|
|
Posts: 123
| A bit off topic as it pertains to trout, but I just saw a news story about how they're altering trout so they grow twice as fast as they normally would. The purpose of doing this is so that the fish are bigger faster and it won't take as long to get them into the grocery store. Apparently humans eating the altered fish isn't supposed to be an issue, but how can it not be? I know many scientists believe mad cow disease began with feeding cows meal that was made from other cows, and some places add growth hormores to the cows in this same manner. What are your thoughts on this? I thought it would be an interesting topic, but the moderators can feel free to throw it in the recycle bin if they'd like.
Anyway, good fishing. |
|
| |
|
| maybe they should do that to muskies so the world record debate can finally be laid to rest. VERY NICE! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Giving cows hormones to grow larger or more tasty or whatever isn't genetically altering the cows, it is triggering hormones and other chemicals to stimulate growth or put on more fat or produce more meat. Without seeing the story my guess would be that the genetic alteration of the fish would happen during the egg stage like it does for producing triploid as opposed to diploid trout. So the fish are genetically altered but grow normally and aren't injected with any chemicals or foreign substances which could potentially be harmful if consumed by humans or other animals. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 227
Location: Maple Grove | I heard a bit on MPR. I'm skeptical. Responsible aquaculture or not what happens when some of these genetically modified fish get into the wild? Wasn't it flooding of catfish farm ponds that initially spread the silver and big head carp? What kind of ecological impacts would there be? I don't know enough about this yet but that issue concerns me.
Joe Olstadt |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| The FDA is involved and hasn't green-lighted it yet, and apparently there are differences between the altered fish and regular fish regarding how you can get sick from them. It looks like they won't hit the shelves for a couple years anyway. The Salmon fishing industry may take a big hit if this is ok'd by the FDA. Here is a link to the story on Yahoo. Hope it works.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?cl=22015302 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 227
Location: Maple Grove | Just found this in an article from the NY Times...
The F.D.A. must also decide on the environmental risks from the salmon. Some experts have speculated that fast-growing fish could out-compete wild fish for food or mates.
Mr. Stotish said the salmon would be grown only in inland tanks or other contained facilities, not in ocean pens where they might escape into the wild. And the fish would all be female and sterile, making it impossible for them to mate.
Joe Olstadt |
|
| |
|
Posts: 132
Location: Missouri | WI_guy_turnedMudDuck - 9/21/2010 9:43 PM
I heard a bit on MPR. I'm skeptical. Responsible aquaculture or not what happens when some of these genetically modified fish get into the wild? Wasn't it flooding of catfish farm ponds that initially spread the silver and big head carp? What kind of ecological impacts would there be? I don't know enough about this yet but that issue concerns me.
Joe Olstadt
The fish would all be sterile. So they could compete with the native fish for awhile but then they would die without ever reproducing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | Isn't this what brought us the "instant POOF" chicken we find so "tastelessly" satisfying? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | In watching the link posted I don't really agree that these fish will impact wild fish. If they are being raised strictly for human consumption then I fail to see how they will ever be a burden on wild salmon population. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| I suppose if grocery stores started buying these fish instead of getting them from fishermen there could be an issue. My concern is that I think people already eat too much processed food and get enough growth hormone from other meat sources. I don't think we need it from fish as well. You can't tell me there will be absolutely no negative effects. Where will it end? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Lens Creep - 9/22/2010 6:12 PM
I suppose if grocery stores started buying these fish instead of getting them from fishermen there could be an issue. My concern is that I think people already eat too much processed food and get enough growth hormone from other meat sources. I don't think we need it from fish as well. You can't tell me there will be absolutely no negative effects. Where will it end?
You are correct I cannot say for certain there would be no negative effects. There very well could be. I don't know enough about the process to genetically alter them to say one way or another. I don't often buy seafood from a grocery store so I'm not overly concerned.
Now my question is how would grocery stores buying these fish instead of getting them fisherman harm the wild salmon population? Wouldn't this reduce demand on the wild stock which, in turn, would increase population numbers due to reduced harvest? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4053
Location: Land of the Musky | Much or what you eat in the USA is GMO or contains ingredients from GMOs. I know, I work for one of the largest contributors of it. I also work on projects where I suggest to insert specific gene sequences so "bugs" produce small amounts of desirable chemicals to do various things. Kind of scary what the biotech geeks can do. I think it was a BigBoy tomato gene that made those fish grow so fast. I want a GMO deer! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| What I was trying to get across was that it WOULDN'T harm the Salmon populations, but rather it would be detrimental to the Salmon FISHERMEN. Salmon fishermen would be affected financially by stores purchasing the altered fish instead of getting it directly from the fishermen. In the long run that could lead to increased populations of Salmon and stunted fish due to a reduced amount of available forage. Hard to say at this point though. I do find it interesting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Salmon fisheries were just fine before commercial fishing came along. Nature has a way to keep populations in check, always has.
Quite frankly, our wild fish populations are on a downward spiral under ever increasing demand.
Aquaculture is growing very fast in many developing countries. It's more efficient, less costly and more reliable than actually fishing for food.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
Location: Germantown, WI | There is almost no commercially viable fishery for wild Atlantic Salmon anymore on this side of the Atlantic. Wild stocks of Atlantic Salmon have decreased precipitously in the North Atlantic over a number of decades. If you are buying Atlantic Salmon at restaurant or at a store you can bet that it is farm raised.
The problem is that farm raised fish are raised in net pens in the ocean. They regularly escape the nets. Seals and sharks will cut holes in the nets. These incidental escapees are a concern to fisheries managers and those interested in preserving the few remaining stocks of wild Atlantics Salmon.
Farm raised salmon don't have the hardy genetics of wild salmon. They are basically mutts. When farm raised escapees attempt to breed with wild Salmon their progeny will be less adapted to the specific conditions found in the native Salmon rivers. I'm no biologist, but the effects of this are similar to the negative effects of stocking mulitple non-native musky strains on top of wild native musky populations. In fact the effects are even worse since the non-native Salmon are farm raised mutts that are not adapted to thriving in the wild let alone adapted to a specific river.
The federal government has been trying to reintroduce and rebuild populations of Atlantic Salmon in the Northeast for decades with little success to show for it. Many of the original wild stocks are probably gone forever and can never be recovered. Restocking cold water fish after the habitat has been altered and wild strains are eliminated is a difficult process, especially for migratory fish like Salmon.
I don't know what the FDA will decide. It may be safe and it is undoubtedly cheaper to raise Salmon in pens than to catch them in the wild (even if there were enough to catch). The question to me is whether it is worth the risk. I think nobody knows the potential risk to wild Salmon stocks if these genetically altered fish are allowed. Perhaps the risk is no greater than what is already happening with farm raised Salmon. I believe that it is sad what we have done to wild Salmon stocks in the lower 48 states of the US. No amount of hatchery stocking will reverse the damage done. I don't even fish for Salmon. I suspect that at the end of the day the decision will be made on basis of dollars and cents. Unfortunately some things in this world, such as wild Atlantic Salmon, are priceless. |
|
| |
Genetically altered fish.