Log Out
Visit LogicalAbsurdity's column >>

LOGICALABSURDITY

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should
Articles Posted: 30  Links Seeded: 918
Member Since: 2/2010  Last Seen: 12/24/2011

FDA Says Genetically Modified Salmon Is Safe to Eat; Decision Looms

Seeded on Wed Sep 8, 2010 7:46 AM EDT
Read ArticleArticle Source: discovermagazine.com
, , , , , , ,
Seeded by LogicalAbsurdity
Advertise | AdChoices

In about a week and a half, officials at the Food and Drug Administration must complete their final deliberations over whether or not to approve a genetically modified salmon as the first GM animal in the world sold for human consumption.

It would seem they're leaning toward "yes."

Last Friday, while the country was preparing to go on vacation, the FDA released an analysis (pdf) of the transgenic salmon created by AquaBounty Technologies of Waltham, Massachusetts, declaring it safe to eat and safe for the environment.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

LogicalAbsurdity

I hope they mark what is GM. But I do worry about the 5% or so that could be fertile.

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Sep 8, 2010 7:59 AM EDT
David @ San Jose, CA

I hope they mark what is GM. But I do worry about the 5% or so that could be fertile.

Do you think it's ironic that laws and regulations are not in place already, before they go ahead and consider approving this GMO product? How do you think this happens? Do you expect full disclosure to occur, without the people protesting and demanding it?

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Wed Sep 8, 2010 11:38 PM EDT
LogicalAbsurdity

Well, to me at least, it makes sense that laws are not in place until there is something already on the market that requires a law. Not saying that as soon as something is considered for being up for market the law shouldn't be drafted or considered then. But I understand people are lazy and will often to the bare minimum to get by, so they simply react to the world around them instead of anticipating things to come.

  • 1 vote
#1.2 - Thu Sep 9, 2010 8:03 AM EDT
David @ San Jose, CA

it makes sense that laws are not in place until there is something already on the market that requires a law.

Here's what I say and question about that:

  • Do you really believe that there aren't already GMO products out on the marketplace?
  • Have you ever heard of a company called Monsanto?
  • Have you heard about anti-GMO initiatives in other nations?
  • Why is it that we have sanctions on certain food and drug products with certain illegal substances, techniques or origins, but somehow GMO salmon and seeds and pesticides are no problem and pass though without delay?
  • How is it that the initiatives and legislation of agribusiness and the petro-chemical industry has precedent over those of the organic movement, anti-GMO groups and advocates for full disclosure?

I could go on with more input, but that's just some of my questioning and concern.

  • 1 vote
#1.3 - Thu Sep 9, 2010 2:32 PM EDT
LogicalAbsurdity

To the first three questions, my answer is "No". But my statement was a broad one which referred to the first of any marketabel product- not specifically this case.

To the fourth and fifth questions I say, "Follow the money".

  • 1 vote
#1.4 - Thu Sep 9, 2010 2:51 PM EDT
David @ San Jose, CA

Are you kidding? If you don't recognize those questions to analysis or even acknowledge them, then I don't know how you can effectively discuss this topic while having any common sensibility.

  • 1 vote
#1.5 - Thu Sep 9, 2010 3:31 PM EDT
David @ San Jose, CA

I invite you to consider the early history of these GMO's and the legistlation against it, as well as the lobbies supporting it:

Flavr Savr, a genetically modified tomato, was the first commercially grown genetically engineered food to be granted a license for human consumption.

StarLink Transgenic maize (corn) has been deliberately genetically modified to have agronomically desirable traits.

Ballot Measure 27 of 2002 would have required the mandatory labelling of all genetically modified food sold in the U.S. state of Oregon. The measure was defeated in the November 5, 2002 general election with 371,851 votes in favor, 886,806 votes against.[1] The measure was placed on the ballot as a result of initiative petition.

All these topics have been covered in the documentary film The Future Of Food, in addition to others.

  • 1 vote
#1.6 - Thu Sep 9, 2010 5:50 PM EDT
LogicalAbsurdity

then I don't know how you can effectively discuss this topic while having any common sensibility.

I come into this topic and discuss it to share what little information I have and to gain new information. I don't claim to be a master in this field. I recognize something is not right, even if I don't fully understand the processes related to it or all the history pertaining to this. But thank you for sharing your knowledge.

  • 1 vote
#1.7 - Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:17 AM EDT
Reply
iNfIniTEVolUshUn

This is a great subject. I don't really eat water fowl, but this is bigger than just a fish since there are other food products which have a genetically engineered footprint. I don't see anything particularly wrong with GE food, but it should be labeled as such. We should know what is genetically modified for the same reason we need to know if a product contains diary, peanuts, sugar, and/or gluten.

  • 2 votes
Reply#2 - Wed Sep 8, 2010 3:01 PM EDT
David @ San Jose, CA

I have already lost most of my confidence in the FDA. However, the day that the FDA approves GMO foods, especially a salmon, is not only the saddest day for that agency, but also for that of the United States and the rest of humanity and all living creatures on the face of earth. Not only would I question the FDA's legitimacy, but I would accuse it of one of the most heinous crimes in history of civilization. This is opening up a pandora's box that is worse than the most inhumane acts of the past century and even the entire history of civilization. All because the FDA thinks this is only a fish.

It's also shocking to realize that power is invested in the FDA to make such a sweeping decision that is not only incredibly profound, which affects people everywhere even beyond our country.

  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Wed Sep 8, 2010 11:29 PM EDT
David @ San Jose, CA

By the way, I think that the very title of this article is absurd:

DA Says Genetically Modified Salmon Is Safe to Eat; Decision Looms

While that may be the subject of the article and not the direct blame of the reporter; nonetheless, it seems to suggest that our only concern is whether or not the FDA thinks it's safe to eat such a creature.

In other words, the media doesn't even seem concerned or question the larger issues concerning GMO's. Should any corporation hold the right to patent a living creature? Do they even have the right to alter a natural living organism? Do they have the right to enter this organism to our food system, where it can influence the lives of people to whom it offends? If it is not the same as naturally existing organism, then do those of us who are opposed to such a Genetically Modified Organism have a right to say that we don't want this monstrosity in our midst? In the case of those people's lives that want to remain clear of such GMO's, can the creators of this GMO absolutely guarantee that it will not have effect on their lives? Does this corporation have the right to impose this GMO on the public?

  • 2 votes
Reply#4 - Thu Sep 9, 2010 2:26 AM EDT
LogicalAbsurdity

it seems to suggest that our only concern is whether or not the FDA thinks it's safe to eat such a creature.

However, I fear that is what most people are concerned with. The "could we" instead of "should we". People want a quick fix in life, and they don't want less of what they've had- ever. So they hear they can get their delicious salmon in half the time- GREAT! Okay, but what about if even a few fertile fish escape and mix with the normal population of fish and disrupt the fragile balance (even more than we already have) in those ecosystems. There are tons and tons of questions to be asked, and answers demanded- but not enough people either care, are smart enough to think of those things, or want to know.

  • 2 votes
#4.1 - Thu Sep 9, 2010 8:09 AM EDT
David @ San Jose, CA

So they hear they can get their delicious salmon in half the time- GREAT! Okay, but what about if even a few fertile fish escape and mix with the normal population of fish and disrupt the fragile balance (even more than we already have) in those ecosystems.

Believe it or not, fishing is actually regulated by the Department of Commerce (DOC), under the NOAA and then by your state and local governments. It's the same agency that issues patents and trademarks, as well as economic and statistical analysis. You can see the government's inherent bias simply by acknowledging the organizational structure and decision making process under which this GMO product shall be considered. This decision is not being decided in Congress, nor even in the Department of Agriculture (DOA). Fishing regulation is done mostly from the NOAA, which is under the powers of the DOC and not the DOA. What's ironic about it, is that GMO seeds are more than likely to be patented by the DOA, but that was originally the founding purpose of the DOA in the time of Abraham Lincoln and in its formative years. Politics and lobbying has changed all of that, here in the U.S.A. However, in many other nations, as well as the State of California and a few others, fishing is indeed considered within the Departments of Agriculture, and/or other environmental protection and food safety agencies.

So, it is no wonder why the debate about organics, GMO's and other food safety and disclosure issues are being discussed in the manner of sheer "convenience" and market trends. Our government is not positioned to inform, advocate and protect people's interest beyond that which is commercially driven.

Finally, even if we do consider this as primarily and economic and trade issue, even that could have disastrous effect. It is foolish to believe that we can simply introduce a GMO fish without effecting the rest of the marketplace. Not only that, it could create unfair trade and monopolization of what is otherwise considered a natural phenomenon. But, once this product is traded, it can no doubt effect the price and share in comparison to other fish out there in the domains. It will be harder to address this trend after it has already had profound and growing impact. The economics of it can create an even greater complication to the entire ordeal.

What's more, we should be concerned not just about eating this fish or even about it's reproductive ability. It's also about its subsistence in the environment or farm, it's interaction, its assurance of containment, it's reaction to and role as a catalyst for new and potent contagions and so on.

  • 1 vote
#4.2 - Thu Sep 9, 2010 3:25 PM EDT
Reply
David @ San Jose, CA

Freak me out!

The current Commissioner of the FDA that was appointed by President Obama is Margaret Ann "Peggy" Hamburg.

You can see her here on Charlie Rose back in 1996 as she has a discussion about the rise of infectious diseases with Nobel laureate Dr. Joshua Lederberg and Charlie Rose.

The show talks about about AIDS, the Center for Disease Control, antibiotic resistance, viruses, darwinian competition, microbial predators, global trends and even the movie Outbreak with Dustin Hoffman, Rene Russo, Morgan Freeman, and Kevin Spacey.

Hamburg was also in a 1995 Charlie Rose show on the topic of the Ebola virus.

How does the FDA or the CDC come to understand health risks in a GMO when there is no known history of it in our naturally occurring environment, much like we see her discuss in these dialogs on Charlie Rose? If they cannot even fathom these dangerously serious "outbreaks" and/or epidemics that occur around the world; then I can only wonder how much they comprehend about contagions amongst seafood farms, aside from GMO products. Yet, here we see them talk about monkeys and other animals with new viruses brought across from foreign nations and continents to our contemporary and globalized society.

  • 2 votes
Reply#5 - Thu Sep 9, 2010 3:57 AM EDT
D B Cooper-2344224

Farmed salmon isn't safe, so GMO farmed salmon can't be safe. Farmed salmon is full of pesticides that are added to the "salmon chow" to control fish lice. Anyone that eats farmed salmon of any kind deserves what they get.

  • 1 vote
Reply#6 - Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:39 PM EDT
David @ San Jose, CA

This is really a large scheme to "merchandise" a natural organism, patent and control it's distribution and then make tie-ins with other merchandising practices and programs. The more we buy into these types of schemes, the more we are forfeiting our economic freedoms and our natural rights to sustain ourselves in a simple and wholesome manner.

  • 2 votes
Reply#7 - Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:17 PM EDT
Leave a Comment:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
Newsvine Privacy Statement
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.