[/caption]The New York Times published an article called "Genetically Altered Slamon Get Closer to the Table" written by Andrew Pollack. The article is about a company called AquaBounty Technologies who is trying to get their creation of genetically altered salmon approved by the FDA. These salmon are altered in order to grow faster. By combining hormones from Chinook salmon and gene switches from pout, the salmon are able to reach full adulthood by 1.5 years instead of 3. AquaBounty has been trying to get this passed for over a decade, but many arguments as to why it should not be still remain. If it does get passed by the FDA, questions of how it should be labeled for consumers is also an issue. Genetically altered crops are not labeled,
but should the salmon be? Getting the salmon approved would be a major advancement in genetics and food production and it could open the door to more genetic alterations.
In my previous life, I took an Ethics Course at Stockton (which by the way, is more mind-blowing than what you'd think such a course would be). As part of that course, I did a final presentation on the Ethics behind Genetically Modified Food, primarily, around that of Monsanto's involvement.
ReplyDeleteIt's a tricky spot for me to play because on one end, I know my inner Scientist should be screaming this is a great idea because it'll help with food shortages. On the other hand, there has to be something behind the fact that these GMF produces are fearful of labeling. That and, considering how Genetics is a (relatively) young field in the sciences, I'm worried that there is still something we do not know about genetically modified organisms that could trigger some weird mutation or whatnot in the long-term.
It's certainly going to be curious to see how Washington DC responds to works such as these. If they ever do of course.
I am concerned about the effects this may have on fishing regulations. For those of us that do fish, the size of the fish that you are allowed to keep changes every now and then. Seemingly, the "keeper" sizes keep rising. Any fish that does not meet the minimum required size "should" be thrown back. If they genetically engineer the sizes, does that mean the minimum regulatory size increases/decrease as well? What effect will that have on those populations that were not altered? But most of all, what really concerns me (and perhaps some Grizzly Bears) is... will it still taste good?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the FDA’s careful review process, but the delay may cause a negative impact on our economy. Currently, Aquabounty is the only company in the United States that is seeking FDA approval for genetically modified animals for human consumption. There is a concern that the FDA’s lengthy review process could discourage other US companies from investing in animal biotechnology while China, India, and other foreign governments are investing millions on the technology.
ReplyDeleteAll of you made such great points. I completely agree that there is a moral and curiosity struggle when it comes to genetically modifying food. This could in the long run be harmful to humans and the rest of the food chain, but could also save the food chain by defying starvation. I am not sure what the right answer is, but I am curious to read studies on follow ups to these experiments.
ReplyDeleteI guess this is a great idea to make money for these people. But in the end I feel that eating genetically altered food isn't healthy for you. If it was why wouldn't we be doing this all good along. Kids are hitting puberty at younger and younger ages already due to added hormones in chicken and other foods. I don't feel that we need more genetically enhanced food.
ReplyDelete