknown orgasm attacked that new Salmon what would happen to the food supply. Wasn,t there a potato famine in Ireland caused by everyone growing the same potato?

[Al Agnew]

I have a distrust for the scientific community, among other things i have been told that coal dust does not cause black lung disease during congresional hearings maybe 50 years ago same lies about smoking and of course Thalidomide was a perfectly drug to give pregnent women according to scientest. If you don't know what I am refering to ,Google Thaldomide babies and see, if you were born at that time, what could have happened to you if the FDA had listened to the scientest. I think that God or mother nature, if you don't believe in God, did a pretty good job and some things should be left alone by man. If any body cares check out Monsanto owning the genetic rights to potatoes and geneticly altering those potatoes so

they are resistent to Round Up herbicide and Round Up is the the only Herbicide that farmers would be allowed to use.

The other thing to consider is if a geneticly altered Salmon eliminated natural wild Salmon and an unknown orgasm attacked that new Salmon what would happen to the food supply. Wasn,t there a potato famine in Ireland caused by everyone growing the same potato?

Good points...

I don't think you can indict the "scientific community" for those examples you cited, though. It's always a good idea to look for who stands to gain, especially monetarily, and who has the money. The "scientists" who said coal dust and smoking and thalidomide weren't dangerous were being paid by the industries that stood to lose if and when those things were proven dangerous, and there were a lot more scientists who were telling the truth. But the industries had the money and influence to get their side heard at the highest levels, while it took a while for the scientists who knew different to get heard.

Your point about an unknown organism attacking the new salmon after it had eliminated wild salmon is very valid. We are seeing large segments of our food supply being reduced to the one or two varieties of plants or even animals that are the most profitable to grow, losing the genetic diversity that protects from just what you said. Putting all our eggs in one basket, so to speak, and if something goes wrong with that one basket, we're in big trouble. We're already seeing a lot of problems appearing with Round-up ready crops, with the pests becoming resistant to Round-up, and suddenly we realize that nearly all farmers have been forced to use the Round-up ready plants and other strains that might give us a chance to combat these pests without Round-up are no longer available.

Like Tim, I'm not ready to scream that the sky is falling with all genetically modified organisms, such as is being done in Europe. But a lot more caution is warranted than what we've seen so far in America, in my opinion.

[3wt]

I'm just put off that TU is going to the FDA with an environmental problem. It's like trying to fail a person's house inspection via the fire inspection when what you don't like is the architecture. They're taking a dishonest approach to the issue because I suppose they think the ends justify the means.

The FDA is charged with making sure food and drugs are safe. If we ask them to interfere in conservation and environmental concerns then we are erroding their legitimacy as an agency of food and drug safety. Next time any ruling comes out that a drug company doens't like, they'll probably file suit to say that the FDA wasn't acting from a drug safety stand point, and they'll cite this.

In any case, this won't chang anything anyway. Sign away at the petition, but my understanding is that the FDA does what they do and petitions won't and shouldn't sway their opinion - remember it's supposed to be based on safety. They also don't have the budget or staff to do what they are supposed to do much less venture into environmetalism.'

Bottom line is that you're barking up the wrong tree and signing your name to one thing but really mean another. If the ends justify the means than have at it. I'm not wasting my time.

[Tim Smith]

I'm just put off that TU is going to the FDA with an environmental problem. It's like trying to fail a person's house inspection via the fire inspection when what you don't like is the architecture. They're taking a dishonest approach to the issue because I suppose they think the ends justify the means.

"Dishonest" is a pretty strong word. Why would you attack the ethics of Trout Unlimited?

Their letter is very clear and they have few/no options but to go to the FDA.

The FDA is charged with regulating animals. The EPA's perview appears to be microbes and toxins produced by plants. Its FDA or nowhere under the current system.

Is your real point here that you consider ecological issues like the loss of wild salmon to be esoteric/asethetic (like architechture)...or perhaps even "illegitimate" to use your adjective from below?

I've read some of your other posts and you are clearly a bright guy (and a geneticist...working on GMOs perhaps?). Please don't take any of this personally, but as a fisheries/aquatic ecologist I've been down this path many times with people who don't respect (or understand) ecological issues like conserving wild stocks of fish. If that's your position, that might be a productive debate and it would save a lot of time if we just began there.

The FDA is charged with making sure food and drugs are safe. If we ask them to interfere in conservation and environmental concerns then we are erroding their legitimacy as an agency of food and drug safety.

You are probably right that environmental issues should be handled someplace like the EPA but it does not undermine the "legitimacy" of the FDA to address risk to natural resources (which by extension affect human welfare). The ag specialists at FDA aren't trained to understand or evaluate or approve or prevent environmental risk, but that's what they are being asked to do under the current regulatory system. Of course that's all quite convenient to Aqua Bounty since it allows people to come in and say such issues aren't "legitimate" for the FDA and because the FDA isn't equipped to deal with this, they are essentially a blind referee with limited capacity to judge the issues.

I have been professionally involved in more than one project where engineer/molecular scientists tried to push ecological concerns off the table. One of them even had some success advancing the proposition that environmental standards should not be based on outcomes in the environment. Fortunately that notion was eventually dispatched but that idea has wide acceptance in some quarters.

In any case, this won't chang anything anyway. Sign away at the petition, but my understanding is that the FDA does what they do and petitions won't and shouldn't sway their opinion - remember it's supposed to be based on safety. They also don't have the budget or staff to do what they are supposed to do much less venture into environmetalism.

Bottom line is that you're barking up the wrong tree and signing your name to one thing but really mean another. If the ends justify the means than have at it. I'm not wasting my time.

The meaning of the petition is clear to anyone who reads it. If there is another tree to bark up, where is it?

As to efficacy...

I've just gotten an education about how those petitions are handled. There are specific programs used to sort through these kinds of form letters. Their cumulative impact is the same as a body count. High numbers of responses register as high interest. High interest validates the popularity of a petitioning body's viewpoint and attracts attention from politicians who set policy and CAN affect outcomes.

Unique comments, even on boiler-plate petitions, are put in a separate category and the agency has a responsibility to address each one. Failure to address those comments provides grounds for legal action later. So if you have an iron clad argument that a judge will accept as not adequately addressed by the agency, that failure can indeed be used as the basis for a lawsuit later.

In this case it may well be that the FDA could be found liable for failure to address these environmental issues associated with GMOs. Given that the FDA is not trained to do that, the EPA or some other organization actually trained for that work might be charged to do that job instead.

TU may have deep enough pockets to accomplish that.

[Tim Smith]

The other thing to consider is if a geneticly altered Salmon eliminated natural wild Salmon and an unknown orgasm attacked that new Salmon what would happen to the food supply. Wasn,t there a potato famine in Ireland caused by everyone growing the same potato?

And yes, this basically says it all.