Approval by FDA, Genetics

5,516
183
Joined Apr 3, 2010
This week the FDA will determine whether it should approve Genetically Grown Salmon.for human consumption. It will establish the rules and guide lines for doing this. Notice how the public has no input, and they wont even say where these approval meetings are being held. This is only the beginning, next most probably  chickens. You may even be able to buy one in your choice of color to match your linens?????
 
6,367
128
Joined Feb 1, 2007
Ed, you know that I generally agree with your feelings about FDA, USDA and other regulatory agencies.

But what's your source on this? For starters, there is no way such a move can be made without public input---in violates federal laws. And, second, acceptance of any frankenfood requires USDA approval.

Not that I have much faith in either of those agencies' ability to protect our health and well-being, you understand. But I don't care for scare stories either.
 
5,516
183
Joined Apr 3, 2010
KY  Article appeared in Palm Beach Post one day last week could have been Wen or Thurs. And only stated FDA????
 

kuan

Moderator
Staff member
6,923
448
Joined Jun 11, 2001
I wonder what will happen when the Salmon get loose.
 
6,367
128
Joined Feb 1, 2007
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what they told us about the white carp, too. And Monsanto swore by everything holy that there was no way frankencorn would cross with regular corn.

The whole concept of "substantial equivilency" is a shuck, used to masquarade the fact there's been a de facto government conspiracy to foist this stuff on the world whether it's wanted or not.

Let's keep solidly in mind, during the furor that is about to erupt, that all of this is being brought to us by the wonderful folks who gave us terminator technology.
 
5,516
183
Joined Apr 3, 2010
Guys ! I think the bottom line for all of this is Economics or How much profit can we make doing it this way?
 
6,367
128
Joined Feb 1, 2007
Sure it's economics, Ed. But in a deeper, more insidious manner than you might think.

The whole genetic engineering thing actually is agricultural imperialism. Notice how, despite the almost universal negative reaction in industrialized nations, that Monsanto et als continues pushing frankenfoods. Reason: They can control the entire food chain of developing nations. The syndrome is simple:

1. Develop a proprietary agricultural product.

2. Convince a country (or whole continent) that it's their agricultural salvation.

3. Leading to that country adopting your product, and

4. It's dependence on you to supply seed.

5. Thereby maximizing your profits while assuring a marketplace.

It's really that simple. Or, as my friend Jean Lane succinctly puts it, "who owns the seed controls the feed."

If you think not, take a look at the early days of GMO development, and the government agencies which, despite their own negative studies, signed off on it. Commerce, and USDA, and, omigod!, even the EPA (who's own published studies, btw, indicated that gmo crops would cross contaminate regular crops, despite Monsanto's claims otherwise).

Consider, even more in this regard, the purpose of terminator technology. Was it to "feed the world," as is often (and erroneously) claimed by it's developers? Or was it to assure that farmers would be locked-in to Monsanto for certain chemicals? Fortunately for the world, that one was just too blatent, and terminator was banned.

The interesting thing in all this is that the claims made for genetically modified crops are exactly the same ones made for hybrids. Yet, hybrids---which were going to solve all the problems of agriculture---never fulfilled their promise. So now we have GMOs, which "will solve all the problems of hybrids." And yet, history to date indicates that none of the GMOs have performed as Monsanto promises.

One of the problems is that when Monsanto sues, and wins, the win gets trumpeted to the world. Yet, when Monsanto settles an unwinnable suit (which happens fairly often), there is always a non-disclosure clause in the settlement. The result, of course, is creation of a myth; that Monsanto is this monolithic company that flattens farmers who stand in its way.

But, at base, Monsanto has one goal, which it's never denied: Control of the world food supply. This is why it fights for such things as agricultural white lists, and against things like heirlooms and seed saving. It's always amazed me how this multi-billion dollar company can afford to fund faux-scientific organizations whose sole purpose is to support it's work with "outside" expertise, but there's no budget to support seed banks. Just one of those coincidences, I reckon.
 
6,367
128
Joined Feb 1, 2007
If y'all read those articles, btw, you'll notice that the fight isn't about GMOs, per se. It's about labeling. In other words, locking the barn doors after the cow is gone.

Several years back, when frankenfoods were first raising their ugly head, there was a panel discussion on PBS that, among other things, touched on the laeling issue. A follow-up survey of watchers revealed something interesting: Most of those who were in favor of labeling products which contained GMOs said that they would still buy the product.

In other words, a straw issue. If something's presence or absence doesn't matter to you, why do you care about it being listed on a label?

To me, the thing with the salmon is the same. I'm not interested in labeling, as such. My concern is with the genetic modification itself, and what the long term effects might be on our health and well being.

But, unfortunately, as we've seen time after time, our "regulatory" agencies have one philosophy: it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission.
 
3,599
45
Joined Aug 13, 2006
If y'all read those articles, btw, you'll notice that the fight isn't about GMOs, per se. It's about labeling. In other words, locking the barn doors after the cow is gone.

Several years back, when frankenfoods were first raising their ugly head, there was a panel discussion on PBS that, among other things, touched on the laeling issue. A follow-up survey of watchers revealed something interesting: Most of those who were in favor of labeling products which contained GMOs said that they would still buy the product.

In other words, a straw issue. If something's presence or absence doesn't matter to you, why do you care about it being listed on a label?

To me, the thing with the salmon is the same. I'm not interested in labeling, as such. My concern is with the genetic modification itself, and what the long term effects might be on our health and well being.

But, unfortunately, as we've seen time after time, our "regulatory" agencies have one philosophy: it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission.
OMG (not to be confused with GMO), KY, we were listening to that very same pbs program.  I rarely get to listen to it, except when i visit the states and my friend lends me her car.  That's it, a week or so a year.   I was thinking the other day to mention it in this thread but had too little time.  There was a debate if i remember, between one who was against allowing (allowing) the europeans to label things with GMO.  And at the same time were flaunting their stance as the "democratic" one!!!!  I was horrified. 

Here in Europe it definitely is NOT a straw issue.  Lots of schools are serving only organic no-gmo products, and lots of regular food stores are expanding their organic food sections.  Lots of regular people, not hippies, not radical, not anything special, want food that is "genuine". It's an old tradition, and even uneducated people know that adulterated foods are not good for you.  Obviously the guy in the debate knew full well that if they could label food as NO GMO they would lose the european market. 
 
 
6,367
128
Joined Feb 1, 2007
No, it's not a straw issue in Europe on any level. And, in fact, most European countries have banned genetically modified foodstuffs.

My point was simply that those people didn't care about the base issue. GMO or not, they would buy and eat the food. They just wanted it labeled as such. Puleeeze!

O-n the other hand, I remember an interview with the minister for agriculture of an emerging African nation who was convinced that GMOs* were the Great White Hope for her country; that all their benefits would allow them to grow crops where only famine ruled before. That sort of thing is what really scares me. I've often wondered what happened to her when it was discovered that 1. GMO crops to not produce as promised, and 2. that she had locked her country into a foreign seed producer for all its needs.

I also find it incredibly ironic that it's proponents can use the terms "genetically modified" and "sustainable" in the same breath. Let me see: We start by having to physically manipulate the germplasm of the organism, changing its genetic structure in a laboratory. From this we produce an organism that exhibts a desired (albeit, unnatural) characteristic, but which is sterile. This is defined as sustainable.

Anybody who believes that raise your hand. Boy, oh, boy, do I have a bridge to sell you.

*Just as an aside, reading those articles, I have to wonder what idiot decided that plants were not organisms? The fact is, the GMO tag has been used to describe any kind of frankenfood from day one.
 
6,367
128
Joined Feb 1, 2007
Putting the GMO question aside, Abe, you're talking to a group which, as a whole, despises farm-raised salmon. Or which has claimed to do so in the past. So it'll be interesting to see how many agree with you.
 
3,401
161
Joined Sep 18, 2008
Putting the GMO question aside, Abe, you're talking to a group which, as a whole, despises farm-raised salmon. Or which has claimed to do so in the past. So it'll be interesting to see how many agree with you.
For me, personally, it is NOT so much a question of "farm-raised" versus "wild" as it is "well-farmed" versus "poorly farmed", after all, a LARGE majority of food-stuffs are "farm-raised" and very little comes from the "wild".

I view "farm-raised salmon" in the same light as "supermarket tomatoes", when I cannot get the better tasting version, they will do.
 
6,367
128
Joined Feb 1, 2007
Poor analogy, Pete.

Supermarket tomatoes, because of the nature of the food distribution system, will never compare to fresh grown, ripened on the vine, tomatoes. They are two different products. And many of us do not make do. In fact, I know of at least two others, besides myself, who don't eat tomatoes most of the year because hard, wet, cardboard isn't our cup of tea. I'm sure there are others I don't know about as well.

The question is, however, whether most folk can actually detect any flavor difference between farm-raised and wild. In blind taste tests they apparently cannot. But the perception is that there is a difference, and there's been more than one battle, here at Cheftalk, over that issue. We had a fishmonger member, for awhile, who did an annual test. He put out samples of both wild and farmed salmon, and asked his customers if they can taste any difference. Most people could not tell any difference. The foodies claimed they could, but, on further inquiry, they were basing their conclusions on the color, rather than the taste.

What I'm saying is that anyone who is biased against farm-raised salmon---whether justified or not---will certainly not weigh-in in favor of GMO salmon, which is both farm raised and the Devil incarnate. And that such a bias is widespread here at Cheftalk.
 
Last edited:
1,414
17
Joined Mar 12, 2005
Everything else, corn, tomoatoes, etc, are genetically engineered so why not do it with salmon too.

Also you can't get really fresh salmon here unless you pay like $10 per pound.  So I'm hoping this super salmon will bring the price way down and/or make it more readily available fresh.

And once they do it to salmon, the will do it for other fish as well.
 
6,367
128
Joined Feb 1, 2007
Abe, just for the record, there are no genetically engineered tomatoes in common trade. The attempts to introduce them were abysmal failures, as they didn't grow the way they were claimed to, and tasted like crap besides.

I don't know what you mean by "everything else," but there are actually very few GMOs out there, with feed corn being the most significant. And notice, please, that it is feed corn. In the U.S. it is illegal to use genetically modified corn in products destined to be people food.

I have no doubt that gmo feed corn will be used as an argument in favor of frankenfoods for people. It will go something like: "Well, you've been eating it indirectly for X years, with no ill effects. What's wrong with using it directly?"

Unfortunately, we really don't know whether there have been ill effects of not. Nobody is actually studying it. And the stuff hasn't been around long enough anyway to measure long-term health problems.

Never forget we were told for 60 years how perfectly safe DDT was. And that there was no danger from PCBS. Or........
 
6,367
128
Joined Feb 1, 2007
Abe, if you're getting fresh salmon for ten bucks a pop count your blessings. I haven't seen it that low in years.

Nor do I believe the frankenfish will be significantly less expensive at retail. The major variable cost, in aquaculture, is feeding the growing fish. The second largest are the antibiotics and other medicinals necessary when shallow-water farming. Neither of those costs will change, proportionately, just because you're growing the fish bigger.

And there is still the open question about quality. Unnatrual rapid growth, in most organisms, has a significant effect on the nature of the cell stucture---and thus the texture (and, possibly, taste) of the flesh. Whether that's true with these fish remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:

kuan

Moderator
Staff member
6,923
448
Joined Jun 11, 2001
You know, do we really need this stuff?  I wouldn't mind if the technology were used to help feed desperately starving people.  All we have here is something to feed our greed.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom