Tech | September 14, 2010 | 2 comments

Opposition grows against GM salmon

JanforGore
TAKE ACTION ON GM SALMON:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september062010/ge-salmon-as.php

NOTE: Excellent video interview on GM salmon:
http://t.co/Cr1ZXiE

Jeffrey Smith on genetically engineered salmon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCNGRdAq5X8
______________
Chefs weigh in on genetically modified salmon

http://www.foodanddrinkdigital.com/news/andy-arndt/chefs-weigh-genetically-modif...

*Restaurateurs have reservations over serving the modified fish

Producers of genetically modified salmon might have difficulty finding acceptance in restaurants even if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration deems the fish fit for human consumption.

The FDA said a 60-day consultation period will begin Sept. 19 and include a series of public meetings as the agency decides whether to allow the fish to be sold as food. If it wins approval, the fish should be available by 2012.

The salmon was developed by AquaBounty Technologies Inc. of Waltham, Mass., and involved adding genetic material from King salmon to Atlantic salmon, allowing the fish to reach maturity in half the time it takes for typical farm-raised Atlantic salmon. Most farm-raised salmon is Atlantic salmon.

Company material states that the fish is designed to be raised in contained, land-based facilities and that the fish are all sterile females, meaning that even if they escaped from their facilities they would not be able to cross-breed.

However, many restaurant chefs said they would not serve the fish.

Some expressed moral doubts about private companies patenting organisms, some expressed concerns about possible health effects of genetically modified food, and others expressed concern for the environment.

“There is no way I would be interested in serving [genetically modified] salmon,” said Chris Carriker, executive chef of The Gilt Club Restaurant in Portland, Ore. “The eventual damage to the environment would be catastrophic. Scientists say they have sterilized the GMO fish, but eventually one will adapt and destroy the natural process.”

Michael Maddox, chef of Le Titi de Paris in Arlington Heights, Ill., said his customers would not likely approve.

“It sounds kind of weird,” he said of the fish. “We have people ask all the time where the food is from. I think customers want to know where the cheese or the pork or the mushrooms are coming from … I think with the big green movement over the past couple of years, they'd be against [genetically modified salmon].”

In a poll conducted on Wednesday and Thursday on the NRN blog Food Writer's Diary, 26 out of 32 respondents, or 81 percent, said they would not eat the genetically modified salmon or serve it in their restaurant. Only two respondents said they would try the fish, and four said they might.

"It goes against my principles,” said Andy Arndt, executive chef of Aquariva Restaurant in Portland, Ore. He argued that the practice of genetically engineering fish wouldn't be necessary if fisheries were better regulated.

"I'm not interested in seeing 'genetically altered' anything in my restaurant,” said Antonio Bettencourt, chef-owner of 62 Restaurant & Wine Bar in Salem, Mass. "Local, fresh, honest, farm-to-table as much as possible is our mantra. I think people will pay the extra few cents to make sure they know where the food comes from. Maybe larger chain restaurants will have other thoughts, but that is my feeling."

"I don't think that I would serve any genetically modified salmon at Eve," said Troy Graves, chef at the Chicago restaurant. "I do believe that we need a sustainable way to farm-raise fish because the oceans cannot keep up with human consumption. [But] as soon as the government allows a corporation to patent a method of raising fish, there is a certain stranglehold on the fish supply in the future.”

Jonadab Silva, executive chef and co-owner of Jacky’s on Prairie in Evanston, Ill., argued that genetically modifying salmon was unnecessary.

"My opinion is we are looking at the whole issue in the wrong manner," he said. “Instead of making salmon grow faster, why don't we educate consumers to eat other varieties of fish, rather than just salmon, which is on every menu?"
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Green,   Current Tonight,   8 more
  2. tags:
    Environment Health Natural Species 9 more
  3.     
    |

2 comments // Opposition grows against GM salmon // Video

  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Higher levels of IGF-1 in GM salmon
      Wednesday, 08 September 2010 20:11

      Who dares question the industrial food system over GM salmon?
      Dan Kennedy
      The Guardian, 7 September 2010

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/07/gm-salmon-industr...

      *Genetically modified salmon is deemed safe for human consumption - despite higher levels of a suspected carcinogen

      [image caption: 'If salmon and milk and a whole range of edible food-like substances yet to come contain elevated levels of IGF-1, when, exactly, are we supposed to start worrying?']

      With fish stocks around the world depleted by overfishing and disrupted by climate change, farm-raised salmon stands as a viable if not entirely appetising alternative.

      Last Friday, though, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took a potentially dangerous step. The agency ruled that salmon whose genes have been altered so that they grow more rapidly than their wild counterparts are safe for human consumption. In so doing, the FDA opened the door for salmon to become just another unhealthful cog in the industrial-food machine. And it may have foisted upon the public yet another cancer risk.

      According to a report in the New York Times, FDA scientists found that the altered fish, developed by AquaBounty Technologies, based in the Boston area, were unlikely to escape into the environment and cross-breed with native schools of Atlantic salmon. The agency also found that even though the genetically altered salmon carry elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), a suspected carcinogen, those levels are so minute that they pose no health risk.

      Precautions aside, it requires considerably more than the customary level of naivety to believe wild salmon wouldn't be contaminated by their laboratory-designed cousins. If AquaBounty's progeny ever come to market, it would only be a matter of time before some unforeseen accident undid everyone's best intentions.

      But it is the IGF-1 about which we truly ought to be concerned, because the FDA's finding is evidence of an unacceptably narrow focus. The substance occurs naturally in salmon and other animal products, and the agency tells us that the genetically altered fish contains only a tiny amount more. Yet, by considering such matters one at a time, the FDA may well be introducing us to many tiny risks that start adding up to a very real risk.

      This isn't the first time we've had to worry about IGF-1. In the 1990s, the FDA approved the use of genetically engineered recombinant bovine-growth hormone (rBGH, also known as rBST) to induce cows to produce more milk. It was, and is, a controversial practice, and I wrote about it for an iconoclastic (and defunct) environmental journal called Garbage magazine.

      My reporting convinced me that rBGH posed a greater risk to cows than to humans, as the unnaturally high rate of milk production stressed the animals, sometimes resulting in an infection known as mastitis. (Which is treated with antibiotics. Which enter the food supply. Which - well, you get the picture.)

      But cows given rBGH, like genetically altered salmon, also have higher levels of IGF-1, some of which makes its way into the milk. Not enough to worry about? Perhaps. But if salmon and milk and a whole range of edible food-like substances (to use Michael Pollan's phrase) yet to come contain elevated levels of IGF-1, when, exactly, are we supposed to start worrying?

      In addition to being linked to colon, prostate and breast cancer, IGF-1 is a trigger for puberty, which has led to speculation that too much could cause puberty to come about prematurely. IGF-1 also has its uses, both legitimate and dubious. When human-growth hormone is administered as a corrective to children with certain rare types of hormonally based dwarfism, it stimulates the production of IGF-1, which in turn boosts growth. A quick search of the internet also reveals that IGF-1 is touted as an anti-aging formula and as a body-building substance.

      As it happens, I recently finished Jared Diamond's celebrated book Guns, Germs and Steel, which, among other things, explains the civilising effects of domesticating – that is, genetically altering – certain plants and animals. But genetic engineering as practiced in the Fertile Crescent thousands of years ago contained within it certain limits that ensured some degree of safety. Even the green revolution of the 1960s was based on tried-and-true methods of selective breeding.

      By contrast, modern scientific tools allow genetic engineers to try just about anything in order to see what will happen. AquaBounty's Atlantic salmon, for instance, contain a growth-hormone gene from Chinook salmon – and another gene from an entirely different fish, the ocean pout, which has the effect of keeping that growth-hormone gene switched on. The result is an alien creature, unknown in the natural world.
      cont.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
more from Tech:

top videos