
Genetically Engineered Salmon Approved for Consumption - Amorymeltzer
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/business/genetically-engineered-salmon-approved-for-consumption.html
======
Zikes
I don't know what I'm supposed to be scared of here. The concept of
genetically engineered food doesn't put me off in the least, and the risk of
these salmon escaping to the wild doesn't sound particularly dangerous to me.
I know there're lots of "unknown unknowns" when it comes to messing with the
natural order, but if for some reason they wind up thriving and supplanting
the existing salmon population then, what, we wind up with faster-growing wild
salmon? I'm sure the local fishermen won't mind.

~~~
AdmiralAsshat
My concern, oddly enough, would be copyright. Suppose the AquAdvantage Salmon
escapes into the wild, reproduced, and flourishes. Suppose that it flourishes
so well that it displaces the native population of salmon. Then, finally,
suppose that Aqua Bounty starts suing everyone and everything who attempts to
fish, catch, or farm these salmon, which are now the only thing left.

Such behavior would not be unheard of. See similar accusations against
Monsanto: [http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-
accidentally...](http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally-
in-farmers-fields.aspx)

~~~
x1798DE
First of all, it would be patent protections, not copyright. Huge difference.
Second, I highly doubt anyone would succeed with such a dubious legal
strategy. Catching fish in the wild with your patented genes in them is not a
violation of your patent rights - who is the violator? The fish?

~~~
gregcrv
"That case concerned Percy Schmeiser, who discovered that canola growing on
his farm in 1997 was Roundup resistant. He had initially discovered that some
canola growing by a roadside along one of his fields was Roundup resistant
when he was killing weeds along the road; this led him to spray a three- to
four‑acre section of his adjacent field and 60% of the canola survived.
Schmeiser harvested the seed from the surviving, Roundup resistant plants, and
planted the seed in 1998. Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for
the 1998 planting. Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from
seed that was pollinated with pollen blown into his field from neighboring
fields, he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he
wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in
1998."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases)

edit: TL;DR: Monsanto sues farmers, not seeds ;)

~~~
tptacek
Schmeiser was found to have deliberately created a Roundup-Ready crop --- he
weaned out the non-RR crops by spraying them with glyphosate, preserved the
patent-encumbered plants, and then cultivated them so that his fields were
ultimately 95+% encumbered, in such a way that he could spray them with
Roundup at any point he felt it would be profitable and only then pay the
licensing fees.

~~~
gnaritas
He shouldn't have to pay any fees at all, they were his plants from his normal
harvest; it's not his fault roundup ready seeds blew into his fields. Being
able to sue someone because your shit got out into the wild and happened to
benefit someone else is absurd.

~~~
tptacek
There's an intellectually coherent argument that Monsanto should not be able
to patent the system of glyphosate-resistence at all. I'm assuming that's
where you're coming from.

But I'm not engaging with that argument.

All I'm saying is: the thing that _does not happen_ , but that everyone on the
Internet seems to think happens _all the time_ , is Monsanto seeds blowing
onto some random field, and then Monsanto suing you when you sell the
resulting crop.

Everyone who has been sued by Monsanto has taken active steps to capitalize on
their "unauthorized" seeds.

~~~
gnaritas
> is Monsanto seeds blowing onto some random field, and then Monsanto suing
> you when you sell the resulting crop.

> Everyone who has been sued by Monsanto has taken active steps to capitalize
> on their "unauthorized" seeds.

Those are the same thing. That's what farmers do with crops, they capitalize
on them by selling them.

------
sushisource
IMO, the most important section from the article:

But some scientists have dismissed these concerns. William Muir, a professor
of animal sciences at Purdue University, said the fish posed no risk to the
environment. “In contrast, the current practice of using wild caught salmon as
a food source is not sustainable; our oceans are overfished,” he said in a
statement. “This development provides a safe and sustainable alternative.”

------
walterbell
From a brief by Food & Water Watch,
[http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/GE%20Sa...](http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/GE%20Salmon%20IB%20Jan%202013_0.pdf)

 _" AquaBounty has radically altered Atlantic salmon by inserting genetic
material from an eel-like fish and a chinook salmon, designed to make the fish
grow faster … an advisory panel of scientists … found major errors in
AquaBounty's science and the FDA's data analysis. Scientists were especially
critical of the small sample sizes used by AquaBounty — often only six or
seven GE fish were used in comparisons.

… The FDA has chosen to regulate GE animals as a veterinary drug rather than a
food, a decision that severely limits the scope of the agency's risk
assessment. For example, the agency has not conducted a single feeding study
to assess health risks associated with eating GE salmon … Before AquaBounty
researchers physically examined GE salmon for health problems, they
selectively killed off irregular fish, biasing the data set and severely
compromising the integrity of the data.

… Acknowledging the threat of escape, AquaBounty has attempted to render GE
salmon sterile, which would prevent sexual reproduction in the event that the
fish are released into the wild. However, the company's regulatory submissions
indicate that up to 5 percent of GE salmon will not be sterile … AquaBounty
appears to be the biotech industry's sacrificial lamb — securing regulatory
approval of a product that will likely be a market failure, but that will pave
the way for other bioengineered food animals."_

~~~
shostack
Is there any info on what labeling will be required on packaging and in
restaurants for this fish or anything that contains it?

I like to think I'm not overly paranoid about genetically modified things as
long as proper due-diligence is conducted, but these quotes here make me think
that is not the case, or is being intentionally subverted.

At the very least, I'd take reassurance in my ability to avoid eating this.

~~~
trhway
no labeling.

------
pazimzadeh
From Wikipedia:

> AquAdvantage salmon are triploid (having three chromosomes instead of just
> two) female Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), with a single copy of the opAFP-
> GHc2 construct, which codes for a promoter from ocean pout and a growth
> hormone from Chinook salmon., 8 These transferred genes allow the
> genetically modified fish to achieve accelerated growth rates, which confer
> longer survival and reproductive success.

At what point do we stop calling it salmon? Reminds me of the Ship of Theseus:

> The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had
> thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of
> Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed,
> putting in new and stronger timber in their places, in so much that this
> ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical
> question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the
> same, and the other contending that it was not the same.

— Plutarch, Theseus

Plutarch thus questions whether the ship would remain the same if it were
entirely replaced, piece by piece.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)

~~~
nickbauman
The ship is not the same as what happens to it. The river is not just the
water that's streaming in the channel. You are not just what happens to you.
_State is not identity,_ if it were, the past would always change and there
would be no history. State is not identity, in programming and in real life.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Not sure what that means. If a ship is burned to ashes, then is it still a
ship?

If those ashes are then mixed with other substances to form construction
material from which a home is built, is it still a ship?

If wood from a forest is never assembled into a ship, is it still a ship?

State and identity seem intrinsically linked.

~~~
gnaritas
>State and identity seem intrinsically linked.

They aren't. Two dollar bills are equal, but not identical; they are only
coincidentally related. Things that are identical are always equal but things
that are equal are not always identical. To compare identity, a thing must be
compared to itself in the real world, thus is the ship still the same ship it
was before, even if all the parts have been replaced. The answer is open to
debate, both sides have valid arguments.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Not sure we're using the same context, but I still believe that the state of a
thing absolutely contributes to the identity of a thing.

If you dissolve the ink from a dollar bill such that it's just a piece of
paper, would you still say it's a dollar bill? I would say no. Its state has
changed and, thus, has its identity (i.e. how we identify it).

But, if you say, "yes, it's still a dollar bill, albeit in a deteriorated
condition", then you have to answer the question, "when did it first become a
dollar bill?" In so doing, you must acknowledge that it underwent a state
change at some point which changed its identity in the first place.

Identity is something we impute, based in no small part on the state of a
thing.

Lastly, I think your mention of equality vs identity is flipped. They are only
equal by one coincidental (arbitrary) measure: monetary value. But, you could
just as soon measure the physical dimensions or weight.

But, while they are not necessarily equal, they are identical: that is, we
identify them each as dollar bills.

~~~
gnaritas
> If you dissolve the ink from a dollar bill such that it's just a piece of
> paper, would you still say it's a dollar bill? I would say no. Its state has
> changed and, thus, has its identity (i.e. how we identify it).

That's not what he means by identity; it's still the same piece of paper and
thus it's identity has not changed, even though it's state has. That it's a
dollar bill has nothing to do with its identity because he's not using the
term in that way; he's literally using a programmers definitions of those
words. The Mississippi river is still the Mississippi regardless of the fact
that the water it's completely different water each day. Identity is
independent from state. Two dollar bills have equal state but independent
identity. You are still you even though the cells in your body are not the
same cells you were born with. Your identity is the pattern of electricity
that make up your personality and consciousness, not the cells you are built
from. The cells are state, not identity.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Consciousness is more ethereal and harder to quantify, so I would probably
carve that out.

But, looking at the more quantifiable world, I don't see how state is
_completely_ independent of identity. Can there be some variance in state,
while the identity remains unchanged? Sure. But, it appears to be a question
of degree, in both quantity and quality.

A fundamental question is, can a thing ever cease to exist? If so, then can a
change in state precipitate its demise? Or said another way, can it cease to
exist, yet retain its state? So, I would say that there are state changes
which can alter or completely destroy identity.

But, if you say that a thing cannot cease to exist, then you are effectively
saying that there is not such a thing as identity in the first place.

EDIT: Wait, maybe I am getting your point. Are you saying that a thing may
cease to exist, but its identity doesn't? That, if the Mississippi is filled
with cement such that it is no longer a river, we would still use its identity
as a pointer to something which was, but no longer exists?

~~~
gnaritas
> But, looking at the more quantifiable world, I don't see how state is
> completely independent of identity.

I gave you an example, two dollar bills have equal state but completely
different identity. The identity obviously has nothing at all to do with
state.

It's clear you're not a programmer or you wouldn't be having the issues you're
having understanding this distinction. Programming 101, state and identity are
different things.

> A fundamental question is, can a thing ever cease to exist?

That depends on how you define thing, and that question has nothing to do with
the issue at hand, state vs identity.

> If so, then can a change in state precipitate its demise? Or said another
> way, can it cease to exist, yet retain its state?

That's a bad example that mixes in unrelated issues, flip it around. Can it
maintain its state yet lose its identity, and the answer is yes it can, by
being copied. A copy of a thing has all the same state as the original thing
but has a different identity. If I clone you, the clone is not you, you and
the clone have distinct identities but equal state. Therefore identity and
state are clearly distinct, QED.

> So, I would say that there are state changes which can alter or completely
> destroy identity.

True, but irrelevant and merely coincidental.

> But, if you say that a thing cannot cease to exist, then you are effectively
> saying that there is not such a thing as identity in the first place.

No I'm not. Get off the cease to exist point, it's confusing you; look at the
copy angle, copies make it clear that state and identity are not the same
thing and are completely independent of each other.

Yes, it's possible to think of state changes that affect identity by killing a
thing, but that's coincidental and tangential, it doesn't mean state and
identity are the same thing, only that they both rely on existence of a thing.

Things can and do have equal state and distinct identity, money is a prime
example; state and identity are distinct, accept it.

~~~
unclebucknasty
1\. I am a programmer.

2\. I was making a different point. Your example that references programming
101 is unrelated.

3\. State and identity are distinct from one point of view (yours, here), but
not all possible points of view. Perhaps because you are a programmer, you are
having difficulty seeing alternative interpretations.

4\. I acknowledged my understanding of your point of view in my EDIT at least
a day before you posted. However, you seemed to have overlooked that even
while meticulously quoting my other statements and re-making your point with
added snarkiness and pseudo-programmer elitism.

I get it. We all need a win sometimes. So, let's just say you've won and call
it a day.

~~~
gnaritas
No, you don't get it, wasn't about winning, but whatever.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Just read some of your other comments and found a very clear pattern.

You have a strong tendency to put words in people's mouths, insist they mean
one thing when they clearly state they mean another, omit their key points to
make your own, and generally browbeat them over often narrow sub-points that
you refuse to release.

You appear to enjoy envisioning yourself to be superior, yet you seem to
operate largely in a binary mode, and have great difficulty seeing shades of
gray. So, the other person must be approached as a zero to your one (or vice-
versa).

I still enjoyed some of your comments, but that style makes it really tough to
have a real discussion, as evidenced on this thread and many others where
bewilderment and frustration are expressed over your "style".

I hope you'll consider allowing others ownership of their own thoughts,
opinions, and ideas, and trust that same actually are as expressed by them.

------
BuckRogers
As long as this is labeled as genetically modified, I'm ok with it.

I generally trust the biologists on this subject that don't have a conflict of
interest. That said, I'm uninterested in GMO food for my family and we don't
eat it whenever we have the power to choose.

~~~
seccess
"The officials said the fish would not have to be labeled as being genetically
engineered, a policy consistent with its stance on foods made from genetically
engineered crops."

As an aside, what is your reason for not consuming GMO foods if you also trust
that many biologists feel that they can be safe? Genuinely curious not trying
to be snarky.

~~~
BuckRogers
I think the distinction is unclear on level of modification. Generally, you
can have 3 kinds of modifications. From least likely to be dangerous to most-
1) gene sequence removal; 2) gene splicing from two different species; 3)
whole new organism. If I were to purposefully consume GMO, I would like to
know what exactly the severity is of what has been done.

Since we can't even get basic labels, let alone information on how extreme the
modification is- I just choose to outright avoid.

------
seccess
"making it the first genetically altered animal to be cleared for American
supermarkets and dinner tables"

What is the definition of "genetically altered"? I assume that cannot cover
selective breeding, for example.

------
puppetmaster3
Ah, none of that is an issue. The issue is in USA only, GM is not a required
label.

That's it.

