[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
New World Order Title: Upstream: A Genetically Modified Story The emergence of genetically modified animals has sparked debates about whether agriculture, public health, and the economy would benefit. Are we ready for mutant fish dinners and extra-beefy pork? The upside to the technology is apparent. Chinese and Korean scientists are engineering new kinds of goats and pigs, editing DNA in embryos, allowing for bigger muscles. This would boost how much meat each animal provides, thereby increasing income in the marketplace. The Chinese government has allocated millions to genetically modified animal research based on the claim by scientists that the process is safe and the animals showed no abnormalities. In New Zealand, researchers are tackling the problem of milk allergies in human babies by modifying the DNA in cows, eliminating the protein that causes the allergy. This process is still in the testing phase and would eventually undergo rigorous scrutiny from parents. The Food and Drug Administration launched the United States into the GMO free-for-all when they announced on November 19, 2015 that a genetically engineered salmon was fit for consumption and marketing. Scientists at AquaBounty Technologies, a small Massachusetts company, removed a growth hormone gene from a Pacific Chinook salmon and inserted it into an Atlantic salmon, allowing the hybrid fish to grow year-round, rather than in spring and summer only. Instead of 3 years, the new fish now only takes 16-18 months to reach market size. With no harm done to the fish, faster growth times, and year-round salmon, it seems science has helped both the economy and the consumer, right? Not so fast. The FDA approval has been fiercely challenged by consumer advocacy groups, who state they are concerned about the lack of safety studies, especially any long-term ramifications that have yet to be revealed. The genetic modification industry is still in its infancy and the ramifications of such products are widely unknown. It could take a generation or two before the offspring of the consumers of these foods manifest genetic corruption. Are we willing to take that risk? There is also great concern about what would happen to indigenous species should these modified fish escape into oceans or rivers. One group, the Center for Food Safety, plans to file a lawsuit opposing the approval. Genetic experts argue, however, there is no danger should the fish escape. The modified salmon have been engineered to be sterile females, which prevents them from breeding with standard salmon species. Others say that the current system of over fishing wild salmon is unsustainable and that GM salmon provides an acceptable alternative. However, many questions remain and there are ways in which these fish may be absorbed into the food chain that are not being considered. For example, what about the fish waste products like the heads, fins, guts, bones, etc. from fish processing? Would these GM fish parts be used to feed other fish, livestock or pet food? Or would the waste simply be dumped back into the ocean? The genetic material in those fish parts, if eaten by other sea or land creatures, could pose health risks that may not be discovered for years if the connection is not verified. It is likely to be two years before these salmon reach market size so don't expect the new hybrid salmon to hit your local supermarket any time soon. Plus, the only approved production facility is located in Panama and currently can only produce 100 tons of fish per year. The United States imports more than 200,000 tons of Atlantic salmon each year. AquaBounty has vowed to build hatcheries in the U.S. and Canada to sell more eggs to fish farmers, expanding production and attempting to meet demand. In addition, recent polls show that 75-80 percent of Americans would refuse to eat genetically engineered seafood. In response to this opposition, more than 60 large U.S. food retailers have made commitments not to sell the salmon. Hope for a resolution could come in December 2015 when scientists from the U.S., U.K., and China will meet in Washington at the U.S. National Academy of Science in an effort to codify international regulations on editing DNA. Researchers hope that having definitive guidelines will help in the debate with detractors. But for now, it looks like mutant salmon dinners will have to wait. The journey from laboratory to supermarket to table is proving to be more difficult than swimming upstream. I suppose, though, if the salmon can do it, so can the scientific community. Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2015/November30/303.html#Z21zlemtUwJ7GVW6.99 Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|