Franken-Fish: Canada Approves 'Safe and Nutritious' Genetically Modified Salmon

20 posts / 0 new

Sat, 2016-05-21 05:25

NDPP

Canada Approves 'Safe and Nutritious' Genetically Modified Salmon

https://www.rt.com/business/343757-canada-gmo-salmon-safe/

"Health authorities in Canada have approved the sale of genetically modified salmon, making it the first genetically altered animal to be allowed for consumption in the country.

The AquAdvantage salmon cultivated by Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies is described as being as healthy as traditional Atlantic salmon for food and livestock food use, according to a statement.

The salmon will appear on supermarket shelves in 18 months according to Health Minister Jane Philpott. 'While this is the first product of this nature to be reviewed, it will not likely be the last,' said the minister..."

Nature had nothing to do with it.

Thu, 2017-08-10 02:23

NDPP

'World First' GMO Salmon Hits Store Shelves in Canada

https://on.rt.com/8jz4

"A new genetically modified batch of salmon from the US is hitting the shelves of Canadian stores, making it the first GM animal to enter the food supply. After trying for two decades, AquaBounty Technologies' GM salmon were finally approved for sale in Canada.

A Montreal-based organization GMO Vigilance has stated on their website that the sale of the salmon in Canada makes Canadians 'guinea pigs'..."

Thu, 2017-08-10 18:44

WWWTT

Ok I like salmon! It's one of the few meats I will actually eat but only in small portions. And now some f'n smart asses screwed it up for everybody! Bunch of stupid jerks! For f's sake if these people weren't so greedy, you wouldn't see this shit happening!

Thu, 2017-08-10 22:05

Sean in Ottawa

There is an elephant in the room when it comes to GMOs.

In some cases they are merely about profit but people face a second issue. The world population has increased meaning far more to feed at the same time that resources are declining. It is in part GMOs that offer promise that humans can live on earth with the population we have without drastically changing or reducing food consumption.

Any protest towards GMOs should include some thoughts on population contraol, resource manaement and food production. I am not setting out conclusions, but I am suggesting that there is more here than an ability to just say no.

Thu, 2017-08-10 22:06

NorthReport

Vegans will soon rule!

Fri, 2017-08-11 12:28

(Reply to #5) #6

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

Vegans will soon rule!

If the argument is to go in this direction there could be sense to it. But the people that go on and on about GMOs and have meet once a day should consider the land mass and other resources. It is a matter of fact that one of the purposes of GMOs is to produce more food from less land area in a world where land area is under pressure.

Humans have already altered the environment in many ways that cannot be reveresed, to say that we should stop here is an interesting question that does not have a comfortable answer. The issue seems to be that we can ignore other made made changes and presume to manage without GMOs but the reality is less clear. In many respects it is recognized that science is the only remaining answer to the predicament humans have allowed themselves to get in.

I am not take a side in saying this-- it is just a necessary part of the conversation.

A necessary part of the conversation is also the goals of specific GMOs, public interest vs profit, regulation, risk benefit based on science etc. The balance appears to be wrong.

In my view what is particularly dangerous is the number calling for science-based management of the technology are a tiny majority dwarfed by the other three groups:

1) those who want no modifactions at all 2) Those happy to see anything for profit and 3) those who do not spend the time to even consider the question or just want the cheapest possible products.

When you consider that the opinions of any of this latter three groups is potentially dangerous, you see how many issues develop where moderation and evidence based decisions are shunted aside in favour of a fight between ignorant or selfish mobs. That government does not ahve a reliable trustworthy track record makes this all the more scary.

Most people don't want those nasty elites who know anything anywhere near the decision-making process.

By this I speak about most decisions and how populism has come to be defined today.

Fri, 2017-08-11 17:50

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
In my view what is particularly dangerous is the number calling for science-based management of the technology are a tiny majority dwarfed by the other three groups:

On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, I think it's a moot point. If science declares this or that GMO safe, critics will insist they were paid off by moneyed interests. If science declares this or that GMO unsafe, supporters will claim they bowed to pressure from critics. I'm not sure the science really matters.

We're like this with other things, too -- consider outright bans on "pesticides", as though all chemicals are equally scary and terrible. If you oppose pesticide use, you're probably not interested in hearing that some are hazardous and some are not.

And of course there's the ubiquitous argument that "we don't know the long-term effects!". I suppose there could be some merit to it, but at the same time, I see people all over the city "vaping". Which must be 100% safe, since we've had e-cigarettes for nearly ten years now, right?

People don't understand science, and so it frightens them and they mistrust it. When was the last time that science fully settled any emotional or financial argument?

Fri, 2017-08-11 18:09

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I'm not worried they're safe to eat. I'm sure they're as good as any other farmed fish. I do have concerns about them getting into the environment and causing issues for wild fish. At least with plants, the terminator seed means they only go so long before dying out. An animal could become an invasive species.

Fri, 2017-08-11 19:05

epaulo13

..i don't believe technology will save humanity whether it is from hunger or environmental damage. it the politics/behaviours of the 1% that is killing us. not over population. for me that is the primary force to overcome.

Fri, 2017-08-11 19:26

#10

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
An animal could become an invasive species.

I suppose they might "outperform" non-modified salmon. And then all we'd be left with is salmon that mature faster!

That's like dreading some new, invasive GMO tomato plant that takes root in your garden and bears hundreds of delicious tomatoes! Unlike the bullshit heirloom tomatoes I planted that have gifted me with exactly TWO edible tomatoes. We need to prevent healthy and prolific tomatoes from taking over!

In other words, I don't think these salmon are quite the same as zebra mussels.

Fri, 2017-08-11 19:44

(Reply to #10) #11

WWWTT

epaulo13 wrote:

..i don't believe technology will save humanity whether it is from hunger or environmental damage. it the politics/behaviours of the 1% that is killing us. not over population. for me that is the primary force to overcome.

Bingo!

There's no overpopulation problem, there's no food shortage. And how could there be when you turn on the tv there's add after add for different foods? Now eating beef, pork, chicken and other meats is not as resource efficient as a more vegan diet. But the corporate media can't have any of that because a vegan diet is less profitable. I know because I'm switching to less meat more beans and it's cheaper! I've noticed that people from European countries are big into a more meat diet. People from warmer climates do more vegan. I think this is because in warmer climates, growing seasons are longer and fresh grown food is more readily available and cheaper.

Another point is bugs insects grubs and spiders. Nobody wants to eat them! But their an excellent source of food!!!! When I have a chance I'm going to look into supplementing my diet with something that I can wrap my head around like roasted ants.

Try GMO'ing ants corporate food chain!

Fri, 2017-08-11 20:06

#12

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
But the corporate media can't have any of that because a vegan diet is less profitable.

I don't think it's some conspiracy of the corporate media. I think that the people who make hot dogs probably see more value in an ad for hot dogs than the people who grow beans see in an ad for beans. "Dried beans -- kids love 'em!!!"

Remember, too, that if you see an ad for "Schneider's Red Hots", it's not trying to convince you to stop eating beans and eat hotdogs instead, it's trying to convince you to buy "Schneider's Red Hots" instead of "Maple Leaf Top Dogs".

Quote:
I think this is because in warmer climates, growing seasons are longer and fresh grown food is more readily available and cheaper.

I think it's because people in those "warmer climates" also tend to be poorer. I'm sure lots of them would be more than happy to swap their beans for your meat, pound for pound.

Fri, 2017-08-11 22:32

#13

WWWTT

Ya and then there's people who just like eating meat and will do anything to defend it(feel free to raise your hand anytime MrMagoo) and hey that's your choice. I even want my kids eating meat just because it takes a lot of the guesswork out of making sure their getting the right balanced nutrition diet.

But I know for a fact that eating meat is less efficient use of resources. An even more inefficient meat source is dog and cat meat. Since these animals are already carnivores, it's way too expensive to feed them!

as well I don't buy into your belief that because warmer countries are poorer so they stay away from expensive meets. Warmer countries have a way freekin larger selection of fresh fruit and vegetables available! There are just a freekin boatload more of delicious choices! Now from I have seen people in warmer climates do eat meat, but just in smaller portions.

However Im not aware of the different African nations. I'm assuming there's a lot of differences in them in regards to diet on the fact that the continent is very large. And I believe GMO's are argued to be most suitable for there

Fri, 2017-08-11 22:42

#14

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Ya and then there's people who just like eating meat and will do anything to defend it(feel free to raise your hand anytime MrMagoo)

I'm not "defending" it. Are you "attacking" it?

I'm just suggesting that people who don't eat much (if any) meat aren't typically motivated so much by some sort of "ethical veganism" so much as by the cost or availability of meat.

Quote:
Warmer countries have a way freekin larger selection of fresh fruit and vegetables available! There are just a freekin boatload more of delicious choices!

That must be it. Also why so many seem to prefer portions insufficient to nourish them. Who needs enough calories when this bok choi is so delicious?

Fri, 2017-08-11 23:10

#15

WWWTT

Here's how you eat meat

Step 1- kill a fuckin animal!

step2- cut the skin fur scales off, rip the guts out then cut up the animal into smaller pieces

step 3- add salt and spices

step 4- cook

step 5- eat and enjoy!

if you can't get over step one, ask the corporate food chain to do the dirty deed.

Maybe people in warmer climates have a hard time getting past step 1?

Fri, 2017-08-11 23:48

#16

SeekingAPolitic...

GMO foods will not feed the world today or in the future.

Fact-The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about 795 million people of the 7.3 billion people in the world, or one in nine, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2014-2016.

fact-Nearly 1/2 of the world’s population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day.

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-global-poverty

-Personal Decudcution-those living on 1.25 a day after mostly likely most malnutriused.

These people are straving because political will and the fact we live in capitalism. Not because we lack of gmo's.

In captialism your(you and mostly every rabble reader) reason for existance is that produce and consume a product. Along the way someone(capitalist which is not regular reader of rabble) takes a cut a prouduction and consumtion level. Thats the background of the story. Those people "earning" 1.25 are largely invisible, lets be honest there non existent/they provide nothing and consume a pittance so in the logic of capitalism says they do not exist.

How does relate GMO - There purchasing power is $1.25, why would a profit seeking organization create a product that has no market(poor straving people). What about farmers in west, you have armed farmers in west with this techonoly and they will feed the world. The cost of western production will never fall to those levels that someone earning 1.25 will be eating canadian chesse onless its given a way. These people strave becasue they have no value in the capitalist system. Those individuals who since the dawn of capitialism that have been figthing agaisnt economic exclusion realize that their value as human beings has no instrnic value in the current system than what they can produce and consume.

Sat, 2017-08-12 19:25

#17

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Maybe people in warmer climates have a hard time getting past step 1?

Step 1 assumes everyone already has an animal.

Can you explain why anyone on earth would be starving if all they had to do is follow your five steps?

Sat, 2017-08-12 19:56

(Reply to #17) #18

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Maybe people in warmer climates have a hard time getting past step 1?

Step 1 assumes everyone already has an animal.

Can you explain why anyone on earth would be starving if all they had to do is follow your five steps?

I don't think solving malnutrition/starvation would be as simple as eating flesh from a living creature( including insects). And as posted a little earlier, I don't think GMO's are going to help.

I should add India has the largest veganish diet followers. And it does have to do with not being cruel to animals!!! Way ahead of any western ideology! Cmon brother, you should know this already.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/animals.asp

Sat, 2017-08-12 20:15

#19

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I don't think solving malnutrition/starvation would be as simple as eating flesh from a living creature( including insects).

Malnourished or starving individuals might disagree.

Quote:
I should add India has the largest veganish diet followers. And it does have to do with not being cruel to animals!!!

Well, veganish could be a good new word to adopt into the language.

I had a co-worker once, a Jain, who told me how her mother would not eat root vegetables like carrots, because digging them up could maybe harm a worm or a grub or some other soil creature. But they would all eat dairy, because milking a cow doesn't kill the cow.

Good luck selling that idea at the local Vegan Meeting. LOL.

Sat, 2017-08-12 22:24

#20

WWWTT

Ok I think I made an error about animal/insect flesh. Looking back at it and the original question you asked, I improperly articulated how I felt and I still can't. I just have an impression that people that are starving may not easily have access to anything that they can substitute into their diet.

I used that term veganism because just to lump together the different similar forms of mostly plant based diets. And yes Jainism is way over the top for me to wrap my head around. No potatoes onions garlic carrots radishes honey. Ya forget that. They must have a huge variety af fruits and veggies in India to come up with that kind of diet! I know when I'm in guangxi or Guangdong there's about 20 different fruits and veggies I'll enjoy that I rarely see here! Actually more than that.