Aquabounty and their Genetically Engineered Salmon have been a subject of great discussion on both Surviving The 21st Century and our sister program The Food Revolution Papers. I also recommend that you go to Google and search ‘aquabounty bloggernews’. Actually we are hardly the only site that has serious reservations about this company, but I do not want to be perceived as being a bully! But even the usually docile and well meaning WWF (World Wildlife Fund) seem to be less than enthusiastic about the subject of Transgenic Salmon. In 2008 the WWF sponsored a conference in Edinburgh, Scotland on the subject of Salmon aquaculture. One of the attendees was ‘Hank’ Henry C. Clifford, the VP of Sales and Marketing for Aquabounty. You can read the WWF article here.
In May 2011 the WWF released their findings on Salmon Aquaculture. It is important to understand that this document was based on the input of many people. Traditional fishermen, farmers, conservationists, etc. The WWF paper is worth reading, but I will cut the 88 pages down to a single sentence.
Transgenic fish are not permitted under this standard because of concerns about their unknown impact on wild populations
Obviously I do not wish to be accused of taking comments out of context. I leave that to politicians and the talking heads on TV. So you can read the entire document here. (page 27)
At the moment Aquabounty are still a relatively unknown entity, however one has to suspect that they have some serious players behind them. They will need them, because there is a serious movement in the US against the trend to GMO food.
It is clear that Aquabounty has spent a great deal of time and money in developing the Franken-Fish, the documents claim 15 years of research. Lets face it, these guys are not tinkering in Moms kitchen burning her pots and pans on the quest of making a better tasting grilled cheese sandwich! These people are serious! I’ll bet they have converted the two car family garage into a laboratory!
It does seem such a waste of all of this hard work to go down the toilet if and when the Feds declare Franken-Salmon a dead deal. Many countries already refuse to import our food products because of the GMO issue, and Franken-Salmon will merely close another export market for us.
As a chanpion of small industry, I wish to offer my solution to Aquabounty. This might just work for you when selling the fish for food gets nixed.
You obviously can grow big fish.
It should be relatively simple to adapt a Mechanical Chicken Stripper to strip the meat from the bones.
Out of the nozzle you will get something like this
Green energy is a growing concern, so if you get one of these.
You can make this.
Of course Salmon do make a bit of a mess (they poo), but this can be fixed by converting the family swiming pool
Into a manure lagoon.
Oh, it is recomended that you post No Smoking and No Open Flame signs.
Most if the methane issue can be controlled. I recomend
Well, I do hope that I have in some small way helped Aquabounty with this helpful suggestion.
Bon Appetit!
Simon Barrett
Loading ...
15 users commented in " AquaBounty – The World Of Franken-Fish "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackAs the cook of the house, I have some experience preparing salmon. If you start with a frozen fish, the texture is pasty and the flavor just isn’t there.
Fresh salmon is a real delicacy, and in Canada, often consumed raw.
According to Aqua Bounty, one of the purposes of its production system is to produce fresh salmon closer to consumer markets. Bye bye, frozen salmon.
This I suspect is the reason why Alaskan legislators oppose Aqua Bounty salmon. Alaska’s frozen fish will be driven off the market by fresh fish/consumer preference.
Eric, I have read your pro-GMO industry comments sprinkled around websites promoting anti-GMO causes without you ever disclosuing who you work for or who paid you.
It is time for you to disclose this information so people can evaluate whether you are being paid for your comments and what your individual biases are.
You know as well as I do the opposition to Franken-salmon is based upon the dangers of one escaping and reenacting Jurasic Park. Perhaps you should read the following blog (and I am certain you will have a pro-industry comment for this one too). http://www.bloggernews.net/126913
ah, frankenfish and factory chicken.
Better the alterntaive, kwashiorkor.
One reason for starvation in Africa and that China is exporting food instead of starving is modern agriculture, But never mind, the greens are busy pushing natural food on Africa via all the western NGO’s while China is buying up land in Africa to make a profit in feeding the hungry.
And I’m not paid by big business: I just see all the problems of organic farming, because our family runs one. the dirty little secret is that our rice costs twice that of ordinary rice, and our harvests tend to be smaller than those who use hybrid seeds and modern methods.
“You know as well as I do the opposition to Franken-salmon is based upon the dangers of one escaping and reenacting Jurasic Park. Perhaps you should read the following blog (and I am certain you will have a pro-industry comment for this one too). http://www.bloggernews.net/126913”
Then what are your comments about the author of the trojan gene hypothesis (the “Jurassic Park” theory) retracting his statements. These fish, though bigger, are shown to be genetically INFERIOR. With this being the case, natural selection should purge them out of the gene pool, leaving no “Frankenfish takeover”. I have a feeling this won’t change your position on the subject, so I now must ask you: How can you make such bold claims on the subject of population genetics? The man who postulated the complicated theory your spouting off as if it’s a tagline on a movie poster no longer agrees with his postulation. Why do you?
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n8/full/nbt.1938.html
a link to the paper from 3 days ago.
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/24/13853.full.pdf
Muir’s original paper from 1999.
A TV documentary by PBS showed Franken-salmon that were several times bigger than normal salmon. Not only did the oversized, aggressive, gene-modified salmon gobble up most of the feed when raised in tanks with ordinary salmon, they also gobbled up their weaker competitors – including their own type – like something out of a science fiction movie. Only one or two of the Frankenfish survived in tanks that originally held 50 fish.
To understand the trans genetic process, to split any gene, a scientist must use a promoter virus, bacteria or toxin – an on/off switch that controls where and how the gene is changed. The mutation (split with a bacteria, toxin or virus) of genes causes a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene. Many doctors and scientists state that if a virus is used as a vector, a cancer risk is created.
AquaBounty has failed and refused to disclose which “promoter” will be used to split the genes of the Chinook Salmon, pout (an eel like fish) and the Atlantic Salmon combined to make Franken-salmon. How can any independent scientists determine the safety of Franken-fish when critical information is withheld from the public because of a “secret” deal with the FDA?
Franken-salmon raised in containment pools will also have an increased level of Omega-6 (same as factory farmed livestock) which leads to cancer and heart disease.
The Royal Society of Canada expert panel concluded that this “is the rule rather than the exception in fish … [and] has been manifested by changes to enzyme activity, gross anatomy, behavior and, in all likelihood, hormonal activity. The human health impacts of producing food from salmon that
are deformed by genetically engineered growth hormones is unknown.”
Surveys show that more than 98% of Americans would reject GMO foods if labeled. If Franken-salmon is so great, why doesn’t AquaBounty have their Franken-salmon labeled with a full disclosure of all the facts and let the public decide for themselves. AquaBounty will not do that because they know that the truth will stop Americans from buying their Frankenstein-like product.
… I think you should maybe read my question again? I asked you about the environmental impacts that have since been debunked. You didn’t address it.
You just spouted off random (mis)information.
This is the “PBS documentary” study:
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/25/9303.full.pdf
You appear to be ignoring the data that suggests that these fish are much less capable of surviving in low-food situations than their wild-type counterparts. I must also point out that a wild-type salmon would more than likely adapt this cannibalistic behaviour in low-food situations as well. In fact, I’m sure of it. (Note: a 20 lb salmon would never eat a 20-lb salmon. Cannibalism in these cases is simply a salmon eating another salmon that’s small enough to fit in its mouth) So, since the transgenic fish only grow faster (not bigger), the cannibalism risk would be roughly the same even if an overly large transgenic fish was introduced. So, In low-food situations, the transgenic salmon must out-compete the cannibalistic needs of equally sized wild-type salmon. But they’re neutered foraging abilities would suggest they’d get the short end of the stick in evolutionary terms. Hell, even if they did manage to eat half the population, they’d still have to overcome the evolutionary hump of not being attractive at all to the wild type fish (This can also be found in the Nature commentary; I can also supply the journal article).
The rest of your post just seems like fearmongering. Honestly, read the nature article, it refutes many of your claims. And it’s written by the man originally responsible for inciting the environmental skepticism.
Miss Mouthpiece
We do encourage debate. Debate is a good thing, facts and fiction can be explored.
Your link http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n8/full/nbt.1938.html
Had me rolling on the floor laughing. As a book reviewer, this equates to… I’ll tell you about the book if you send me $32. Lets face it, who in their right mind would pay $32 to read a book review?
I might also inquire, who actually wrote this review? Sure, it has the right names on it, but did they actually write it, or was it ghost written?
Who gets the $32? One was to wonder if this is a Peer review, or a Pier Review!
Side note: you used the appendage “Franken” eight times in your post.
Fearmongering.
Folks who read science articles know how to obtain them. Universities, libraries, they’ll give you access without payment.
Also, its a scientific literature review. There’s a difference.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/purdue-scientist-urges-government-ruling-on-genetically-engineered-salmon-127261943.html
There, a “review” of the review for you.
Miss Mouthpiece,
You claim:
“Folks who read science articles know how to obtain them. Universities, libraries, they’ll give you access without payment”
Um, how does the regular Joe do this? If this information is so important and the research so transparent, why not just wop it up on a web site so that we could all enjoy the fruits of these people labors?
I am also guessing that your rather silly comment:
“Also, its a scientific literature review. There’s a difference”
Means that this is not a peer review article? Just a couple of people expounding a personal theory based on guesswork?
BTW, do you have any vested interest in Aquabounty, or any other GMO products?
I’m actually an Aquadvantage salmon.
Does that mean that you are twice the size of your significant other and glow in the dark? You avoided the question so I guess the answer is “Yes, I am part of the genetically modified food industry and I am being paid to write these posts.” Come on, just admit it.
About your so-called scientific review and reviews of scientific studies and articles, first we need to know if the author actually wrote it or was it ghostwritten by Dream Write or another company for a $25,000 fee.
For example, Dr. John Ioannidis, an expert on medical bias, has estimated that as much as 90% of the medical research doctors rely on to treat patients is flawed. Another example is Mead Johnson who will pay between $8 million and $12 million in infant formula and cash to settle false advertising claims set out in articles and other marketing releases.
Dr. John Ioannidis also wrote, “There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false… Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
So, how can we rely upon any article you quote without sufficient information on who wrote it, how much they were paid and what their agenda was when they wrote it. You write you are just part of the genetically modified industry’s paid-for writers to advance their falsehoods.
Leave A Reply