Home | About | Donate

New Nationwide Push to Keep GE Salmon Out of Waters, Off of Shelves


#1

New Nationwide Push to Keep GE Salmon Out of Waters, Off of Shelves

Sarah Lazare, staff writer

Food and environmental campaigners are determined to keep genetically-engineered (GE) salmon out of rivers and oceans and, at the very least, off of seafood retailers' shelves.

To that end, people across the United States will mobilize this week to press the warehouse chain Costco Wholesale Corporation to publicly pledge that it will not sell genetically engineered salmon in its stores under any circumstances, even if they are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).


#3

Pollution of gene pools like wild salmon should be seen as a crime. Depletion and intentional destruction of many vegetable/plant varieties by Big-Ag - MonSatan - is for control of for-profit food supply, seeds, lock-in mandatory purchase of GMO varieties and destroying the ability to "save seed". Greed and subversion/corruption of government, and the 'revolving-door" of industry shills in and out of "regulatory" agencies is destroying our republic.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/PageFiles/24249/genetic_pollution.pdf

https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/ge/pollution.php


#5

You know the problem with permitting only GE salmon in tanks away from natural waters is that inevitably through some mechanism or by some moron they will get released into the wild.


#6

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#7

"If the FDA says yes, it will be the first time GE animals are allowed into the U.S. food supply."

Nonsense. All domesticated plant and animal species that are part of the food supply are genetically modified. The domestic dog is a genetically modified wolf.

The only way to eat food that is not genetically modified is to go back to being hunters and gatherers and eat only wild game and wild nuts, roots and berries.

Selective breeding genetically modifies the gene pool of the population by determining which genes are selected for and which genes are selected against.


#9

The Aquabounty salmon is the worst example you could cite for your argument. They first submitted their petition to FDA in 1995. I guess that means Monsanto must hate them?


#10

Thankfully the developers have addressed this concern.

Transgenic neomales mate with female non-transgenic Atlantic salmon. Fertilized eggs are pressure shocked once again but this time creating hemizygous (possess one copy of the gene construct), all-female triploid Atlantic salmon which are the endpoint AquAdvantage salmon consumer product. By inducing triploidy, individuals are rendered sterile. The combination of all- female and triploid ensures non-reproductive populations. Flow cytometry is used to detect accidental diploids.


#11

Cut the baloney. Genetically modified is not the same as selecting for natural traits like when breeding dogs. Inserting jellyfish genes into a hamster so that it glows in the dark is not the same thing as breeding a hamster that has polka dots or something. The genes are introduced - not selected


#12

Except that that is not 100% foolproof and there have already been accidental releases of supposed 'safe' organisms including frankenfish.


#13

Doesn't an "accident" always happen!
I am in total agreement with you.


#14

You're not actually that stupid, and the clear distinction used by scientists has been repeatedly pointed out to you, but you keep repeating your stupidity. You like to play stupid!


#15

You better get your terms straighten out. Hybrids and gmos are not the same.


#16

Thankfully the Titanic is unsinkable, and all the other assurances ever given us by engineers and profiteers have all proved true!

Erm... no.


#17

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#18

I remember an old TV commercial about margarine, "Don't mess with Mother Nature." Those
were wise words, especially today. Pretty soon they'll be doing this with humans--shades of
the Third Reich. Bach off!


#20

If the only defense were triploidy I might be concerned. But what the developer has done is employ what's known as "defense in depth" in security arenas. The triploidy defense is monitored with flow cytometry, precisely because it isn't 100% foolproof (this is like the intrusion detection system that monitors for people who get through your firewall). The salmon are raised in enclosed pens, in a landlocked area in the Panama highlands (this is like an airgapped network, not connected to river systems that reaches the ocean in the way that nuclear networks are airgapped from the Internet).

Even if a malicious employee smuggles a fish out, and somehow keeps it alive until it can reach its natural habitat, it still won't reproduce because it is triploid. And it isn't clear to me what possible benefit there would be to this, except maybe for anti-GMO activists looking to smear the industry. Do you think they'd deliberately try to sabotage an ecosystem just to make a point about the risks of accidental release, where accidents have been effectively eliminated?


#21

I think that one developer is not all developers. Were such creatures restricted to say Panama that would be one thing. Moreover restricted and kept from entering the ecosystem in any way as well. But they aren't are they? The instance that you cite sounds perfect but it risks contaminating a food species whether by intent or mishap. Such is the way of things in reality. Nuclear plants are safe. After several nuclear accidents they were new generation plants and therefore safe. After another accident we are told the newer new generation plants will be safe... and so it goes.

One of the things about gambling is of course what do you lose if you go all in and risk losing everything! There is no need to risk a species simply to make more profit for a few investors. The loss if it is sustained is irreparable. The developer cannot lay claim to a species and offer a gamble on its existence as a worthwhile risk. The developer is willing to risk something that doesn't belong to it and which belongs to everyone and doesn't need the risk. A risk based on only a few people making a profit.


#22

It's hardly forgone that such a release would cause extinction. Salmon return to the place where they hatched to spawn. How is a fish hatched in a landlocked cage going to do that?

Further, the timing of spawning matters a lot. A salmon that matures much faster than wild salmon is at distinct disadvantage now. If it does somehow find a suitable spawning location on maturing, it will be all alone, waiting on the other salmon to finish maturing. But a salmon in fresh water is a doomed salmon. Its body is decomposing from exposure to fresh water and it has a very limited life left to finish reproduction. It certainly can't wait for the rest of the school to finish maturing.


#23

Well aside from the salmon species that are landlocked naturally but no matter. If you really believe that man is so perfect and that he can contain organisms that have been genetically engineered then I certainly won't be able to convince you. The record for faith in man's efficacy at doing so is persuasive enough. Looking at the record, man has a bad record at containing his creations. It is just the nature of complexity and entropy. Put something in a box, tape the box shut and stick it in a vault and you have a pretty good chance that you've contained it well enough. Introduce complexity and things start to go wrong. Did you get a paper cut while taping the box shut? Did Pandora look in the box before she placed it in the vault? Was she infected? Did something get out? Did something get in like moisture or oxygen to act as a catalyst? Is everything exactly as it should be to make it safe.

We have a lousy record at doing things perfectly.

The risk is not from the developer in Panama per se but in later developers in the Cascades or along the Alaskan coast. Those developers who'll insist as they always do that it is safe and blithely risk that which isn't theirs. All of this is simply for a few people to make a profit... it is an obscenity to risk so much for so little so easily ... once too often.


#24

Then that's a reason to subject the next round of developers to the same environmental assessment as Aquabounty has completed. A future company's mistakes isn't a reason to halt the responsible actions of the present company.

This is about more than mere profit from my perspective. Anything that can be done to reduce the impact on wild salmon (by boosting farmed salmon) is a win-win.