FDA Takes Step Toward Approving Genetically Modified Salmon

B

bsmooth

All Star
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
2,980
Reputation
560
Daps
6,488
Reppin
NULL
--FDA unveils report showing genetically modified salmon isn't a threat to environment

--Salmon is engineered to grow faster than traditional fish

--Timeline unclear for final approval of engineered salmon

WASHINGTON--The Food and Drug Administration on Friday took a step toward approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption by releasing a draft assessment showing such production of the fish isn't a threat to the environment.

The FDA will decide whether to issue a final assessment and possibly a final approval after reviewing public comment it collects over the next 60 days, an FDA spokeswoman said. She wouldn't give an estimate on how long the process would take.

If approved, AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon, developed by AquaBounty Technologies Inc. (ABTX.LN), would be the first genetically engineered animal approved for people to eat.

The assessment concludes there is an extremely low possibility the salmon, engineered to grow twice as quickly as traditional farmed salmon, could escape from breeding and growing facilities and mate with wild or non-genetically modified fish.

The company has said nearly all of the AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon produced are sterile, but critics point out it isn't 100% and if a genetically modified fish were to mate in the wild it could pass on its altered characteristics to traditional fish.

FDA studies have shown that "only 95% of the salmon may be sterile, and the rest fertile," said Michael Hansen, a scientist with the Consumers Union, a nonprofit consumer group that also publishes Consumer Reports.

Only two AquaBounty facilities are being considered in the current FDA approval process, an egg production operation in Canada and a fish farm in Panama.

A separate determination will be made on the safety of eating the engineered salmon sometime before final approval, the spokeswoman said.

An FDA advisory panel announced its support for approval about two years ago and FDA staff, in preparation for the 2010 panel meeting, concluded the genetically altered salmon was as safe to eat as traditional Atlantic salmon, and posed little risk to the environment.

But there is still strong opposition by consumer groups who say there is insufficient evidence the engineered salmon is safe to eat.

The genetically modified salmon produce more than normal amounts of growth hormones, according to Patty Lovera, an assistant director for the Food & Water Watch group, and long-term studies need to be performed to show the effects on human health.

The company cited studies that showed abnormal hormone levels in the salmon in a submission to the FDA.

The potential for the genetically modified salmon to cause allergic reactions in humans is also a concern, Dr. Hansen said..

AquaBounty officials weren't available for immediate comment.

At a minimum, the AquaBounty salmon should be labeled as genetically modified when it is marketed, said Wenonah Hauter, the Food & Water Watch's executive director.

The FDA has said previously that there is no reason to have different labels, and that the agency may lack authority to mandate them if the product is approved as safe for people to eat.
Click to expand...

2nd UPDATE: FDA Takes Step Toward Approving Genetically Modified Salmon
 
acri1

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
24,017
Reputation
3,755
Daps
105,038
Reppin
Detroit
Well, salmon is really healthy but kind of expensive. If this reduces the cost and is safe, then :yeshrug:
 
newworldafro

newworldafro

DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
50,170
Reputation
4,830
Daps
112,959
Reppin
In the Silver Lining
NZA said:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bZNpR-R2VHA/Tq0dlEgIP4I/AAAAAAAAE3Q/MlDCbMFzamk/s200/blinky.gif

i cant be the only one who thought of this...

we already eat GM food in this country, even if you dont buy it at stores there is a risk you were served it at some restaurant. still, i will not be buying this, the thought is just too weird and gross.
Click to expand...

:dead: I did too...although that was a nook plant in the Simpsons......

but if I'm correct they are putting insect genes in these...and like poster said already...this news is old, its just now getting down to the potential final approval process...........gotta love not labeling food......... its just :snoop:

And them Jokers will escape into the wild and that's going be the :facepalm: moment........
 
V

VerbalIntercourse

Banned
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
1,757
Reputation
-210
Daps
815
Everytime we make a step towards lowering food costs and really putting an end to world hunger. The same people pushing to end world hunger fight against that step.
 
daze23

daze23

Siempre Fresco
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
31,965
Reputation
2,692
Daps
44,042
every domestic plant and animal has been genetically modified by humans
 
newworldafro

newworldafro

DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
50,170
Reputation
4,830
Daps
112,959
Reppin
In the Silver Lining
daze23 said:
every domestic plant and animal has been genetically modified by humans
Click to expand...

2ehpi.gif


319047856_dbf1ef3e92.jpg


denzelcant.gif


Genetic engineering vs. selective breeding | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Genetic engineering vs. selective breeding

By PlentyMag.com

Wed, Apr 08 2009 at 4:27 PM

Q. What's the difference between cross pollination/grafting/selective breeding that farmers have been doing for centuries and genetic modification? Just curious, because it seems like farmers have been screwing with genes for a long time now. – Joe, NY

A. You’re right, Joe. Farmers have used selective breeding for ages to increase the robustness and output of their crops and to produce and encourage other desirable traits. But there are some pretty huge differences between the techniques they’ve traditionally used and the high-tech ones being implemented today on mega farms that produce GM corn, cotton, soy, and canola (the four crops largely converted to GM technology so far). Put it this way: If traditional selective breeding is like two people with two different sets of genes being paired up by a matchmaker who thinks they’ll have pretty, healthy kids together, then modern high-tech GM breeding is like Victor Frankenstein slicing ‘superior’ body parts out of fifteen different corpses and using them to sew together his powerful, yet frighteningly unpredictable, monster.

Whoops. Did that sound slightly unscientific and/or possibly biased? Then don’t take it from me—take it from Craig Holdrege, director of The Nature Institute. He explains that the most critical difference between natural and GM breeding is that natural breeding crosses only organisms that are already closely related—two varieties of corn, for example—whereas, in contrast, GM breeding slaps together genes from up to 15 wildly different sources. Here’s how he explained the convoluted GM breeding process to me in an email:

To make a GM plant, scientists need to isolate DNA from different organisms—bacteria, viruses, plants, and sometimes animals (or humans if the target gene is a human gene). They then recombine these genes biochemically in the lab to make a "gene construct," which can consist of DNA from five to fifteen different sources. This gene construct is cloned in bacteria to make lots of copies, which are then isolated. Next, the copies are shot into embryonic plant tissue (microprojectile bombardment), or moved into plant tissue via a particular bacterium (Agrobacterium) that acts as a vector. After getting the construct copies into the embryonic plant tissue, whole plants are regenerated. Only a few plants out of many hundreds will turn out to grow normally and exhibit the desired trait—such as herbicide resistance.

Or take it from Joe Mendelson, director of the Center for Food Safety. Here’s how he put in it in an email:

The difference is pretty large. In regular cross pollination, the species being crossed have to be related . . . basically respecting their common evolutionary origin. But with GMOs, you can take any gene from any species and splice it into a crop. So you get fish genes in tomatoes or the like.


And it’s not just cotton, corn, soy, and canola that are being genetically modified anymore—GM alfalfa and GM sugar beets are on the way.

Many food safety activists are, like Holdrege and Mendelson, concerned about the effects these six major GM crops will have on ecosystems, on agricultural production, and on our bodies. All that aggressive lab work, they argue, has the potential to bring consequences we can’t anticipate. Genetic modification has certainly upped agricultural output, which is a plus when food prices are high and many parts of the world are experiencing or are at risk for famine. But because almost all of us eat GM foods and produce every day, you’re wise to ask tough questions about the relatively new and largely untested technology.
Click to expand...
 
NZA

NZA

LOL
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
21,887
Reputation
4,115
Daps
56,139
Reppin
Run Thru U Like Skattebo
newworldafro said:
:dead: I did too...although that was a nook plant in the Simpsons......

but if I'm correct they are putting insect genes in these...and like poster said already...this news is old, its just now getting down to the potential final approval process...........gotta love not labeling food......... its just :snoop:

And them Jokers will escape into the wild and that's going be the :facepalm: moment........
Click to expand...
yeah, blinky is the result of accidental GMO due to the springfield nuke power plant, kinda like those mutated butterflies that showed up in japan after the meltdown in real life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top