Post User Polls

Would you eat genetically modified salmon?

The Food and Drug Administration is considering approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption. The highly anticipated decision has stirred controversy as it raises concerns about health and environmental risks.

By Jon DeNunzio  |  September 6, 2010; 5:27 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Will kids count calories at school? | Next: Will you read Terry McMillan's new novel?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



FDA, it's like this. You approve this, I stop eating ALL salmon. End of story. You eat it.

Posted by: trippin | September 6, 2010 7:16 PM

What Trippin said.

Posted by: nicekid | September 6, 2010 7:36 PM

Same.
It's stupid & greedy. They'll get out and would compete with real salmon. As other GM species have done.

Posted by: watt | September 6, 2010 7:58 PM

The real question is:
How will we know?
Only if the salmon is labeled.
Who will see to that?
I'm with Trippin.
You eat it.
I don't trust it.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | September 6, 2010 8:15 PM

I genetically engineer mice on a weekly basis. It depends completely on what the gene in question is, how well the engineered salmon is isolated from the wild population, what gene delivery method is used, etc. This question is way too generic -- if they pump salmon with viral vectors (no way this would happen), the answer would be no. If the risk of breeding with wild salmon is even slight, and the gene would survive in the wild, answer should be no. But if the population is isolated and the gene helps human health - by, e.g., improving omega 3 concentrations etc. - then I am all for it.

Posted by: speron1 | September 6, 2010 9:05 PM

Let Congress eat it first. Let CEO's and their families eat it first. Let the 1% top earners eat it first.

The "little people" are tired of being your victims. You eat it or better yet, stuff it up your a s s.

Posted by: veerle1 | September 6, 2010 9:25 PM

Since they won't be able to keep it out of the wild, they shouldn't do it an contaminate all the salmon.

Why are they trying to improve on God's work? Greedy basturds.

Posted by: YUTZ | September 6, 2010 10:27 PM

Don't we eat already too much junk in the United States???

Posted by: myself4 | September 6, 2010 10:36 PM

Too bad Americans don't have the same fears with climate warming - it's just too illusive unlike partaking of something that is so sensorily direct that goes into one's body. The invisible oxygen and the slight few degree temperature differences are beyond the human faculty to raise similar alarms.

Posted by: TabLUnoLCSWfromUtah | September 6, 2010 11:07 PM

Another vote for Trippin, sort of. Being a West Coast resident, I can at least try to find some 'real' salmon .. at least until the genetically engineered ones escape and contaminate all of the salmon.
What a truly terrible, terrible decision!

Posted by: calbooster | September 6, 2010 11:12 PM

The whole point of the engineering is to increase profit margins. The engineered salmon grow twice as fast.

So there's no "improvement" except to corporate profits in an industry that already profitably and successfully farms salmon, judging by how much the price of salmon has fallen since farming began.

Besides, in really fast-growing produce and meats, the flesh doesn't taste as good as the slow-growing, heritage breeds. The fast-growing stuff is the flabby, tasteless and cheap stuff I go out of my way (and pay more) to avoid by shopping in organic and speciality foodx stores.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 7, 2010 3:38 AM

No. I already pay extra to avoid farmed salmon and to get the nutritiously superior wild stuff.

Now I have to hope its not genetically modified? The FDA needs to grow a pair and hold the line for once. Ever since "imitation" was removed from labeling in the 70's, its become harder and harder to figure out what you are eating. Congress doesn't care, because this just pads the profits of the Cargills and Monsantos of the world.

If it becomes impossible to tell if I am eating "real" salmon or not, I will simply just not buy it.

Not to mention the potentially disastrous effects of a modified organism infiltrating the ecosystem. I am sure these are supposed to stay in "farms", but we know how well these corporations protect the environment.

Posted by: BurtReynolds | September 7, 2010 5:38 AM

In fact, we won't know when it's introduced. We probably won't be told when the FDA gives approval, so I'm not eating salmon as of right now. It's just a symbolic gesture, really, because no doubt I am already eating genetically modified food that I don't know about. But all that's left to us is gestures because we are essentially powerless.

Posted by: nicekid | September 7, 2010 6:15 AM

Unless you make absolutely sure your salmon isn't genetically modified, that's what it will be.

In which case, you'll be a guinea pig for the food industry. Don't you like being a guinea pig for the food industry?

Posted by: bigbrother1 | September 7, 2010 7:36 AM

I've been eating organic food, raised by local farmers. Today, I am healthier than people 10 years younger than me.

It's not nice to mess with Mother Nature. Especially when FDA is overseeing the process.

Posted by: asmith1 | September 7, 2010 8:22 AM

We still did not understand what do genetically modified foods effect humans in a long term, but will these genetically modified food transform the people to mutants?! Genetically modified foods sound like science-fiction artificial food and it could alter the body and mind. We are not surprised that fifty years from now, super human mutants will replace our dying homo sapiens after we consume huge genetically modified foods through many years. CEOs and top-secret military scientists knew these unpredictable flaws about genetically modified food, but they are more interesting to make huge profits by selling low-cost genetically modified foods. Their future will be our fate.

Posted by: oneeye_jeff | September 7, 2010 8:26 AM

does the consumer get to choose his/her preferred shade of pink dye they want in their salmon

Posted by: mycomment | September 7, 2010 9:12 AM

Are you guys saying that there will be no law requiring that the modified fish be identified? That is insane!! Absolutely insane! Keep those freak fish in an isolated pond somewhere and put a label on it as big as the cross Jesus died on. I bet my retirement this poison isn't being sold to the top 1% earners in this country. This is sick!

Posted by: forgetthis | September 7, 2010 9:13 AM

These silly people ~ the salmon species farmed in the Atlantic are Pacific species. The salmon species farmed in the Pacific are Atlantic species.

Pretty clearly the Atlantic salmon type just developed will be farmed in Northern China on the Pacific. It's exceedingly difficult to swim past the Americas at the latitudes salmon live in.

Now, regarding salmon species anyway, we know they have Political Species ~ that is, each group spawned in a particular stream actually return to that stream when they themselves spawn.

That's because subtle GENETIC CHANGES have been imprinted on each and every one of their cells to make sure they can get back to that stream.

So, every single Pacific salmon you eat today, if it's not farmed, is still genetically modified through the salmon's own processes.

If you ain't died yet, you ain't gonna' die from manmade genetic modification to salmon.

They are wonderful fish. They deserve to be eaten with relish, in haste!

You people are making me hungry. Must be my polar bear genes or something eh!

Posted by: muawiyah | September 7, 2010 9:33 AM

Posted by: BurtReynolds" No. I already pay extra to avoid farmed salmon and to get the nutritiously superior wild stuff."
------------------------------------------
Oh yes, more murcury and less Omega-3s, so much more nutricious.

Personally I don't eat fish at all. our waters are too full of polutants so matter how its raised. I get more from my vitamins, without the risk of murcury, PCBs or paracites.

Posted by: schnauzer21 | September 7, 2010 9:57 AM

Bad stupid shortsighted...follow the money...etc etc. Humans can be so amazingly foolish.

Posted by: greeenmtns | September 7, 2010 10:11 AM

When (or HOW?) are we going to make it clear to the government that our food is important to us, and that the FDA and USDA need to be overhaulled and all the people that run it need to be fired, or jailed.

NO GMO SALMON.

Posted by: Tilted360 | September 7, 2010 10:32 AM

Based on knowledge I have with regards to much of the currently in place salmon 'farming' industry, I only eat salmon clearly identified as wild and sold by national...rather than international...dealers. Too many salmon farms provide degraded feed, utilize hormones, provide unhealthy conditions for the fish and 'create' the coloring in the fish apart from natural processes. Many of the farmed salmon I see in stores is lower quality, fatty and unappetizing. Now, the FDA will likely contribute to the further market deterioration of this otherwise fine fish.

Posted by: DrLou1 | September 7, 2010 11:13 AM

Next up genetically modified tarter sauce for your fish sticks.

Posted by: whocares666 | September 7, 2010 11:17 AM

No, No and NO. The lack of transparency in the test results says it all: something's being hidden. It's a certainty that these modified salmon will eventually get loose into the natural environment and start breeding with other salmon, and maybe that's when we'll discover the downside of this "free lunch". Or perhaps it'll be when we find out that the enhanced growth rates will put stuff into the meat that wasn't anticipated. I wouldn't touch this stuff. As a resident of the Pacific Northwest, I'll only eat salmon labeled wild and sourced from Alaska and British Columbia. Farmed salmon can't hold a candle to the wild varieties in terms of taste, texture and nutritional value. If you want to take on the virtual impossibility of feeding the world's exponentially increasing population, then work on slowing global desertification and loss of arable land.

Posted by: Catch1 | September 7, 2010 11:34 AM

Don't worry!
We will soon have genetically altered Humans and then the salmon will be the least of your worries!
Be Happy Mon!

Posted by: rexreddy | September 7, 2010 12:02 PM

Next we will be eating genetically modified Soylent Green.

Posted by: BirdMan4 | September 7, 2010 1:16 PM

No GE salmon for us. It has just been shown that synthetic gene sequences were found in the organs of the offspring of GE-fed goats. Previously it has been shown that genes of GMO feed was present in the intestinal tracts of fish.

It is insane to keep and bring more GE foods on the market. Until it is all done and over with (HOPE!), strict GMO labeling needs to be required by law, and all people should be informed about the ill effects of GE foods on both the environment and health.

Posted by: OnestaOrganics | September 7, 2010 2:46 PM

Hellooo,
Asian carp...half billion egg recall...recall this,recall that.
There is not a way to recall genetic pollution.
Besides who really wants to eat pharmed fish with their diet of genetically engineered corn,bone,blood and chicken by product meal?
Just sick!

Posted by: EricaGray | September 7, 2010 3:20 PM

It's a scientifically verifiable that the proteins in Genetically-Modified crops and animals are structured differently than in natural animals and crops. There is the possiblity that these proteins, when processed by our bodies, don't convert into healthy proteins or amino acids we can use. They may in fact be converted into Prions and toxic substances, or at the very least into byproducts that have no or less nutritional value than real foods give us. It isn't even a matter of waiting for more research. We need to halt the production of all GM crops immediately.

I agree with all of you. Let the rich, bloated CEOs eat these "products". I would rather have real Salmon. We are not experimental subjects for you to use. We are human beings, and these products are garbage to anyone with a little scientific knowledge.

Posted by: Nemo0000 | September 7, 2010 5:07 PM

Unless we plan to take on lobbyists for the Cargills, Monsantos, ADM and the like, genetically modified salmon will be on it's way to a store near you. Our government, irregardless of Democrat or Republican, bow down to lobbyist money. Eat at your own risk. Don't expect to see a label on this fish; if there's a label, they know people won't buy it. Have you checked your tomatoes or corn lately? Most are GMO. Ever seen a label? Not likely. Let Congress and the CEOs eat this fish first. Expect new strains of cancer in about 30 years or so, when our children have been eating GMO foods with no knowledge they've been had.

Posted by: cricket35 | September 7, 2010 7:54 PM

GM foods, or "Frankenfoods" as the Europeans call them, are dangerous unnatural, man-made products. Simply put, humans cannot properly digest and assimilate these new organisms which our bodies don't recognize as food.

Engineering plants and animals intended for human consumption is a very slippery slope for humankind. We will definitely pay with our health in this generation and future ones.

If salmon are genetically modified, I will give up salmon for the rest of my life...period.

Posted by: kirk123 | September 8, 2010 12:12 AM

Absolutely NOT. In fact, I believe we should ban all research and implementation of GM organisms. This is bad on so many levels;
1. Once you start it, you cannot control it, as we have seen with corn. GMO corn has cross bred in the wild with non GMO corn and modified it, so there is virtually no corn now on the commercial market that is totally non GMO.
2. GMO food can be patented. Guess who will hold the patents? Right, the biggest, nastiest, greediest agribusinesses in the world, effectively gaining a stranglehold on our food supply and pricing. DuPont and Monsanto are living proof of this and doing it right now - but most of you never heard of it. And, when their GMO corn adulterates your non GMO corn in the fields when the wind blows, Monsanto and DuPont will sue you for using their patent without paying for it. Bizarre.
3. Even if there were strict safeguards - and there won't be, these huge companies will cheat. All they care about is the bottom line. You can bet their CEO won't be eating this crap.

Notice how 70%+ of the respondents to this poll do not want to eat this garbage. But, I will bet anything the FDA will still approve it. After all, capitalism rules the US.

Money uber alles!

Posted by: totallyaware | September 8, 2010 3:43 PM

Genetically modified food are as safe or safer than conventional or organic food. This has been realized after thousands of critical studies and analyses over the last 20 years. The World Health Organization and Academies of Science and Medicine in at least 6 major countries indicate so. GM salmon have undergone studies of the same kind of risk analyses and they have proven safe. They are especially suited to farming in contained systems and should they escape, they are sexed (female) and sterile. They grow twice as fast and will help supply safe food to a world population which grows by leaps and bounds and which will be 9 billion plus in 2050. We are eating now some 30,000 food products that contain transgenic ingredientes and the record is that in 20 years there has not been a single case of harm to human health anywhere in the world. I do not see any difference with GM salmon- It is about time to cut the gossip and attend to facts.
Galegro

Posted by: galegro | September 11, 2010 9:10 PM

I am constantly amazed at the people that want the newest cell phone, computer and car, they want their health care to be top of the line...but as a farmer I am supposed to go back to the way my grandfather farmed and still guarantee you 100% safe food regardless of how you handle it or prepare it..come on people you have been eating GMO corn and beans and more for more than a decade and i have never seen any report of anyone getting sick from it...If God gave man the ability to build better cars and cell phones, why don't you believe he gave food researchers similar skills??

Posted by: familyfarmer2 | September 13, 2010 10:15 AM

Before voting, consider the value of being able to farm raise salmon almost anywhere. No need for environmentally damaging shipping. Great way to provide fresh, quality food for the developing world and people in need of Omega 3s. If you are in the middle of this country, after this is approved, you can have fresh, farm raised salmon that was grown locally. If we're to feed the world population and provide nutritious food, there's no other realistic option. I vote yes.

Posted by: dsheon1 | September 13, 2010 12:36 PM

Yes, I would eat GM salmon. Some of the FUD posted here is quite misinformed. One post states that there are examples of GMO's escaping and out-competing wild relatives. Can you provide a specific example? I know of no such example. It should be remembered that these modifications are done with a specific human-centric aim in mind which generally imposes a selection >disadvantage

Posted by: JimSmith3 | September 13, 2010 12:43 PM

Omega 3s may be found in natural sources such as in grass fed beef, free range chicken and eggs, natural fish, hemp seed, flaxseed, walnuts, and almonds.

No need for frankenfish to supplement omega 3 fatty acids!

Farm raised salmon = local food?? Please!

Local foods should mean seasonal native foods and species.

To be top of the line where food consumption is concerned is to lean towards organically produced foods. This is probably the best way to survive the high-tech lifestyle!

Family organic farms may have a chance to survive if they can provide this necessity with integrity for their local community.

I vote NO to frankenfish!

Posted by: Roneld | September 14, 2010 5:37 AM

Sorry, I love my cattle too much to raise them organically, I believe in deworming and treating a sick animal...I wonder how many "organic" consumer treat their dogs for fleas and heartworm, but i am not supposed to deworm my cows so they can be organic...no thanks... Show me where GMO produced food has hurt one person...

Posted by: familyfarmer2 | September 14, 2010 3:38 PM

The question misses one of the biggest issues - we aren't allowed to know if our food is genetically modified. If the Post were to ask the question "do you think food that has been genetically modified should be labled accordingly?", there would be 90%+ agreement. Another example of how our opinions are censored and made meaningless.

Posted by: nerosfiddle | September 15, 2010 1:20 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company