Agreed. Genetic engineering and selective breeding are not the same. With selective breeding, at some point, Mother Nature will say "no" but with GM, we're basically saying, f*** you, Nature and we'll find out too late she was right.

They are also trying to use food to fix problems that already have solutions. It's poor sanitation and dirty drinking water that causes most diarrhea. Give people clean water, sanitary ways to dispose of waste, and teach them how to keep themselves and their environment clean and we won't need diarrhea goats.

As for feeding the world, this is where technology can help in better farming techniques that do not deplete the soil or use as much water. We don't need mutant tomatoes so we can grow them in concrete and water them with battery acid. How about plowing up some back yards instead and get GovCo off the back of people like that guy in Georgia that got busted for growing vegetables on his own land! He was trying to feed the world and was doing a pretty good job of it. Leave him the hell alone!

Big Agriculture is behind all this crap.

The article is ASININE, utterly lacking in logic, reason, and relevant factual substantiation.

How about--- PROMOTE NATURAL AND ORGANIC FOODS as well as POPULATION CONTROL. When I was was in college ('87-'91) a professor told me the world's biggest problem was population growth. Now I know he was right. Governments, including the U.S. government, are using unacceptable population growth to promote their FRANKENFOOD AGENDA! We will rebel!!!

There are almost 7 billion people on this planet now and many don't have enough to eat or have clean safe water. In the not so distance future that will double. How do you feed 14 billion people? Soylant Green, that's how. Seriously, without genetic modification of plants, grains, and animals your going to have a lot of people hungry. Many of those hungry people are going to be pissed off people and then they will take matters into their own hands. So if your are around for this grand debacle make sure you aren't carrying extra pounds as you might be invited to dinner.

How many of you actually studied genetics? Eating a genetically engineered salmon won't hurt you. At least not in the case the FDA is deciding upon. If they engineered it to secrete a poison from a puffer fish, then sure it could hurt you. But thats not what they are doing.

Everybody is worried about new genes in our food, and they forget about exactly what this article is stating. We eat that stuff all the time and we have been doing it for thousands of years. In some places we eat horse meat, in others I'm sure donkeys are consumed. Guess what you get when you breed a horse with a donkey? You get a mule. You could eat a mule too. It is no different than the new salmon. The mule is a cross between two species of animals. The new salmon is a salmon with a gene from another salmon, and one other fish in it. The mule in fact is a greater genetic oddball than the salmon. Eating mule meat wouldn't make you sick. Same goes for the Liger. Is a lion and tiger cross going to hurt you to eat? More than likely it will eat you, but if you ate it you wouldn't have to worry about dangers of eating it based upon it's genes.

People who are so worried about this stuff usually know little to nothing about genetics, and or what they are talking about in general about this subject. Their intent is usually good, but they are basing their opinion off what somebody else told them to believe, and not off what they have studied, or know to be true.

Excellent Richard! Too many people draw an artificial distinction between "natural" and "unnatural." They think that there is a difference in the DNA of every species on earth at some fundamental level. The reality is that DNA is DNA. Mother nature has mixed and melded trillions of genetic concoctions for billions of years. Putting a single gene into a salmon is like a raindrop in the ocean. Scientists have a perfect understanding of what proteins will be produced from any gene and they have a pretty good understanding of how those interact. One thing that scientists know for certain is that a protein won't spontaneously become an enzyme to produce a poison if it isn't functionally able to. Proteins are tiny machines and just like big machines they have dedicated functions. So you wouldn't expect a nailgun to spontaneously start making flowerpots, or randomly become welding robot just because you put it in a different tool shop would you?

Also our stomachs are quite well suited for digesting all proteins into amino acids. Our stomachs don't know the difference between "normal" and "mutant" food. That's because these terms are abstract and have no basis in reality. Every living thing mutated from something else. The apple you ate yesterday was a mutant. The grass in your yard is mutant. The bacteria under your fingernails - mutant. YOU are a mutant. That is the natural state of things. All of those things are not native to North America either. We introduced apples, the grasses we like, and even the bacteria, as well as ourselves. Nobody complained when Johnny Appleseed spread apples all over the country!

We spread mutants everywhere around the globe and nobody complains. Most of the plants and many of the animals in North America weren't here when the pilgrims came. They are all from somewhere else, yet the continent isn't dead. Sure, it is preferable to keep ecosystems the way they are, but ecosystems are not static. We lament the overcrowding of one species by an invasive one, or the changing of one habitat into another. Species move in and species move out. Let's not introduce larger growing salmon into the wild, but it is beneficial to think about the consequences. When we think about it we see that the world won't end.

A possible downside to bigger salmon - they eat more and crowd out other fish. I'm going to remind everyone that the oceans aren't bereft of food, they are overfished. We are the number one invasive species in that ecosystem and the reason species are dying and becoming scarce. A few larger salmon aren't going to have much of an effect. Remember these animals don't grow faster, they grow for more of their lifespan. They will still be made to survive the oceans and many will fall prey to predators, as well as fishermen. With fisherman around taking the adults and largest fish, I suspect the population will not grow out of control. These are not Florida's lion fish - an invasive reef fish that is eating it's way through the Caribbean. Those have no predators. Salmon do - plenty. Salmon aren't an invasive species, the oceans have had salmon for millions of years. It won't be like introducing bullfrogs to Australia.

The upside to salmon in the oceans - there is no gaurantee that the trait will survive. It may be that natural selection will favor smaller salmon. If food is scarce, the larger ones will die off first. They may not be suited to spawning up rivers at that size either. They may drown in shallow pools. There are more reasons to think that larger salmon won't survive for many generations in the wild than there are reasons to think they would be harmful. The trait may also be lost from hybridization with wild salmon, further diminishing it's impact. Mother Nature is tough. Loss of engineered traits is common in species of this sort without careful management.

Besides they might be tastier!

Usually people who post in favor of not labeling GMO foods or try to promote GMO foods with the 'We just want to feed the world' argument are actually working for the GMO food industry.

Angelica...I would promote population control first, not organic. The former gets at the root problem...way to many people. The second, unfortunately, does not account for the reality, way to many people to feed. I say unfortunately, because it is very unlikely anyone will take on the issue that we actually encourage having children with our tax and entitlement systems.

Not usually, in fact. I just understand the science behind it a little better than the fearful mob. People have a right to know - so I'm telling them.

Radagast - Thanks for the message. I'm glad to see that others take the time to think critically about these things instead of just jumping on the bandwagon and stirring up more irrational hype.

Cheers.

Okay all you scientists and yah-sayers to genetic modification of plants and animal species - explain to me then - just why is it that when I switched to an organic - pesticide-, hormone-, antiobiotic-, and genetic modification-free diet years ago, all of my health problems including chronic indigestion, fatigue, headache, muscle ache, pain, anxiety, and fibromyalgia went away?

By accident, over the years, I have consumed genetically modified ingredients, and I get immediate stomach indigestion, acid reflux, heart palpitations, and headache. And you know what? The FDA will gladly approve of yet another pill to cure this symptom, but will never examine the root problem. Our style of global food production.

All of you who are ingesting GE ingredients, and claim you do not feel anything different, you must be so darn lucky, huh?

I am not as lucky as you!!!

Yes, I am tired of the world dictating to me what I am supposed to eat. It only made me sick at a young age.

Stop your campaign to eliminate food labeling, and eliminating my freedom to choose. And shame on all of you producers who are more interested in filling your pockets, keeping me sick, and feeding the public wonder drugs for every symptoms instead of exploring the actual problem with logic and reason.

USA I have found a benefit from eating more organic products, when I stay away from "regular food" on the market I find I can taste more of the chemicals when I do eat it. GMO food is not as regulated as people think, they sideline studies and say they have done them, when the studies are only for a short term. There are no long term studies being done on a lot of this food. Check out my comments and the links that I put here about genetically modified foods and what scientists have to say about it. It might change someone's mind about how safe this really is!

Did you read the article? How did it favor GM food at all? It seemed quite well balanced (unlike many scientific journalism articles theses days.)

Honestly curious, I didn't get the "commercial vibe" at all.

What group or organization can't be bought? How much money does it take to get someone to no longer care for their fellow human? You might be surprised at what amounts can bribe elected officials and health organizations to lean the way of GMO foods. I'm sure they're not considering that their decision will lock in their own future generations to a life of no choice for clean healthy food. Or maybe they are anti society or self destructive to begin with.

FogOracle...does that cut both ways ? Will anti GMO people say whatever it takes to scare the world population ? I totally agree...what group or organiztion can't be "bought"

I would be surprised at the bribes you know about....could you post the links ?

I actually would like GMO to go away...but I am not sure the watching people starve would be very nice. What is your solution to the worlds water scarcity, stagnation of land crops can be grown on, and population doubling every 40 years ??

Monsanto has been in the FDA since Reagan and Bush I. Monsanto executives and lawyers get appointed to posts in the FDA and then write their own regulations. Or lack of them. Also, Monsanto people are sitting on the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas used to be a lawyer for Monsanto and chief justice John Roberts worked for a law firm whose biggest client was Monsanto. Please notice that both Republican and now the current Democratic administration has been bought by Monsanto. I highly recommend a DVD tited The World According to Monsanto. It can be ordered online.

Your theory could be right about possible influence, but what is your evidence (beyond Monsanto being on resumes) that Thomas, Roberts, and/or Obama are having influence favoring Monsanto? I think it is a stretch to accuse people of being deliberate agents of harm to other people through any means (via food or other ways such as war) without clear evidence of intent or knowledge to avoid negligence.

"Guilt by association" is not legal nor logical. Again, I don't know enough to say that your theory is right or wrong, and I would genuinely be scared and angry if it were true, but we need better evidence than former Monsanto employees working in government.

Concerned Moderate,

Here's the evidence: Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the decision prohibiting farmers from seed saving.

The following is from this article, but this information can be found in numerous places on the web: http://ngin.tripod.com/040102b.htm

On the 10 December 2001 biotech companies' patenting of not only genetically modified seed but also conventional varieties was legitimated by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in the case of J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International.

The decision means firms like Pioneer Hi-Bred and Monsanto can require farmers to sign contracts prohibiting seed-saving of any patented seed and it also allows them to check farmers' crops for violations.

Writing up this Supreme Court majority decision, favouring corporate monopoly and bioserfdom, was Justice Clarence Thomas, a Bush Snr appointee and former attorney for... biotech giant Monsanto!

Seed saving infringes upon patent rights, that's the argument. I'm not going to throw my hat into that debate, but many scientists (academic and private sector with no ties to Monsanto)favor the patentability of engineered products and many don't favor it. This is fundamentally a patent law issue. Just having Clarence Thomas right the decision doesn't mean that the other Judges don't get to vote you know. They had their input as well. Where is their collusion?

It's not like farmers have to buy the product. They can use other strains if they want. They can use strains that were developed by competitors of Monsanto, or they can use wild strains with no patent issues.

Justice Thomas should have recused himself from the debate, but he did not. Instead, he ended up writing the decision. I find that VERY suspect.

If non-GMO farmers are found to have GMOs in their crops - even if it is just ONE PLANT that blew in from a GMO field, they are sued by the GMO company and lose their crops. If they are organic farmers, they also lose their organic certification.

Watch David VS Monsanto.

Well then that's wrong. But that is a legal issue that is quite seperate from the safety issue surrounding these foods.

It's not just about safety. It's also about the consumer's right to know what they are purchasing/eating/feeding to their families. Why not label GMOs as such? Why even debate it? I think the answer is obvious.

The reason it's not labeled is because there is no difference in the quality of the food. The people who demand to know are often the people with pitchforks who want to boycott it because they are a fearful ignorant lot. Therefore, labeling does not serve the consumer, it only satisfies the anger of an ignorant mob and incorrectly labels it as "bad for you" do to their misconceptions.

If there were some demonstrable reason, beyond fear, to make sure the consumer knows something, then it will be labelled as such. But labelling to satisfy a prejudice is not necessarily in the public's right to know. I feel the public has a right and a responsibility to educate themselves about a product, which is exactly what most seem to not be doing. If they did they wouldn't care about who the fish's parents were.

A lot of people would reject GMO crops if they knew they were eating them. GMO companies know this, that's why they fight furiously to keep this from happening. You see, we understand that you need generations of testing with independent results. This has not been done. I don't want to be the Monsanto guinea pig. What happens 30-40 years down the road when people get wild deformities or are unable to have children? Monsanto will say you can't prove it was us because there were non-GMO elements mixed with GMO elements. There is no clear labeling. The only thing you can do to protect yourself is to eat all organic.

radagast, you state: The reason it's not labeled is because there is no difference in the quality of the food.

On what do you base that assertion? There is data that shows that GMO foods are significantly different than their natural counterparts, just do an online search. But that data has largely been hushed up and you'll not hear it from the GMO manufacturers.

I'll cite my references and you cite yours.

Here's one, taken from this article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14570

One of the great mysteries surrounding the spread of GMO plants around the world since the first commercial crops were released in the early 1990’s in the USA and Argentina has been the absence of independent scientific studies of possible long-term effects of a diet of GMO plants on humans or even rats. Now it has come to light the real reason. The GMO agribusiness companies like Monsanto, BASF, Pioneer, Syngenta and others prohibit independent research.

ZENGAIaN...I checked you link....it presented no data. It was an opinion, like yours. While what you say (about data showing significant differences).....you have to post the link to the data, else it is just opinions.

Your quote even says there is no data. Companies cannot prohibit independent research...your lack of basic science is really showing.

And, as they say, without data, or real first hand experience (with the issue)....it is just an opinion, and if that is the case, my opinion is always better.

rjo120, you want a study, you got it. Geez, do I have to do your homework for you?

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

This study finds that 3 strains of Monsanto corn is linked to organ failure.

Your turn!

On what do you base that assertion?

On my PhD in molecular and cellular biology and my understanding of the techniques and genes used. And no I don't work for industry. On what do you form the assertion that GM is poisonous?

Is it the article you cite in #4.12, which states in the discussion:

Proof of toxicity is hard to decide on the basis of these conditions.

The first observation that we were able to make was that there is a good general concordance between our data and the results of Monsanto as presented in their original confidential reports.

An identical effect in both sexes would have been exceptional, like with strong or acute toxicity. This is obviously not the case here.

They studies three strains of corn. The first was resistant to the herbicide roundup, so they sprayed it with roundup and fed it to rats. It is essentially a toxicity study of herbicides. Corn is protected by its husk from pesticides and herbicides- but seriously - wash your vegetables. The other two strains produced Bt toxin, which is toxic to insects. The controls are flawed because they didn't spray them with pesticides that would normally be used on non GMO corn. I ask why they would spray one with roundup, but not use similar methodology in their controls? Doesn't smell right to me.

The changes in adrenal and hepatic function are not signs of toxicity, they are different patterns of adrenal and hepatic function. It is a leap to call these changes evidence for toxicity. Another thing we should know about rats - everything changes their renal and hepatic functions. The authors know this and state it as a flaw in their methodology. If you fed rats any variety of non GMO crops you would find wild fluctuations in their metabolism. Foods that we consider safe may kill rats as well.

In any case if we are to understand the safety of GMO foods we need to study each case individually. These salmon would be farmed, which means less environmental toxins such as mercury and parasites. They contain no bacterial toxins or pesticides as part of their construction. Just genes from fish we already eat. The construct is safe.

Addendum: The authors do not use the same strain of corn as controls that the GM strains were originally produced from! I could easily reproduce these results with all non-GMO corn. I would just need all different strains and label some control and some experimental. Then I would just say that anything different from my arbitrary controls demonstrates toxicity.

Complete garbage!

That is how I know these foods are safe, because this is the best data that says otherwise.

Appanzeller et al., Malley et al., and others all agree that there is no significant differences between GM and non-GM.

radagast, I work in the health industry and have seen incredible increases in rates of autism, diabetes and cancers of all types in the last decade. What we put in our bodies most definitely matters.

Think about this: Science evolves. I have a good friend who has a PhD in Computer Science, graduating in 1986. Technology advanced and what he learned just 25 years ago is pretty much obsolete now. Just think of the vast difference in DNA technology just in the last 10 years. It could be that a future scientist, using some advanced technology that does not currently exist - even if it is only 10 years from now, will find a signicant problem. Long term, independent studies are needed.

I like the way you dismantled the findings of the study I provided, just off the top of your head, no laboratory needed. And, of course, your findings will always be correct over anyone else's.

I want to see you do that again. Here's another study, this one concerning GMO soy: http://www.biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/zentek_studie_2008.pdf

I incorrectly stated that the study above is of GMO soy. It is not. It is a study of GMO corn. My apologies...

I work in the health industry and have seen incredible increases in rates of autism, diabetes and cancers of all types in the last decade.

This demonstrates no link to GMO foods and does not support your argument. Show a link and I'll look into it. This could easily be due to cell phones and wifi hotspots, or an increase in any number of psuedo-causes.

Technology advanced and what he learned just 25 years ago is pretty much obsolete now. Just think of the vast difference in DNA technology just in the last 10 years. It could be that a future scientist, using some advanced technology that does not currently exist - even if it is only 10 years from now, will find a signicant problem.

The techniques we have now suffice to tell us all we need to know. Either way, you are missing the point, which is that nature does this kind of genetic rearrangement all the time. Just because we can create specific rearrangements does not make it unsafe. If this were unsafe then we had better start long term trials on absolutely every vegetable and meat source we use for food. Ordinary plants hold just as much potential to contain mutant and unforeseen genetic combinations with unknown functions as any GMO. The fact that we live at all is good proof that we will not die from eating GM salmon. Our bodies cannot tell the difference.

I like the way you dismantled the findings of the study I provided, just off the top of your head, no laboratory needed.

I do not need a lab to know that if you measure with a crooked ruler you will draw a crooked line. This is how journals are reviewed for validity. I merely critiqued the authors poor use of the scientific method to point out that the conclusions were unreliable. The authors themselves said as much. They said that much of their conclusions were difficult to interpret. I don't need a lab, just a pair of reading glasses. So what again is your problem with my critique? I like the way you try to deflect, but do you actually have an issue with any part of my critique, or are you just discounting it because you don't want to be wrong? I cited two other studies and found several others (can't link to them because you would need subscriptions to the journals) that conclude there are no differences in the health of animals fed GMO corn.

As far as scientific evidence goes, your case is on shaky ground.

And, of course, your findings will always be correct over anyone else's.

If someone shows me conclusive evidence to the contrary I will gladly change my tune and become a crusader against GMO. I'm a scientist not a propagandist. My ego is only as big as what I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. I would suggest yours is bigger since you have no evidence and a poor understanding of the facts.

The new study you have posted here is more of the same type of inconclusive result. They show no clear sign of toxicity, just a slightly different rate of reproduction, which fluctuates wildly from generation to generation and between control and GM fed groups. They also show some minor differences in gene expression and cellular morphology in certain organs of one sex or the other, but none of the animals became sterile as has been tossed around on these boards. The changes in relative organ weight are not indicative of pathology. I would also suggest that the measurement of organ weight relative to body mass is fraught with problems. Would you expect a fat man's testes to have the same relative weight as a skinny man's? Mice vary in size even within a genetically identical litter by a few grams normally. They also vary from day to day. A change in weight of half a gram (equivalent to losing 5-10 pounds overnight) could easily throw off the relative weight of an organ. These measurements are tricky and subject to error.

This study does use near similar isotypes for controls, which is a better design. They also compare the nutritional content of the different feed formulations and demonstrate similarity. The study is robust, the demonstrated effects are not.

Keeping in mind that these are mice and not people, and that they are eating 33% corn at every meal for their entire life and that the corn is served raw, not cooked, I would still have a hard time thinking these results would be significant to a human population, which eats much less corn and cooks it before doing so.

I also want to remind you that these long term, multi-generational studies have, as far as my knowledge, not been performed for other vegetables. I wonder what would happen to mice fed 33% chili peppers for four generations? Silly yes, but the fact remains - what should we see and what would be unusual. Many different cultures of humans eat very different diets. Should we do long term studies on every spice, meat and vegetable? I guarantee we would find significant changes between a mouse fed a strict Mediterranean diet and one fed and Indian diet. What would that prove? Where do we draw the line and say it is safe enough? Or do we test every minute detail until we are exhausted, and cry foul at every tiny difference in the weight of a mouse spleen? The study of the supposed toxic effects of GM corn is approaching a point of diminishing possible measurements and near absurdity.

I’d agree with you about letting people choose, except this stuff isn’t labeled and they don’t intend to label the salmon (you can bet your butt that I won’t be eating any more salmon now).

AMereCaratGirl, you can opt for seafood labelled "Wild Caught".

The problem I see (and industry sees) with labeling is that it unfairly labels the product as questionable. Just because laymen don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't safe.

Dumb example - What if people didn't want to do business with Mafia owned companies and we required all Italian-American run businesses to put a label on their commercials and products - "Owned by Italians"? That creates an air that something is wrong with the company when there is not.

But it is questionable. My standards are much higher than the FDA or Monsanto. Why should I lower my standards for you?

you shouldn't, but you should say these are my standards, and what they are based on.

What are your standards based on ? The FDA uses science, testing, and stastistics....I suspect yours uses iron clad inuendos.

The whole idea that they do not have to label goes back to Dan Quayle and his Council on Competitiveness. They decided that genetically modified foods did NOT have to be labelled nor extensively tested.

Jim, your post indicates you may not understand the vast differences between selective breeding and genetic engineering. If so, then the ignorance is yours.

You're right there is a vast difference. With selective breeding we only select the traits and have no idea what mutations underlie them - and mutations do underlie them! Selective breeding leaves us ignorant of the molecular workings underneath the surface. We don't know what proteins and enzymes are doing to conspire to create the traits we see. With GM we start from the DNA and have much more control over the traits we want and the traits we don't want. We know every molecular step.

I think the ignorance is all yours, dnimerick.

When the federal agencies studied this fish they could not find any biological differences (without DNA sequencing) between this fish and other Salmon. That included proteins, minerals, vitamins, etc.... aka nutritional value.

American are actually better nourished than ever before.

If we can’t feed the world population with our food supply, we clearly need to act to bring down the human population. I don’t know of any other species that is able to circumvent mother nature and exceed the food supply

So, whom do we kill off? Or do we just choose a certain group of people and sterilize them and allow them to die off naturally? Maybe we just force birth control on everyone? I guess we could just let mass starvation take care of the surplus population naturally.

If we can't feed everyone now, we are not going to later without something different with how we produce our food supply. I don't think birth control is going to cut it either.

There may be a few examples of less nutritious strains of vegetables, but that is hardly the norm, nor is it the fault of GM. Many less nutritious strains were derived from selective breeding. If you want more nutrition, well, there is a GM crop for that!

I also agree, however, that our population size is the driver for all of our problems, I also understand that we cannot artificially force people to stop reproducing. We can, of course, but only at the expense of quality of life and freedom. I know too much about the human animal to know that putting these constraints on him will lead to chaos amongst the population. We will level off the same way mother nature has intended all species - through starvation and disease. Making more food is a step in the right direction. For all of its qualities though, organic farming simply cannot meet the demand.

You bring up a good point. I'd love to see the data on this.

I think that showing GM foods to be an inefficient solution to a problem is a much more potent and rational argument than raising concern over genetic engineering. In reality, genetic engineering accomplishes exactly the same thing as cross-breeding, but does it in much less time with much more precision.

In this case, the gene being inserted is a salmon gene in the first place. Furthermore it is simply an increased expression of a salmon gene. If you take issue with it, then you also take issue with HGH therapy in humans, because that is exactly what is being done here to the fish. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it isn't anything to be affraid of. There isn't evidence to show that increasing growth hormone expression in fish, and then eating their musculature will result in any deleterious effects in humans. If you're worried about ingesting growth hormone, don't be. There is a reason HGH must be introduced subcutaneously in humans and not orally, it simply won't stand up to the stresses of the digestive system in its native form. The same logic applies to eating these fish and any excess GH they might have in their tissues (probably none anyway, due to the hormone's lifespan in vivo.)

Point is - the inefficiency of GM is a much better argument than raising irrational levels of mass hysteria over a valuable but misunderstood technology.

Thanks for the post, tarheeldem - I hope it gets more people to think about the issue more critically!

No, it is not a salmon gene.

As I understand it, a gene from a Pacific Salmon was used along with a gene from some other fish, so we are talking three different sets of genetic matierial. I really don't want to eat this fish so I will be buying wild Pacific Salmon if it goes to market.

I read that there were two changes to this fish, the growth hormone gene was from the Chinook salmon.

The other alteration was not from a salmon, that is true. But this alteration, a type of vascular thermo-regulator, is also not the genetic modification that has been making the most news and creating worries over hormones in our fish.

My apologies for any disparities in my original post, but my point still stands regarding the GH controversy.

How this fish works (my take anyway), is that the gene for growth hormone from another salmon was inserted. This was done because this hormone is similar enough to the recipient salmon's growth hormone receptor that it will activate it when expressed. You couldn't use chicken growth hormone because it looks different and wouldn't activate the fish's growth. Normally however, growth hormone is only produced when the fish is a juvenile and stops being produced when an adult - the same as in humans and many other animals. The result is the fish stops growing.

They needed a way to keep the hormone gene "on" and making hormones in order to extend the growth phase. This is the reason they used the gene from another salmon and not the fish's own gene: the other salmon's gene has a "switch" in it that is different from the recipient's. Genetic on/off switches are how gene activation is regulated in all things. We want it to stay "on" so we need an appropriate "key" protein to switch the gene "on" that won't affect other gene's switches. It turns out that another fish makes a protein that specifically turns the donor salmon gene switch on and has no reaction with any other genes in our GM salmon. Why didn't the scientists just use the first salmon that has the correct switch instead of going through the trouble of putting the gene in another salmon species? Because this switch is on many of it's genes and attempting to turn it on would produce many genes to come on. Our recipient salmon has completely different switches so the gene is isolated and can be activated by itself.

So our GM salmon has a hormone gene from a different salmon, which is necessary for it to function inour GM salmon, and a regulator gene that keeps it and only it turned on, which came from another fish. All this results in a salmon that has normal levels of growth hormone, but doesn't go through fish menopause. There are no poisons or chemicals or hormones chemically added. In any case salmon growth hormone doesn't interact with human receptors and even if it did we would know by now since mankind has been eating salmon for millenia - the same is true of the third fish. So all the parts have been on our menu for a long time already. Eating this salmon would be no different than if you took one bite from one fish, and then a bite from a second, followed by a bite from the third. It all goes to the same place!

The FDA had nothing to do with the salmonella. The egg farm was filthy. The FDA already has told us to aviod salmonella. These fish are not poisonous. Of course if they are contaminated with salmonella, well that's another story!

Wow that's a bold statement! GM foods make you sterile!? Is that what passes for information in Europe. GM foods do not make you sterile. That is insanity! Could it be that you don't kow what you are talking about?

That's right, it only makes mice sterile after 3 generations!

Please!, where is the data that the mice are functionally sterile after three generations? That sounds like fringe science to me. Post a link or go home.

The American public has proven woeful at picking things based on what it thinks it knows.

Odds are it will be rejected as the result of something said on a blog on the net... never mind any real science.

Amen. Faster production yields mean less pressure on the environment. Fewer acres needed to produce livestock feed or human food. Fewer gallons of water needed to produce fruits, vegetables, or animals. Better nutritional value per pound of consumption (see genetically modified rice already in use).

I have raised turkeys, chickens, pigs, cows, sheep, rabbits, ducks, geese. I have raised every garden item under the sun that my climate will support. Even raising all that, canning the results, and keeping 2 large freezers full I still need the support of food production through The machine that is the commercial "factory farm" and I had the luxury of space to raise my own food... good luck city dwellers and suburbia.

Skeptical and Poocop:

I'm generally in agreement with everything each of you stated. My wife and I have 100 Reg. Angus Cows at any given time. We do harvest one or two steers that we grow out to around 700 to 800 lbs for our consumption as well as our 2 children's families. We too have grown almost every vegetable that our climate will support. I put at least two deer in the freezer each season as well as the maximum limit of quail and dove.

The first thing we notice when we buy vegetables or beef at the market is that the taste is not as good as home grown items. Part the taste difference is probably losing the pride of feeding the family at a dinner that you have produced yourself, but I suspect the rest of it has nothing to do with genetics but more with the low quality that retailers buy to try to have low prices.

We do go to our local "Farmer's Market" in season and supplement what we do not grow with the harvest of other small growers.

In regard to genetically engineered product I do not have a problem with salmon that is aquaculture grown. I suspect the mercury level will be not as high as "wild" salmon.

I would suggest to all that it doesn't matter if you live in an urban environment, suburbs, or country location that you learn to grow consumable crops. There may be a time that you will need that knowledge.

The only sentences from the FAQ of that website that made any sense to me were

No one monitors human health impacts of GM foods.

and

Without follow-up tests, which neither the industry or government are doing, we can't be absolutely sure if genetic engineering was the cause.

I'm reading somewhat of a contradiction on this website. I read the first 5 articles under the "government studies" and am still not convinced that GMOs are bad. The titles of the articles are somewhat misleading, and imo don't have much statistical evidence to matter one way or the other. Thank you for sharing the website though. It was a fun read, and I will probably go back and read some more.

I have to disagree with your comment there "Wakeupandsmell".

We feed the evil "genetically engineered corn" to the deer on our property. The deer, squirrels, and birds eat it year round. Other than the squirrels all want to run for political office now, we have seen no side effects here on the ranch. But then again squirrels may have a genetic propensity to seek life in politics. Appears alot of them win.

Wakeup, you are deluded by that website. They are morons. You don't understand the first functional thing about biology, yet you proclaim very much. Your ignorance shows and is stunning. You are the reason companies don't want to label their food "GM," they are afraid of ignorant masses with pitchforks. Remember, the true monster in Frankenstein was the fearful mob!

I read "the facts" according to that website. "The facts" are surrounded by a lot of ambiguous science slang and "supported" by a bunch of articles that don't in fact support them at all. One post was enough. Please don't spam.

Good one Joe!!

No!!!! That will end us all!! Think of the CHILDREN!!

What is a nutural nutritional level? Every "natural" or bred strain of everything has different levels of nutrients. If you want more vitamin B in your food, GM can do that. There is no rule that GM foods are less nutritious.