FDA approves the nation's first genetically modified animal

November 19, 2015 11:15 AM

the Food and Drug Administration on Thursday approved the nation's first genetically altered animal -- a salmon engineered to grow twice as fast as its natural counterpart.
posted by psycho-alchemy (114 comments total)

I, of course, hail our new genetically engineered salmon overlords, and pledge my service in the Eugenic Fisheries Wars.
posted by Mr. Excellent at 11:19 AM on November 19, 2015 [9 favorites]

100 years from now when President Sockeye conscripts us all in the endless war against the bears of canada we will look back on this moment with bitter regret.
posted by poffin boffin at 11:23 AM on November 19, 2015 [46 favorites]

I once caught a fish... \__________O__________/ THIS BIG
posted by xedrik at 11:25 AM on November 19, 2015 [18 favorites]

Will they taste as good? Vegetables that have been bred to grow fast and big never taste as good as the heirloom variety. Will we start seeing backyard fisheries raising heritage salmon?
posted by backseatpilot at 11:27 AM on November 19, 2015 [7 favorites]

I work in regulatory toxicology and it should be noted that this article doesn't quite describe the internal strife and disagreement within FDA about the wisdom of this approval. In the agency the disagreement is less about genetically modified animals used for food, and more focused on the potential hubris of assuming the "only female, only sterile" and perfectly localized populations assumptions will remain accurate over time. There are a lot of intra-FDA voices that have a hard time talking about the internal influence of regulators with industry ties and backgrounds, but I expect some of those voices to start hitting the media in the near future.

Hearings on this sort of thing have been in the Federal Register for years. The docket(s) for this approval process are stuffed full, which in itself is relatively rare and notable.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 11:29 AM on November 19, 2015 [21 favorites]

AquaBounty has said its fish are all female and sterile, making it impossible for them to breed with other salmon, even if they somehow were to escape their land-locked

Ah, the Isla Nublar strategy.
That ended well.
posted by madajb at 11:29 AM on November 19, 2015 [71 favorites]

"It’s not going to be on the shelf tomorrow," said Jaffe, who agrees with the FDA that the genetically engineered salmon would be perfectly safe to eat. "This is not something you have to try hard to avoid. It's actually going to be hard to find."

Well, then, no need for that pesky labeling thing then, right?
posted by kozad at 11:32 AM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]

AquaBounty's first application to the FDA was twenty years ago. I'm just trying to figure out how any small startup could keep the lights on and pay the legal bills during a twenty year review process, much less have the legal and political muscle to change FDA regulations. There must be some pretty powerful forces behind the scenes that are pushing them to break ground on this, so large ag companies can step in and develop other genetically modified animals.
posted by miyabo at 11:42 AM on November 19, 2015 [6 favorites]

Will they taste as good?

Tomorrow the FDA wil approve a genetic mod for humans so we will think so. Also, the Soylent Green won't taste so much of people.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:45 AM on November 19, 2015 [8 favorites]

I thought the nation's first modified animal was Evelyn.
posted by Strange Interlude at 11:46 AM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

For those thinking that the fish will be contained by being all female and all sterile, I believe this is appropriate.
posted by BeReasonable at 11:47 AM on November 19, 2015

In the agency the disagreement is less about genetically modified animals used for food, and more focused on the potential hubris of assuming the "only female, only sterile" and perfectly localized populations assumptions will remain accurate over time.

How tired is everybody of that one guy on every email thread who has to throw in, "Life finds a way"? (Note: I am that guy in this thread.)
posted by The Tensor at 11:47 AM on November 19, 2015 [5 favorites]

So, if this cross pollinates, like GMO alfalfa did (which resulted in some growers not being able to sell their forage to the lucrative export market), does this mean we're all going to owe royalties on salmon? I bet they can get ASCAP to handle it.

Not that I, as a Puget Sounder, would deign to eat Atlantic salmon.

madajb: "Ah, the Isla Nublar strategy.
That ended well."

I'm assuming that the author of the article did that on purpose.
posted by stet at 11:51 AM on November 19, 2015

Wait, has anyone made a Jurassic Park reference yet?
posted by 7segment at 11:51 AM on November 19, 2015 [8 favorites]

The sterile, female salmon are for Superman to eat. These people hate Superman.
posted by Oyéah at 11:53 AM on November 19, 2015

I was hoping for a basselope.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:54 AM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]

Speaking as an engineer, "it will grow faster" is among the stupidest rationalisations for doing something to a system. I have to question the wisdom of industry scientists who choose to express their work in such a narrow-minded way.
posted by polymodus at 11:54 AM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

Tomorrow the FDA wil approve a genetic mod for humans so we will think so.

Make humans half as big so all the food will be twice the size.
posted by StickyCarpet at 11:56 AM on November 19, 2015 [20 favorites]

It's not a Chinook,
It's not a Sockeye,
It's better that Pout,
I'm telling you why:
Frankenfish is coming to town.

It cannot be missed,
Its growth rate is twice
That of a fish whose
Birthday came thrice
Frankenfish is coming to town.
posted by Kabanos at 11:57 AM on November 19, 2015 [13 favorites]

Ah, the Isla Nublar strategy.
That ended well.

Because if there's anything that should determine scientific consensus in the world it's fictional popular movies.
posted by Talez at 11:59 AM on November 19, 2015 [8 favorites]

Make humans half as big so all the food will be twice the size.
posted by StickyCarpet at 2:56 PM on November 19 [+] [!]

I've often thought that fantasy dwarves had a distinct advantage over the elves and trolls because of their lower caloric need, and their ability to pack a more dense population into a small space.
posted by rebent at 12:01 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

And to think they are arranging to grow these in my country, Canada, not the US because the operation is not approved there.

And that labeling will effectively not be required.

Hypocritical and utterly egregious.
posted by polymodus at 12:03 PM on November 19, 2015

It's easy to get caught up with the raises and burn rates of well-known tech startups, but a 'small' raise of $10 million would last, well, 20 years spending only $500,000/year. One lump sum of $10 million isn't much compared to an estimated $80 billion that the fishing industry generates per year.

If "Big Aqua" investing in things that will benefit them worries you then In-Q-Tel, the CIA's VC funding firm should terrify you.
posted by fragmede at 12:03 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

I've often thought that fantasy dwarves had a distinct advantage over the elves and trolls because of their lower caloric need, and their ability to pack a more dense population into a small space.

Over trolls maybe, but definitely not elves. Dwarves are shorter, but much stockier and have a vastly more muscular build, leading to them frequently weighing more than an elf and a half at least. This is backed by the fact that (traditional) elven diets frequently consist of greens and the occasional delicately cooked game animal, whereas dwarves will stock up entirely on hearty bread, haunches of hog or other meats, and giant steins of dwarven ale.

Keep in mind that these logistical specifics aside, a weeks worth of hard rations for dungeon crawling cost and weigh the same for dwarf, elf, gnome and half-orc regardless of their individual cuisine preferences.
posted by FatherDagon at 12:08 PM on November 19, 2015 [11 favorites]

Ah, the Isla Nublar strategy.
That ended well.

Jurassic Park isn't real. I'm sure this isn't as scary as it appears.
posted by agregoli at 12:11 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]

They will grow big, they will grow fast, and they will be tasteless. But that third point won't matter because of points 1 and 2. These won't be found on restaurant menus but in frozen dinners and discount supermarket shelves.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:13 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

Genetically engineered food animals are really nothing new at all. Check out this freakishly delicious looking genetically modified cow, its kind was first created some time just before 1807 in Belgium when a calf was born with a mutation to its myostatin gene, which has incidentally never gone through any characterization process for safety. Myostatin is necessary for the ordinary processes of telling muscles to stop growing and when the gene responsible for myostatin was inactivated through a mysterious genetic event this was the result. We have no proof that this mutation doesn't have some bizarre effect on gut flora when you eat it, no one has ever tested it, but does that mean its dangerous? No, even though we have no idea what even inactivated the gene. It could have been a point mutation is some essential amino acid, it could have been a virus inserting its DNA into the middle of the gene to mysterious and uncharacterized effects, it could be a chromosomal abnormality altering the expression of thousands of genes, but there isn't really a conceivable way it could have happened that would matter one damn to us - knowing of course that the cows are relatively healthy aside from how they require c sections to give birth. Its not even like the Belgian Blues we eat today were naturally bred, the modern variety was redeveloped using mutation breeding in the 50s.

"Critics have argued that an FDA approval of AquaBounty’s salmon could open the floodgates for other genetically engineered animals, each with its own health and environmental concerns."

Fuck the illiterate scaremongering, making environmentally friendly salmon affordable changes the global dynamic to reduce pressure on dwindling wild stocks and protect the oceans in a way nothing else could. However, whats coming next is the best part. Pig breeds based on the Belgian Blue are currently being developed using next generation editing techniques, there is a company currently developing hornless milk cattle that won't need their horns surgically removed, and even more cool a company run by New Zealand's government has developed a cow that produces hypoallergenic milk.
posted by Blasdelb at 12:13 PM on November 19, 2015 [35 favorites]

School lunch, along with the never browning apples.
posted by Oyéah at 12:15 PM on November 19, 2015

Wait, has anyone made a Jurassic Park reference yet?

Has anyone said they only came here for the references?
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:16 PM on November 19, 2015

Anno Domini 2015: What could go wrong?
Anno Piscis 2019: How were we supposed to know??
posted by resurrexit at 12:17 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

Ah, the Isla Nublar strategy.
That ended well.

Maybe it'd be better to let science rather than absurdly implausible, save perhaps the value placed in vital IT services, sci fi from more than twenty years ago guide public policy. If amazing ideas like AquaBounty's took this fucking long to even begin to realize, imagine all the great ideas that never had a chance because we can't be bothered to get over the shortcomings of an otherwise great film. The only reason why GMOs are controversial since the 90s is the same reason why we never hear about Monsanto's five major competitors, why no major scientific body has ever opposed their use, and why it never occurs to anyone to think that basically all supplements, all vegetarian cheese, many vaccines, and modern insulin are made using exactly the same techniques. We're being sold manufactured fear, and the product is as shitty as it is absurd.
posted by Blasdelb at 12:38 PM on November 19, 2015 [22 favorites]

This is an outrage. Why can't those meddling scientists leave well enough alone? We're better off harvesting our natural fish the natural way, with massive trawling operations, one depleted fishery at a time, and with as much incidental damage to inedible or undesirable species that happen to occupy the same habitats as possible. Like God intended.
posted by biogeo at 12:39 PM on November 19, 2015 [13 favorites]

I'm interested in hearing more about this bitter egret they've engineered.
posted by Wolfdog at 12:43 PM on November 19, 2015 [5 favorites]

Blasdelb: Don't forget almost all non-vegetarian cheese as well, a fact which, as a pescetarian, I rather appreciate.
posted by biogeo at 12:43 PM on November 19, 2015

If amazing ideas like AquaBounty's took this fucking long to even begin to realize, imagine all the great ideas that never had a chance because we can't be bothered to get over the shortcomings of an otherwise great film.

I seriously doubt Jurassic Park was the cause of the long FDA approval process...
posted by Sangermaine at 12:45 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

Oh, sorry, brain fart; for some reason I read what you wrote as "vegan cheese". Obviously you were making the same point I was.
posted by biogeo at 12:48 PM on November 19, 2015

That salmon was delicious but suddenly my clothes feel uncomfortably snug...
posted by jim in austin at 12:50 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

Would eat extra large salmon.
posted by mountmccabe at 12:58 PM on November 19, 2015

Ah, the Isla Nublar strategy.
That ended well.

Maybe it'd be better to let science rather than absurdly implausible, save perhaps the value placed in vital IT services, sci fi from more than twenty years ago guide public policy. If amazing ideas like AquaBounty's took this fucking long to even begin to realize, imagine all the great ideas that never had a chance because we can't be bothered to get over the shortcomings of an otherwise great film. The only reason why GMOs are controversial since the 90s is the same reason why we never hear about Monsanto's five major competitors, why no major scientific body has ever opposed their use, and why it never occurs to anyone to think that basically all supplements, all vegetarian cheese, many vaccines, and modern insulin are made using exactly the same techniques. We're being sold manufactured fear, and the product is as shitty as it is absurd.

Granted, it was a fictional story. But storytelling is one way in which humanity works through hypothetical scenarios, creates empathy for those different from us, and works to understand the world. The lesson to be drawn is not that carnivorous giant salmon will start eating people, but rather that unintended consequences often can't be predicted, particularly in systems this complex. It's great that AquaBounty assures us that the fish will all be sterile females, but that might not be enough to keep these fish out of the ecosystem. It's possible that introducing these genes might render the fish less viable as a species, and that might have significant consequences if released into the wild. Most people (myself included) are not fish geneticists, and can't really comment intelligently on the safety or not of such modifications. Add to that the fact that companies have a history of playing fast and loose with safety/waste/environmental concerns, and I think skepticism is justified. Even if it takes the form of Jurassic Park jokes.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:58 PM on November 19, 2015 [15 favorites]

An interesting facet of this story is that the fish has been approved for consumption in the US, but not to be grown there. Meanwhile, it has not been approved for consumption (at least yet) in Canada, but the company has been approved to produce the eggs in Canada. The fish will actually be raised in Panama.

International regulatory arbitrage allows the company to produce and sell the fish even though they don't have approval to do so in any one country. I think there might be a lesson in there somewhere.
posted by ssg at 1:01 PM on November 19, 2015 [5 favorites]

Joking aside, all I can think of when I hear people worried about consuming genetically modified foods causing them to mutate is, in my best Morbo impression, DNA DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. GOOD NIGHT.
posted by SansPoint at 1:02 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]

backseatpilot: "Will they taste as good?"

That'd be my first question. Farmed Atlantic salmon already is barely edible compared to pacific salmon. If this fish trades 2x growth rate for 1/2 tastiness it'll only be suitable for dog food.
posted by Mitheral at 1:04 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

miyabo: I'm just trying to figure out how any small startup could keep the lights on and pay the legal bills during a twenty year review process, much less have the legal and political muscle to change FDA regulations. There must be some pretty powerful forces behind the scenes that are pushing them to break ground on this

In other words....you think something fishy is going on here?
posted by dr_dank at 1:06 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

AquaBounty has said its fish are all female and sterile, making it impossible for them to breed with other salmon, even if they somehow were to escape

In that case they won't mind putting up some sort of bond for that, say 10 billion dollars?
posted by fullerine at 1:09 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

I'm not sure how I feel about this, my new life, being smothered and crushed to death by millions of salmon, but I feel that I will be able to adjust.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 1:12 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

Granted, it was a fictional story. But storytelling is one way in which humanity works through hypothetical scenarios, creates empathy for those different from us, and works to understand the world.

And all of Crichton's storytelling is based on ludicrously bad science with an incredibly heavy-handed anti-science agenda. Remember the one about how global warming was a hoax so all the climatologists had to manufacture climate disasters by way of mad science terrorism so they could stay in control? Yeah.
posted by FatherDagon at 1:12 PM on November 19, 2015 [13 favorites]

I seriously doubt Jurassic Park was the cause of the long FDA approval process...

It appears to have had more to do with congressional interference in the regulatory process, but the modern anti-GMO movement was indeed born in the wake of Jurassic Park and that fucking movie shaped the public debate. When the Flavr Savr tomato, the first genetically modified plant explicitly approved for human consumption by the FDA, was being reviewed between '92 and '94 it was pretty much universally welcomed by the general public. What changed was the development of a cultish die-hard movement dedicated to selling fear uncertainty and doubt relating to genetic modification philosophically premised on opposing Jurassic Park's central theme of the hubris of man. Never mind that in the story there was nothing actually wrong with Hammond's respect for nature or whatever, and its only really a morality play demonstrating the value of respecting the efforts of your IT division, the narrative has stuck.

It is however unwound by the realization that all farming is fundamentally premised on the same 'hubris,' the idea that we can toy with nature for our benefit. There is nothing meaningfully new about breeding with molecular genetics beyond the intentionality with which we can do it. At the same time this movement has already wrought incalculable damage to seed science. It has consistently bankrupted small companies like AquaBounty, leaving the production of seeds in the hands of just six multinational corporations, and prevented the adoption of consumer focused crops.
posted by Blasdelb at 1:15 PM on November 19, 2015 [8 favorites]

Wasn't GloFish the first genetically modified animal on the market? I mean, probably not for consumption, but...
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:15 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

That's too bad. I was hoping that instead they would could come up with one that swims twice as fast as the wild type.
posted by etherist at 1:16 PM on November 19, 2015

And I mean, really, if you think about it, what part of the Earth has Man's tinkering *not* improved?
posted by entropicamericana at 1:17 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

Hey, down in the Gulf and on the East Coast we've already had our (non-engineered) Jurassic Park moment, it's called the lionfish.

It's delicious, FWIW.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 1:18 PM on November 19, 2015

And all of Crichton's storytelling is based on ludicrously bad science with an incredibly heavy-handed anti-science agenda. Remember the one about how global warming was a hoax so all the climatologists had to manufacture climate disasters by way of mad science terrorism so they could stay in control?

True. Crichton was an anti-science hack. I'm coming at this from the aspect of justified skepticism of the controls and policies put in place by the corporation looking to earn profits from this.

Speaking as a former R&D employee of a company that managed to hideously contaminate groundwater [pdf] in a goddamn intertidal zone
posted by Existential Dread at 1:22 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

"True. Crichton was an anti-science hack. I'm coming at this from the aspect of justified skepticism of the controls and policies put in place by the corporation looking to earn profits from this. "

After 20 years, we're really well past the point of needing to ask whether public 'skepticism' of this project is even remotely falsifiable.
posted by Blasdelb at 1:28 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

After 20 years, we're really well past the point of needing to ask whether public 'skepticism' of this project is even remotely falsifiable.

I don't follow. Is there some track record of mass-produced genetically engineered animals by for-profit corporations that I'm missing? Personally I consider animals to be somewhat different than GMO grains and tomatoes.
posted by Existential Dread at 1:33 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

We must resist the forces of Big Fish
posted by scruss at 1:44 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

Also the jello on her spoon
posted by poffin boffin at 1:45 PM on November 19, 2015

Count me as massively disappointed. I was hoping the first genetically modified animal would be a huge monster designed to fight Godzilla, or aliens, or angels, or something. Preferably piloted by a neurotic Japanese teen.

Science, forever crushing my childhood dreams.
posted by happyroach at 1:46 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

It was because of the T-Rex! It was so big it made the glass of water shake!

You idiot, correlation is not causation. Maybe the water was scared.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:50 PM on November 19, 2015 [10 favorites]

Look, I like science as much as the next guy, but isn't it possible that this is too much science? My layperson's intuition tells me this is probably too much science.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:51 PM on November 19, 2015 [6 favorites]

"Is this OK to eat?" Has always been a silly fear-mongering response to genetically modified organisms. The real question is "What happens to the ecosystem if this goes native?" Would a faster-growing fish outcompete its rivals? Overconsume natural food supplies?
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 2:16 PM on November 19, 2015 [6 favorites]

The real question is "What happens to the ecosystem if this goes native?" Would a faster-growing fish outcompete its rivals? Overconsume natural food supplies?

Obviously we would just release the genetically engineered bears. Enormous, ravenous, genetically engineered . . . bears. They're all female, though. What could possibly go wrong?
posted by The Bellman at 2:20 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]

it depends on how you feel about the domestic and international policymaking of canadian prime minister madame bear
posted by poffin boffin at 2:50 PM on November 19, 2015

...by feeding them babies.
posted by sexyrobot at 2:50 PM on November 19, 2015

When are they going to grow a decent steak in a petri dish? That's what I want to know.
posted by bgal81 at 2:54 PM on November 19, 2015

i believe there is a modest proposal which could combine the two previous comments into a delicious and eco-friendly meal
posted by poffin boffin at 3:05 PM on November 19, 2015

Make humans half as big so all the food will be twice the size.

The Case for Making Humans Smaller

On-topic: Blasdelb, thanks for your example of a genetically engineered randomly mutated cow. I don't think many people will be convinced, though. As the article describes, opposition to GMO food is driven not just by uninformed fear, but by self-interest: fishermen who would lose business, environmental activists who are too committed to being anti-GMO to stop now, grocery stores who know their customer base.
posted by Rangi at 3:15 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

""Is this OK to eat?" Has always been a silly fear-mongering response to genetically modified organisms. The real question is "What happens to the ecosystem if this goes native?" Would a faster-growing fish outcompete its rivals? Overconsume natural food supplies?"

This is a primarily regulatory change we're talking about where, much like some genetic forms of gigantism in humans the practical effect of the engineered trait undoubtedly already exists at low levels. Thus, even if these salmon somehow overcome triploid induced sterility, something fundamentally impossible that no banana has done since they were invented, and they flew to the coast, and then ended up making their way up a spawning stream in spite of their swimming disadvantages - it would undoubtedly have no meaningful effect on wild populations.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:25 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

Rangi, please tell me that second photo you linked is satire.
posted by biogeo at 3:31 PM on November 19, 2015

Are genetically modified foods kosher? Ask Moses.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:32 PM on November 19, 2015

This is a Kuo-toa plot!
posted by clavdivs at 3:35 PM on November 19, 2015

Wasn't GloFish the first genetically modified animal on the market? I mean, probably not for consumption, but...

Look, I was drunk and I swear I thought the aquarium was a punch bowl.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:45 PM on November 19, 2015

Rangi, please tell me that second photo you linked is satire.

I found it while looking for a different one about their tongs. I'm afraid it's real. (Would be happy to hear it's a fake, though.)
posted by Rangi at 3:48 PM on November 19, 2015

ExistentialDread: unintended consequences often can't be predicted, particularly in systems this complex.

For example, where is the protein to feed these fast-growing salmon going to come from? Here's one view of how farming operations convert other types of ocean critters into saleable salmon:

Salmon feed is made, in part, from fishmeal and fish oil—concentrated products requiring much larger volumes of small ocean fish (such as anchovies, herring and sardines) to produce one serving of food for a person than would be required if these were consumed directly.

To me this is just another exercise in mining the oceans for private profit.
posted by sneebler at 3:48 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

http://consumersunion.org/news/cu-fdas-ge-salmon-assessment-is-flawed-2/

A few quotes from it:
“The EA states that the FDA has found that the salmon is safe to eat. However, we are deeply concerned that the potential of these fish to cause allergic reactions has not been adequately researched. FDA has allowed this fish to move forward based on tests of allergenicity of only six engineered fish—tests that actually did show an increase in allergy-causing potential,”

"FDA indicates that only 95 percent of the salmon may be sterile, and the rest fertile. When you are talking about millions of fish, even one percent comes to thousands of fish. Moreover, perhaps even more important, the fish at the egg production facility in Prince Edward Island, Canada would obviously not be sterile—otherwise they could not produce eggs."
posted by Slinga at 4:13 PM on November 19, 2015

In that case they won't mind putting up some sort of bond for that, say 10 billion dollars?

Insurance is a socialist plot by ignorant scaremongers who hate SCIENCE!. Now hush and pay no attention to that fertile 5%.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:41 PM on November 19, 2015

So what if you have a tank full of these in Panama, with the 5% fertile or whatever, and a tornado picks up a bunch and dumps them in water? I mean, you can construct all the unlikely scenarios you want, and eventually one of them is gonna happen. I live by Lake Michigan, and we have a zillion invasive species here already. Zebra mussels, lampreys, Asian carp, etc. Life does indeed find a way, and there's enough invasive stuff out there (including us, obv) without us making more.
posted by Slinga at 4:56 PM on November 19, 2015

From the FDA's AquAdvantage Salmon Fact Sheet:

Under the approval, AquAdvantage Salmon are subject to stringent conditions to prevent the possibility of escape into the wild. The salmon cannot be raised in ocean net pens: instead, the approval allows for them to be grown only at two specific land-based facilities: one in Canada, where the breeding stock are kept, and Panama, where the fish for market will be grown out using eggs from the Canada facility.

Both the Canada and Panama facilities have multiple and redundant physical barriers to prevent eggs and fish from escaping, including metal screens on tank bottoms, stand pipes, and incubator trays to prevent the escape of eggs and fish during hatching or rearing.

The tanks also have covers, nets, jump fences, and screened overflow tanks to prevent escape over the sides of the tanks or incubators. Tank netting also keeps predators such as birds from entering the fish tanks at the outdoor facilities in Panama. The facilities in Canada are indoors. All tank drains and stand pipes have covers or sleeves permanently attached to them.

In order to prevent eggs or small fish from passing through the pipes or plumbing, there is a closed septic system and additional screens and chlorine pucks are used to kill any escaped fish or eggs in the main drain area.

In addition, particularly at the Panama grow-out facility, there are geographical/geophysical containment features, including high river and ocean water temperatures, and other conditions that would not be supportive of salmon survival. The fish to be produced for food in Panama will be an all-female, reproductively sterile population.
posted by mountmccabe at 5:05 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

Perhaps even more presciently than with The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood apparently saw this shite coming.
posted by fuse theorem at 5:08 PM on November 19, 2015

I see the hungry salmon eating all the eggs of others in an unstoppable fashion. Of course they will escape to the wild, of course they will become ubiquitous. What, this is a bad movie waiting to happen.
posted by Oyéah at 5:17 PM on November 19, 2015

there is a company currently developing hornless milk cattle that won't need their horns surgically removed

Polled dairy cattle already exist in most popular breeds and farmers, have for decades, had the choice (through sire (and desire for how he or she wants their cattle to look)) to breed toward that.

Female dairy calves (talking still nursing stage) that have horn buds get them burnt out with a hot iron (there are a couple other methods but that is the common approach) and the work is a few minutes per animal and so not a huge undertaking.
posted by phoque at 5:54 PM on November 19, 2015

You know what also had multiple redundant barriers? Fukushima.
posted by Slinga at 6:26 PM on November 19, 2015

"The EA states that the FDA has found that the salmon is safe to eat. However, we are deeply concerned that the potential of these fish to cause allergic reactions has not been adequately researched. FDA has allowed this fish to move forward based on tests of allergenicity of only six engineered fish—tests that actually did show an increase in allergy-causing potential..."

That's what the hypoallergenic milk is for, Luddites.
posted by one_bean at 6:26 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

Thus, even if these salmon somehow overcome triploid induced sterility, something fundamentally impossible that no banana has done since they were invented, and they flew to the coast, and then ended up making their way up a spawning stream in spite of their swimming disadvantages - it would undoubtedly have no meaningful effect on wild populations.

Way to gloss over the inevitability of mutant bananas ravaging our streams and rivers.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 7:03 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

Maybe that's what minions are. It all makes sense now...
posted by Slinga at 7:04 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

Mostly positive on this for many reasons but I continue to be annoyed by the lack of labeling requirements. This is clearly an issue that a lot of people care about but the technocrats have decided they care for silly reasons, so they shouldn't be allowed to show a preference via their purchasing decisions.

AquaBounty's first application to the FDA was twenty years ago. I'm just trying to figure out how any small startup could keep the lights on and pay the legal bills during a twenty year review process, much less have the legal and political muscle to change FDA regulations.

Having watched many small biotech companies last forever in regulatory (or R&D) limbo, it's not as surprising as you think. I think Geron still doesn't have a product after 25+ years.

Basically after the initial work, at any given time you might think that approval is in 1-5 years. When you need to raise money new investors are essentially getting the work that's already been done at discount, if they hop on board and help them go the last mile. That in hindsight most of those investors chose poorly doesn't change that it was a reasonable gamble at the time.
posted by mark k at 7:14 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

If they labeled it, no one would buy it. The discount is so minor that no one would risk saving a buck or two.

Apparently one of the reasons they took so long was that Don Young (R-AK) was against it because of the damage it may do to their salmon industry.
posted by Slinga at 7:18 PM on November 19, 2015

If they labeled it, no one would buy it.

I would love for you to expound on why that's a bad thing.
posted by one_bean at 7:22 PM on November 19, 2015

If you are satisfied that choice A is better for the environment than choice B with no downside, you could argue that it's morally acceptable or even required to force the choice. (You can also argue that it's not. I won't argue that point here. But for example if I were offered the chance to ban recreational use of jetskis, I would do it in a heartbeat and I'm sure all but the most die-hard libertarians can think of issues they feel similarly about.)

In my opinion the real issues are who decides exactly which cases justify this sort of enlightened paternalism (because obviously it does not fly in all cases, e.g. jetskis, coal-rolling) and on what grounds they make that decision.
posted by No-sword at 7:33 PM on November 19, 2015

I don't think it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that's why they fight labeling so hard. Because no one would ever buy it. Same with GMOs.
posted by Slinga at 7:59 PM on November 19, 2015

The cane toad was introduced here in Australia to predate on the cane beetle. 100 toads in 1930 have turned into 200 million today, and were relatively unsuccessful in dealing with the beetle while poisoning numerous predator species who aren't adapted to the toxin.

I like the idea. I'm also glad it's going slowly, because I'd hope we've learned something about the process by now.
posted by solarion at 8:15 PM on November 19, 2015

There are many differences between crossbreeding, random genetic mutation, and genetic modification through recombinant DNA techniques, and only gullible scientifically illiterate laypersons would be convinced by one source of arguments claiming that the differences between these things is irrelevant to decisions about whether GMOs are safe for any Earthly ecosystem.

Because I'm tired and a layperson myself, I'll quote another post on the issue

There is a small but important difference between crossbreeding and GM. In general, crossbreeding does not affects the genes, just the allels (the actual expression of a gene). Crossbreeding shuffles allel combinations, and you then can select from the filial generation the ones most close to your breeding goal and continue. But you introduce no new genes into the living. Even crossbreeding between species does not affect genes too much, as two releated species have more than 99% of all genes in common (e.g. the chimpanzee and the human have 99,7% of all genes in common).

GM introduces genes which come from completely different strains of life. Mainly, one introduces genes from bacteria into plants or animals or vice versa. The most common technique to achieve this are gene vectors. A retro virus acts as a DNA shuttle. It gets the bits of DNA which should be introduced into the host, and then the host's cells are infected with this retro virus. It unloads its DNA freight into the genome of the host by introducing all its own viral genome and the DNA bits into the host's DNA. Then it starts to replicate using the normal DNA replication mechanism of its host, which then produces identic copies of the retro virus including the additional DNA. The normal immune answer of the host kills off the virus, but hopefully the bits of DNA it introduced into the host cell's DNA stay there and get replicated when the cell multiplies, producing the same protein(es) it did in its original organism.

One could thus compare crossbreeding roughly as editing config files and fiddling around with parameters, and GM with actually patching the binaries.

Source

posted by mistersquid at 8:44 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

This is awesome. I want to engineer everything, including ourselves. It is the future.
posted by Justinian at 9:43 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

There is a small but important difference between crossbreeding and GM. In general, crossbreeding does not affects the genes, just the allels (the actual expression of a gene). Crossbreeding shuffles allel combinations, and you then can select from the filial generation the ones most close to your breeding goal and continue. But you introduce no new genes into the living. Even crossbreeding between species does not affect genes too much, as two releated species have more than 99% of all genes in common (e.g. the chimpanzee and the human have 99,7% of all genes in common).

I have only heard this pseudo-understanding of molecular genetics from creationists before. Its comes from having never gone farther than punnet squares in learning genetics and is typically used to argue that evolution couldn't possibly be true on a "macro" scale because a natural system without the ability to create new traits would only reduce in diversity over time. Crossbreeding in plants necessarily involves the diverse and hilariously kinky shit that plant chromosomes get up to during sex, they routinely duplicate and delete, recombinate, and really only peas assort in a system simple enough for Mendel to have described to begin with. (Incidentally, even peas actually don't - Mendel unfortunately fudged his data to make it fit the pattern he wanted) Viral vectors causing horizontal gene transfer are everywhere in nature and have been a routine part of what farming since before farming was a thing, the only thing new about them is the intentionality with which they're used. There are no heritable config files in molecular biology, there is only the binary that we've been playing with for thousands of years, the only difference is that now we can actually see what we're poking at.

Never mind that the author ignores liposome, plasmid vector, pronuclear injection, protoplast fusion, and ballistic DNA injection based methods and gets retrovirus-mediated gene transfer wrong; this is the only thing that could meaningfully be referred to as a retro virus while the payload of retrovirus-mediated gene transfer is RNA. The retroviruses are used as vectors to transfer RNA into the host cell, where it is reverse transcribed into DNA and then integrated into a host chromosome. The result of infecting a plant is a chimera, an organism consisting of tissues or parts of diverse genetic constitution. These chimeras are then inbred for generations until homozygous genetic offspring are born.
posted by Blasdelb at 12:42 AM on November 20, 2015 [5 favorites]

"Mostly positive on this for many reasons but I continue to be annoyed by the lack of labeling requirements. This is clearly an issue that a lot of people care about but the technocrats have decided they care for silly reasons, so they shouldn't be allowed to show a preference via their purchasing decisions."

People are perfectly free to buy salmon labelled as being not engineered, and several countries have schemes for certifying farmed salmon as being "organic" that the USDA may eventually adopt. However, at least when applied to recombinant technology, obligatory labeling is not at all a harmless stance in a counter-intuitive but incredibly important way.

A GMO label on these salmon wouldn't clearly label anything or communicate accurate information about the product, just like the factually true but actively misleading stickers that creationists in state governments were trying to put into science textbooks a while ago declaring evolution to be just a theory. They would communicate something fundamentally false, even if the sticker were literally accurate. By way of explanation, there is an old urban legend about two salmon canneries dueling in the marketplace with competing slogans. The story goes that one cannery, which packaged naturally white fleshed salmon, came out with a campaign declaring that its salmon was "Guaranteed Not To Turn Pink In The Can!," which while factually true falsely implied that their competitors sold old salmon. Then, not to be outdone, the other cannery, which packaged naturally pink fleshed salmon, comes out with its own slogan "Guaranteed: No Bleach Used in Processing!" Its a funny parable of capitalism gone shitty, but then so is the whole labeling debate and the fear we're being sold by the billion dollar organic and woo industries.

Labeling salmon as GMO-free is intellectually dishonest in all of the same ways that labeling salmon as guaranteed not to turn pink in the can or bleach free is, it takes advantage of the ignorance of the consumer while actively contributing to it. Of course we should no more make GMO-free labelled food or similar examples of companies using FUD tactics to sell products like paraben-free cosmetics, MSG-free chinese food, or Bisphenol A (BPA) free plastics illegal than bleach free salmon, but to mandate the bullshit would be a perversion of the regulatory philosophy that protects us from corporate greed. Consumers are already perfectly capable of choosing GMO free foods by buying organic or specifically labelled goods if they have sincerely held beliefs in whatever, but just because the companies pushing this can make a lot of money selling you fear doesn't mean our government should help them.
posted by Blasdelb at 1:05 AM on November 20, 2015 [6 favorites]

I foresee a controversial landmark court case that will decide the future of natural-birthed salmon as opposed to laboratory-created creatures: Roe vs. Made.
posted by Chitownfats at 1:38 AM on November 20, 2015 [4 favorites]

mistersquid, for a genuinely expert opinion I'd consult this absolutely beautiful paragon of regulatory bureaucracy, the Citizen Petition Denial Response from FDA CFSAN to the Center for Food Safety, specifically:

"Genetic engineering in plants is a production method that is comparable to other methods of genetic modification used in plant breeding. Plant breeding is the science of combining desirable genetic traits (such as unique economic, environmental, nutritional or aesthetic characteristics) into new plant varieties that can be used in agriculture. (57 FR 22984, Sieper, 2006). Genetic modification of plant varieties through DNA manipulation is not unique to genetic engineering and also occurs in traditional methods of plant breeding. The term "genetic modification," within the context of plants, is an umbrella term, encompassing a broad array of methods used to alter the genetic composition of a plant, including traditional hybridization and plant breeding as well as more modem rDNA techniques (National Research Council, 2004, p. ix, 17-18; National Research Council, 2014;). Genetic modification techniques in plants have been used for thousands of years in the domestication of crops (National Research Council , 2004; Doebley et al., 2006). For example, the generation of triticale, a crop used for both human food and animal food, was developed through the interspecies crossing of wheat and rye (National Research Council , 2004, p. 3). Accordingly, plant genetic engineering may be considered an extension at the molecular level of traditional methods that are used to achieve the same goals pursued with traditional plant breeding (FDA, 1992). Some crops have been genetically modified for a particular purpose through traditional plant breeding techniques and genetic engineering. For example, crops resistant to imidazolinone herbicide have been produced through both traditional plant breeding techniques (Tan, 2005) and genetic engineering "

posted by Blasdelb at 3:05 AM on November 20, 2015 [1 favorite]

It is ironic that a fight against what is ultimately about buying and selling accurately-described products in an honest, free market economy is so blatantly anti-American. But I suppose we're living in a bizarre era, when being anti-American is somehow patriotic in all walks of life, whether it is corrupting democratic processes with jumbo-sized checks, spying on citizens without warrants, or being scared of three-year old Muslim orphans, and so on.

At the end of the day, accurate food labeling is inconvenient to the market share — and financial interests — of major agricultural, food and biotechnology players. It is why there are so many well-funded lobbyists who fight all attempts to get accurate food labeling laws in place, to maintain an effective stranglehold on the marketplace.

It's not just profitable — and increasingly legal — to strong-arm the government into allowing entrenched corporations to sell garbage as food, it is ever more profitable for lobbyist firms to enrich their bought-out politicians at federal and state levels, as well as corrupted and fraudulent scientists of all stripes.

It's a system that keeps a few entrenched people at the top "well fed", so to speak: Year over year, total lobbying and PAC expenditures to fight accurate food labeling laws (in only four states!) have increased to hundreds of millions of dollars. Monsanto and DuPont recently cut multimillion-dollar checks just to fight accurate food labeling laws in one state alone. That money probably isn't going into R&D.

Science dictated by corporate lobbyists is junk science. Anti-labeling advocacy is junk science. Junk science may make some corrupt people richer, but the Stosselification of our field makes the rest of us honest scientists look like crooks, just like them. I worry for my profession, because there is clearly so much potential in genomics to improve our lives, and the millions of dollars that are spent to defeat democratic processes rightfully breeds mistrust in our work and holds all of us back.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:10 AM on November 20, 2015 [1 favorite]

"Look, I like science as much as the next guy, but isn't it possible that this is too much science? My layperson's intuition tells me this is probably too much science."

You will know too much science when you see it, this is what too much science looks like.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:41 AM on November 20, 2015 [6 favorites]

That is definitely too much Science and not enough Binding Protocol.

C-, but you may resubmit for regrading.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:25 AM on November 20, 2015

Hm. I'm amenable to the idea that rDNA techniques not essentially different than crossbreeding.

One of my main concerns is that our current understanding of genetics and the interrelation of organisms to each other and the environment is outstripped by our technical ability to create organisms that may catastrophically damage existing ecosystems.

I suppose my concern is not different in kind than worrying, for example, that our technical ability in chemistry and engineering has wrought what most scientists today to believe increasingly catastrophic changes to global climate.

But this is my main concern and, to my eyes, it looks like you're uncritically supportive of all kinds of genetic modifications to existing organisms. Given your extensive knowledge in the field, such uncritical support would to my mind be a serious lapse of sense. I'm probably projecting.

In any case, I do support responsible and thoughtful (and, yeah, cautious) genetic modifications of animals.

My sensibilities make me skeptical of the idea of engineering salmon to grow at twice their unmodified rate, but I'm open to the argument that doing so is necessary for preservation of biodiversity and the furthering of sustainable aquaculture, with all external risks carefully considered.

I'm pretty sure this move by the FDA is exactly not that, but I'm open to being surprised.
posted by mistersquid at 6:41 PM on November 20, 2015

It is ironic that a fight against what is ultimately about buying and selling accurately-described products in an honest, free market economy is so blatantly anti-American.

Actually I think you'll find, if you dig into food labeling a bit, that there's already a lot of constraints of what you imply are "free market" sort of disclosures and there's a number of supposedly accurate things you wouldn't be allowed to put on there lest they imply benefits that are not there or make no sense. For example,

N24. May a food that is normally low in or free of a nutrient bear a "Low" or "Free" claim if it has an appropriate disclaimer (e.g., fat free broccoli)?
Answer: No. Only foods that have been specially processed, altered, formulated, or reformulated so as to lower the amount of nutrient in the food, remove the nutrient from the food, or not include the nutrient in the food may bear such a claim (e.g., "low sodium potato chips"). Other foods may only make a statement that refers to all foods of that type (e.g., "corn oil, a sodium-free food" or "broccoli, a fat-free food"). 21 CFR 101.13(e)(1)-(2)

That aside, the GMO labeling that people want to do here - to promote their item as being unmodified (putting aside the question of what it really means to be unmodified after decades/centuries/millennia of selective breeding) in a GMO sense are doing so with a clear intention of leveraging a belief of a health benefit/detriment. Health claims are a whole other ball of wax and personally I think we could do with MORE stringent attention to specious bullshit assertions on food and supplements in particular.
posted by phearlez at 7:03 PM on November 20, 2015 [2 favorites]

That aside, the GMO labeling that people want to do here - to promote their item as being unmodified [ . . . ] in a GMO sense are doing so with a clear intention of leveraging a belief of a health benefit/detriment.

Well, people want to make a profit. So no competitors are going to work to cure that miscomprehension. But there are lots of other reasons posted here and elsewhere that people might want to pass on GMOs--unnatural; icky; worries about environmental contamination; don't want to support business models that patents life; different approaches to assessing to high-impact, low probability events, and so on. Some are emotional, some are rational.

Since I share basically none of those (and certainly none the tune of boycotting fresh tasty salmon if I can get it at $6.99 a pound!) I've been trying to figure out why the labeling bothers me.

I think it's that the argument against regulation is so often that "Sure, you say you want labor & environmental standards and you make these rational arguments in the public sphere, but your shopping shows you don't really care." Now comes a case when shopping would show that you care a whole lot, and you're told that would sure be a stupid way to decide what's on the market--better to leave it to regulators.

Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

--------
FWIW I actually don't think the public would be permanently unchanged on this--cheap enough and bulk suppliers use it for faster food, more advertising and you build up acceptance. But corporations like profits and technocrats are quite comfortable with top-down decisions.
posted by mark k at 9:22 PM on November 20, 2015

"But this is my main concern and, to my eyes, it looks like you're uncritically supportive of all kinds of genetic modifications to existing organisms. Given your extensive knowledge in the field, such uncritical support would to my mind be a serious lapse of sense. I'm probably projecting."

There is a difference between being uncritical and being unafraid. There have certainly been genetic engineering projects proposed that have not turned out to be good ideas, they've just been recognized by such in spite of 'activists' constantly crying wolf, and appropriately abandoned. For example, there were some poorly thought out plans for genetically engineered pine trees in the 90s.

The process of making paper requires removing lignin, the cell wall components that give trees their rigidity, from tree pulp in a very expensive and inherently environmentally destructive way. Much of the extracted lignin is then used for other things but the supply for resulting lignosulfonates way outstrips demand, and is mostly only an afterthought to the process. If we could artificially grow trees with meaningfully lower amounts of lignin then we could ameliorate or even avoid the whole environmentally destructive and expensive process. These trees would be more vulnerable to storms and a variety of diseases, but dead trees are excellent carbon sinks and the economic benefit would more than cover the losses in trees. On the surface it seems like a perfect project, just like these salmon, a good worth doing and a profit to be made that makes the whole thing happen.

The concern is that, if cultivated in the kind of huge plantations that we currently grow paper trees in, they would also spread massive quantities of pollen. In most any other other system this wouldn't really matter at all as the inherently weaker seeds that result from wild contamination would just be strongly selected against and then die out after a generation or two. However a generation or two of trees is a big deal and, while permanent damage would remain impossible and the gene would not be able to spread further, if used just wrong these kinds of strains could do serious harm to nearby forests that would only become a problem 5-20 years later and then last a good long time.

If the only people paying any attention to GMOs really were just the loud hacks with no meaningful credibility that everyone hears, this could have easily turned into something that would have done a lot of damage to the environment, but the scientific community has always been actively watching. The dream of recombinant trees with all sorts of beneficial traits is still very much alive, though only in the kinds of context where this couldn't be an issue (for example planting GMO eucalyptus in the American South) but still endangered by people who are uncritically hostile.

"My sensibilities make me skeptical of the idea of engineering salmon to grow at twice their unmodified rate, but I'm open to the argument that doing so is necessary for preservation of biodiversity and the furthering of sustainable aquaculture, with all external risks carefully considered.

I'm pretty sure this move by the FDA is exactly not that, but I'm open to being surprised."

Thankfully you don't need to rely on the kinds of vague sensibilities that are so easy to manipulate with fear for profit, our FDA is pretty amazingly transparent with its reasoning for basically everything it does, and you can read for yourself just how carefully they considered external risks for this project.
posted by Blasdelb at 8:09 AM on November 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

Thank you for the links to all that information and the explanation of the FDA's transparency.

Because I am scientific layperson, I won't be able to read and judge all the information you've linked to, but I trust that many experts, including yourself, will read such documents, form learned opinions from their readings, and communicate their opinions to laypersons to advance their own interests and the interests of the public good (as well as the interests of corporate stakeholders, etc.)

In this thread (dangerously MeTa, I apologize), the interaction between yourself and others is precisely this dynamic. You are an expert and we members of the scientific laity communicate, imperfectly, our concerns and opinions.

In the end, the game is not only about perfect information or time-proven tradition. It is about groups of humans moving forward by fits and starts, in the way we so often do, to cultivate and promote desirable outcomes, often in cases where "desirable" is not only poorly understood but also irrelevant to the knowledge and opinions that will prevail in the future.

You've done well not to sneer too hard at my ignorance, earlier only gesturing toward beliefs held by punnet square-constrained creationists (paraphrase) and in your most recent comment characterizing my opinions as "vague sensibilities". Let me disabuse you of the notion that my thought processes are vague, even where they enter into areas of known ignorance.

In areas where I am knowledgeable and communicating with non-experts (e.g. English language and computing), I try to communicate directly and forthrightly and I very much appreciate your efforts to open my mind to the complexities and nuance of genetic research in this thread.

For now, as before, I'll continue to balance my skepticism about corporate influence on the FDA with a cultivated open mind to primary research and expert opinions in genetic research.

I appreciate your taking pains to communicate with people like myself, Blasdelb, and your efforts are helping me to deepen my thinking on this subject. I like the idea of an "uncritically hostile" attitude and the concept of genetic modification technologies exiting on a continuum of techniques. (Sort of an aside, there is a marvelous book by Adrian MacKenzie called Transductions that touches on machine-organism hybrids and technologies that may be of passing interest to you. It's not about genetic researches at all.)

I promise to do what I (practically) can to educate myself about the government-supplied information regarding genetically-modified salmon. I can assure you I will continue to watch what people much more knowledgable about genetics than I am say about the matter, including you.
posted by mistersquid at 8:44 AM on November 21, 2015

Saying that GMOs are safe because they're not unhealthy is like saying the new scanners at airports are good for society because they don't give off meaningful levels of radiation. Engineers rarely get social systems.
posted by one_bean at 9:54 AM on November 21, 2015

I mean the eucalyptus example is being used as a good thing? As one that the "scientific community" is actively watching? Yeah, great, you think there's enough evidence that the genes won't spread and the trees won't spread (something the article you link to doesn't uncritically agree with). But there's absolutely no evidence that massive eucalyptus plantations are good for the environment in the South. There's absolutely no evidence that you'd wind up with the kind of land sparing scenario the company's slogan promises. Fundamentally, you think that environmental limits are a bad thing and GMOs should be used uncritically to get rid of those limits. There are plenty of scientists in the scientific community who disagree with you. Ignore them if you wish, but please don't claim to speak for them.
posted by one_bean at 10:11 AM on November 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

I'm confused about this topic.

At the end of the day, accurate food labeling is inconvenient to the market share — and financial interests — of major agricultural, food and biotechnology players. It is why there are so many well-funded lobbyists who fight all attempts to get accurate food labeling laws in place, to maintain an effective stranglehold on the marketplace.

It's not just profitable — and increasingly legal — to strong-arm the government into allowing entrenched corporations to sell garbage as food, it is ever more profitable for lobbyist firms to enrich their bought-out politicians at federal and state levels, as well as corrupted and fraudulent scientists of all stripes.


Whole Foods posted profit of $128 million, or 35 cents a share, for the quarter, up from $121 million, or 32 cents a share, a year earlier. Revenue rose 9.4% to $3.26 billion. The company expected a per-share profit of 31 cents to 33 cents and sales growth of 8.5% to 9.5%.Nov 5, 2014

Monsanto said its profit for the quarter ended Nov. 30 dropped to $243 million, or 50 cents a share, from $368 million, or 69 cents a share, a year earlier. Sales fell 8.7% to $2.87 billion. Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters had called for a per-share profit of 34 cents on revenue of $2.8 billion.Jan 7, 2015

Which evil capitalist is it you are railing against?
posted by Drinky Die at 3:09 PM on November 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

Whatta got?

-Brando
posted by clavdivs at 3:11 PM on November 21, 2015

"There are plenty of scientists in the scientific community who disagree with you. Ignore them if you wish, but please don't claim to speak for them."

No single person represents anything like the totality of the scientific community, but our professional organizations do. For a sense of the global scientific consensus on anything you should consult them:

The American Medical Association:

(1) Our AMA recognizes the continuing validity of the three major conclusions contained in the 1987 National Academy of Sciences white paper "Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment." [The three major conclusions are: (a)There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of rDNA techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms; (b) The risks associated with the introduction of rDNA-engineered organisms are the same in kind as those associated with the introduction of unmodified organisms and organisms modified by other methods; (c) Assessment of the risk of introducing rDNA-engineered organisms into the environment should be based on the nature of the organism and the environment into which it is introduced, not on the method by which it was produced.)

(2) That federal regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology should continue to be science-based and guided by the characteristics of the plant or animal, its intended use, and the environment into which it is to be introduced, not by the method used to produce it, in order to facilitate comprehensive, efficient regulatory review of new bioengineered crops and foods.

(3) Our AMA believes that as of June 2012, there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.

(4) Our AMA supports mandatory pre-market systematic safety assessments of bioengineered foods and encourages: (a) development and validation of additional techniques for the detection and/or assessment of unintended effects; (b) continued use of methods to detect substantive changes in nutrient or toxicant levels in bioengineered foods as part of a substantial equivalence evaluation; (c) development and use of alternative transformation technologies to avoid utilization of antibiotic resistance markers that code for clinically relevant antibiotics, where feasible; and (d) that priority should be given to basic research in food allergenicity to support the development of improved methods for identifying potential allergens. The FDA is urged to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods and update its regulatory policies accordingly.

(5) Our AMA supports continued research into the potential consequences to the environment of bioengineered crops including the: (a) assessment of the impacts of pest-protected crops on nontarget organisms compared to impacts of standard agricultural methods, through rigorous field evaluations; (b) assessment of gene flow and its potential consequences including key factors that regulate weed populations; rates at which pest resistance genes from the crop would be likely to spread among weed and wild populations; and the impact of novel resistance traits on weed abundance; (c) implementation of resistance management practices and continued monitoring of their effectiveness; (d) development of monitoring programs to assess ecological impacts of pest-protected crops that may not be apparent from the results of field tests; and (e) assessment of the agricultural impact of bioengineered foods, including the impact on farmers.

(6) Our AMA recognizes the many potential benefits offered by bioengineered crops and foods, does not support a moratorium on planting bioengineered crops, and encourages ongoing research developments in food biotechnology.

(7) Our AMA urges government, industry, consumer advocacy groups, and the scientific and medical communities to educate the public and improve the availability of unbiased information and research activities on bioengineered foods.(CSA Rep. 10, I-00; Modified: CSAPH Rep. 1, A-10; Modified: CASPH Rep. 2, A-12)

The American Association for the Advancement of Science:

There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow "unnatural" and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.

The EU, for example, has invested more than 300 million Euros in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report (1) states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.

Civilization rests on peoples ability to modify plants to make them more suitable as food, feed and fiber plants and all of these modifications are genetic. Twentieth century advances in the science of genetics opened the way to using chemicals and radiation as a means of accelerating genetic change to produce nutritionally enhanced foods like lycopene-rich Rio Star grapefruit and quite literally thousands of other improved fruit, vegetable and grain crop varieties. Modern molecular genetics and the invention of large-scale DNA sequencing methods have fueled rapid advances in our knowledge of how genes work and what they do, permitting the development of new methods that allow the very precise addition of useful traits to crops, such as the ability to resist an insect pest or a viral disease, much as immunizations protect people from disease.

In order to receive regulatory approval in the United States, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing. It must be shown to be the same as the parent crop from which it was derived and if a new protein trait has been added, the protein must be shown to be neither toxic nor allergenic. As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply. There are occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from digestive disorders, to sterility, tumors and premature death. Although such claims are often sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention, none have stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Indeed, a recent review of a dozen well-designed long-term animal feeding studies comparing GM and non-GM potatoes, soy, rice, corn and triticale found that the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent (2). It is the long-standing policy of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that special labeling of a food is required if the absence of the information provided poses a special health or environmental risk. The FDA does not require labeling of a food based on the specific genetic modification procedure used in the development of its input crops. Legally mandating such a label can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers.

National Academies of Science

”Genetic engineering is one of the newer technologies available to produce desired traits in plants and animals used for food, but it poses no health risks that cannot also arise from conventional breeding and other methods used to create new foods.” (Expert Consensus Report: Safety of Genetically Modified Foods, 2004) “An analysis of the U.S. experience with genetically engineered crops shows that they offer substantial net environmental and economic benefits compared to conventional crops. Generally, GE crops have had fewer adverse effects on the environment than non-GE crops produced conventionally.” (Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States, 2010)

The Royal Society:

”A previous Royal Society report (2002) and the Government’s GM Science Review (2003/2004) assessed the possibilities of health impacts from GM crops and found no evidence of harm. Since then no significant new evidence has appeared. There is therefore no reason to suspect that the process of genetic modification of crops should per se present new allergic or toxic reactions.” (Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture, 2009)

Googleing around will find you more, but just like with climate change and the value of vaccines, there is a clear scientific consensus.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:43 PM on November 21, 2015

Again, Blasdelb, the majority of your links focus on the human health aspects, which continue to be a complete straw man for what I'm saying. Your claim that there is a consensus on land sparing vs. land sharing on the level of climate change acceptance is nonsense, with most of the debate having taken place in the six years since the reports you link. Do any of those specifically address the environmental effects of salmon farming? Or non-native eucalyptus plantations?
posted by one_bean at 6:12 PM on November 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

The benefits and risks of any particular GM crop depend on the interactions of its ecological functions and natural history with the agroecosystem and ecosystems within which it is embedded. These evolutionary and ecological factors must be considered when assessing GM crops. We argue that the assessment of GM crops should be broadened to include alternative agricultural practices, ecosystem management, and agricultural policy. Such an assessment would be facilitated by a clearer understanding of the indirect costs of agriculture and the ecological services that support it. The benefits of GM crops should be compared to those of other means of agricultural intensification such as organic farming, integrated pest management, and agricultural policy reform. A gradual and cautious approach to the use of GM crops that relies on a truly comprehensive risk assessment could allow people to reap substantial benefits from GM crops while mitigating their serious risks.

Peterson, G., S. Cunningham, L. Deutsch, J. Erickson, A. Quinlan, E. Raez-Luna, R. Tinch, M. Troell, P. Woodbury, and S. Zens. 2000. The Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Conservation Ecology 4:13.

The question of how to meet rising food demand at the least cost to biodiversity requires the evaluation of two contrasting alternatives: land sharing, which integrates both objectives on the same land; and land sparing, in which high-yield farming is combined with protecting natural habitats from conversion to agriculture. To test these alternatives, we compared crop yields and densities of bird and tree species across gradients of agricultural intensity in southwest Ghana and northern India. More species were negatively affected by agriculture than benefited from it, particularly among species with small global ranges. For both taxa in both countries, land sparing is a more promising strategy for minimizing negative impacts of food production, at both current and anticipated future levels of production.

Phalan, B., M. Onial, A. Balmford, and R.E. Green. 2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333:1289-1291.

The growing demand for food poses major challenges to humankind. We have to safeguard both biodiversity and arable land for future agricultural food production, and we need to protect genetic diversity to safeguard ecosystem resilience. We must produce more food with less input, while deploying every effort to minimize risk. Agricultural sustainability is no longer optional but mandatory. There is still an on-going debate among researchers and in the media on the best strategy to keep pace with global population growth and increasing food demand. One strategy favors the use of genetically modified (GM) crops, while another strategy focuses on agricultural biodiversity. Here, we discuss two obstacles to sustainable agriculture solutions. The first obstacle is the claim that genetically modified crops are necessary if we are to secure food production within the next decades. This claim has no scientific support, but is rather a reflection of corporate interests. The second obstacle is the resultant shortage of research funds for agrobiodiversity solutions in comparison with funding for research in genetic modification of crops. Favoring biodiversity does not exclude any future biotechnological contributions, but favoring biotechnology threatens future biodiversity resources. An objective review of current knowledge places GM crops far down the list of potential solutions in the coming decades. We conclude that much of the research funding currently available for the development of GM crops would be much better spent in other research areas of plant science, e.g., nutrition, policy research, governance, and solutions close to local market conditions if the goal is to provide sufficient food for the world’s growing population in a sustainable way.

Jacobsen, S., M. Sørensen, S.M. Pederson, and J. Weiner. 2013. Feeding the world: genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33:651-662.

The present debate on how to increase global food production in a sustainable way has focused on arguments over the pros and cons of genetically modified (GM) crops. Scientists in both public and private sectors clearly regard GM technology as a major new set of tools, whereas industry sees it as an opportunity for increased profits. However, it remains questionable whether GM crops can contribute to agricultural growth, agricultural development, and agricultural sustainability. This review paper examines and discusses the role of GM crops in agricultural growth, agricultural development, and agricultural sustainability. Although the contribution of GM crops to agriculture productivity is obvious in certain regions, their contributions to agricultural development and sustainability remain uncertain.

Azadi, H., M. Ghanian, O.M. Ghoochani, P. Rafiaani, C.N.T. Taning, R.Y. Hajivand, and T. Dogot. 2015. Genetically Modified Crops: Towards Agricultural Growth, Agricultural Development, or Agricultural Sustainability? Food Reviews International 31:195-221.

Googling around will find you more.
posted by one_bean at 6:28 PM on November 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

No single person represents anything like the totality of the scientific community, but our professional organizations do. For a sense of the global scientific consensus on anything you should consult them:

I am astonished that as a scientist you would employ this kind of logic. It is profoundly unscientific. And pragmatically, it teaches non-STEM people the wrong kind of attitude towards science.
posted by polymodus at 3:12 AM on November 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

Eucalyptus trees grow very fast, but they require massive amounts of water to do so.
posted by phoque at 4:18 AM on November 22, 2015

It is profoundly unscientific.

It is unscientific, but it is an attitude that has historical precedent.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:28 PM on November 22, 2015