Thursday, January 9, 2014

5th post - Thursday 1/9/14 "GMO Salmon" (final post of 2nd qtr.)

Read the article on GMO salomon and comment on what you think about how the issue should be handled.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-new-method-against-genetically-modified-salmon-get-retailers-to-refuse-to-sell-it/2013/10/18/6aee28bc-3101-11e3-9c68-1cf643210300_story.html

This is the last post of the 2nd quarter.  Each of the 5 posts is worth 5 points.  (If you would like these points for your 2nd quarter grade you need to complete all posts by 1/24/14.)

43 comments:

  1. Personally I would feel uncomfortable eating a food that has not been tested
    sufficiently. Decades of scientific studies would be needed to assure much of
    the public that genetically modified foods do not pose any threat to one's
    health. However I don't believe that most of the people that are fighting GMOs
    know much about the topic. Genetically modified foods have the ability to reduce
    cost of food, insure salmon as a sustainable food source, and end fishing habits
    that cause harm to the ecosystem and other organisms. All in all I feel that it
    is dangerous to consume food when it's long term effects have not been studied.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All things considered, AquaBounty Technologies is such a small fish in the food-production industry (no pun intended) that there’s really no reason for them to have had to endure the sort of criticism that has gone their way – and this is coming from someone who, ironically, would probably never knowingly purchase GMO seafood. If, as they say, their genetically-engineered salmon are sterile and do not have access to natural water sources, there is no reasonable possibility that they will ever become an invasive species. And if AquaBounty Technologies really is only a team of twelve, self-funded fishermen, then there is likewise no reasonable possibility that they, as a corporation, will ever be able to keep up with demand and dominate the market for fish. That being said, what their critics MOST likely are worried about (and rightfully so) is the whole premise that genetically-engineered animals are simply better for the economy, despite their being so ethically and environmentally obscure. After all, what sort of precedent would be set if we could bring ourselves to allow even just this ONE genetically-engineered animal product into the food industry? Surely, wouldn't it then make more economical sense – and economical sense ALWAYS seems to trump environmental sense in America – for MORE animals to be genetically-engineered for the sake of cost and efficiency? I can see where many Americans are coming from, then, in protesting GMO salmon, because it may very well be the “threshold” that leads us to a world where, for our own purposes, nearly every animal that we might ever consider eating is artificial. But again, in my own perspective, it is really up to the consumer to determine the fate of AquAdvantage salmon: if there is a market for it, and it is safe, then there’s no reason why it shouldn't at least be a possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In a world with such a rapidly growing population, I feel that it's necessary to use genetic altering resources so that a sufficient amount of food can be provided to members of society. We already use hormones to alter animals like cows and chickens so that they can produce more food, so why shouldn't we use similar techniques on salmon? While I feel it's vital to make sure the genetic modifications that scientists create aren't harmful to human health, I think this task can very easily be achieved with all the technology we have today. Humans require such a substantial amount of food to live, and if we continue to have such high demand for food there may not be enough to sustain life in the future, but if we use genetic modification we can slow down our use of resources and create advances in the agricultural industry that will help generations to come.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Aquabounty Technologies definitely has the right to produce genetically modified salmon and should be allowed to sell them as long as their product is healthy for human consumption. Our worlds population is growing rapidly and this has increased the demand for food which has resulted in the over fishing of our oceans. So to the environmentalists claim that this fish will destroy wildlife I can only say that how can they become more destroyed then they already are? If these genetically altered animals can be kept separate from the wild populations and used for food there would be no reason to fish at all and the oceans could begin to rebuild. However this reduced amount of need for wild fish would destroy the entire world fishing industry leaving millions unemployed. It is hard for me to take a stance on this issue because it is such a double edged sword with pros and cons on both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Even though there have not been any proven issues with the GMO salmon, I still don't think I would feel comfortable eating it. It is not only the salmon I have a problem with, however; just the idea of genetic modification in general. Even though it definitely has many economic benefits, I think that shaping the way in which other organisms grow and live is not something that we as humans should be taking into our own hands. If this salmon becomes approved, it will open the door for the genetic modification of everything else. Dire consequences have not yet been discovered, but surely if every food product becomes "man-made," there will be countless issues. Soon, AquaBounty, which started as a small company could turn into a multi-billion dollar business; in America, these businesses have an incredible amount of power. Ultimately, I believe that, despite the economic benefits, AquaBounty (and genetically altered animals in general) should not be placed on the market.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Although Aquabounty Technologies has received a lot of unjustifiable criticism, I still do not think that the marketing of the GMO salmon is good idea. I believe that there has been sufficient testing to prove that it is safe for consumption however, I believe that the GMO salmon still has some ricks attached to it. If the salmon was to be accidentally introduced to the environment, the results could be very troubling. Although the GMO salmon are unable to reproduce, if a large amount was introduced into a local ecosystem, with its significant size advantage it could decimate certain species' populations. An example of this has occurred in many of Maine's lakes where bass have been introduced temporarily for fishing competitions. The damage that exuberant amounts of bass were able to do in a year was very noticeable and dramatically affected the sunfish populations. Clearwater Lake in Farmington Maine now has to import sunfish each year in attempt to revive the population. I also believe that mother nature has had plenty of time to perfect things and its best to let it just run its coarse. Also, science has started making the jump to grow human organs in animals as hosts for transplants. With such radical genetic alteration being okayed, where would it end. One day will we start genetically altering ourselves? And I just think that is kinda of a scary thought. However, I do think that in it is their right to sell their product and that should not be just taken away from them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7631877/#.UtSQOdJdV8E

      This is a short article on genetic testing where scientists have begone to attempt to grow human organs in animals like sheep for transplants.

      Delete
  7. GMO foods have the potential to be the new and improved way to produce food efficiently for people all over the world. Some may say that if we adopt this idea of GMO salmon and other foods, that the world would never have to go hungry again. Is this a realistic proposition though? In reality, Americans and other countries would just eat the larger portions of food and gain more weight, so this proposition is out of the question. However, GMO foods could make our food industry more productive and efficient, but before producers serve them to the public, I believe more research needs to be done regarding how GMO foods affect the human race.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Personally, I see the marketing of GMO salmon as capitalism in one of its truest forms. The GMO salmon farmers are out-competing the non-GMO salmon farmers; they are providing a superior product, clearly with a fiscal business advantage. Consumers have all the access to information they could possibly need to make an informed decision (i.e. Google, Freedom of Information Act, etc.); if they don't want to buy GMO salmon, they don't have to. Let the businesses compete...Darwinian competition exists outside of the Galapagos Islands, and certainly does and should exist in corporate America.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Personally, I would not want to purchase/eat GE salmon. While the company boasts that the research done on this potential product proves that the salmon pose no health problems, the GE salmon would have to have existed for more time for conclusive research on it's long-term effects. However, my main concern in reading this article is the indication that the availability of GE salmon will lead to production of all kinds of GMO foods on the market. I personally feel like the genes of organisms, especially those we consume, should not be tampered with; it seems like this will be inevitable if the AquaBounty Technologies salmon is approved. The approval of the GE salmon would set the precedent of approving other GMO foods if no short-term issues are detected. In the long-term, many of these GMOs could become invasive species or show dangerous effects from consumption not yet known. More research needs to be done on these effects before any GMO foods, including the salmon, can be placed on the market.

    ReplyDelete
  10. For me personally to eat GMO salmon, a lot more testing would have to go on to make sure that it was completely safe for people to eat. If the genes in the salmon are genetically modified, who knows what it will do to your genes. Aside from the fact that it could pose health problems for people, it is also not right for people to be messing with nature like that just so that they can make more money. The salmon's genes are the way they are for a reason, and have become adapt to living like they are. If their genes get messed up, this could not only put the consumers at risk, but also the salmon. If the salmon gets approved, who knows what the market is going to modify next. Maybe sometime in the future we will be eating GMO chicken, or beef. This poses way to many dangerous opportunities for the market. Its interesting to me how at the end of this article, Stotish says "'If it’s not a good product, people won’t buy it'". Maybe the salmon doesn't taste different, but I bet a majority of the people who buy the salmon either don't know it is GMO, or don't know what GMO means. Consumers need to become more educated on the issue, and take a stand before capitalism is put before the health of the fish and the consumers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Although I may not personally be first one to willingly eat genetically modified salmon, I do believe that Aquabounty Technologies should have the ability to sell their product and let the public decide its fate. Critics of the GMO salmon claim that a lack of data regarding the fish threatens public health and that the fish pose threats to inhibiting natural species. Providing that the fish are sterile and more time is taken to definitively prove the safety of the fish, I feel that the product should at least have a chance to take its chances in the economy. If it is true and there are enough people to protest and boycott the purchasing of the genetically modified salmon than the market will die out on its own, but the as long as safety is kept in mind these fish could be the first step taken towards preparing for out future resources and hunger problems.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I see no convincing reason to keep this salmon and other GMO foods off the market. If they are clearly labeled and consumers are given a choice to buy them or not, then nobody should feel that their rights are being infringed or their lives adversely affected. The fact that so many grocery chains are flat out blocking all GMO foods just goes to show that there must be some ulterior motive behind it, probably even financial kickbacks from current non-GMO agricultural companies. Extensive testing has already been done on these salmon, and there are already hundreds of GMO crops being grown around the US and the world that people don't think twice about and undergo far less testing and regulation. Many companies and organizations have jumped on these crops as an answer to growing food needs around the world, so why can't we do the same thing for the salmon?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think people are really overreacting to AquaBounty's GMO salmon. If the FDA says they're safe to eat, then there's not much room for argument. It seems like the fish has been tested well enough that if the FDA says its safe, then it most likely is. Also, since the fish are bred above sea level and cannot reproduce, there's no chance that they'll release into a local population and mate, so that's not an issue. I believe that if the product is safe and can increase supply of salmon without endangering wild salmon, then it's a good idea. I think AquaBounty should be allowed to go through with their sale of the GMO salmon.

    ReplyDelete
  14. People (including myself) don't know enough to make an educated decision about genetically modified foods. Because some people made a huge hype over how unhealthy this food is for you, everyone started to catch on to this idea and sided against GM food even without knowledge of the subject. Businesses do what consumers want, and that seems to be no GM food, so many businesses pledged not to sell this food. In reality, the FDA has been keeping tabs on the GM salmon for years, and finds that they would produce no more harm than a regular salmon if released into the wild. The salmon are also sterile so it is impossible to reproduce in the wild. Not to mention AquaBounty Technologies is a small business that would probably only end up selling to local markets anyway, and people across the country need not worry about the GM salmon infecting their stores. People overreact to controversial topics like this one, but when one looks at the facts rather than opinions it is clear that there is nothing wrong with AquaBounty Technologies.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I take the same stance on this issue as I do with every ethics/health-related food debate: In the spirit of economic competition as well as the simple fact that there are so many mouths on this Earth to feed, genetically modified foods - along with artificial, inorganic, etc. - are necessary. As long as it causes no harm, some people prefer these types of food because they're cheaper and the details of the food they put into their bodies is of little to no concern to them. I think that the perspective of economic Darwinism proves this because people constantly purchase products (knowingly and unknowingly) that aren't authentic, which keep the companies that manufacture such products in business.

    ReplyDelete
  16. As long as the GM salmon is not seriously directly harmful to a consumer's immediate health, it should be allowed on the market. Other "natural" foods are not necessarily safe; even recently, "safe" foods have been found to be contaminated with deadly bacteria. Thus, provided they are properly tested, labeled, and marketed, there is no legitimate reason for banning GM foods from retail stores.

    That being said, retailers should not be forced to sell a certain product if they don't believe there is a large enough market for it to turn a profit. Some retailers are known for selling only all-natural/organic goods, such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe's. So it should come as no surprise that they will block GM salmon, nor should they be penalized for doing so.

    While this may not be "fair" to AquaBounty, America is based on capitalism. As Stotish says, "if it’s not a good product, people won’t buy it." The market will follow the money; the consumers are the ultimate test. However, the smear campaign that the anti-GMO activists are running is excessive - rather, they should educate consumers about the supposed dangers of GM foods.

    Ethically, I see no issue with marketing GM salmon (which the FDA has deemed fit for human consumption), even if it were less healthy than natural salmon. Many foods are unhealthy, such as fat and sugar, and yet are allowed on the market, so why should salmon be any different? Furthermore, GM foods hold great potential in ending global hunger, as they are often faster and cheaper to grow/raise and yield more food in shorter time.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with Heather 100%, Ron Stotish is becoming frustrated because of lack of choice for people to make on their own of which type of fish they would like to buy and consume within their family. With this new genetically engineered fish costs are cheaper as well as more easily grown compared to the natural fish. This can relieve the stress off some of the consumers economically. Even though the fish needs to go through more tests to make sure that it is safe to consume I think that it is up to the person to make the choice for themselves. Unlike the genetically modified flowers that are resistant to weed killers these fish are able to be contained more easily than the pollen, reducing the fear of the killing off of the original species.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think AquaBounty's salmon are completely safe with regard to consumption and the environment. Firstly, the only thing phenotypically different about them is that they grow faster than normal fish; they are still "real" salmon, just with extra genes and hormones that were added using technology rather than natural processes. Eating this salmon, even though it has a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon and a gene from the ocean pout, is essentially the same as eating all three fish but with only the taste of Atlantic salmon. Second, the fish are grown in indoor pools on land, totally closed off from any other water environments, so they cannot affect the environment at all that way. The foreseeable problems with letting the GMO salmon into the market that public discussion should be focused on is what kind of precedent it would set for future GM animals let into the market. The fact that this fish can grow so fast is certainly an economic advantage, and regardless of whether it is successful this mindset will encourage experimentation with other animals to make them more profitable. And although in this particular case there do not seem to be any direct issues with the production and consumption of a GMO, that does not necessarily hold true for future GMOs. As long as the public remains skeptical about what's on their plate and push for guarantees that their food is safe in all respects, it might be time to let this salmon into the market.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Even though it is claimed within the article that people won't want to eat or purchase the GMO salmon, I think that the market should still allow it to be purchased. The food is FDA approved and there hasn't been any substantial information proving that the salmon is harmful to humans. In the future, even if GEO salmon doesn't work out, there will be other genetically modified foods made. This genetically modified food also has it's advantages over the normal fish. It is grown more quickly, more food is produced, and it is cheaper to buy; this GEO salmon potentially is economically wise better than the normal fish. Ultimately, the decision on whether to consume GEO salmon should be up to individual families; therefore, the fish should be allowed on the market

    ReplyDelete
  20. As we discussed in class, the genetically modified salmon do not pose a serious threat to the environment. Should they be released, as combinations of multiple species, they remain sterile. They would likely follow the lives of an average salmon, possibly without the normal migration patterns to hatching ground, and otherwise not accomplish much. As a creature of much larger size, it is probable that they would not be effective in the wild, else regular salmon would share these traits. As long as the condition of these new fish does not change and they are raised humanely, these practice is perfectly reasonable. In fact, it actually aids the wild fish. With the implementation of these new fish, there is less demand for the wild salmon meat. This is a practice beneficial to all involved.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I personally wouldn't eat genetically modified salmon because I believe that there could be possible health risks for me and the environment. Yes, the FDA said that the genetically engineered salmon won't threaten the environment, but do they have proof, and if so, what is it? I think that if the genetically engineered salmon was to mate with a normal salmon, there could be some problems with the offspring, and natural selection could kill off the normal species. I also don't feel comfortable putting a genetically modified meat into my body. Even though I feel this way, I still think people should have the right to choose what they eat, as long as they are aware of the way the salmon is treated, and produced.

    ReplyDelete
  22. GMO fish may be safe but there are other issues associated with them. Most salmon farming is done by large corporations. We can’t know if AquaBounty, would be bought by a large corporation once it proved the concept, which would increase the GMO impact in our food supply. Fish farms have problems with waste, parasites and disease, and we don’t know what that farmed salmon in the restaurant or the grocery store was fed to address these problems and with what environmental impact. Their diet is of poorer quality than a wild salmon’s diet and can have contaminants; this reduces the value of eating them. I’m reminded of what we learned about trophic efficiency, the 90% of available energy not transferred to the next trophic level; if we want to feed the world we ought to be thinking about how to enjoy eating closer to the beginning of the food chain.

    ReplyDelete
  23. GMOs are certainly not a new concept, they have already been present in foods from corn to beef for many years as of now. In a world where food production struggles to meet demand, the question becomes a matter of letting science feed people food that is perfectly suitable for human consumption, or let people starve because of preventable factors, such as food shortages. We constantly introduce and test new drugs to improve the quality of life, so why should food be any different in our approach. Ideally, GMO will not only improve the amount of food available, but also the quality of the food as well, these two elements are not required to be mutually exclusive and it would be my hope that GMO quickly become a matter of a commonly accepted practice.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Now, I take great issue with the thought of genetically engineering humans to make them better, which raises a great deal of ethical issues that would undermine the basis of human society. Fish, however, I can handle. Are GE fish really so horrible? Look at the chicken, which has been selectively bred to produce incredibly fat, fast-growing chickens -this is a form of genetic manipulation, and one that no one seems to have taken too much issue with. I'm more apt to side with the FDA on this one -What's natural is not always what's best, especially not for the impoverished who are more concerned with getting food at all than if they can pay a heap of extra money to ensure it wasn't bred to be larger.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Generally, I'm not horribly opposed to genetically modified food as long as it has been proven to be safe for consumption. If the FDA conducted a decade long study on people who ate both types of salmon and said that nothing is wrong, then I'd definitely buy it.
    Something in this article also confused me: these fish are sterile, but people are worried about them breeding? Well, if you're so worried, then why not have the FDA breed a group of the genetically modified salmon (a group that has been engineered to be fertile) with regular salmon and see what happens, and see if any horrible mutations occur in their offspring.
    There's also the fact that the population is stil growing, and if we don't get part two of The Plague anytime soon, then It's probably going to keep growing. If these salmon are deemed safe for consumption and cheaper than regular fish, then I'd have no problem eating it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am all about these genetically modified fish; they are a beautiful gateway into a future where more people can afford to be fed. With our ever-increaing population, it only makes sense food industries try to better themselves with a faster means of production at a simple rate. Naturally, there will always be those harsh critics opposed to any kind of progression, but, for the betterment of humans, the positives of these fish outweigh the negatives.

    ReplyDelete
  27. There are always several sides to an issue. I would personally have no issue eating genetically modified food - it's an advanced way of selectively breeding animals or plants which, let's face it, is what we as the human race has been doing to years. So long as there are no issues presented in the lives of the fish, I hold little issue with it. However, I have heard that farm raised fish, salmon in particular, is environmentally/ecologically worse than catching the fish wild in which case it may possibly make more sense to avoid any sort of man-monitored-fish-breeding and resort to regular fishing routines. Salmon can technically be a luxury food, and therefore not necessary x seasons out of the year. But, the market will do as the market sees fit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *what we as the human race have

      Delete
    2. I completely agree with your opinion Melissa and see genetically modified animals and crops as simply a higher form of agricultural cultivation. Taking animals' lives and ecological impact into account is also a very important task in determining whether GMOs are a positive or negative impact on our world and evaluating the health implications of GMOs is also very important. Although we argue over the ethics and implications of genetically modified crops and animals, if demand begins to outweigh supply, the market will do as the market sees fit, as you said.

      Delete
  28. Generally, I'm not opposed to eating or preparing genetically modified food. If the FDA has concluded that the salmon from AquaBounty does not pose a threat to the environment and remains as safe as eating conventional Atlantic salmon, then I will not object. As long as consumers are informed of what they are buying, I don’t see any harm in businesses competing with this Massachusetts based company. However, this article does state that opponents argue that there is not enough data to prove the salmon is safe. While they could just be pushing their side, this raises a couple red flags for me. As far as focusing on the effects GMO salmon has on consumers, the FDA should be prepared and watching for any unknown risks.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I believe that the idea of GMO foods should definitely undergo scrutiny and deep investigation by the FDA and other organizations concerned with the safety of our world food supply, but as we move into an age of a growing populace demanding more and more food from fewer and fewer farmers, a new advancement will have to occur to satisfy the needs of a hungry planet. Although we discussed in class whether we were more likely to buy the $5 GMO salmon or the $9 all-natural salmon, that view was coming from a group of economically sound Americans. For the billions of people starving across the world, the difference in availability and price of genetically modified foods will be enormous and one of the driving forces that will most likely bring GMOs into our food supply in a big way.

    This article is only a small example of the possibilities of genetic engineering when it comes to food and nutrition. Monsanto, the agricultural giant, is currently pioneering genetically modified crops such as wheat that will become more resistant to adverse farming conditions and yield more potential food per acre than ever before. The possibilities with GMOs are truly enormous and will need to be utilized in the future when food could become a much rarer commodity.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/08/monsanto-wheat-idUSL2N0KI17V20140108

    ReplyDelete
  30. It is important for these genetically modified salmon to be fully researched to find any harm, little or big, they may have on people or the environment. As it stands, these fish seem to not have a big effect. The problem at this point is that companies like AquAdvantage have produced all these fish and if they are not allowed to sell them, there will be an overpopulation of these fast growing salmon. Whatever the final verdict be from the FDA, it is essential to find this soon so that these salmon don't keep growing to extreme proportions.
    If these fish are put on the market, I believe it is crucial to make consumers fully aware of how these fish came to be, instead of just labeling them "GMO." The general public may not understand what this means and the FDA should be obligated to explain this term.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Although I personally would rather eat a naturally grown fish than a genetically altered one, I feel that this method of food production may be somewhat beneficial for the nation. Many family are struggling to supply their families with enough food. If there was an option that had more quantity as well as being cheaper, then it would help that demographic a lot. The FDA didn't find any health issues that the genetically altered food would cause, so it doesn't make much sense as to why they wouldn't be allowed to be sold.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think that the genetically altered salmon should be approved by the FDA because there is so much potential for genetically altered animals to help solve world hunger and possible food shortages as the human population continues to grow. We eat genetically modified plants all the time so it’s natural that we should begin to see GM animals in the supermarkets in the near future.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think the campaign against the genetically modified salmon should continue. This campaign will be easier to fight now with all of the social media outlets available to consumers today. I like the plan the protesters are using to convince people not to buy the salmon. I believe that this issue is similar to the issue we have with all of the corn-based products that we consume today. The main reason for putting the corn-based ingredients in all of the processed foods is to make them cheaper and easier to make. We now have a huge problem with people eating processed foods. It’s also a bigger problem for people that can’t afford the expensive, healthier foods. The same thing will happen with the fish market. If the fish is allowed to be sold, the richer, more educated consumers will pay for the more expensive fish that is better for you, and the people with less resources will end up eating the cheaper genetically modified fish and their health may suffer because of it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think the GMO industry is a very promising method of producing cheaper food for a growing global population, but it does come with some risks that should be mitigated. Perhaps the most obvious is any harm that GM salmon may cause to its consumers through its modifications - for example, there was a massive increase in soy allergies in Britain after an influx of GM soy, which was discovered to have been caused by a DNA sequence that was present in a common human allergen being spliced with the soy DNA. Precautions have to be taken such that something like this does not occur again. Furthermore, these GM species must be contained. If the modifications allow them to thrive in certain environments more so than the wild species and they are released into the wild, they could crowd out the natural organism and cause an imbalance in the ecosystem. If these two issues can be prevented (and it sounds like they easily could be), I see no reason for GM salmon to not be sold.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Although GM food is not preferable to fresh and natural alternatives, as with anything, you get what you pay for. For many people, the health risks are looked over, whether known or unknown, because it provides a cheap and plentiful alternative to the more expensive healthy foods. I think the issue should be made public, and the consumers informed of what they are consuming, but that GM food should continue to be an option for those that need it. Further research should also proceed in order to perfect the process and reduce risks in future products.

    ReplyDelete
  36. When it comes to humans, one can usually assume that they will find some way to mess things up. As one who wants to go into genetic engineering, I love the idea of genetic engineering and think we should definitely explore these practices, but at this time our race is unaware and unprepared of the risks these practices could entail on such a macro level.

    ReplyDelete
  37. While I agree the FDA should provide more in depth information about the risks of eating genetically modified salmon, I don’t have a problem with genetically modified fish, as long as it’s marked as such when being sold. The critics of the engineered fish seem to be trying to scare people into supporting them, which raises my suspicion of how true their claims are. The product should at least be given a chance; like the producers of the fish said in the article, if people really don’t like it or want it, they won’t buy it. Like organic foods, the natural salmon would be preferred by some despite a higher price, and the GMO salmon seems like it would be basically the same fish with a lower price As there hasn’t been any definitive data that consuming the fish could be harmful, I think it would be best to stop stalling and let the fish go to market.

    ReplyDelete
  38. First of all, I feel that if the fish are labelled properly, there should be no problem with their release as long as they pose no health or environmental threats. Since the FDA has been studying this case for so long, if they chose to allow the genetically modified fish, then they must agree that the benefits outweigh the possible faults. And I would agree with this decision. Although I probably wouldn't want to eat it, the fish would be cheaper, and assuming it is just as beneficial as normal salmon, could provide low-income families with a healthy dinner.
    If this does become a larger issue, and people are that upset about the fish, then they just shouldn't buy it. If the demand is low for such genetically modified foods, then other companies will be slow to jump on the bandwagon. However, I do believe that if more genetically modified products are put on shelves, many conventional fishermen and farmers could go out of business. Then we would be stuck always eating modified foods all the time, which personally I wouldn't like.

    ReplyDelete
  39. While it is very reasonable for people to be wary of genetically modified foods, I feel that the genetically modified fish should be available for purchase once the FDA approves of it. In my mind, this tactic of swarming the retailers with messages telling them not to sell these fish is an underhanded tactic. Instead of limiting other consumers' options and telling others that they can't have these fish, how about they just don't support the modified fish? Just don't buy them. That way people can have options and if you're still cautious then you can play it safe. Also, over-fishing is a serious issue. We don't want to fish the salmon out of existence with our growing demand. These new fish would allow more food to be on our plates in less time and without fishing from the ocean. Then again, there are fish farms which do a similar thing, but the farms take years to grow fish to market size. So, let the consumer decide what is right for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I have no problem with genetically modified fish, as long as the world's endangered fish supply could recover via this method I would be happy to contribute. As long as I am eating fish, that doesn't possess genes from a weird protist (whose name I can't pronounce), I don't see the harm. However, I do see how many would be distrusting of this product; therefore, the best way to spread a demand for this product is go the I-can't-believe-it's-not-butter route and convince their public (using a celebrity's pretty face) that their product is better than the original.

    ReplyDelete