Skip to main content

A fish "story" that truly stinks

A GM AquAdvantage salmon (background) and an ordinary Atlantic salmon of the same age. Photo credited to Reuters

As if there aren't enough concerns about the sort of food we eat, the pesticides used in farming and the quality of what is on offer, now we are faced with being sold GM food.

The Independent reports on the US Food and Drug Administration intending to allow for genetically modified food to be sold to consumers.

"A genetically modified salmon which grows twice as fast as normal is completely safe for human consumption and poses little risk to the environment according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The regulatory body's verdict paves the way for GM animals to be produced commercially for food for the first time.

The creature, dubbed "Frankenfish" by critics, looks likely to be approved for human consumption later this month. Its developers, a Boston-based company called Aquabounty Technologies, say it could be on supermarket shelves within the next two years.

Scientists at the firm developed the patented AquAdvantage salmon by taking a normal Atlantic salmon, and giving it a growth hormone gene from faster-growing Pacific chinook salmon together with DNA from a voracious eel-like creature called an ocean pout.

The resulting creature requires 25 per cent less food and reaches market weight in 15 to 18 months, rather than the usual three years. Environmentalists are outraged. They claim the GM salmon will escape and interbreed with wild populations, and that eating the fish may prove to be dangerous for humans. But the FDA looks likely to authorise commercial production of AquAdvantage salmon. In research notes released over the weekend, the regulator said it can find no evidence that the salmon will endanger either the environment or people who eat it."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more