Genetically modified salmon OK’d for human consumption in US

AquaBounty CEO Ron Stotish

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

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

“There are no biologically relevant differences in the nutritional profile of AquAdvantage Salmon compared to that of other farm-raised Atlantic salmon,” the agency said in announcing the approva

Genetically modified salmon OK’d for human consumption in US

The FDA has deemed that the GMO Salmon would not require labeling so consumers can choose not to purchase these engineered fish.

I agree, the folks should be able to make the decision. The engineered salmon will have growth hormone from the Chinook salmon and a gene from the Ocean Pout, according to the article and will be produced in land based hatcheries, one in Canada, the other in Panama.

The link above to the Ocean Pout is pretty interesting and shows that the use of GMO yeast using Ocean Pout gene that are already in use in some of their ice cream products.

Currently, Unilever incorporates AFPs into some of its American products, including some popsicles and a new line of Breyers Light Double Churned ice cream bars. In ice cream, AFPs allow the production of very creamy, dense, reduced fat ice cream with fewer additives.

I know folks' opinions vary greatly on the GMO topic, I lean heavily on the side of letting the folks make their choice by labels clearing identifying food that contains genetic modification. period..

Nooooo!!
All GMO arguments aside, what happens if this genetically altered fish makes its way into the wild population somehow?

I personally don't believe that we should be messing with our food supply so badly and at minimum all food should be labeled clearly for anything from allergens to GMO's. But this is truly disturbing in so many other ways.

Right now Pebble mine has been on the sidelines for years because of the possible damage to salmon habitat. Then government then turns around and ok's genetically interfering with the animal. It seems asinine to me.

a reply to: woodsmom

The two hatcheries are inland, and according to the article all of the GM Salmon will be sterile females...

a reply to: JacKatMtn

The FDA has deemed that the GMO Salmon would not require labeling so consumers can choose not to purchase these engineered fish.

I agree, the folks should be able to make the decision.

I do not understand. Either you ment the salmon will be labled, or that you agree it should not?

originally posted by: woodsmom
Nooooo!!
All GMO arguments aside, what happens if this genetically altered fish makes its way into the wild population somehow?

I personally don't believe that we should be messing with our food supply so badly and at minimum all food should be labeled clearly for anything from allergens to GMO's. But this is truly disturbing in so many other ways.

Right now Pebble mine has been on the sidelines for years because of the possible damage to salmon habitat. Then government then turns around and ok's genetically interfering with the animal. It seems asinine to me.

Not only did the Feds shelve Pebble, they blocked any effort to advance the Environmental Impact Statement intended to determine what the actual impacts would/could be. The mining sector lacks the lobbyist dollars and clout Monsanto and their partners swing. DC is simply for sale to the highest bidder, be that bid in the form of either Kept votes or corporate lobby dollars.

As an Alaskan salmon fisherman, this decision by the FDA is entirely BS and just adds more fuel to my "I despise this government" bonfire. *Insert middle finger emoticon here*

a reply to: RevolutionAnon

I agree with the folks who want all genetically engineered foods labelled ..

Sorry for the confusion

Our fish consumption already is gray area, where we sell good fish (for premium price), while we import (cheap) bad fish... and this is not helping at all... I still prefer to by not farmed fish and this will not change much that.

So they took an antifreeze glycoproteins protein from another aquatic mammal and incorporated it in the Salmon. Now most plants that have antifreeze in them can cause problems in humans if you eat too much. I would suspect the same problems would occur in these modified fish. I suppose that propylene glycol is considered GRAS in food even though it can cause multiple problems in many people. They probably use the gras rating of propylene glycol to justify the safety of this fish.

I am not going to eat Salmon anymore. That seems to be my only option. These farmed fish will find their way into the wild, there is no controlling them. Let the people raising farm raised salmon and people fishing salmon fight against this when their sales plummet they will have lots of time to go after these GM O companies. If you can't tell if it is GMO just quit eating all Salmon. The sales pitch to promote Salmon consumption because it is high in Omega Threes is just a sales pitch. Many fish are high in Omega threes and the actually taste a lot better. I studied the Omega three content of many cold water fish. It seems to be harder to find this info because everything steers us towards salmon because of people promoting it. People are fooled so iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii';p easily nowadays. The cat just ran over my keyboard, I guess she gets upset when I cut down Salmon and wanted to be heard.

Salmon is a good fish, but there are many other fish that are just as good or better.

a reply to: JacKatMtn

I will admit I hadn't had time to read the article yet, I was working on the letter s with my 5 yr old too, sorry. I had to respond though....

I simply find it massively hypocritical that they will just pick and choose whatever works best for them in the moment. The salmon is a mainstay of our lives here, and the population is already suffering in part by government picking and choosing what's best for everyone. That is an entirely different subject though.

I'm glad they are starting off the population inland. Can anyone promise that they will still be contained after twenty years though? The fact they are starting off as sterile females is great, but again nature somehow manages to find a way. Plants will revert to hermaphroditism to reproduce themselves at times. I'm not saying it's incredibly likely but it's not an impossibility either. This is the one of the rare times that I agree with Murkowski. Things start off well enough, but do we have the foresight to contain this and not potentially destroy the very wild population that the article mentioned wanting to preserve?

I really do believe that anyone processing food to sell to the public should have to label that food accordingly. Let people make their own choices as to what we put into our bodies. This is why I catch my salmon with my own two hands though to begin with.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Exactly.
It's sickens me how conveniently everyone can just be used every step of they way when people are just trying to work and put all of the gmo food on their tables.

Pure and simply it's wrong not to label it. They obviously suspect people wouldn't buy it if it was labelled. And the fact they choose not to label it for that reason means they don't trust the intelligence of other human beings. That for me is enough to know I cannot trust them either. Sooner or later they'll be wrong and because they're keeping it all in the shadows we're all going to suffer because of their insolence.

"Too big to fail" comes to mind. We have property rights UNTIL a highway needs to be paved or a military base needs be put up.

I know I can't be the only one thinking of this:

EDIT: I'm aware one of the reasons companies don't like labelling is because of the costs. It's just too much financial hassle for them.

All GMO food should be labeled as such. I have to wonder how much GMO food these executives are eating? Do they stand by their product and eat this pseudo-food every day, or do they see this # as as dog food for the masses and beneath their consumption?

Want to add other companies can still choose to label their product "Non-GMO". And you can still watch where these fish are coming from, so you can filter out the "bad" fish if desired.

But a precedent is being set right now. It'll take a few more years, but GMO is already firmly on our store shelves. Many have already eaten GMO foods without realizing it. It sneaks into lots of food. What will it mean for our future? Will there be pro-GMO consumers actively supporting? I believe there will be. They'll use "science" to back up their claims, saying it's nutritionally equivalent and safe. They'll point to latest research. But is that the end of it? No. It's never the end. Some things never change.

Here's some more links about what the fish offer:
www.washingtonpost.com - If the GMO salmon is as good as its maker says, why not label it?...

So let’s talk about the benefits. According to AquaBounty, the advantages are that the fish reaches market weight in about half the time taken by conventional salmon and requires 25 percent less feed to get there. If that’s true (and there’s no reason to suppose it isn’t), what we have here, finally, is a GMO that can benefit people and planet — unlike the other genetically engineered foods approved for use in the United States, which chiefly benefit farmers. Growing healthful fish in less time, with less feed, is a win for humans (in the form of more affordable salmon) and environment (in the form of reduced feed requirements and less pressure on forage fish stocks).

www.independent.co.uk - Genetically modified salmon becomes first to be approved for human consumption - but it won't have to be labelled as GM...

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ended 20 years of tortuous negotiations by approving the GM Atlantic salmon, which grows twice as fast as ordinary salmon and can be grown in fish tanks in warehouses on land.

The GM Atlantic salmon is engineered with extra hormone genes from the Pacific Chinook salmon and a “promotor” gene from an eel-like species called the ocean pout. These extra genes boost the salmon’s growth all year round, instead of seasonally, halving the time it takes to reach maturity.

Everything is okay to consume in the USA.

Except others humans.

a reply to: JacKatMtn
You said you agree people should have the choice and know, but you agree with the decision that there doesn't need to be a label, and thereby the consumer doesn't necessarily have the right to know.

Thank God they're trialling it out on you guys first..

Let us know if you start sprouting gills or any other nasty side effects.

a reply to: rickymouse


Antifreeze glycoproteins are found in so truly deep sea aquatic life, like the Arctic Blackfin, a bioluminescent fish. Antifreeze is very toxic for humans.

I can almost bet these GMO salmon are missing a key ingredient, health Mercury.

All I can say is, I am so glad that I live in Scotland.

We have BANNED the cultivation of ALL GMO crops here, and all products containing GMO ingredients must be clearly labelled as such.
Some supermarkets, including ICELAND have even banned ALL GMO products from their shops altogether.

How can anyone truly KNOW if these Frankenfoods are safe to consume or not?
WHY is there any need to mess with a perfectly good, safe and nutritional food like Salmon anyway??
And How can there be ANY possible justification for NOT letting the consumers of these things decide FOR THEMSELVES whether they want to eat GM foods or not?
The "labeling costs" argument just doesn't stack up I'm afraid, HERE in the UK ALL GM foods must be labelled as such, and there is NO noticeable difference in the costs of these products when compared with non-GMO, so HOW can they do that in the UK (and EU) but NOT in the US???

In Scotland, we value our reputation of having top quality, clean, fresh, natural produce. Hence the GM ban here.

The USA just seems to be a lost cause now I'm afraid.
They are actively BANNING natural organic produce in some states whilst promoting this Genetically Modified crap?



G

Pretty sure it was discovered a while ago that these frankenfish, when in an low food environment eat each other.
And the fear due to their size and cannibalistic trait ....which I share is that ....if 1 .....just 1 of these makes it into the wild
Just consider the implications


Not the best of links but one I could find quickly

howtoeliminatepain.com... ts-and-favorite-restaurants-–-the-biotech-industries’-lat/

mercola doom porns it in more detail

articles.mercola.com...

Have a taste there folks in the US and let us know if doesn't taste like plastic?

Man, do we really need GM food stuff? No thank you, I crave for natural fish in the wild, not from labs..

Peace