# Genetically-Modified, First-Ever Approved, Animal, Human Consumption



## imp (Nov 22, 2015)

The Food and Drug Administration has approved for human consumption, the first-ever animal food product Genetically Modified. It is:  SALMON! My favorite fish. Whadd'al Ah Do Now?

Maybe the worst part is, FDA says it need not be _labeled _as GMO! Can you believe that?? So, when it gets canned, as it surely will, no means of identifying GMO contents will be possible. This sickens and disgusts me. Especially given the meager description of how the modification is brought about. See, it's done via _*Growth Hormone, *_undoubtedly an endocrine-like synthetic chemical which human beings need gather any more into the stores of them already within our bodies. MONEY is the motivation. These fish grow to harvest-size in 1/2 the time. Like I give a crap about that. 

Can we go ahead and start raising our own salmon? Proly against the law. I'm LIVID about this one!     imp


----------



## SeaBreeze (Nov 22, 2015)

I eat salmon at least once a week, I sometimes get wild and sometimes get farmed.....but I won't be eating any GMO 'frankenfish', that's for sure. Even if I'm aware of it and don't buy it....many other in the US will. ​

http://time.com/4120168/fda-salmon-g.../?xid=homepage


Quote:

This marks the first such altered animal for human consumption in the United States


(WASHINGTON) — The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday approved genetically modified salmon, the first such altered animal for human consumption in the United States.

The Obama administration has stalled in approving the fast-growing salmon for more than five years amid consumer concerns about eating genetically modified foods. But the agency said the fish is safe to eat.

By altering genetic materials, scientists have proposed — and in some cases, actually created — animals that would be bred to be disease-free, cleaner in their environments or grow more efficiently.

Opponents of the technology have taken advantage of increasing consumer concern about genetically modified foods and have urged several major retailers not to sell it.

Some retailers have pledged not to sell the salmon, which has an added gene from the Pacific Chinook salmon that enables the fish to produce more growth hormone and grow faster.

There is no evidence that the foods would be unsafe, but for some, it’s an ethical issue.

The FDA said in 2010 that the modified salmon appears to be safe to eat, and said in 2012 that the salmon was unlikely to harm the environment.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 22, 2015)

imp said:


> The Food and Drug Administration has approved for human consumption, the first-ever animal food product Genetically Modified. It is:  SALMON! My favorite fish. Whadd'al Ah Do Now?
> 
> Maybe the worst part is, FDA says it need not be _labeled _as GMO! Can you believe that?? So, when it gets canned, as it surely will, no means of identifying GMO contents will be possible. This sickens and disgusts me. Especially given the meager description of how the modification is brought about. See, it's done via _*Growth Hormone, *_undoubtedly an endocrine-like synthetic chemical which human beings need gather any more into the stores of them already within our bodies. MONEY is the motivation. These fish grow to harvest-size in 1/2 the time.



If the FDA is calling this the "first" GMO animal product, they are "splitting hairs".  Virtually ALL the poultry, beef and pork products we eat have been "altered" for years.  The corporate chicken and turkey farms load the birds up with growth hormones, and can take a bird from chick to market ready in half the time nature would take.  The beef and pork farms load their feed with antibiotics and steroids, and these chemicals stay in the flesh and we consume them.  It wouldn't surprise me if research showed that all these added hormones and chemicals are a prime cause for the epidemic of Obesity that we are seeing.  

It's all about profit, and keeping food prices affordable.  Being able to bring meat/poultry/fish products to the grocery stores in a reduced time frame, keeps production costs and retail prices substantially lower than we would see if all these products were "organic".  However, the jury is still out on just what the long term affects on the human body will be.


----------



## imp (Nov 23, 2015)

*What Constitutes "Genetic Modification"?*



Don M. said:


> ....  *Virtually ALL the poultry, beef and pork products we eat have been "altered" for years*.  The corporate chicken and turkey farms load the birds up with *growth hormones*, and can take a bird from chick to market ready in half the time nature would take.  The beef and pork farms load their feed with antibiotics and steroids, and these chemicals stay in the flesh and we consume them.  It wouldn't surprise me if research showed that all these added hormones and chemicals are a prime cause for the epidemic of Obesity that we are seeing.
> 
> It's all about profit, and keeping food prices affordable.  Being able to bring meat/poultry/fish products to the grocery stores in a reduced time frame, keeps production costs and retail prices substantially lower than we would see if all these products were "organic".  However, the jury is still out on just what the long term affects on the human body will be.



Splitting hairs may be a good way of looking at this. "Genetically Modified" implies the base plant or animal has had it's own genetic profile changed in some way. Intake of hormones or antibiotics does not necessarily change genetic makeup of the individual. I've heard for years about poultry being fed antibiotics, and the fear was some remained in the meat after slaughter, to be ingested by us. At one time it was proposed that the "resistance" bacteria were developing was helped along by human consumption of animal-fed antibiotics. 

The deep concern with "loading" food products with synthetics, whatever they are, is just as you say: many accumulate in human fatty tissues, to be passed along to offspring via breast milk. That fact has been closely studied and scientifically proven. Little is being said about it, because the "harms been done". Rather, approach it by limiting, rather than encouraging, use of chemical adulterants in foods. This, they simply AIN'T doing.

To my way of thinking, regarding this salmon debacle,  the FDA is "testing the waters" by claiming such miscreant fish need not be identified to the consumer. Eventually, as the test case proceeds, we might as well expect that MOST of the salmon (and then, other fish types, and then.....) sold will be so-modified, but WE won't know it by looking at the product, if fresh, or the container, showing no identification regarding modification. 

"Truth in Labeling"? My a$$!     imp


----------



## AZ Jim (Nov 23, 2015)

I'll happily eat it.  If I grow fins or feel the need to swim from ocean to river, I would say you were right in not eating it.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 23, 2015)

I don't know what the reason would be to NOT eat it.   Since we don't incorporate our food into our genome  I see little chance of us becoming an eel.. or a really big salmon.. or growing gills..


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 23, 2015)

I agree with QuickSilver. 

Eating GM foods is the least of my worries. My concern is the effect on the environment when these farmed animals and plants escape and the modified genes jump the species barrier and then you have wild species that grow rapidly or are immune to pesticides etc. The consequences are not yet fully understood and learning by bitter experience is not an attractive option.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 23, 2015)

["Truth in Labeling"? My a$$!     imp[/QUOTE]

I think the Food Industry "lobbies" the FDA almost as much as the Drug Industry does.  When I read the labels on most of the stuff we buy, I have no idea of what some of these chemicals and additives are there for, or what long term effects consuming some of this stuff might have on the body.  About all a person can do is to try to avoid the most "adulterated" processed foods, and hope for the best.  

In defense of commercial agriculture....there are so many mouths to feed on the planet now, that if the farmers and food processors weren't getting "creative", I doubt that there would be enough reasonably priced food available to meet our planets population needs.  It's almost becoming a "Damned if you Do, Damned if you Don't" situation...and the more people this planet has to support, the greater the risk, if anything substantial ever happens to our food supply chain.


----------



## imp (Nov 23, 2015)

*My Wife's Eating Wisdom*



Don M. said:


> ["Truth in Labeling"? My a$$!     imp



I think the Food Industry "lobbies" the FDA almost as much as the Drug Industry does.  When I read the labels on most of the stuff we buy, I have no idea of what some of these chemicals and additives are there for, or what long term effects consuming some of this stuff might have on the body. * About all a person can do is to try to avoid the most "adulterated" processed foods, and hope for the best.  
*
In defense of commercial agriculture....there are so many mouths to feed on the planet now, that if the farmers and food processors weren't getting "creative", I doubt that there would be enough reasonably priced food available to meet our planets population needs.  It's almost becoming a "Damned if you Do, Damned if you Don't" situation...and the more people this planet has to support, the greater the risk, if anything substantial ever happens to our food supply chain.[/QUOTE]

Don't know where she got it, but she says the _more ingredients _shown on a simple product's label, canned  soup, for example, the less likely one should eat it. If you buy cottage cheese, a good example, many brands contain _food coloring. _WTH does white cheese need food coloring for? 

Or, canned vegetables, which should by their nature be rather neutral, or slightly salty, contain _added sugar. _Added to green beans! Ridiculous. When I crave sugared foods, I go to a Chinese buffet: ask any Chinese what they think of America's "Chinese" restaurants, even though they run them. They'll tell you "Chinese" food does not have added sugar in everything, that's done to suit American tastes!    imp


----------



## imp (Nov 23, 2015)

Jim & QS: Both of your remarks miss the main point by a mile, and I KNOW you know it, too. So, the logical conclusion is that your remarks are temperamentally made. Why, I can only surmise.  imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 23, 2015)

imp said:


> Jim & QS: Both of your remarks miss the main point by a mile, and I KNOW you know it, too. So, the logical conclusion is that your remarks are temperamentally made. Why, I can only surmise.  imp




I would have no problem eating the GMO salmon..  I'll have your share...


----------



## AZ Jim (Nov 23, 2015)

imp said:


> Jim & QS: Both of your remarks miss the main point by a mile, and I KNOW you know it, too. So, the logical conclusion is that your remarks are temperamentally made. Why, I can only surmise.  imp


That may be obvious but I assure you my comments had absolutely nothing with you or anyone else.  In fact I can't even figure why you think that Imp.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Nov 23, 2015)

It seems that anyone who is for protecting the natural environment and its species would be against such altering of salmon and other living things.  I don't claim to know very much about it, but what I do know seems very harmful, experimental and unnecessary. 

 What really bothers me, is that they don't even care to state that it's a GMO product on the label, at least that way, consumers can make a choice in their food purchases.  If I can buy a product in the market and one is labeled non-GMO, I'll go with that one, organic also.

I think the fact that the FDA approved this stinks, but then, look at all the harmful pharmaceuticals they push through the red tape to make profits for the large corporations...follow the money, screw the consumer and any other living thing in their way. 

 Just my opinion, like I said before, many people in the US will purchase the fish even if it were labeled, but cry the next day about endangered species and saving the environment.  https://ecowatch.com/2015/11/19/fda-approves-gmo-salmon/

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature! :wink:











> Today, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first genetically engineered food animal,





> AquaBounty’s genetically engineeredsalmon, despite insufficient safety testing and widespread opposition.
> 
> This unfortunate, historic decision disregards the vast majority of consumers, many independent scientists, numerous members of Congress and salmon growers around the world, who have voiced strong opposition.
> 
> ...


----------



## imp (Nov 23, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> That may be obvious but I assure you my comments had absolutely nothing with you or anyone else.  In fact I can't even figure why you think that Imp.



OK, I'll buy that. The point I was trying to make is that, write a law requiring nutritional labeling, then evade that law intentionally, because the law-writers are above the law's requirements. Hypocritical politics at it's best.   imp


----------



## chic (Nov 24, 2015)

Imp, I wouldn't eat genetically modified anything. If you love salmon and the frankenfish possibilities scare you, just eat wild caught salmon. I eat organic everything and feel better for it.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Nov 24, 2015)

This guide won't include fish (yet), but here's a non-gmo shopping guide.  http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/


----------



## imp (Nov 24, 2015)

*What You Get for "Getting Me Started"*



chic said:


> Imp, I wouldn't eat genetically modified anything. If you love salmon and the frankenfish possibilities scare you, just eat wild caught salmon. I eat organic everything and feel better for it.



Good advice! This whole deal makes for convoluted thought and expression. GMO plant life, like corn, for example, is generally sterile, cannot reproduce, thus ensuring future sale of GMO stock seed by good old Monsanto. But the "GMO" salmon will not be sterile, if I understand correctly, and will, in my mind, no matter the precautions taken, eventually produce 
offspring from plain old salmon either in the wild, or farms. Then, the added hormone, if it is carried genetically, maybe even produced by the fish, will be present in the offspring, awaiting our hungry appetites!

The world-wide presence today in the environment, that including surroundings as well as living things, of synthetically-produced, some very long-lived, chemical "creations" is gross evidence of impropriety exercised during the second half of the last century. The DDTs, Agent Orange laced with dioxin, PCBs used worldwide in electrical equipment, thousands of different pesticides as well as herbicides, including the enormously popular 2,4,D which is presently being added to the environment in the 50-million pound annually range.

Read about just that particular estrogen-mimicer:

*"2,4-D is a Potential **Endocrine Disruptor** Increasingly Found in Ground and Surface Water*The National Pesticide Information Center says that while some forms of 2,4-D can be very toxic to fish and other forms of aquatic life, particularly in warmer water temperatures, 2,4-D is not toxic to honey bees or other beneficial insects. Some studies, however, suggest that 2,4-D is a potential endocrine disruptor and may interfere with thyroid hormones. A recent study also suggests that 2,4-D exposure may promote antibiotic resistance. Yet other studies have linked 2,4-D exposure to immune and neurological system problems, including Parkinson’s disease."   More:  http://civileats.com/2015/06/30/5-things-to-know-about-24-d-the-possibly-cancer-causing-herbicide/

This issue of Endocrine Disruption is about the most serious current "human problem" which troubles me. Unlike many of the other world problems, it is NOT ever going away; it will only worsen. The makers of the huge variety of estrogen-like chemicals failed to see the possibility of a process now called "biomagnification" existing. It explains the presence of high levels of disruptors in the food chain. Really ticked-off about this. But worried?  No. 

Most significant thing about this: It persists from generation to generation. Remains stored in human fat cells, is present in nursing mothers' milk, gives the kid a real good start in life. Fill the child's fat cells with the stuff, too. Kid grows up adding to the body's burden via all kinds of foods consumed, then gets passed on to the next generation. Nice and effective.   BIG unintended consequence.     imp


----------



## imp (Nov 24, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> This guide won't include fish (yet), but here's a non-gmo shopping guide.  http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/



Nice info! The skeptic, as usual, wonders what guarantee is extended by producers and purveyors. OTOH, if absolutely nothing is taken for granted in life, it becomes a terrible drain on morale!   

imp


----------

