Although genetically modified crops have started to become more accepted in society, the FDA faces a decision about genetically modified animals. AquaBounty claims that it has genetically engineered a salmon that grows twice as fast, yet is still safe to eat. However, there are naturally many fears associated with genetically modified animals. If the FDA approves the genetically modified fish, then it will open the door to modifying other animals as well. Many also worry that genetically modified salmon may contain dangerous allergens, as it has never been eaten before. Not only a risk for humans, these new genetically modified salmon may have a detrimental effect on the normal salmon. Already a diminishing population, the normal salmon could not compete with the modified salmon. If a modified fish was to intermingle with the normal fish and procreate, then the modified ones would eat more food and have a negative effect on the natural salmon. However, AquaBounty says that the fish will be bred and contained in pools separate from the natural salmon, and will be in better conditions than many farmed salmon.
So, is this a fish or a frankenfish? Should we take advantage of these scientific advances, or stay out of nature? Although this could bring many benefits to food production, it also has the possibility of disrupting the food chain and containing dangerous allergens. This decision will have a HUGE impact on the future, with the possibility of a huge range of animals being genetically modified. Although I am extremely impressed with the Biotech industry and their accomplishments, genetic modification still makes me a little nervous. Although it is beneficial, I don't like the idea of changing nature. However, I am open to opinions and cannot wait to hear how the FDA will respond.
8 comments:
I think that the whole thing is messed up! So, who cares that the size of the fish is bigger and is "feeding" more people. The twisted truth underlying this phenomena is that what we are actually doing is feeding chemicals that are toxic and detrimental to the body. This is just another form of spin that we see all over society, in this case in the scientific world. If you ask me, science has its place but shouldn't mess with organic and biotic materials. The fact that we are stuffing our faces with "bigger and greater" things is actually only half true, yes it's bigger, but it is a heck of a lot far from being greater!
@ACatiggay Remember that they are not actually feeding chemicals to the salmon, only giving them a different gene. Not only that, but the chemicals are most likely not toxic. If they were toxic, the FDA would make sure that it wouldn't go on the market.
That being said, I don't believe that there is a real reason not to use GM animals. If they are proven nontoxic and regulated correctly, GM animals will provide us with better sources of nutrition and might even help stimulate the economy.
Easy its for people who are well off especially in America to say that messing with our food is wrong. I do believe that natural foods are healthier alternatives. HOWEVER, if i'm hungry and scraping to get by, I'd be more concerned of eating quantity than quality! somebody's gotta remember that the world population, although on a slowing trend, is still over the carrying capacity of the earth. that's a whole lot of mouths to feed with less food per person to go around. There has been expansion of agricultural production, but theres only so much we can expand to met demands. Maximizing the most of what we got just seems more logical to do. The technology is there. JUST DO IT! i feel assured that the fish will not mutate into something outta the movie 28 days later.
I find this an interesting topic because i am fine with industries genetically modifying their food to acquire more yield from it. However, if the food that is genetically modified has harmful things in it, such as allergens, i find that we shouldn't do allow it. Yes more food is always better, but if the trade off for more food is loosing the safeness of eating that food and not having to worry about becoming ill from it, i wouldn't eat it. people don't find any problems with it other than their health. If those industries can prove to us that are health won't be harmed then we are willing to eat this food because there is more of it. Also, to answer the survival of the fittest question that was brought up in the post, i feel if these foods, say fish do break out into the wild they may overtake normal salmon living and eat all their food. it is not a likely scenario but if happened we could lose all hope for wild salmon.
This concept seems only new because it's used on an animal, but fyi it's been around for ages. For example, soy food products are all genetically modified, and yet, there seems to be no problem consuming them. Furthermore, they seem even healthier to consume than regular food products.
@Charlie Pai,
I agree. GM products are expensive. There would definitely be an interaction with the economy. The only issue, as Courtney stated, " the possibility of disrupting the food chain and containing dangerous allergens", which I believe can be easily avoided. After all, I'm sure scientists won't release frankenfish out into the wild.
I see both the pro's and con's of genetically modified animals. It would be able to sustain the fish population and help feed everyone with less worrying about endangering the fish species. There are also precautions to make sure that these "genetically superior" salmon will not hurt the normal salmon population because they will be bred in their seperate pools away from the other salmons, so genetically modified fish will preserve the salmon population. I believe the biggest con on genetically modified salmon is the moral issue. Many people do not approve of the idea that we should not tamper with the natural process of life and that will be where much of the criticism will come from. Their main arguments will be that we should leave things alone, even if it benefits a lot of people.
Easy its for people who are well off especially in America to say that messing with our food is wrong. I do believe that natural foods are healthier alternatives. HOWEVER, if i'm hungry and scraping to get by, I'd be more concerned of eating quantity than quality! somebody's gotta remember that the world population, although on a slowing trend, is still over the carrying capacity of the earth. that's a whole lot of mouths to feed with less food per person to go around. There has been expansion of agricultural production, but theres only so much we can expand to met demands. Maximizing the most of what we got just seems more logical to do. The technology is there. JUST DO IT! i feel assured that the fish will not mutate into something outta the movie 28 days later.
RAYMOND LIM
To be honest, I would probably second guess my choice of buying a gentically motified salmon. It's not that i dont believe in the idea of it, just the thought of a fish growing abnormally fast just freaks me out alittle bit. Our future calls for new technologies to give us the essential resources that are even becoming limited today. Unfortunatly, i think enviromentalists and their followers will never agree to such an idea. This could bring complications and could result in a much longer time span to when these fish actually hit our super markets. If and when this will actaully happend, solely depends on our future.
Post a Comment