Grow them fast?

[RED333]

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/03/11/gmo-salmon-may-soon-hit-food-stores-but-will-anyone-buy-it/?intcmp=features

 

"It’s taken almost two decades, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration may be close to a ruling on the world’s first genetically modified animal protein.

AquAdvantage salmon is a product of the Massachusetts-based biotech firm AquaBounty Technologies. Designed to reach market size in about half the time of standard farmed salmon, the fish would be the first genetically engineered animal approved for human consumption. Producers say the salmon is safe to eat, environmentally friendly and can feed more of the population with less resources, compared to other farmed fish."

 

I wont be eating any!

[reed1285]

Yikes

[FUJIMO]

The new way of fishing I'm afraid.

 

Seems nothings safe to eat anymore unless you raise it yourself or kill it in the wild (deer,turkey,duck,etc)

[Troutburger]

Grown faster with less nutritional value and more carcinogens.

[vontar]

The Big question is will they be labelled or will it be like the other Monsanto?

[Troutburger]

Once they escape into our waterways the labels won't matter. The .gov will be wondering why cancer, autism, and Alzheimer's rates continue to rise...by then Monsanto will be passing out golden parachutes.

[Rowdy]

Once they escape into our waterways the labels won't matter.

The .gov will be wondering why cancer, autism, and Alzheimer's rates continue to rise...by then Monsanto will be passing out golden parachutes.

Monsanto wasn't in on this one.

[buck1032]

What's the problem. The Government says its ok, so it must be ok. :stunned:

[Lowpower]

Reminds me of little soylent green both Government run and both good for you....

[broox]

Reminds me of little soylent green both Government run and both good for you....

At least Soylent Green was not genetically engineered people.

[RED333]

At least Soylent Green was not genetically engineered people.

Nope, just dead people.

[tercel89]

It is bad enough when I catch a hatchery raised trout when I am fishing the Caney Fork and see a large growth on their head ( it has really happened to me) but when you have fish grown at accelerated rates then stuff really goes bezerk . 

[Smith]

So if cancer is abnormally fast growing cells and they are producing a genetically abnormally fast growing fish and a person takes on some of the properties of the food they eat - does the USDA not see the correlation? Guess not as evidenced by decisions up to this point.

[TMF]

I've been reading up on this lately trying to make sense of the emotional reaction of folks who oppose this sort of thing.  I see a lot of people trying to link stuff like this to increase in diseases or "toxins" but no proof.  Just anectdotal stories and no evidence, sprinkled in with emotional outcries.  I try to be reasonable and logical when deciding how I feel about certain controversial issues, but I don't see this any different than people who get emotional about global warming and use BS "facts" to prove something that they don't have real facts to back up.

 

This sounds to me like people arguing about how flouride in the water turns our kids into communists.  Not that I'm not immediately prepared to accept that if there are facts to support it, but there need to be facts, not emotion.  All the reading I've done by activists who seek to derail "GMOs" are people who have no scientific background, and are on some kinda emotional crusade to prove that they're right, and they'll cling to a single "expert" in the field who breaks from the pack and says that these things are so bad and evil, and they use this person's credentials to give legitimacy to their opinion, while at the same time saying that the other 99.99% of experts in that field have no credibility.  How the actual #### can a logical person take that individual seriously?

 

I like to be logical, and I'm immediately turned off by people who make arguments based in emotion rather than logic.  That is why I think all the GMO lunacy people are talking about is complete BS.  Same type of people I see complaining that GMOs are going to cause cancer, mutations in children and other diseases all for the sake of corporate profits are the same people that have a radiation spewing device of corporate sponsored globalism (aka iPhone) attached to their ear 24/7. 

[Ted S.]

Seems like great propaganda for the sheep and the greenie-weenies. Sent from somewhere in the cosmos using magic...and bacon.

[Oh Shoot]

Nothing will likely prove to be worse than what's already currently done to the majority of food the average Mericun consumes.

 

- OS

[TMF]

Nothing will likely prove to be worse than what's already currently done to the majority of food the average Mericun consumes.

 

- OS

 

Considering the most common problem associated with Americans and the food they consume is related to quantity, I don't lose much sleep over topics like this.  Maybe it's the fact that in countries where they don't have evil things like GMOs and an overabundance of food, they tend to die long before they get a chance to develop cancer and kids born with deformities aren't likely to make it to their mother's breast, let alone adulthood.

[hipower]

Nothing will likely prove to be worse than what's already currently done to the majority of food the average Mericun consumes.

 

- OS

 

This.

[peejman]

Grown faster with less nutritional value and more carcinogens.

 

 

So if cancer is abnormally fast growing cells and they are producing a genetically abnormally fast growing fish and a person takes on some of the properties of the food they eat - does the USDA not see the correlation? Guess not as evidenced by decisions up to this point.

 

 

Any objective proof?  Scientific studies or other data that reaches such conclusions?

 

I'm not trying to be an arse, I'd just like to see some data that amounts to more than hand waving followed by unsupported conclusions.  I'm nerdy like that. 

[Smith]

Any objective proof?  Scientific studies or other data that reaches such conclusions?

 

I'm not trying to be an arse, I'd just like to see some data that amounts to more than hand waving followed by unsupported conclusions.  I'm nerdy like that. 

Yes, there is quite a bit. Google will be your friend. It's the Global Warming of the Ag business. There is far to much to start listing it here. But when the USDA, Surgeon General, and Corporate Ag business are hand in hand things tend to get suppressed and "trumped" by their "own" scientist. Sound familiar?

 

BTW - most American health problems are not volume associations, that is the deflector.  Just look at the studies of colon cancer in the US. We are one of the only places in the world with colon cancer and much of the rest of the world it is non existent. The link has been proven to be food additives and genetically altered food as it works through the digestive system by objective science. Problem is there is no one smoking gun and this is how they get away with it. It is a cumulative effect of several factors all stemming from the same source.

 

You can also ask the US Air force why the will not allow diet drinks to be consumed by active pilots.

[TMF]

Yes, there is quite a bit. Google will be your friend. It's the Global Warming of the Ag business. There is far to much to start listing it here. But when the USDA, Surgeon General, and Corporate Ag business are hand in hand things tend to get suppressed and "trumped" by their "own" scientist. Sound familiar?

 

BTW - most American health problems are not volume associations, that is the deflector.  Just look at the studies of colon cancer in the US. We are one of the only places in the world with colon cancer and much of the rest of the world it is non existent. The link has been proven to be food additives and genetically altered food as it works through the digestive system by objective science. Problem is there is no one smoking gun and this is how they get away with it. It is a cumulative effect of several factors all stemming from the same source.

 

You can also ask the US Air force why the will not allow diet drinks to be consumed by active pilots.

 

I google this stuff all the time.  Then I google the organizations who are referenced in these claims.  Referencing an activist organization in an activist article on an activist website does not equal reliable data.  Also, I keep seeing people say that there are "studies" and "numbers say" yet there is never any references to that effect.  Just people referencing what activist websites have offhandedly said.  Sorry, I'm not just going to take your word or anyone else's word for it when there are claims about things that can be studied and recorded as tangible data. 

 

You can't say things like "colon cancer is more prevelent here than in other countries, therefore, GMOs".  That isn't science.  You need to have a causal link.  There are a lot of things we have in our country that they don't have in other countries.  First off, we're all fat as F###.  We are the fattest people on the planet, and have real diseases (that have an actual studied, recorded and widely published causal link).  Until there are REAL studies and REAL causal links identified, just mentioning how we're different than other countries is nothing more than anecdotal evidence.  And anecdotal evidence can be dismissed with anecdotal evidence, just like assertions without proof can be refuted by assertions without proof.

 

I don't doubt that the lobbying groups for these GMO companies do their share to sway gov policies, but that isn't proof that the items they produce are evil.  Sorry, that's not evidence.  To use that as a way to confirm the veracity of your assertions is like telling someone to disprove a negative.  I could just as easily say that there is a unicorn in the basement of the White House, but the government is keeping it a secret and won't allow me access, which proves that there is a unicorn there.

[tercel89]

The bottom line is this : Don't mess with God's creations and "re-engineer" them or some $hit will happen . God put creatures here for us to eat as they are and when you mess with that delicate cycle then nothing good will come of it . Like eating red meat. Red meat is really good for you when the cows eat grass like they are meant to eat . It gives you omega 3 . But when they are grown and fed grain then they dont produce the natural vitamins like they would from eating grass.  This is my $0.02 .  

[peejman]

Yes, there is quite a bit. Google will be your friend. It's the Global Warming of the Ag business. There is far to much to start listing it here. But when the USDA, Surgeon General, and Corporate Ag business are hand in hand things tend to get suppressed and "trumped" by their "own" scientist. Sound familiar?

 

BTW - most American health problems are not volume associations, that is the deflector.  Just look at the studies of colon cancer in the US. We are one of the only places in the world with colon cancer and much of the rest of the world it is non existent. The link has been proven to be food additives and genetically altered food as it works through the digestive system by objective science. Problem is there is no one smoking gun and this is how they get away with it. It is a cumulative effect of several factors all stemming from the same source.

 

You can also ask the US Air force why the will not allow diet drinks to be consumed by active pilots.

 

 

Can you point me toward some credible sources?  As TMF says, the inflammatory tone of many articles gives me a "self fulfilling prophesy" vibe.  I'm a natural born cynic, but if there's data to support the conclusions then I'll believe it. 

[Jonnin]

I bought a few very old science magazines or books (I forget now, they are since gone)  from the early 1950s.  Featured in one of the was the solution to world hunger --- radioactive growth acceleration.  They pictures giant ears of corn and monster potatoes and more that were grown this way --- but for some reason, it never seemed to take off as a method...

 

Science marches on.  There are safe and unsafe things that can be done.  Someday we may indeed be able to do this sort of thing safely.  For now, they need to take it slowly and test it. 

 

And we may see other benefits.  Perhaps we can develop a way to save some of the nearly extinct species.   But here again, carelessness could lead to a lot of problems.  There was a time when electricity was considered to be dangerous ....  then we understood it better, and while it can still kill you,  we know how to use it safely...

[Smith]

I google this stuff all the time.  Then I google the organizations who are referenced in these claims.  Referencing an activist organization in an activist article on an activist website does not equal reliable data.  Also, I keep seeing people say that there are "studies" and "numbers say" yet there is never any references to that effect.  Just people referencing what activist websites have offhandedly said.  Sorry, I'm not just going to take your word or anyone else's word for it when there are claims about things that can be studied and recorded as tangible data. 

 

You can't say things like "colon cancer is more prevelent here than in other countries, therefore, GMOs".  That isn't science.  You need to have a causal link.  There are a lot of things we have in our country that they don't have in other countries.  First off, we're all fat as F###.  We are the fattest people on the planet, and have real diseases (that have an actual studied, recorded and widely published causal link).  Until there are REAL studies and REAL causal links identified, just mentioning how we're different than other countries is nothing more than anecdotal evidence.  And anecdotal evidence can be dismissed with anecdotal evidence, just like assertions without proof can be refuted by assertions without proof.

 

I don't doubt that the lobbying groups for these GMO companies do their share to sway gov policies, but that isn't proof that the items they produce are evil.  Sorry, that's not evidence.  To use that as a way to confirm the veracity of your assertions is like telling someone to disprove a negative.  I could just as easily say that there is a unicorn in the basement of the White House, but the government is keeping it a secret and won't allow me access, which proves that there is a unicorn there.

OK, post you casual links then ;) The colon cancer statement was an example not a proof statement thus no link to a single source. Simply a starting point for a beginning search to a very body of work.

 

You need to read the scientific journals and the scholarly works that are linked in some of the "activist" links. Yes, there are the Alex Jones types in the health field, but there is good science that speaks volumes to the issues as well once you get past the opinions and "conclusion" that some jump to.

 

I would refer you to Ted Broer who does a good job putting much of the information in an compact format.