I just finished shopping for beta HCG growth hormone free milk, beef and the free range chicken and eggs. And so next there will be the authentic 'wild' salmon that I willl have to pay for (for more, thank-you). I apologetically have to pay for my paranoia and oh no it is not the greed of some aggressive fishy biotech. Is there a stock purchase option?
They are testing for the known effects and not the unknown effects or possibilities for that. How can they? Unless there is a genetic and biological test invented for the imaginary future disease "Selfish d'aquabounty" how would the scientists find any unknown toxic effects?
There are a lot of children attaining puberty earlier, women getting breast cancer and young men becoming infertile lately. wonder which of our corporate inventions of the past are responsible?
And in China and India, a lot of children with severe birth defects are being born around factories.
Eradicate the finacial stock market system and these inventors would become normal fishermaen. There are enough -possibly fish for everyone- but who wants that much salmon day in/day out?
Toni - 14 years ago
I am not concerned about this fish and would eat it, if I ate salmon.
If the farming is done properly, in a recirculating system, accidental introduction into the environment is a non-issue. Also, the paper I read stated that these fish grow faster in early development but do not grow larger than the natural species. As far as the "vast majority" of the fish are sterile, I am sure it was the legal department who worded that statement, not the scientists working the project.
All business is in it for the money, but that does not mean that all business is corrupt and greedy.
I work in the aquaculture industry and know how expensive and strictly regulated it is here in the US.
If you want to boycott dangerous seafood, please stop eating imported farmed seafood. Few countries have the restrictions we have here. The shrimp and fish raised overseas are often treated with chemicals that are banned in aquaculture here in the US. Also many of the flow through systems start with polluted water and then add more bio lode which then damages the environment downstream and also kills estuaries. You have more to fear from imported farmed seafood than you do from these GM salmon. You really don't want to know how they grow the algae to feed immmature tilapia.
Don't automatically disregard my opinion because I work in aquaculture. Check out the Food and Water Watch website. They have terrific information about recirculating aquaculture systems. http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/RASflyer.pdf
Anthony - 14 years ago
"I defy anyone to come up with a hypothetical way a genetically altered fish can adversely affect the human body after consumption and digestion. I mean, we're not talking about chemicals here, right? No biological agents either. No virus, bacteria, nothing."
Posted by Paul Van Bellinghern on September 21st 2010, 4:52pm
There are many reports on the dangers of GM foods. This is nothing new. It would behoove many people to read up on this matter.
"A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer. As for environmental impacts, the use of genetic engineering in agriculture could lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and the potential contamination of non-genetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material."
- The Center for Food Safety
660 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, #302
Washington DC 20003
P: (202)547-9359, F: (202)547-9429
office@centerforfoodsafety.org
Anthony - 14 years ago
My family doesn't eat any GM foods not limited to but including chicken, corn and soy.
trevor - 14 years ago
OK. I don't see a problem eating a fish which has a few genes activated which normally aren't. Ever heard the expression "You are what you eat"? Well, in reality, that doesn't happen. Sorry, but if I eat some chicken, I don't become a chicken. If I eat a vegetable, I don't become a vegetable. Your DNA doesn't change because you eat a fish with altered DNA. Heck, its like saying I will only eat Salmon and not Tuna because their DNA is different and I am not sure what will happen to me if I consume the other fish... come on people. The only thing I agree with is the fact that they shouldn't be released into the wild. They aren't wild fish, and it would be a poor idea to mix them. But I see nothing wrong with farming them (just like every domestic animal and plant we raise).
"This allows the AquAdvantage® Salmon to grow to twice the size it normally would, in half the time, as well as effectively rendering the vast majority of the fish sterile - which both prevents the altered fish to breed with wild populations of fish, and protects the company's intellectual material."
---- the key wording here that should alarm everyone is "vast majority of the fish sterile" which means basically that there will be SOME, maybe a few, but only 1 fertile fish is all it takes to get fertilized by a natural wild fish, which then could possibly reproduce and jeopardize not just one type of fish, but the entire world's fish population and the effects it would have on human's DNA as well. Eating GMO foods, is genetic roulette, and I'm not okay with playing the numbers when its as serious as possible eventual extinction of the human race (as it is now, more natural) I don't want to wake up dead in my grave looking at a bunch of zombie like dumbed down Americans still believing in what they think is freedom, is not having to carry money around(being chipped), having everything done for them(learning about yourself and taking care of your own health, growing and preparing your own food, etc)
We need to live INDEPENDENT, not be dependent on GM fish..
For fun I'm going to ask the silly but fruitful question;
What would Jesus fish?
If GM fish can't reproduce, then that's not good for god's children.. now.. Fish that can reproduce, naturally, not spllicing genes in a lab then legalizing tampering with nature, to destroy the planet, so they can kill everyone off slowly, then when we're dead, they'll have the whole planet to themselves, then just have nano-bots clean up the mess and start fresh. Thank you David Rockefeller for all his mercury based vaccines and fluoride in the water, we're all so smart, we allow electronic voting machines and corporate-owned candidate commercials and fake-news, to pick who we vote for.
Who would Jesus bomb? Iraq? Iran?
Lazy damned human beings wake up, it's 2010, get with the times! There should be no way, that there's this many people voting in this poll that they would LOVE to eat GM Fish..
that is embarrassing to the entire Human population that we would think that some CORPORATION, would actually blindly think that they're selling us something safe, that would not normally be found in nature.
Some idiots may say.. "oh meat is meat, fish is fish, they wont reproduce, the "expert" said so"
You ever READ? the "vast majority" means there will be some that can reproduce, so the whole idea of them allowing this GM fish, should not even be on the table, cause the mutations can not be contained.
Think about it.. and check out Ron Paul :)
Jacob - 14 years ago
LOL @ people (shills? stockholders? employees?) conflating natural selective breeding with gene splicing - no, not the same thing.
Looks like I'm done eating salmon if they aren't labeled as GM. Knowing how corrupt FDA is, they will probably allow it to go to market without GM labeling. Wait until these freak fish 'magically' find their way into our oceans (*cough* Monsanto tactics) - they may drive the decimation of wild salmon populations and suddenly one corporation owns our fish.
yeahright - 14 years ago
WTF?! There is no way I will eat that crap. I am totally against GMO...lookup Monsanto if you need educated, or ask any unemployed farmer or famers who were sued by Monsanto...so, how many fisherman will lose jobs on this one! Once the government controlls all of the food supply, that leaves us with nothin'.
If the food supply is strained, then the government should limit the amount of children a family can produce! Heck, half the kids having kids can't afford themselfs, much less another human! Once you start playing God and altering, splicing and dicing, no good can come from it....
John Doe - 14 years ago
Are you serious... genetically engineered fish.. how in the world do you think that this would be a good idea. Look at all the pesdisides we are now finding out that are harmfull to us and the steroids they are putting in chickens and cows we eat. Why do you think we are getting to a point where obesity is a normal thing !! Its not good for you and we dont find out for years that these things are going to cause problems..Its almost like saying that cigarretts do not cause cancer !! Wake up people ! And to say they are not in it for the money !! You people are sooo stupid ! You know WHAT GO ahead and eat the fish people !! And while you are at it.. go ahead and eat all the fish comming out of the Gulf that they are saying is safe to eat !! When you are in your death bed hurry up and die and dont cause health insurance to go up eather while you are at it.
Brittany - 14 years ago
I am a veterinarian and although not entirely opposed to genetically engineered fish I do not support releasing these salmon into wild populations. Because of their larger size (and hence greater need for food) and greater resistance to diseases, these salmon could cause extinction of smaller natural salmon who share the same resources and cannot compete - 3 concerns:
1) Because these new salmon are not able to reproduce I do not see how they would be sustainable long term
2) It could lead to extinction/scarcity of natural resources (food, territory,nesting sites) needed to maintain the population
3) It could eliminate genetic variability which is the essence to survival of a species. If a new virus/bacteria/disease emerges it could wipe out the entire population making us worse off in the long run.
Haven't we learned our lesson with non-native species being introduced into new territory (Australia anyone?). This story has been told a hundred times and always leads to a worse off situation. I don't even know how we are actually considering this. perhaps they could farm or otherwise contain these new fish for production instead of releasing them. I believe this would be much less risky long term.
kevin kim - 14 years ago
If it tastes as good as the normal small one, then I will consider to accept it. But most likely the bigger ones will be less tasty. It is very hard to get quality and quantity together. I believe we can meet food demand with regular salmons.
Natalie Paul - 14 years ago
Ever heard the term "Hybrid"....Dog breeding - mixing breeds for a better dog that doesn't shed. Most tomatoes we eat whether organic or not are "HYBRIDS", cross pollination. Whether done in a lab or naturally really does not make a difference. They are not adding a chemical to the fish to grow...they are taking the better of the genes to produce a better fish that is 100% organic...YES, this fish is technically organic and probably Mercury Free, Pesticide free, and grown in clean water unlike our oceans, now, tell me that fish isn't better than what is wild caught...
Michael - 14 years ago
so, cliffnotes... "poor tasting inferior salmon, is spliced with genes of that of a superior tasty salmon, and is now feared as cancer causing monstrosity"
does this not amuse anyone?
as far as natural fish to eat, good luck with future endeavors on that. since the public has such a high demand for fresh fish that we are fishing populations to the brink of extinction. this "frakenfish" wasnt designed because with the sole purpose of getting rich (though im sure that was part of the drive) but also as a means to meet the demand for fish consumed by the 6 billion people around he world. i may be the "dumb ass piece of shit" for having no problem eating this, but by eating a properly culture fish, i save one from needing to be caught in the wild.
JDUBS - 14 years ago
There needs to be A LOT more testing on this before it should be allowed into the food supply. It also SHOULD be clearly labeled as genetically modified as well. How many times do you hear about some drug the FDA approves and then 5 years later it's pulled off the market because people start to die? There has been NO LONG TERM study on this stuff. OK so the fish are sppossedly sterile, but so were the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park! And when you start mixing genes from other fish, who knows what kind of unintended things pop up? I personally would not eat genetically engineered anything until a long term study is done on the effects to the environment and to our health.
Derek Waleko - 14 years ago
This is leading us in to a future where natural organic foods will soon become like diamonds, rare and expensive. Where food is controlled by patents. Worst yet, soon the choices will be nothing but genetically modified foods with the extinction of organic food due to cross breading. And once that happens the corporations will own the rights to the new off spring in the wild and It's not just with animals, it's also with plants as with the court case, Monsanto vs. Schmeiser.
What's the problem with genetical modified food? Two things:
First, it has the potential, in the near future, to limit the options we have on the foods we eat. That it's taking away our right to choose. A choice among a many assortments of "only" genetically modified foods is not a choice at all. It is a suppression of our rights.
Second, our bodies have been developing over thousands of years. It is a slow process that our biology adapt to the environment around us and just like us, so to do the have plants and animals. We change together. Producing genetically modified fish that change in a blink of an eye in comparison with the evolution of life has health implications we don't yet understand. The big fear is if our understanding of the health implications come after all natural organic food has already been wiped out and replaced by the cross breading/pollination of genetically modified animals and plants.
To think we, as the brilliant and flawed humans we are, can produce better a food that will agree with nature better than that of which nature it self has already produced is mad.
If you are reading this please take the poll above very seriously. Polls like this are used on the news and sway many. If it reads that a crushing majority DO NOT approve, court cases of the future will have a better chance at saving our food.
-side note- Boycott companies and their parent companies that produce genetically modified foods. It really is in our hands.
trevor - 14 years ago
First of all, I think we all can agree that April is on her period.
Second of all, Bob is correct and Tara is not. I would say that the same type of people who don't understand the definition of majority also don't understand what genetic modification actually is. I think there should have been 2 different answers for Never. One should have been Never just because of preference to natural fish. The other should have been Never because they disagree to the concept and idea.
I also think that if more people were educated, they wouldn't be bothered about such things. Like someone said, we use the same concept with plants and domestic animals already, and you are likely consuming that.
Have you ever gotten a flu shot? OK, that's what I thought.
April - 14 years ago
Are you kidding.
What is wrong with you people? This is the most disgusting, inhumane, biologically enhanced thing that has been created since animal hybrids.
WHY WOULD YOU TRUST AND EAT A HUGE GENETICALLY MODIFIED FISH?!
What the hell is wrong with just eating a regular god damn fish. Why does everything in America have to be so intense! can't we just keep at least one FUCKING thing alone?!
I swear to god, everyone is going to end up with some crazy ass disease and the smart people who are satisfied with natural food, and natural products, are going to be the only ones left.
But whatever, I guess thats a good thing.
You dumb ass pieces of shit.
Al - 14 years ago
This is not slective breeding as some have suggested, this is more like genetic mutation.
From what I have read the Farming operation puts a stress on the ecosystem as well. It creates a large dead zone in the immediate area, caused by over population and large amounts of feces in a confined area of the ocean.
The article states "rendering the VAST MAJORITY of the fish sterile - which prevents the altered fish to breed with wild populations of fish" that means that some will eventually find a way to breed i.e. Jurassic Park.
Is this what we really want ??
Bob - 14 years ago
Tara,
Actually, the majority of people voted that they WOULD eat the fish. If only 35.54% of the voters said they would never eat it, then 64.46% said that, eventually, they would eat it. There are food shortages all over the world - if we can increase the speed and quantity of food we produce, whether it is fish or tomatos, shouldn't we do that? exactly what are the risks of eating a fish?
Lee - 14 years ago
how many people that say they will never eat these fish are actually going to check their next bag of fish sticks to make sure they do not contain genetically altered fish?
matta - 14 years ago
hey tara actually there are more people who said they would try than people who said they would never try, you have to add people who said they would try in 6months to 5yrs to people who said they would dig into it immediately after all they are ready to eat.
RMacGowan - 14 years ago
Unfortunately humans have destroyed habitat for both land and water dwelling creatures. If we don't allow this type of technology to move forward there will be allot of people without food in the near future. We could always begin with reducing the human population (limiting births and sterilization) reducing the burden on our ecosystem, reducing polution, reducing deforestation and loss of wildlife habitat and reducing the burden on our planet to sustain an unsustainable population.... but I digress. If you yahooo's don't want to eat the engineered food products.... DON'T!
Paul Van Bellinghern - 14 years ago
I defy anyone to come up with a hypothetical way a genetically altered fish can adversely affect the human body after consumption and digestion. I mean, we're not talking about chemicals here, right? No biological agents either. No virus, bacteria, nothing.
Dave - 14 years ago
We have been doing passive genetic modification for centuries through selective breeding. Do you think those butterball turkeys, bizzare dog breeds or even Cavendish bananas are a product of nature?
Tara - 14 years ago
I think that this kind of goes without saying but a majority of people voted that they would never eat the fish if it was passed by the FDA. So if a majority of people won't eat it then why even deem it edible, the risks outweight the potential benfits of not straining the ecosystem
OMG: Organic food costs more (huh?) Wonder why?
I just finished shopping for beta HCG growth hormone free milk, beef and the free range chicken and eggs. And so next there will be the authentic 'wild' salmon that I willl have to pay for (for more, thank-you). I apologetically have to pay for my paranoia and oh no it is not the greed of some aggressive fishy biotech. Is there a stock purchase option?
They are testing for the known effects and not the unknown effects or possibilities for that. How can they? Unless there is a genetic and biological test invented for the imaginary future disease "Selfish d'aquabounty" how would the scientists find any unknown toxic effects?
There are a lot of children attaining puberty earlier, women getting breast cancer and young men becoming infertile lately. wonder which of our corporate inventions of the past are responsible?
And in China and India, a lot of children with severe birth defects are being born around factories.
Eradicate the finacial stock market system and these inventors would become normal fishermaen. There are enough -possibly fish for everyone- but who wants that much salmon day in/day out?
I am not concerned about this fish and would eat it, if I ate salmon.
If the farming is done properly, in a recirculating system, accidental introduction into the environment is a non-issue. Also, the paper I read stated that these fish grow faster in early development but do not grow larger than the natural species. As far as the "vast majority" of the fish are sterile, I am sure it was the legal department who worded that statement, not the scientists working the project.
All business is in it for the money, but that does not mean that all business is corrupt and greedy.
I work in the aquaculture industry and know how expensive and strictly regulated it is here in the US.
If you want to boycott dangerous seafood, please stop eating imported farmed seafood. Few countries have the restrictions we have here. The shrimp and fish raised overseas are often treated with chemicals that are banned in aquaculture here in the US. Also many of the flow through systems start with polluted water and then add more bio lode which then damages the environment downstream and also kills estuaries. You have more to fear from imported farmed seafood than you do from these GM salmon. You really don't want to know how they grow the algae to feed immmature tilapia.
Don't automatically disregard my opinion because I work in aquaculture. Check out the Food and Water Watch website. They have terrific information about recirculating aquaculture systems. http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/RASflyer.pdf
"I defy anyone to come up with a hypothetical way a genetically altered fish can adversely affect the human body after consumption and digestion. I mean, we're not talking about chemicals here, right? No biological agents either. No virus, bacteria, nothing."
Posted by Paul Van Bellinghern on September 21st 2010, 4:52pm
There are many reports on the dangers of GM foods. This is nothing new. It would behoove many people to read up on this matter.
"A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer. As for environmental impacts, the use of genetic engineering in agriculture could lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and the potential contamination of non-genetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material."
- The Center for Food Safety
660 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, #302
Washington DC 20003
P: (202)547-9359, F: (202)547-9429
office@centerforfoodsafety.org
My family doesn't eat any GM foods not limited to but including chicken, corn and soy.
OK. I don't see a problem eating a fish which has a few genes activated which normally aren't. Ever heard the expression "You are what you eat"? Well, in reality, that doesn't happen. Sorry, but if I eat some chicken, I don't become a chicken. If I eat a vegetable, I don't become a vegetable. Your DNA doesn't change because you eat a fish with altered DNA. Heck, its like saying I will only eat Salmon and not Tuna because their DNA is different and I am not sure what will happen to me if I consume the other fish... come on people. The only thing I agree with is the fact that they shouldn't be released into the wild. They aren't wild fish, and it would be a poor idea to mix them. But I see nothing wrong with farming them (just like every domestic animal and plant we raise).
"This allows the AquAdvantage® Salmon to grow to twice the size it normally would, in half the time, as well as effectively rendering the vast majority of the fish sterile - which both prevents the altered fish to breed with wild populations of fish, and protects the company's intellectual material."
---- the key wording here that should alarm everyone is "vast majority of the fish sterile" which means basically that there will be SOME, maybe a few, but only 1 fertile fish is all it takes to get fertilized by a natural wild fish, which then could possibly reproduce and jeopardize not just one type of fish, but the entire world's fish population and the effects it would have on human's DNA as well. Eating GMO foods, is genetic roulette, and I'm not okay with playing the numbers when its as serious as possible eventual extinction of the human race (as it is now, more natural) I don't want to wake up dead in my grave looking at a bunch of zombie like dumbed down Americans still believing in what they think is freedom, is not having to carry money around(being chipped), having everything done for them(learning about yourself and taking care of your own health, growing and preparing your own food, etc)
We need to live INDEPENDENT, not be dependent on GM fish..
For fun I'm going to ask the silly but fruitful question;
What would Jesus fish?
If GM fish can't reproduce, then that's not good for god's children.. now.. Fish that can reproduce, naturally, not spllicing genes in a lab then legalizing tampering with nature, to destroy the planet, so they can kill everyone off slowly, then when we're dead, they'll have the whole planet to themselves, then just have nano-bots clean up the mess and start fresh. Thank you David Rockefeller for all his mercury based vaccines and fluoride in the water, we're all so smart, we allow electronic voting machines and corporate-owned candidate commercials and fake-news, to pick who we vote for.
Who would Jesus bomb? Iraq? Iran?
Lazy damned human beings wake up, it's 2010, get with the times! There should be no way, that there's this many people voting in this poll that they would LOVE to eat GM Fish..
that is embarrassing to the entire Human population that we would think that some CORPORATION, would actually blindly think that they're selling us something safe, that would not normally be found in nature.
Some idiots may say.. "oh meat is meat, fish is fish, they wont reproduce, the "expert" said so"
You ever READ? the "vast majority" means there will be some that can reproduce, so the whole idea of them allowing this GM fish, should not even be on the table, cause the mutations can not be contained.
Think about it.. and check out Ron Paul :)
LOL @ people (shills? stockholders? employees?) conflating natural selective breeding with gene splicing - no, not the same thing.
Looks like I'm done eating salmon if they aren't labeled as GM. Knowing how corrupt FDA is, they will probably allow it to go to market without GM labeling. Wait until these freak fish 'magically' find their way into our oceans (*cough* Monsanto tactics) - they may drive the decimation of wild salmon populations and suddenly one corporation owns our fish.
WTF?! There is no way I will eat that crap. I am totally against GMO...lookup Monsanto if you need educated, or ask any unemployed farmer or famers who were sued by Monsanto...so, how many fisherman will lose jobs on this one! Once the government controlls all of the food supply, that leaves us with nothin'.
If the food supply is strained, then the government should limit the amount of children a family can produce! Heck, half the kids having kids can't afford themselfs, much less another human! Once you start playing God and altering, splicing and dicing, no good can come from it....
Are you serious... genetically engineered fish.. how in the world do you think that this would be a good idea. Look at all the pesdisides we are now finding out that are harmfull to us and the steroids they are putting in chickens and cows we eat. Why do you think we are getting to a point where obesity is a normal thing !! Its not good for you and we dont find out for years that these things are going to cause problems..Its almost like saying that cigarretts do not cause cancer !! Wake up people ! And to say they are not in it for the money !! You people are sooo stupid ! You know WHAT GO ahead and eat the fish people !! And while you are at it.. go ahead and eat all the fish comming out of the Gulf that they are saying is safe to eat !! When you are in your death bed hurry up and die and dont cause health insurance to go up eather while you are at it.
I am a veterinarian and although not entirely opposed to genetically engineered fish I do not support releasing these salmon into wild populations. Because of their larger size (and hence greater need for food) and greater resistance to diseases, these salmon could cause extinction of smaller natural salmon who share the same resources and cannot compete - 3 concerns:
1) Because these new salmon are not able to reproduce I do not see how they would be sustainable long term
2) It could lead to extinction/scarcity of natural resources (food, territory,nesting sites) needed to maintain the population
3) It could eliminate genetic variability which is the essence to survival of a species. If a new virus/bacteria/disease emerges it could wipe out the entire population making us worse off in the long run.
Haven't we learned our lesson with non-native species being introduced into new territory (Australia anyone?). This story has been told a hundred times and always leads to a worse off situation. I don't even know how we are actually considering this. perhaps they could farm or otherwise contain these new fish for production instead of releasing them. I believe this would be much less risky long term.
If it tastes as good as the normal small one, then I will consider to accept it. But most likely the bigger ones will be less tasty. It is very hard to get quality and quantity together. I believe we can meet food demand with regular salmons.
Ever heard the term "Hybrid"....Dog breeding - mixing breeds for a better dog that doesn't shed. Most tomatoes we eat whether organic or not are "HYBRIDS", cross pollination. Whether done in a lab or naturally really does not make a difference. They are not adding a chemical to the fish to grow...they are taking the better of the genes to produce a better fish that is 100% organic...YES, this fish is technically organic and probably Mercury Free, Pesticide free, and grown in clean water unlike our oceans, now, tell me that fish isn't better than what is wild caught...
so, cliffnotes... "poor tasting inferior salmon, is spliced with genes of that of a superior tasty salmon, and is now feared as cancer causing monstrosity"
does this not amuse anyone?
as far as natural fish to eat, good luck with future endeavors on that. since the public has such a high demand for fresh fish that we are fishing populations to the brink of extinction. this "frakenfish" wasnt designed because with the sole purpose of getting rich (though im sure that was part of the drive) but also as a means to meet the demand for fish consumed by the 6 billion people around he world. i may be the "dumb ass piece of shit" for having no problem eating this, but by eating a properly culture fish, i save one from needing to be caught in the wild.
There needs to be A LOT more testing on this before it should be allowed into the food supply. It also SHOULD be clearly labeled as genetically modified as well. How many times do you hear about some drug the FDA approves and then 5 years later it's pulled off the market because people start to die? There has been NO LONG TERM study on this stuff. OK so the fish are sppossedly sterile, but so were the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park! And when you start mixing genes from other fish, who knows what kind of unintended things pop up? I personally would not eat genetically engineered anything until a long term study is done on the effects to the environment and to our health.
This is leading us in to a future where natural organic foods will soon become like diamonds, rare and expensive. Where food is controlled by patents. Worst yet, soon the choices will be nothing but genetically modified foods with the extinction of organic food due to cross breading. And once that happens the corporations will own the rights to the new off spring in the wild and It's not just with animals, it's also with plants as with the court case, Monsanto vs. Schmeiser.
What's the problem with genetical modified food? Two things:
First, it has the potential, in the near future, to limit the options we have on the foods we eat. That it's taking away our right to choose. A choice among a many assortments of "only" genetically modified foods is not a choice at all. It is a suppression of our rights.
Second, our bodies have been developing over thousands of years. It is a slow process that our biology adapt to the environment around us and just like us, so to do the have plants and animals. We change together. Producing genetically modified fish that change in a blink of an eye in comparison with the evolution of life has health implications we don't yet understand. The big fear is if our understanding of the health implications come after all natural organic food has already been wiped out and replaced by the cross breading/pollination of genetically modified animals and plants.
To think we, as the brilliant and flawed humans we are, can produce better a food that will agree with nature better than that of which nature it self has already produced is mad.
If you are reading this please take the poll above very seriously. Polls like this are used on the news and sway many. If it reads that a crushing majority DO NOT approve, court cases of the future will have a better chance at saving our food.
-side note- Boycott companies and their parent companies that produce genetically modified foods. It really is in our hands.
First of all, I think we all can agree that April is on her period.
Second of all, Bob is correct and Tara is not. I would say that the same type of people who don't understand the definition of majority also don't understand what genetic modification actually is. I think there should have been 2 different answers for Never. One should have been Never just because of preference to natural fish. The other should have been Never because they disagree to the concept and idea.
I also think that if more people were educated, they wouldn't be bothered about such things. Like someone said, we use the same concept with plants and domestic animals already, and you are likely consuming that.
Have you ever gotten a flu shot? OK, that's what I thought.
Are you kidding.
What is wrong with you people? This is the most disgusting, inhumane, biologically enhanced thing that has been created since animal hybrids.
WHY WOULD YOU TRUST AND EAT A HUGE GENETICALLY MODIFIED FISH?!
What the hell is wrong with just eating a regular god damn fish. Why does everything in America have to be so intense! can't we just keep at least one FUCKING thing alone?!
I swear to god, everyone is going to end up with some crazy ass disease and the smart people who are satisfied with natural food, and natural products, are going to be the only ones left.
But whatever, I guess thats a good thing.
You dumb ass pieces of shit.
This is not slective breeding as some have suggested, this is more like genetic mutation.
From what I have read the Farming operation puts a stress on the ecosystem as well. It creates a large dead zone in the immediate area, caused by over population and large amounts of feces in a confined area of the ocean.
The article states "rendering the VAST MAJORITY of the fish sterile - which prevents the altered fish to breed with wild populations of fish" that means that some will eventually find a way to breed i.e. Jurassic Park.
Is this what we really want ??
Tara,
Actually, the majority of people voted that they WOULD eat the fish. If only 35.54% of the voters said they would never eat it, then 64.46% said that, eventually, they would eat it. There are food shortages all over the world - if we can increase the speed and quantity of food we produce, whether it is fish or tomatos, shouldn't we do that? exactly what are the risks of eating a fish?
how many people that say they will never eat these fish are actually going to check their next bag of fish sticks to make sure they do not contain genetically altered fish?
hey tara actually there are more people who said they would try than people who said they would never try, you have to add people who said they would try in 6months to 5yrs to people who said they would dig into it immediately after all they are ready to eat.
Unfortunately humans have destroyed habitat for both land and water dwelling creatures. If we don't allow this type of technology to move forward there will be allot of people without food in the near future. We could always begin with reducing the human population (limiting births and sterilization) reducing the burden on our ecosystem, reducing polution, reducing deforestation and loss of wildlife habitat and reducing the burden on our planet to sustain an unsustainable population.... but I digress. If you yahooo's don't want to eat the engineered food products.... DON'T!
I defy anyone to come up with a hypothetical way a genetically altered fish can adversely affect the human body after consumption and digestion. I mean, we're not talking about chemicals here, right? No biological agents either. No virus, bacteria, nothing.
We have been doing passive genetic modification for centuries through selective breeding. Do you think those butterball turkeys, bizzare dog breeds or even Cavendish bananas are a product of nature?
I think that this kind of goes without saying but a majority of people voted that they would never eat the fish if it was passed by the FDA. So if a majority of people won't eat it then why even deem it edible, the risks outweight the potential benfits of not straining the ecosystem