Genetically Modifying Animals for food

[Spence]

In my area this has become a large debate and it's only now becoming a large debate because some scientists want to make pacific salmon that grow to maturity twice as fast and grow twice as large or larger.  These fish are triploid.  That means genetically altered, sterile and generally kept out of natural habitats.

People seem to look past the fact that we are already eating genetically modified animals and vegetables, but when a certain iconic animal gets selected it raises alarms and everybody gets up in arms about it. 

My vote is for this, i have many reasons, i will post on them later when we get a good discussion going.

Keep it civil please!

Spence

[tanis]

I have to say, I'm against it. Not because I have a problem with it, but because our technology and knowledge isn't great enough in several subjects to do it right and do it safely, yet. I mean, we're already getting cancer from food hormones and shit like that. They have no choice because of the demand for food, and I don't eat organic because it's been proven not to be any healthier except for certain things involving hormones, and it's way too expensive, BUT, it's just further proof that, as usual, people are jumping the gun when it comes to making this shit.

To compare with another example, starting in the '60s, the US Government dropped nuclear explosives, including one Hydrogen bomb, on ships anchored in the Bikini Atoll. The first bombing, they had sailors walking all over the ships trying to rinse off the fallout with contaminated seawater. Thousands of people involved with the project ended up with ridiculous amounts of bizarre and deadly cancers, and for over a decade, the government actually tried to say that none of it ever happened. They did the same kinds of things in Nevada, with whole infantry units in trenches as little as one mile outside the blast radius of the bombs, actually testing the effects nukes had on the troops in the vicinity, and many of them also got cancer. This was an extremely dangerous technology, and they still played fast and loose with it.

Well, genetic engineering is the same way. It has unknown to infinite potential to cause serious uncontrollable consequences. We've only barely scratched the surface of this stuff. We only decoded the human genome recently, and we still don't have any clue what almost all of the genes in our body select for, yet we're already trying to use random genes we've found in certain organisms to augment others, without fully understanding the chemistry behind these interacting genes. To put it simply, we have no clue what we're going to get when we try to do this. In a couple of decades, when we DO understand more about genetics, and can ensure that we're not creating a toxic animal, or some other completely unexpected possibility, then I'm all for genetic engineering in this way if it'll help feed people. But we're simply too stupid to do it safely, and too careless and proud to admit it currently.

Now. Sorry for the spiel. XDDD But I'm extremely interested in the science, I just hate people who do stupid shit like mess with something without understanding it with the intention of making something, as opposed to research and experimentation goals.

[Spence]

My rebuttle to your post is that when breaking new ground in Science there's only one way to do it....trial and error.  To gain the knowledge we need in this area, scientists have only one way to go about it.

[tanis]

I'm sorry. I should have been a little clearer in my post. I understand this very well, I'm a scientist at heart. BUT just because they need to experiment DOES NOT mean that they need to risk people's lives with their experiments. They can make things all they want, it's the fact that they're not content to make and test things, they want to profit off of them, and while it may make getting funding easier, it means that they take risks with other people's safety. Genetic engineering isn't immoral. Volunteering other people to take risks with insufficiently tested genetically engineered products, primarily designed as augmented food, IS.

I was on the drug Accutane about a year ago, a drug that had been out for about ten years. Shortly after I finished my treatment, the drug was recalled after studies found that it caused Crohn's Disease, a potentially lethal autoimmune disease, Ulcerative Colitis, and IBS. Thankfully, I wasn't afflicted. But the point is, it took them over a decade to see the health dangers of this drug. And it's not a new story. If you look, there are drugs that have been used for long periods of time being recalled almost monthly, because they test them just long enough to see if they work and what some of the basic side effects are, but they don't worry about side effects that may not show up for a decade. In fact, in pharmaceuticals, it's an anticipated risk. There are many things that they can't see how dangerous they really are until they've been out long enough, and this is just another instance of pushing products on people that haven't been sufficiently tested, and aren't sufficiently understood. If we knew more about biochemistry, these kinds of problems wouldn't occur, and they could make safer drugs. If we knew more about genetics, it's the same thing. If you think about it, it's unethical. In medical studies such as the effects of genetically modified food and prescription drugs on human bodies, it's illegal to do testing without informed consent. Even in a double blind study, all participants believe they are getting the actual treatment, and are briefed and have signed their consent. In effect, putting out potentially dangerous products like these without having tested for long term dangers is a form of experimentation without consent. The people who use these products believe they have been fully tested and are safe, so they use them, then find that they have serious health problems ten to twenty years down the road.

[Spence]

This isnt the scientists hammering things out for profit.  This is due to the people funding them.  And there are going to be people volunteering to test the animals.  The truth of the matter is that most of the food we eat on an every day basis is genetically altered in some way.  Now the secret to these fish is they are termed Triploid.  

They've been doing this in trout for decades now.  Canada has lakes stocked with triploid trout that grow 20-30 pounds a fish when a normal trout of that species is under 10 for a monster.  Basically, the technology isnt new, its just being applied to a species of fish that appears in the meat department across the country and now people are up in arms about it.

http://www.northwesttrout.com/NewsItems/triploid.htm
http://www.eou.edu/~mmustoe/Fishing.html

Tanis i'm sorry but you failed my test.  All you had to do was Google the term Triploid and you would see that this is something that occurs naturally (albeit rarely) in nature.  Scientists have just figured out how to force it.  By fertilizing eggs at a certain temperature and pressurization the fish become triploid without any test tube tampering at all.  The reason they have to be listed as genetically altered is because they carry extra chromosomes.

The reason for my test is to prove a point, im sorry you had to be the one Tanis.  When people hear "genetically modified" they are instantly skeptical, then they jump on the bandwagon of citing long lists of things that could happen.  Rarely, does anybody research it before speaking against it.  This is a problem im running in to on another forum (a fishing forum).  Nobody there will Google the term Triploid and read the process for themselves.  The fish is still 100% natural, the only difference is fertilizing the eggs in a manner that makes nature "forget" to kick out the extra chromosome.

[Lance]

I blame Bill Murray.







Why you ask? He has a fish face.

[tanis]

Lol.

Well, I still feel the same way, but since triploids occur naturally in those species, that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. But that is my usual reasoning against genetically modified food products, not because of jumping on any bandwagon, I just honestly don't think we know enough. And of course the people giving funding are the ones doing it. That's how it always goes, I was focused more on the fact that people expect unfinished technology to profit for them in the short term and end up cutting corners.

However, I should have done my research on this, and I apologize.

[Spence]

No need for an apology Tanis, i honestly expected to get somebody on this, which is why i was withholding my information.  I gave the key terms needed, Salmon and Triploid and then let the bait sit.

I did however discover a company that is attempting to treat Triploid salmon with a growth hormone (not unlike what they do with certain vegetables and even livestock), however this hormone isnt synthetic, it's from a different species of fish, this hormone triggers growth during winter months when otherwise the fishes natural hormones tell it not to grow.  They are also cross breeding these pacific salmon with atlantic salmon (the difference being atlantic waters are colder which i think helps with the growth hormone.)

[tanis]

Well, that's more along the lines of what worries me. But I don't eat salmon as much as I once did, sadly. *longs for a good salmon pattie*

At least they're using fish hormones, though. They give cattle a synthesized form of HGH to increase meat and dairy output. It has to be done, certainly, due to demand, but it can get REALLY disgusting.

[Lance]

In other news: Tanis just turned a year on the site! -------->Posts: 365

[tanis]

HUZZAH!!! 

[avisarr]

Congratulations on 365+ posts Tanis. You are the most prolific member on the forum.

[Spence]

In other words he's a post whore? lol

[Lance]

And there goes Feb. 29 with number 366!

[Golanthius]

I am for genetically altering our food. However, The experimental foods should not be given to the general population until we know for sure the affect of this altering has on the human body. We should secretly feed it to prisoners and see what happens.

With the demand of food for our over populated planet, we need to do something. It's either altering our food supply genetically or eliminate 30-50% of the population.

Oh, congratulations Tanis on your 365th post.