SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Food and Drug Administration has given its first approval for human consumption of a genetically modified animal. AquAdvantage salmon grow twice as fast and year-round compared to salmon that have already been honed by selective breeding.
A kind of salmon that's been genetically modified so that it grows faster may be on the way to a supermarket near you. The Food and Drug Administration approved the fish on Thursday — a decision that environmental and food-safety groups are vowing to fight.
This new kind of fast-growing salmon was actually created 25 years ago by Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies. A new gene was inserted into fertilized salmon eggs — it boosted production of a fish growth hormone. The result: a fish that grows twice as fast as its conventional, farm-raised counterpart.
AquaBounty has been trying to get government approval to sell its fish ever since. Five years ago, the FDA's scientific advisers concluded that the genetically modified fish, known as AquaAdvantage salmon, is safe to eat and won't harm the environment.
[More after the break.]
Alison Van Eenennaam, a biotechnology specialist at the University of California, Davis, who was part of that scientific evaluation, says it wasn't a hard decision. "Basically, nothing in the data suggested that these fish were in any way unsafe or different to the farm-raised salmon," she says.
The FDA now is giving the salmon a green light. In a statement, the agency said that the data indicated "that food from the GE salmon is safe to eat by humans and animals" and "that the genetic engineering is safe for the fish." It's the first genetically modified animal approved for human consumption.
[...] AquaBounty will only be allowed to raise the modified fish in tanks, on land, at just two sites — one in Canada and one in Panama. And the company says its fish will be sterile, so if they escape, they will fail to reproduce. But those precautions aren't enough for the fish's opponents. "This frankenfish, this GMO salmon, should not be approved, and shouldn't have been approved," says Dana Perls, a campaigner with the environmental group Friends of the Earth.
Aside from opposition by groups like Friends of the Earth (FOE) and Consumer Reports, the article also notes polls showing that only 25-35% of respondents say they would eat genetically modified fish. Would these consumers actually read product labels in an attempt to avoid eating GMO fish? We may not find out, because FOE says that over 60 grocery chains, including Safeway, Kroger, Target, Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, and Aldi, have promised not to sell AquAdvantage salmon.
We previously noted on the double-muscled pigs story that no regulator worldwide had approved a GMO for human consumption. That changes now.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @01:11PM
The gene is from the Pacific Chinook salmon, which is already safe to eat.
(Score: 4, Funny) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @01:17PM
Mother Gaia didn't intend for the genes to be arranged that way in one salmon!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Friday November 20 2015, @01:35PM
Nor did she intend for Down's to occur.
Nor did she intend for the world to eat a handful of species of cow because all the others don't produce enough milk/beef.
Nor did she intend for the carrot to be bred from small, spindly and purple to large, thick and orange.
Nor did she intend for racehorses to be breed from only a handful of thoroughbreds.
Nor did she intend for one bull to inseminate entire county's worth of cows.
Nor did she intend for someone to breed wolves and tame them into dogs.
Nor did she intend for MRSA to be bred, and for (recent news stories) the last of our significant antibiotics to start to show resistance from bacteria.
Because, a) she doesn't exist. b) Humans have been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years. c) Intent has NOTHING to do with it.
Ever seen coppiced trees? Same thing.
Ever seen dog-breeding? Same thing.
Ever heard of anything called "pedigree" or "thoroughbred"? Same thing.
The only difference in the mechanism. Whether you just let the animals do it themselves, whether you humanly select the animals that are allowed to do it to themselves, whether you force two animals to do it to themselves, or whether you get our a pipette, do it for them, and then spend decades making sure you haven't broken anything. The actual result is the same. There's no such thing as a "synthetic" transcription - they are literally four chemicals arranged in slightly different orders. By doing that same thing "naturally" (rubbish), we've managed to create entire infertile species (e.g. mules), species with inherent severe health problems (certain types of "pedigree" dogs), and radically alter the makeup of animals to turn them into beef machines already. Doing the same under controlled circumstances and with testing is no different, if anything it's better. Say I crossed two species of apple, and make a new type of apple (happens all the time). Apples contain cyanide in their pips. Say the cross-version has unbelievably dangerously-poisonous pips? Say it gets into the market. It's all "natural", we just crossed two safe versions of other apples by encouraging the trees to breed "naturally". But that *WON'T* necessarily undergo FDA testing before appearing on the market. And it's quite likely it's YEARS before we link deaths to the pips of that particular type of apple, or whatever.
I see no problem with this... the change mechanism is a natural hormone. Injecting that same hormone into "normal" fish would result in the same end-product. All you've done is plant a seed so that unnecessary injection is eliminated. OF COURSE you must test - because you could be putting these fish into pain, or higher risk of disease, or other mutations that could affect consumption. But that's already more testing than a new type of fruit would get.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 20 2015, @01:44PM
"then spend decades making sure you haven't broken anything."
I see one problem with GMO. Labeling. Decades from now, there MIGHT BE a problem discovered with GMO foods. You can't know, I can't know, and the researchers can't know in advance. After decades of being a guinea pig, it would be nice to know that you were part of the control group, or the test group. All genetically modified food products should be labeled as such, so that people can make some sort of informed decision.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 20 2015, @04:47PM
Well that's easy--add in a gene to make your poo glow in the dark, then you'll know.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Covalent on Friday November 20 2015, @01:51PM
You're right! Only natural things should be permitted, like:
Polio
Cancer
Death during childbirth
Indiscriminate raping and pillaging
Misogyny
Slavery
No rights for women
Stoning for heresy
I'm so tired of the "but it's not natural" argument that I could spit. Natural was often horrible, and we have markedly improved the lives of humans precisely by being UNnatural. It's our duty to continue that, unless of course your goal is to increase suffering. If that is the case, then please carry on spreading fear and ignorance (see stoning for heresy above for some inspiration)
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @01:59PM
I support voluntary sarcasm labeling.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @03:03PM
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @04:09PM
Hitler would approve.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Friday November 20 2015, @10:18PM
Correct me it I am wrong, but I am guessing Pacific Chinook are more commonly found in helicopters than the north of Scotland.
In my experience, even farmed salmon don't taste like the real thing.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!