This is about the FDA PROTECTING THE PUBLIC and ensuring THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT! First, this Frankenfood should not be allowed in the world food chain unless and until it is AFFIRMATIVELY PROVEN COMPLETELY SAFE and ONLY IF THERE IS 100% ASSURANCE THAT IT WILL NOT CONTAMINATE the natural salmon supply (a tall order).

Second, the fish-consuming public has a right to know that they are eating Frankenfood--- so it must be labeled as GENETICALLY ENGINEERED so that I and others have freewill --- the choice and right not to partake of such consumption. This is the minimum requirement of INFORMED CONSENT. The company says there is no difference from natural salmon--- THAT IS A BLATANT LIE. The difference is what they are producing is GENETICALLY MODIFIED/ENGINEERED. The public has a right to know and to choose to eat it or not.

Take a moment to consider this . . . . . .

The FDA - an organization that has slowly evolved into being the poster-child of massive food and medicinal recalls for health concerns. Their perceived domination over food and drug concerns is nothing more than an illusion. They (FDA) have become the redheaded stepchild of the seafood and pharmaceutical industries. They are, quite literally, for sale to the highest bidder, with the consumers (in addition to their future generations) unknowingly becoming the the guinea pigs for these massive 'Outside the Laboratory' testing experiments.

Practically clearing any hurdles of health concerns the very day the Deep Horizon offshore drill debacle was 'capped', they (FDA) were quick to proclaim all the seafood in the affected Gulf area was perfectly safe. And here they are again - This time ready to approve G. E. Atlantic Salmon (with Pacific Salmon most likely being next). They have no idea of the ramifications and impact this will have on the naturally wild salmon. It does cause one to reflect back to a simpler place in time when common sense prevailed and the old addage "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature" meant so much more to people than merely being a catch-phrase to an advertisement and reflected a higher level of intelligence. We need to take a step back and seriously stop these companies from their unabated attempts to play God by genetically altering our food sources. Companies like Monsanto and others have already gained quite a foothold on feed and seed production. Corporate control of all food, air and water would certainly insure massive wealth to those holding the controls, wouldn't you say? This is leading all of mankind down a very slippery slope and it cares not about your political party affiliation, race, color, or creed. It's all about GREED, not need.

google wild banana and maybe you should reconsider the whole "don't fool with Mother Nature" thing

For the same reason I do not agree with gay marriage because it goes against the natural laws of the universe (gay couples can not procreate), I would never eat fish that was genetically engineered.

Being gay is not the issue, unless you think you're going to eat them too.

Hell China has a Billion plus people lets start with you them as a test market for about 10 years and see what happens. And your correct Susan-2393320 being gay doesn't have anything to do with it; But what Karen said is the truth wheather you agree with her or not.

Stephens1961, let's take a trip back to 4th grade. What Karen said about it "going against the natural laws of the universe" is obviously an OPINION. Since it is an opinion, it cannot be proven true or false. BOOM. EDUCATED!

And it's my belief, those same growth hormones are partially responsible for the obesity epidemic in the US.

I am very surprised to read this statement......... Not because i I am offended, but because it makes sense.

It is not nice to try and fool Mother Nature!

First off, you can't! - Mother Nature IS the controlling force, NOT mankind. Mother Nature will merely adapt, improvise, and modify in order to return any and all things placed within her path, back to it's original state of balance.

Not only are you not alone in your "belief", but there is science behind it. The NIH has a field of research based on Hormone Disruption Theory. For example, hormone disruption and endocrine disruption due to xenoestrogens in our food and water, personal care products, plastic food packaging/storage, plastic water bottles, pesticides, herbicides, etc. are likely behind the startling decline in male fertility in many countries as well as the rapid escalation in prostate cancer, breast cancer, endometriosis, and uterine fibroids -- all of which are hormonally mediated. A salmon that now produces year-round growth hormone is likely to contain substantially more concentrated growth hormone in its tissues, which we would then ingest. Until and unless this is proven NOT to occur and NOT to lead to hormonally-mediated health issues for both men and women, we are basically permitting ourselves to be guinea pigs in a human lab experiment.

Actually it wouldn't be likely to contain more growth hormone in its tissues. The amount of hormone being produced at a given time isn't what's being altered. The time during the year that the hormone is being produced is what's altered. This means the concentration of growth hormone in tissues won't change - it will just be present year-round. And even if the salmon growth hormone does contribute to all of those horrible things mentioned above then no salmon (not even wild salmon) should be consumed when they are growing because they will be producing growth hormone.

Humm, I got my breasts at 9, how much sooner are they developing now?

What is your age now? Maybe the food supply was already being altered when you grew breasts. Some children are growing breasts buds by age 5. My child started at 2 years old. Many trips to Endocrinologist who loves the fact that the problem is "keeping her in business". My oldest daughter went through series of hormone injections to stop puberty. Heartbreaking that greed is probably killing our children. I wonder does the owner of this company put this fish on his table and serve to his children or grandchildren, let them be the guinea pigs.

It's probably some sort of genetic predisposition - either your children are producing too much hormone, they have extreme hormone sensitivity or they're simply maturing early or some combination of the 3. Blaming it solely on the food supply is unlikely because the majority of the population would be "starting at 2 years old" and needing "hormone injections to stop puberty."

There's a lot of estrogen mimicking going on in the environment: plastics, pesticides. It's very possible that they (2momma of hormone affected children) were affected by that and the way we have genetically modified other things: corn, soy (phytoestrogen) and these ingredients are in everything! Including formula.

There's a joke about tofu (I work in a natural grocery store). Too much tofu consumption in men can lead to "tofu titties". I do believe that this problem and children developing earlier are all a part of what we're doing with our food and our environment.

We're doing horrible things to our food. FOOD! The stuff that's supposed to sustain us. We are allowing a few businesses like Monsanto to rule our very precious food supply. They're pretty rich, you know, and getting richer all the time. They feed on greed.

I don't think you understood what I meant by genetic predisposition. I meant her children probably have a genetic predisposition causing them to mature faster than normal.

I hear that, farmed seafood has to be safer that what is coming out of the Gulf right now.

I have also heard that if you leave GM foods, e.g GM corn, lying around, wild animals will refuse to eat it. Do they know something the FDA does not?

But really what makes you think th FDA is not totally aware that GM foods will sterilize people, maybe that's how they intend to manage the population explosion. After all Monsanto's GM food will be eaten by the Third World as well as us. Maybe they are not incompetent, just inhumane.

For example, the huge growth in Alzheimers is a lie, the victims' brains suffer from prion infection from eating infected beef (mad cow). But it's politically more acceptable just to ignore it, versus saving Americans by warning them, or checking the beef.

Just like the dieback in bees, which is such a "mystery", is just a result of a common pesticide. The French had the nerve to ban the pesticide, and their bee population is rebounding. Our government does not, and ours continues to decline.

So I agree. The FDA really does not care one whit about the health of Americans, or our ecology. With all these poisons and bacteria in our meat, maybe being a vegetarian is the way to go?

Your lack of intelligence and warped view of reality is pathetic, Nolan

lying around, wild animals will refuse to eat it. Do they know something the FDA does not?

funny, there is a fruit bowl, a veggie tray, is several spots, and the wild kids refuse to eat it, instead chooseing chips with sodium and msg, soda with HFCS.. do they know something their parents dont?

who really knows best? old McDonald.. or the FDA, or Grandma, or Dr. Homeopath?

my cat doesn't like to eat new brands of food either.....

And why is the the EU has out lawed GE foods and our gov is forcing the crap on us and then wanting hit it with a couple of dose's of Radiation also to make is safe for us to eat.

Something isn't rotten in Denmark, It's Rotten right here in good Ole U.S.A. Most of the people on here that are making sence and know what they are talking about are in their late 30's and older and are still able to think for themselve's.

Yes that's right. The Europeans know their citizens won't accept this crap.

But the US always has morons like southernpride1337157 here to buy into the whatever bull feces the system is peddling.

On the weird comment by Jim420, about kids sweet tooth for sugar, or whatever, the real experiment is to put a child alone in a room with a bunny rabbit and an apple.

The odds are a million to 1 he will pet the rabbit and eat the apple, not the reverse. Humans have no inherited carnivore instinct, its a learned response.

The only hope for this planet, since humans cannot control their population, is for humanity to forgo eating meat.

Nolan, a prion is an infectious protein (not a "poison" or "bacteria" that you claim it to be) that causes the Degradation of brain tissue. Alzheimer's disease is macroscopically characterized by an accumulation of plaques in the brain rendering it difficult for the brain to form and maintain new memories. These two mechanisms of disease are clearly different and clearly induce different pathophsyiological results. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, at least with regards to the mechanisms of disease you brought up, so please don't act like an expert in areas you are obviously unfamiliar with.

Nolan did not say the prion was a poison or a bacteria. Southernpride is going off on a tangent--we're talking about GMOs. There is not conclusive evidence that GMO foods are good for us. Here's an example. GMO corn--insinuates DNA to kill off caterpillars. And it worked. However, Monarch butterflies come in to do some pollination. Guess what? They die. Mmmm. Monarch butterflies are caterpillars before they are butterflies.

I don't want to be a guinea pig. Rats given GMO corn had intestinal problems and gave birth to a bigger percentage of abnormal pups. More and more allergies? Maybe people are allergic to the GMOs. Cross tomatoes with cold water fish to get tomatoes that will be able to exist in colder climates and ship easier. That's a great idea. Or put Round-Up (thank you Monsanto) into our corn. Can't see that being a problem. I mean if it tastes like corn and looks like corn, it's safe. Right? That's what the government is saying. Why are we messing with that? Most corn, #2 yellow dent corn, is used for feed or high fructose corn syrup. Feed. To animals that should not eat corn. Makes cows (and people) fat. Fat cows mean more $$$.

Shouldn't we demand a ban on GMOs? Don't buy stuff that you know are GMO! We vote with every dollar we spend. If farmers had animals that ate only grass and we stopped putting HFCS in everything, we wouldn't need that GMO corn.

I agree with Nolan: no food for me that has a mother or a face.

Actually Nolan was the one getting off topic with his rantings and misconceptions about prions and Alzheimer's. And you're right he didn't explicitly say that prions were bacteria or poisons he just implied it. However he did say that Alzheimer's is caused by prions, which is absolutely wrong. So I was simply correcting what he said. Perhaps you should read the entire conversation before you butt in.

There's is a big difference from a 10,000 year-long hybrid and a Frankenfood Genetic Modification of Salmon by injecting new genes at the cellular level to create he Franken-Salmon.

Eat Organic--- Organic Food Cannot be Genetically Modified.

>There's is a big difference from a 10,000 year-long hybrid and a Frankenfood Genetic Modification of Salmon by injecting new gene

It's only a matter of time and breeding. A Holstein cow can now produce 72,000 pounds of milk in 365 days. Only 200 years ago cows were producing only about 10% of that and some less.

In answer to blue ball look at what that has done to the natural ecosystem in the world. Natural evolution gives nature the time to gradually change so that it stays in harmony. In 150 years salmon might grow that large on its own but everything else will cahnge with it instead of one day there are 50 lb salmon eating everything it comes across and eliminating all but these huge fish. What if these hormones trigger extreme growth in the predators that eat them and they will escape the pens in which they're raised. At the very least it has to be labeled GE fish. What is the company that is manufactoring the fish have to fear by disclosing what they do to them if the fish is safe to eat. I want a choice and by keeping it unlabeled that will not be available to me and others who are gravely concerned. There is a reason Europeans are not obese and Americans are. They watch what they eat and know its source.

The world has already overshot its sustainable population anyway so were doomed either way. The science estimates at the sustainable population of the earth are from 1 to 5 billion depending on who you figure and who you ask. Here's a great place to do the research if you have the time: http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/ We now have 7 billion and will have 9 billion in another 30 years. But no one talks about this because it's politically incorrect since all the dark races account for the increase. And of course there is the religious aspect.

If the doomsday scientists are right about the GMO salmon we will just extent the salmon species later than sooner. In the mean time we will be able to feed more people so more will live to reproduce and grow the human population. If we restrict genetic engineering of salmon and other plants and animals we will just extent many species sooner. But we also won't have as much food to grow the human population as much.

What most people don't understand is that we've actually been genetically engineering plants and animals since we've been domesticating animals and raising plants. Most of the plants and animals we eat today could never survive in the wild…as most of us humans. A modern Holstein cow that gives 100 pounds of milk per day would last about 2 days in the wild. Likewise the wheat we use for bread and pasta would never survive in the wild.

Blueball--

That's precisely why I buy ORGANIC--- SO THAT I WILL NOT BE FORCED TO CONSUME SUBSTANCES of which I have not given informed consent. The cow that produces 10 times as much milk has likely been injected with hormones to force the production of such an unnatural amount of milk. The American public is entitled to INFORMED CONSENT. You are ingesting hormones with your milk! (Why do you think there are 2 year olds-- and younger--- growing breasts!!!???!!!)

(Why do you think there are 2 year olds-- and younger--- growing breasts!!!???!!!)

I'll be picking up an extra bottle of milk for the wife today.

Great idea--- perhaps if you give her enough she'll grow a 3rd breast.

Buy the 'enriched' variety and possibly grow a functioning brain that thinks sensibly for a change.

ALL food is organic, so called "organic food" means it was grown using organic fertilzers and pesticides, and only applys to the growing method.

and has as much to do with the actual qualify of food as does "lite" Genetically altered food, CAN be organically grown. and provided the altering of the genes was done with organic methods, it could be considered organic... don't put too much empasis on the word..

by the way, cross breeding, is genenic modification.

don't underestimate natures way of correcting genetic altering, just because we can succeed at doing it.. doesn't mean nature will accept it....

ie mules - steriles genetic cross of horse and donkey. Liger - sterile genetic cross of Lion and Tiger...

some of you have seen too many science fiction movies, where flys are bred with humans, ( a fly the size of a human, could not distribute enough oxyget to live, and why the size of insects is limited what they are today..) instead of looking at the genes that would make freakish new horrors, look at the genes that could be removed or altered to correct current freakish horrors, such as dwarfism, or downs syndrome, hermaphrodies, the list of genentic disease is endless, and I would guess many of you would benefit...

the technology starts with simple life and progresses to plants, then to simple animals, long long long before it will be able to help humans directly, we must learn to use it to improve food and agriculture... as scary as Stephen King might make it seem,

just my thoughts on the topic.....

No--- When I use the phrase "Organic" I am talking about USDA Certified Organic. No, not all food is "organic". ORGANICALLY CERTIFIED food must meet the strict criteria of Federal Law.

Really? You are trusting the same agency that is willing to say the food supply is safe to ingest to ensure you are getting real organic food? We all need to make the congress and senate hear us that we will not tolerate big companies injecting hormones and antibiotics into our food supply. There should not have to be a label that says hormone free milk, it should just be hormone free. When my children were showing signs of precocious puberty I told people at work. I didn't need a scientific study to come to the realization that it is the food supply...many others then told me that their kids were being affected the same way. And this is only in a small work environment. Ask people with young children if they notice that 5 year olds are producing body odor that they should not be producing until normal puberty age? Are their young children growing pubic hair early? Breasts early? Bet you won't need the USDA certification to come to a conclusion. Boy I wonder why there is such a demand these days for clinical deodorant on the market? Why wasn't this needed 30 years ago? Wake up America. Food supply is making money for pharmaceutical companies, beauty industry, medical industry, etc...at the cost of the next generation. Mother's fight for your children!

Recognizing that nothing is perfect, you have to use the best assurance you can. At this time, that would be USDA Organic certification; recognizing, of course, that a company may lie, but that if that happens the company will lose credibility and the USDA Organic certification.

Angelica, What is functionally different about a desirable gene in an organism that was brought about by 1000s of years of artificial selection vs straight injecting the gene? Nothing. The only difference is the way in which the gene arises. There is no difference to the response it elicits in the organism and therefore there is no difference to the effect on humans. If a gene arises from selective breeding or is injected by a scientist it doesn't matter, it's the same gene that codes for the same response. The fact that you and the majority of the people commenting on this topic don't understand that is the main reason why there is such a controversy regarding this topic.

Jim420 & southernpride1337157

The profound voice of sanity. How did you get in here?

Southernpride,

Usually in the case of natural selection, there are already mechnism in place to limit the over population of a certain species. Although humans seem to be the exception to this rule. However, when artificial selection occurs then substatntial imbalances can occur and destroy a natural ecosystem entirely.

For example, the carp issue in the rivers in the Midwest which are not causing havoc. Other people brought fishes from other parts of the world to the US and let them out which are not causing a lot of issues. That is artificial selection, not natural selection.

blueball, there is no sanity in their voices. Just profit minding only.

Wow blueball. We've been insinuating DNA into other creatures and plants for 10,000 years. I had no idea. And I think it's great the Southernpride believes he/she knows absolutely every possible nuance to GMO. I mean a tomato with cold water fish DNA. How is that supposed to happen unless we do that? You cannot convince me that we are messing up our food supply. But, I am convinced that Southerpride is seeing dollar signs in frankenfood.

Nav-399861,

I think you missed the part where the GM salmon are sterile and contained in a confined pool. There won't be any imbalances in nature because they are completely neutral with regard to any natural population. They don't reproduce and they are confined to their own area away from anything else.

Lbucks,

I'm convinced that the majority of the people commenting on this post have no idea what they are talking about. Directly "insinuating" DNA by molecular means and indirectly "insinuating" DNA by 10,000 years of artificial selection is no different if the resulting gene is the same. And yes humans have been artificially selecting plants for 1000s of years. Corn would still be the height of grass if this didn't occur.

It said there's no relevant biological difference, meaning there won't be any difference to your health if you eat it or a normal fish. Having said this and still needing to know if it has been genetically engineered to sleep safe at night is like needing to know if your coin was minted in Denver or Philadelphia in order to spend it.

Well obviously you place an enormous amount of trust (unjustifiably) in the FDA and the corporation seeking to cash in big on its genetically-engineered-salmon-misadventure. You should go watch Food Inc. Neither the corporation creating this Franken-salmon nor the FDA have the interests of the American public at heart.

How can you possibly say that "there won't be any difference to your health if you eat it or a normal fish?" How could you possibly say that? What tests have been performed? What evidence has been obtained to establish that? Shouldn't the company have to prove that its product is safe?

Why can't I and others choose ORGANIC rather than having cross-contamination imposed upon me by this corpoorate misadventure?!?!!!! Don't we have that right? Or does the corporation get to pollute everything and decide for me and others?????? Disgusting!!!

If it is mixed with non-frankenfish (as the makers of all these GMO products want) they get deniability. The funny thing is that without proper labeling of GMO foods how do we know what sickness, deformity, or diseases are caused by the supposedly safe GMO? We already don't trust the FDA to make the right decision based on extensive testing because they have lacked that in all the other GMO foods on the market.

You can buy baby chicks that grow from hatchling to 8 lbs in 7 weeks.

Don't you think that is horrible?

Welcome to - The Planet Of The Crepes.

spruce trees are used today for lumber, because they grow faster, and can be easily harvests much sooner than Douglas Fir & especially the slow growing redwood. ( all of which are renewable resources ) its about renewing as fast as possible, and seeing how humans are having no trouble at all... populating.. I don't think it is horrible at all to succeed at sustaining humanity. by breeding more sustainable horticulture and husbandry

speaking of redwood trees, they are an organic source of insect resistant lumber, and does not require chemical treating to prevent fungal rot, nor chemical treating to prevent termites... termite treated lumber, is TOXIC, Copper Chromium Aresenate is in much of the homes of america. at the base of every wall...... but that's a whole another health/habitat/exposure topic...

"Don't you think that is horrible?" Not me; I like eating chicken.

It won't disturb the "natural balance" that you speak of. It says in the article that the fish are sterile and contained in a confined pool.

Who says Southernpride? The corporation which seeks big profits for its Franken-Salmon?!?! You sure have tremendous faith in the integrity of the FDA and the corporation which seeks to make enormous profits off the stomachs of the American public!!!

Southernpride? lol

What have you ever done to be proud?

Your insulting remarks means SouthernSnide a better nickname

lmao attack my name, nolan. It's all in good fun.

Angelica I understand your concern for your rights, the environment, etc. but you clearly have missed reading a lot of what I've said earlier. I've explained why it won't be harmful to your health and why it won't pose a threat to the environment. A background in molecular genetics should be required before people are allowed to make objective decisions with regard to this situation.

First of all you shouldn't assume that a SINGLE GENE that has been spliced from 1 organism to another is going to do exactly what it is supposed to do (i.e. produce growth hormone) in the original organism but all of a sudden start producing horrible side-effects that are detrimental to your health in another. That's not how a gene works. A gene codes for a specific response. The only way a new response can occur is if a gene mutates, which is just as likely (or unlikely however you look at it) to occur in a regular organism as it is in a GMO. Also, even if a mutation does occur in either organism it is very unlikely that it will produce a profound effect (good or bad).

With regard to the growth hormone itself... the gene codes for year-round production of growth hormone - not an increase in the production at a given time. This means that the concentration of growth hormone in the GM salmon will be the same as the concentration of growth hormone in a growing non-GM salmon. If you believe that the growth hormone produced in a salmon is bad for your health then you shouldn't eat salmon period, because all salmon grow and therefore produce growth hormone at some point during the year. You would have to be "lucky" and consume a salmon that isn't growing to avoid the growth hormone.

With regard to interfering with the natural population: THE GMOs ARE STERILE AND CONTAINED IN A CONFINED POOL. An organism cannot get out into the wild if it is in a confined pool and it cannot BREED and contaminate a population if it is STERILE.

You have no evidence to suggest that the gene has unwanted effects or that the fish aren't sterile or contained in a confined pool. You are simply basing your stance on pre-conceived notions that have no proof and on fear of change/phenomena that you don't understand.

Also I'm not under the delusion that the FDA is out to get us. It doesn't make sense to put all of the time, money and manpower into the FDA just so they can screw us all over.

Nothing is certain once GMO is out there. GMO corn pollen blows into other fields and GMOs corn that was organic. Farmer gets sued. Monsanto won in that court battle. The farmer had Monsanto's registered trade marked GMO corn. Mistakes happen all the time.

You fear what you do not understand. The only reason you say nothing is certain regarding GMO is because you don't understand the process by which it arises.

Hey Southernp, you have stock in Monsanto or something?

Nope. I have nothing to do with Monsanto or any other company for that matter. It really is funny that when people run out of ideas they automatically wonder if I'm affiliated with Monsanto. The only reason I even commented on this page to begin with is because I thought I might be able to hold an intelligent conversation regarding GMOs, but instead all I hear are people's superstitions and irrational fears. It's sorta sad that people fear something that has the potential to be something great or at least provide a stepping stone to future research that could provide something monumental.

It doesn't say that there is no difference. It says that there is no biologically relevant difference, meaning that your body won't respond any differently to a GM salmon than a non-GM salmon.

Who says Southernpride? The corporation which seeks big profits for its Franken-Salmon?!?!

The msn.com article. Also I explained above (comment 11.4) why there is no biologically relevant difference.

There must be some biologically relevant difference or they wouldn't want to GMO creatures. It's stupid to genetically engineer our food. I prefer not to eat it. If others want it and want to consume it, then it should be properly labeled with information about GMO. I don't want it. I won't support it.

There is no biologically relevant difference regarding your health. If there was a biologically relevant difference to your health then it wouldn't be allowed to be sold. The only difference is that it produces growth hormone year-round (at the same concentration, not higher) instead of just during specific times of the year, and it is sterile.

You took your info from an article from msn and you want to hold an intelligent conversation? Really? You don't fear what you should if you could understand, Southernp.

Our corn, for example, has round-up pesticide within it. Now we can spray even more pesticides on our corn and not worry about killing the corn, just the weeds around it. There's supposedly no risk to eating corn that has a built-in pesticide. That would never, could never happen in nature. This is an example of GMO. I don't want it. And if GMO is out there, I want labeling to provide me with that information so I may make a choice. Is it out of fear to not want to eat corn with pesticides? You bet! And with excellent reason; my health, my family's health, my planet's health. . .

Last time I checked this salmon didn't have pesticides growing in it.

Also I don't consider ranting about how the world is out to get us all to be intelligent conversation, especially when you have no proof

Especially when you have no proof. The discussion continued with information about GMO and why people, like myself, do not want it. GMO can grow bigger fish, can grow pesticides in corn, can have tomatoes and cold water fish brought together to create a tomato that can withstand cold temperatures etc. The bottom line is, GMO is creating foods I am not interested in purchasing. This isn't about selective breeding, this is about genetic alterations. Are you truly able to assure consumers that all of these genetic codes that have been altered won't bite us in the ass some day? Or can you only regurgitate what this one article is talking about?

I don't recall anyone ranting about the world being out to get us?? I thought that I was speaking about labeling clearly about GMO so I may make a decision about what I want to eat. I don't want to support GMOs. I think if you want to eat GMOs, go right ahead. That's hardly ranting.

nature has been doing it's thing, that's why there are so many people........ so nature is really to blame, but I agree, we need to appreciate nature, and ourselves more, realize, we need more food,, we can either, take more land from nature, by deforesting, or we can find a way to grow more on the land we already have taken from nature... since I think we can agree.. humans having less sex, and reducing the population, isn't a viable option.

Geat idea. But the reverse might be better. Say we genetically engineer tiny people, say 1/10th our current size. Then we would only need 1/10th the food to feed them.

Since at 6 billion we are devouring the animal world, we could then increase our population to 60 billion, think of it, before we eliminated all other life on earth. What a deal!

You can't genetically engineer an organism that is already alive. It has to be done before it's born. Also the ramifications of being 1/10th the normal size of a normal human being are too drastic.

Hey it's called "sarcasm". But it takes a sense of humor to get it, I guess.

You need to get a life.

ZING! Sorry that I don't express a sense of humor with regard to a non-humorous, serious topic. Also sarcasm is best combated with reason and knowledge of the matter.

thick as a brick

I'm not sure you understand what "Equal to its counterpart" means. It means that consuming a GM salmon would be no different to your health than consuming a non-GM salmon

Keep trolling, corporate troll.

No way do I trust the FDA with my family's health.

congratulations, gabe. You must sit in fear every night before a meal.

southernpride: "I'm not sure you understand what "Equal to its counterpart" means. It means that consuming a GM salmon would be no different to your health than consuming a non-GM salmon"

YOU eat it first. Thank you Gabe, I don't totally trust them either. I don't sit in fear of my food, however, southernp, but I'm not going to just blindly accept someone telling GMO is safe. I should be given the option as to whether or not I wish to buy it by proper labeling. The FDA does not want the public to have that information on the label because the don't want to alarm the public for no reason. That's so thoughtful.

I will eat it first. I understand equivalence and respect its meaning. Another point you don't appreciate is that if this company is truly screwing around and doesn't give a damn about your health and people do end up getting sick how are they going to make money? No one will want to buy their product and they will get sued. It doesn't make financial sense to toy with people's health. They've done their homework and made sure it won't have any biologically different effect on your body.

You're right. They probably checked their product out completely. I guess you are correct after all. As Bugs Bunny says "What a maroon!"

Amen to that! It's exactly what Monsanto does with plants. Manipulate the market to get everyone to depend on your GMO seeds and food and then sue every other farmer that gets cross-contaminated by your Satan Seeds (TM). The plan is to monopolize all food supplies under corporate control and then have governments protect the corporations over individuals. Patents on life or derivations of life should absolutely be banned forever if we don't want to become slaves.

Yes a ban on patenting any life, plant or animal, should be a common sense thing. Evidently there are judges that are corruptible and have a problem seeing the big picture. It's just wrong what Monsanto and other companies in the GMO business are doing.

They'll probably patent the mechanism of altering the organism not the organism itself.

They have already done it with corn and they didn't make the corn sterile. As a result it can infect other corn crops. Monsanto, then sues the farmers for this saying they stole the seeds.

GM corn is now in the corn population, whether we like it or not, but efforts weren't taken in order to ensure that the GM corn was sterile, whereas in these fish, they've clearly identified a gene that makes the fish sterile and have given it to them. Also it's much easier to contain fish (because they have to live in water) than it is corn, which will unavoidably have its pollen float through the air effectively everywhere.

Life is resilient. They will always find a way to overcome an obstacle to sustain itself usually.

No proof or reason to believe that whatsoever, Nav

Actually, bacteria and insects do it all the time. They become resistant to penicillin and pesticides.

They don't spontaneously go from sterile to fertile. You obviously don't understand the uniqueness of this situation or the mechanism by which genetic change occurs in organisms (i.e. acquiring penicillin resistance). Resistance to penicillin and pesticides occurs by an accumulation of mutations over many generations. The reason it is observable to humans is because bacteria and insects are capable of reproducing extremely fast meaning that they are capable of accumulating a large amount of mutations very fast. If these mutations are favorable (i.e. allow for penicillin resistance) to the resultant organism, the organism will prosper and pass on its genes (including penicillin resistance in this case) to the next generation. If the accumulation of mutations are unfavorable to the resultant organism then they will die off.

The main point is: Sterile Fish cannot accumulate mutations over many generations because sterile fish CANNOT REPRODUCE. If they cannot reproduce then there is no means by which an accumulation of mutations will result in a genetic change from sterile to fertile.