Genetically modified salmon
I was quite distressed to read about the potential of genetically modified salmon making it onto plates in the near future. Even if you don’t eat salmon (as true vegetarians of course don’t!), I think that this is a worrisome environmental and public-health issue. There are so many things we don’t know about the potential effects that fiddling with the DNA of a living creature may have on the food chain. I think this is a case where extreme caution needs to be exercised at the beginning, rather than after the fact when it is too late.
Currently, wild salmon is considered a healthy food. But will GMO salmon contain the same vitamins and minerals, at the same levels?
Regardless of how many safeguards the company says will be in place to prevent contamination of wild salmon, I don’t think any can be 100% effective. There will always be mistakes, negligence, greed or bad luck that can undermine safeguards. After all, there were safeguards in place to keep the Deepwater Horizon oil from going into the Gulf of Mexico, too. And once endangered wild salmon gets contaminated with modified DNA, there’s no going back.
What really gets me is that, if this is OK’d, consumers may not even be allowed to know if the salmon they’re eating is genetically modified or not. The company doesn’t want to have to label their salmon as GMO—which tells me that they want to hide it from consumers, because they know that many would be opposed to eating it. This seems dishonest to me. I think we should know exactly what it is that we’re eating.
I also find it odd that this is being handled as a veterinary drug issue, rather than as a food issue.
The FDA is currently holding hearings on the matter. You can enter comments to the FDA docket by going to this government site, clicking on “Submit a comment” and entering FDA-2010-N-0385 in the keyword field.
How do you feel about this issue?
Back to the main page.
By Cassandra Sherrill on 09/21/2010 (3:15 pm)
Comments
I know it seems weird, but GM salmon may be a blessing in disguise. Now that animals are being genetically modified, as well as crops, people are starting to wake up. The FDA has already legalized 7 GM crops, and soy is one of them (which is a vegetarian staple). Even if you are philosophically in favor of GMO foods because you think it will end starvation, companies like Monsanto engineer crops that can’t be killed by their own pesticides. Then they spew all that pesticide all over the crops, killing all the other plant life except their crops. For that reason alone, we should stay away from GMO’s.
triad on 11/16/2010 (1:31 am)
Thanks for the comment giving the other side of the argument.
There’s no doubt that a terrible hunger problem exists in much of the world and will no doubt worsen with increased population. However, I don’t think that GMO crops and organisms are the answer. I think the true problem isn’t so much the lack of food as lack of access to the food. Until we have a better, timelier, more reliable system for getting food to starving people, one that isn’t hamstrung by bureaucracy and corruption in some of the most needy places, all the GMO food in the world won’t feed them.
Cassandra on 09/23/2010 (7:11 pm)
GMO has always raised suspicions.At some point the world will need GMO science, to feed the increasing population. Vegetables engineered with fortified vitamins. How about vegetables engineered to not require chemical or organic fertilizers or pesticides or be immune to drought.
It’s interesting that the developed world seems to have so many concerns when many parts of the undeveloped world with starving populations would benefit greatly from this development.
Safeguards can be built in. Plants & animals can currently be genetically modified with male sterility. Mistakes, negligence, greed or bad luck is not exclusively the domain of GMO proponents. One mistake is missing an opportunity to help end hunger.
radiosmuggles on 09/23/2010 (9:57 am)
Page 1 of 1 pages
