Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit GOZO-unlimited's column >>

GOZO-UNLIMITED

I Love You, I Love Myself
Articles Posted: 376  Links Seeded: 8269
Member Since: 6/2008  Last Seen: 2/24/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Why is the FDA about to rubber-stamp GE salmon?

Seeded on Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:38 PM EDT
Read ArticleArticle Source: Grist
politics, food, research, fda, salmon, fish-farming, gmos
Seeded by GOZO-unlimited
Advertise | AdChoices

The approval process for the GE salmon will set a precedent for all future GE animals; if the FDA does not set the bar high for solid science, it will mean a lack of scrutiny for other, perhaps less safe, GE animals in the future.

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

Published to:

  • GOZO-unlimited's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (35)
GOZO-unlimited

The Author Points Out:

Given the committee's lack of expertise on genetic engineering and fish, the FDA added four "temporary voting members" for the GE salmon meeting.

Let's take a closer look at these experts charged with objectively evaluating the risk to the public.

  • Alison L. Van Eenennaam: A former Monsanto employee, Van Eenennaam works as a cooperative extension specialist in animal biotechnology and genomics at University of California-Davis. She also serves on the USDA's heavily pro-genetic engineering Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21). Van Eenennaam has been vocal about her support for genetically engineering animals. She recently produced a YouTube video called "Animal Biotechnology" that compares genetic engineering and cloning to traditional animal breeding, artificial insemination, and in vitro insemination, as if they were all equally benign "biotechnologies." The video oversimplifies genetic engineering, suggesting that scientists simply cut some DNA from one genome and paste it into another (almost as if it were as simple as using the Cut and Paste functions on your computer). But genetic engineering is highly imprecise. It takes many tries to successfully "paste" the genes into the DNA of the target species, and scientists have little control over where in the DNA the genes land. GE animals tend to have far higher rates of deformities than nature does. In the case of the GE salmon, AquaBounty Technologies successfully implanted its packet of genes into two separate locations in the Atlantic salmon's DNA, and they had a different outcome from each. The genes pasted into one location resulted in faster-growing fish; the same genes pasted into a different location in the same DNA did not.

    Van Eenennaam's primary work is not fish, but she has some background on GE fish. In publications, she has stated that genetically engineered fish will provide many benefits, such as increased feed-conversion efficiency, providing "economic and potential environmental benefits such as reduced feed waste and effluent from fish farms." Her primary concern with GE fish is the difficulty in containing them, as farmed fish can escape, survive in wild ecosystems, and breed with wild populations.

  • Kevin G. Wells: Also a genetic engineering expert, Wells has directly performed genetic engineering, working on the creation of a mastitis-resistant GE cow while he worked at the USDA in its Gene Evaluation and Mapping Laboratory. Like Van Eenennaam, he is more familiar with cows than fish. In his role at USDA, he worked on "communication of embryo and genome manipulation technologies to the public."

    Today, Wells is an assistant professor at the University of Missouri, Columbia, in the division of animal sciences. He is also the senior scientist, project manager, and department head of embryology and cell biology at Revivicor Inc. (formerly PPL Therapeutics), a Virginia-based spinout company from the UK company that created the cloned sheep Dolly. Revivicor works on genetically engineering pigs for use in human medicine. In other words, Wells has a bit of a professional and financial stake in the approval process for the GE salmon, as his employer, Revivicor Inc., will need the government to also approve its genetically engineered animals.

  • Gary Thorgaard: The lone fish expert on the entire committee. However, his specialization is in polyploidy, fish with extra complete sets of chromosomes. This is important in the GE salmon hearing, as the GE salmon are all female triploids (fish with three complete sets of chromosomes instead of two). Obviously, there is an importance in the committee understanding triploidy, as any differences observed in a GE triploid salmon (compared to a non-GE diploid) may be attributable to either the genetic engineering, triploidy, or both. Furthermore, the containment of the genetically engineered salmon will be an important issue in the hearing, and triploidy is the method used to ensure that most (but not all) of the fish will be sterile. But the hearing will cover much more ground than triploidy.
  • Gregory Jaffe: Last and perhaps most concerning, the committee's supposed consumer advocate is a lawyer (not a scientist) representing the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an organization that favors the use of agricultural biotechnology. Like Van Eeenennaam, he has served on AC21, from 2004 to 2008. His views can be seen in a paper he wrote called "Creating the Proper Environment for Acceptance of Agricultural Biotechnology." In it he states CSPI's unequivocal support for agricultural biology and his belief that genetically engineered crops have increased productivity and farmer income while reducing pesticide use, and that GE crops are safe for humans and the environment. Each of these conclusions is controversial, and credible evidence abounds disproving each, give or take the claim on farmer income.

    Jaffe completes the paper by tackling what he sees as the true threat of biotechnology -- public acceptance of GE foods. He calls for "a strong, but not stifling, regulatory system." He also calls for the regulatory system to be "transparent and participatory" with "independent risk assessment research that informs the public and regulators." Sounds good, but a full reading of the paper makes it apparent that perhaps his interest in regulation is intended more as a public show to convince the public to eat GE foods, than a true review of the safety of GE products. In a more recent article, "Questions About Genetically Engineered Animals," Jaffe expresses optimism that genetically engineered animals, including the AquAdvantage salmon, will provide environmental or health benefits.

Looking at this stacked committee, Consumers Union in its letter recommends adding "three fish ecologists, four food safety experts (including specialists in food allergies and in the effects of hormones on human health), and scientists from the consumer and environmental community ... to the Committee, to provide appropriate balance and expertise."

  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:39 PM EDT
RACHEL1-933952

I heard that they requested more testing and they've not decided as of yet. And, they are thinking that it would need to be labeled if approved.

Now, how about the GE potato in India???

Stop messing with my food!

  • 3 votes
#1.1 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:53 PM EDT
Concerned Citizen-1303521

Agreed.

And if it passes (I think we know how easily the FDA rolls over) and is not labeled, I will stop eating salmon altogether.

  • 3 votes
#1.2 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:57 PM EDT
Shannoscubie

And if it passes (I think we know how easily the FDA rolls over) and is not labeled, I will stop eating salmon altogether.

And aren't they pressing to ban the use of "Contains No GMO!" in labeling as well?

  • 4 votes
#1.3 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:01 PM EDT
GOZO-unlimited

Becoming a backyard vegetarian is my goal.

  • 4 votes
#1.4 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:02 PM EDT
Shannoscubie

Becoming a backyard vegetarian is my goal.

I know how you feel! I'm not a vegetarian, though. I wonder if there are any city ordinances that prevent me from keeping chickens? ;-)

  • 4 votes
#1.5 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:16 PM EDT
RACHEL1-933952

Probably! We do, but, plenty of the people have them anyway!

  • 3 votes
#1.6 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:21 PM EDT
GOZO-unlimited

Who's gonna know?

  • 2 votes
#1.7 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:25 PM EDT
RACHEL1-933952

Well, I think it's the rooster crow that gives them away!

  • 3 votes
#1.8 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:27 PM EDT
Shannoscubie

I checked my city's municipal code and, apparently, I can keep chickens but not roosters "guinea cocks, peacocks or other birds that by nature exhibit loud calls, within the corporate limits of the city" so I guess I'll have to go with the idea of borrowing one LOL!

  • 3 votes
#1.9 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:34 PM EDT
bore-head007

Frankenfish Poised to Climb From Shelf to Sea

Food And Water Watch

Just sixty GE salmon into a wild population of 60,000 would lead to the extinction of the wild population.

A coalition of 31 consumer, animal welfare and environmental groups, along with commercial and recreational fisheries associations and food retailers submitted a joint statement criticizing an announcement this week by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that it will potentially approve the long-shelved AquAdvantage transgenic salmon as the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption.

The engineered Atlantic salmon being considered was developed by AquaBounty Technologies, which artificially combined growth hormone genes from an unrelated Pacific salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) with DNA from the anti-freeze genes of an eelpout (Zoarces americanus). This modification causes production of growth-hormone year-round, creating a fish the company claims grows at twice the normal rate. This could allow factory fish farms to crowd fish into pens and still get high production rates.

Each year millions of farmed salmon escape from open-water net pens, outcompeting wild populations for resources and straining ecosystems. If the FDA opens this door, GE fish will likely be among the millions of salmon that currently escape from open ocean pens every year. This could be the last blow to wild salmon stocks and in turn the thousands of men and women who depend on fishing for their livelihoods. “Approving genetically engineered salmon is a sharp contradiction to the agreements the United States has signed at NASCO, where transgenic salmonids are considered a serious threat to wild salmon” said Boyce Thorne Miller, Science and Policy Coordinator for the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance and accredited observer at the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization.

Escaped GE salmon can pose an additional threat – genetic pollution resulting from what scientists call the “Trojan gene” effect.” Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences notes that a release of just sixty GE salmon into a wild population of 60,000 would lead to the extinction of the wild population in less than 40 generations.

Anticipating the stark danger to our fisheries and ocean environments – and trying to circumvent analyses of those dangers – AquaBounty has claimed that they will only raise their fish in land-based facilities. However most salmon farmers in the real world ply their trade in low-lying coastal areas and competing corporations will no doubt race to produce GE fish in crowded open ocean facilities already in use for fish production. Backsliding on its original claims, reports have circulated that AquaBounty may only suggest producers raise GE fish in “inland waters” – presenting novel threats to our nation’s lakes, rivers, and estuaries – many of which are already under attack by invasive fish species like the Asian carp and Northern snakehead.

“FDA’s decision to go ahead with this approval process is misguided and dangerous, and is made worse by its complete lack of data to review” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. “FDA has been sitting on this application for 10 years and yet it has chosen not to disclose any data about its decision until just a few days before the public meeting.”

“The approval of these transgenic fish will only exacerbate the problems facing our wild fisheries.” - Jonathan Rosenfield, PhD, a Conservation Biologist and President of the SalmonAID

  • 3 votes
#1.10 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:34 PM EDT
GOZO-unlimited

Brilliant...thanks bore-head

  • 2 votes
#1.11 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:31 PM EDT
Reply
JatsuSama

So, uhm...how are genetically engineered organisms different from selectively bred organisms, exactly?

  • 1 vote
#2 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:31 PM EDT
Concerned Citizen-1303521

It's a fairly big difference actually, for example:

You can't selectively breed a jellyfish's genes into a mouse.

  • 2 votes
#2.1 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:43 PM EDT
JatsuSama

Sure you can. It'll take a really long time, and many other species to transition through, but it could eventually be done.

  • 1 vote
#2.2 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:48 PM EDT
GOZO-unlimited

Why?

  • 1 vote
#2.3 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:51 PM EDT
RACHEL1-933952

You can't selectively breed a jellyfish's genes into a mouse.

CC- but, but, I heard some woman in Delaware say that the scientist have put human brains into mice!

lol

  • 3 votes
#2.4 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 PM EDT
Concerned Citizen-1303521

Sure you can.

Can we deal with even remotely likely scenarios in a scientific discussion?

I apologize if you were only trying to make a joke.

  • 1 vote
#2.5 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:55 PM EDT
Shannoscubie

Sure you can. It'll take a really long time, and many other species to transition through, but it could eventually be done.

I wouldn't be so squicked by the "Frankenfish" if that's the way it had been done. But to suddenly introduce this as a food source without knowing what could happen...? No. Supposedly, these fish are all female and all sterile, but who's to say what would happen if some escape and DO breed with the wild ones?

  • 4 votes
#2.6 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:59 PM EDT
Concerned Citizen-1303521

CC- but, but, I heard some woman in Delaware say that the scientist have put human brains into mice!

lol

Well, jellyfish-mice hybrids are just crazy talk, but human-brain-mice? They're everywhere.

Here is a documentary on the subject

=)

  • 3 votes
#2.7 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:10 PM EDT
RACHEL1-933952

I love that movie!!

I thought this was a miceman?

  • 2 votes
#2.8 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:22 PM EDT
JatsuSama

Can we deal with even remotely likely scenarios in a scientific discussion?

How is it unlikely? "Jellyfish genes" are just a sequence of nucleotides. Keep breeding mice until there's a mutation, breed the mutants until there's another, etc., until that "jellyfish" sequence is in the mice.

  • 1 vote
#2.9 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:30 PM EDT
GOZO-unlimited

ignorance verses brilliance...='s Repuglican verses Democrat.

  • 1 vote
#2.10 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:30 PM EDT
Concerned Citizen-1303521

How is it unlikely?

You answered your own question in your first response to me.

That 'really long time' you mentioned isn't measured in years, decades, or even centuries. Human civilization could crumble before you came close. Yes, I would call it 'unlikely'.

But please, be my guest and test it for yourself.

  • 3 votes
#2.11 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:54 PM EDT
JatsuSama

You answered your own question in your first response to me.

That 'really long time' you mentioned isn't measured in years, decades, or even centuries. Human civilization could crumble before you came close. Yes, I would call it 'unlikely'.

But please, be my guest and test it for yourself.

Yes, but that was exactly my point. The result is the same, the only difference is the time it takes. Genetically engineered food is no less safe than selectively bred food, which we've been eating since the beginning of agriculture.

  • 1 vote
#2.12 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:34 PM EDT
Concerned Citizen-1303521

Yes, but that was exactly my point.

No, your point was that they were the same. They are not.

The result is the same

Which is a great point if you assume the intermediaries have no consequences.

And I say again, let us stick to reality.

  • 3 votes
#2.13 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:45 PM EDT
JatsuSama

No, your point was that they were the same. They are not.

The end result, the one that becomes food, is the same.

Which is a great point if you assume the intermediaries have no consequences.

Good point. In that case, genetic engineering is safer than the selective breeding techniques we've been using to produce food for the past couple millennia. No intermediaries to worry about.

  • 1 vote
#2.14 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:23 PM EDT
GOZO-unlimited

Not safe when crops are engineered to survive tons of round up....apparently genes don't stay shut off forever.

  • 4 votes
#2.15 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:33 PM EDT
Concerned Citizen-1303521

Your disjoint in logic is a little comical

The end result, the one that becomes food, is the same.

Assumes a single end result and/or ignores other 'results'

  • 4 votes
#2.16 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:34 PM EDT
JatsuSama

Assumes a single end result

That's typically implied by "end," yes. It's the one that's last. The one you were trying to make since the beginning.

and/or ignores other 'results'

If they didn't meet the goal, they weren't results. They were either failures or progress. Result implies a final state.

  • 1 vote
#2.17 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:41 PM EDT
Concerned Citizen-1303521

Oh, Lord.

I suppose it is the state of our educational system.

You are absolutely right JatsuSama, once the food is in your belly the story ends there. You are full and your TV is on. Everything else is meaningless.

  • 3 votes
#2.18 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:55 PM EDT
JatsuSama

*sigh* I suppose it IS the state of our educational system.

Look, I'll try to make this easy for you. You have a sequence, AAGTC. You want to change it to AAGCT. You can cut out the TC, then put in CT. You can cut the T out and put it after the C. You can cut the C and put it before the T. You can keep randomly throwing the letters around until you end up with AAGTC. In the end, no matter which method you used, you have AAGCT. The AAGCT formed by random chance is no different than any of the AAGCTs formed by human intervention.

  • 1 vote
#2.19 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:12 PM EDT
Concerned Citizen-1303521

Absolutely none of that addresses the concerns... but thank you for giving us a 'lesson' in genetic modification from Baby's First Pop-up Book. It was quite entertaining.

  • 2 votes
#2.20 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:36 PM EDT
Reply
Shannoscubie

Well, I think it's the rooster crow that gives them away!

Can't be any worse than my neighbor's dogs barking their heads off every morning LOL!

  • 3 votes
Reply#3 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:31 PM EDT
GOZO-unlimited

Don't need a rooster for eggs...but if you want baby chicks you might need to borrow one.

Frankenfish doubles growth hormone to decrease development time by 50%. Research shows tissue containing large amounts of growth hormone, natural or synthetic, is more likely to be diseased and/or cause disease.

  • 4 votes
#3.1 - Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:36 PM EDT
Reply
Leave a Comment:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
(XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
Newsvine Privacy Statement
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
FUN STUFF:
  • Leaderboard |
  • E-Mail Alerts |
  • Top of the Vine |
  • Newsvine Live |
  • Newsvine Archives |
  • The Greenhouse
COMPANY STUFF:
  • Code of Honor |
  • Company Info |
  • Contact Us |
  • Jobs |
  • User Agreement |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • About our ads
LEGAL STUFF:
  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com