| 28 June, 2010 | Adie Chan |
12
|
|
First edible GM animal?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration may soon approve the first genetically modified animal for humans to eat
|
|
Legacy comments are closed.
User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the post under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks.
Click here to post comment and indicate that you accept the Commenting Terms and Conditions.
Social Media Manager until 2015, F1000
previous post
It appears that GM food is going to stay, in spite of opposition from our friends in the Green Movement. As a matter of fact there appears to be no other short cut to meet the challenge of global hunger. If FDA approves GM salmon to day on rational grounds, the flood gate for other GM foods will open up, may be for betterment of mankind.
I like the way all the pro-techs are Dr. on this site. Betterment of mankind? And we should believe you because you are a dr. It’s reminiscent of how Health Care in the US is for the betterment of patients. I think a doctor would write today not to day. The challenge to global hunger got screwed on a massive scale when deep ocean drilling was approved.
Memo: “to day” instead of “today” is called a typo. And yes, the tech experts should be believed because they KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT. As for your BP complaint, that spill happened BECAUSE proper protocol (devised by, let me think, experts?) was not followed.
GM’s (not “GE’s”) are much safer than you understand – as an example, the salmon in this article is engineered to produce more of a hormone that it already produces naturally – there aren’t any unusual hormone cocktails being fed to them. And do you really think hormones from a FISH (genetically unrelated to people) have analogous receptors in people?
I give GM a two-thumbs up, as long as environmental and other potential hazards are properly researched and accounted for in the design of the organisms in question. Because at the end of the day, when the world needs food, which is safer – using massive amounts of fertilizer, pesticides, and hormones to squeeze biomass out of systems that aren’t capable of generating it, or simply tweaking the genetic makeup to allow clean, environmental-and-health conscious large-scale food production (in systems, by virtue of their GM’s, that are innately capable of producing that output)?
Susan, until you’ve done research/have an understanding of what you’re talking about, keep your emotionally charged blustering to yourself.
History is replete with “Techs” and “drs.” who have published veavily biased studies which appear upon casual perusal to be informative missives by knowledgable people seeking to better the world with their product, serivce or technology. Agent Orange comes to mind. Doctors used to plug cigarettes as well. History is also peppered with mavericks who bucked the current accepted dogma of science and medicine and were persecuted for it, only to be vindicated much later. Recall Dr. Lister?
leave it to a man to challenge argument to woman with emotional and intellectual criticism. stick those two thumbs where the bacteria that creates these creatures comes from.
I believe GM food should be labeled. Parameters such as caloric uptake, cholesterol or sodium content are printed on the label. Why not whether it is GM?
Let the consumers decide what they want or do not want.
“GM crops aren
Most of our pets and wholesome farm-raised foods are the result of genetic manipulation. It began by cross-breeding and splicing gross plant parts together (remember Gregor Mendel — 1822 – 1884?), rather than splicing smaller parts (i.e., genes) together. The outcome of might never have evolved naturally, but there are “natural” viruses that perform genetic recombinations in their hosts. We can’t resist playing with our knowledge and technology, but we should be responsible enough to recognize how little we actually do know, and not let greed get in the way of responsibility. At the end of the day, everything is based on a risk:benefit analysis. As the Vulcan said, “The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.” The problem comes when we appoint someone to make that decision, and how we (or they) define “benefit.” In reality, radical changes will be phased in. If we can defeat famine, I’m happy. So we have plenty of fundamental issues to solve on this planet before GM food hits my radar screen.
A GM salmon with mercury to boot. That’s it folks–deadly news in a toxic nutshell. When can I eat my first one?
The debate will continue between natural and GM salmon. There is no match to what is natural.
As the human population increases and as longevity increases the number of humans on the earth at any given time, we need to find solutions for food supply. However, we also need to review the consequences of growth hormones being ingested through food sources and also whether they are still intact and entering the water and soil supply after we eat foods that are genetically altered. Let us include these areas as part of the research that qualifies the viability of using growth hormones. Do growth hormones influence obesity in humans? Does it affect plants and animals in our environment? Are these effects positive or negative? Are there other viable solutions?
5 leaf clovers anyone?
Cloning a rare symbol of luck is the odd obverse of GM salmon notion.
Both risk overturning a known genotype without a proper caution to see that the Unintended Consequences ~which always arise from mucking around in the unknown~ are learned first behind sealed chamber doors before they are blithely let loose on a DNA-unprepared ecosystem.
It’s bad luck to pretend you know what you’re doing.
And ends with giga-tons of unwanted four leaf clovers being fed to shoals of unsalable mutant salmon.