The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 'Frankenfish': food's future > Comments

'Frankenfish': food's future : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 17/12/2013

Despite evidence to the contrary, campaigners against genetically modified (GM) food continue to feed consumers stories about risks to health or ecology - to the detriment of long-term food security.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Why isnt it completely obvious that somewhere down the line theses oh-so-clever experiments will inevitably cause all kinds of Pandora's Box unintended consequences.
http://gmo.mercola.com
http://i-sis.org.uk
And why not Google Monsanto as evil corporation?
Would you really allow the future of humankind to be placed in the hands of such an outrageously perfidious outfit?
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 17 December 2013 7:59:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are some reasonably plausible arguments for GM, the main one being food security and the ability to feed poorer countries without using up and degrading more land and wilderness.

But, luxury items like Atlantic salmon? That has nothing to do with feeding the poor.

As for fish farms and eating more fish to save consumers from heart disease; well, the poor don’t suffer from obesity or heart disease – they suffer from malnutrition and starvation.

There is probably a good side to GM crops – or their might be when many concerns are dealt with – but using a luxury food item for the rich and self-indulgent is not a good way to promote it.

There is also probably a path towards GM crops somewhere between the ideological ‘antis’ and the we-want-more-money greedy; but this article will do nothing for people inclined to see the positive side of GM.
Posted by NeverTrustPoliticians, Tuesday, 17 December 2013 8:43:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daffy Duck - shame on you for feeding the nonsense the surrounds genetically modified foods. Go and look at both the links you cite.. the first is just a list of alarmist nonsense; the second involves an obscure dispute .. both sure indications of the complete lack of evidence concerning the harmful effects of GM foods..

NeverTrustPoliticians
Why on earth should be matter if Atlantic salmon, as opposed to any other fish, are genetically modified? And what consequences are you talking about.. so far there have not been any identifiable consequences.. there have been studies pointing to marginal effects on the eco systems and one animal study (I think), but its pretty poor stuff..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 17 December 2013 1:36:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All public opinion surveys by Biotech Australia & Swinburne find Australians very risk averse and unwilling to eat GM animals. David therefore pushes a product that no-one wants. In the Senate will he 'froth at the mouth' in a tantrum when he cannot have his way fith GM and guns?

His sanitised account of GM salmon is far from reality. Salmon fingerlings would be made in Canada where escapees may impact the fertility of wild salmon http://tinyurl.com/m83jd9a The fish would be grown in a Panamanian lake & exported to the USA for eating.

So there are 3 government jurisdictions to satisfy before GM salmon can proceed. The FDA's food safety assessment is incomplete: http://tinyurl.com/buass5j so asserting their safety is premature. Ecological impacts are also uncertain e.g: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC438972/ The salmon are said to grow twice as fast and large as conventional fish, so dredging the sea to feed them would take a massive environmental toll.

David derides GM-free advocates for accepting genetically manipulated micro-organisms that produce insulin and useful proteins. But this is not inconsistent at all as they are kept in secure contained vats within factories. Like contained research, these industrial activities should not release any living GM organisms to open environments where they may wreak ecological havoc.

Get off your hobby-horses Dave!
Posted by Bob Phelps, Tuesday, 17 December 2013 2:11:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>All public opinion surveys by Biotech Australia & Swinburne find Australians very risk averse and unwilling to eat GM animals.<<

I'm Australian and and I'm very risk averse but I'm perfectly willing to eat GM animals because there is no credible evidence of health risks from eating GM food. It poses about as much danger fluoridated water and vaccination.

This is a product that has obvious environmental benefits. It is a product that I want to buy: that I would buy in preference to products farmed by methods that are less efficient (hence more wasteful, hence less environmentally sound). It seems there's a pretty obvious solution that will keep both parties happy: allow the sale GM food but make sure it is clearly labelled. The idiot hippies who have trouble applying their critical faculties can avoid it, and the rational people who care more about empirical data than ideology can consume it.

What's the problem with that? Why do the god-damn hippies feel such a need to control other people's lives? I'm happy for them to go off and live in communes and not bathe and listen crappy hippy music if that's what makes them happy. Why are hippies so radically opposed to anybody having the freedom to make choices that hippies don't approve of?

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 17 December 2013 7:11:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob Phelps: “Salmon fingerlings would be made in Canada where escapees may impact the fertility of wild salmon”

That paper does not support such a claim. The only discussion in the paper about fertility aspects of GM salmon is the suggestion that conditional or impaired fertility in GM salmon could be a containment approach. The GM salmon from AquAdvantage o not have that.

Bob Phelps: “The FDA's food safety assessment is incomplete”

That link is to the environmental assessment. The food safety assessment is complete. The FDA concluded that “food from the triploid ABT Salmon that is the subject of this application is as safe as food from conventional salmon, and that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food from triploid ABT salmon. No animal feed consumption concerns were identified.”

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224762.pdf

Ah well, I suppose Bob Phelps does have a 20 year career to look after.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 18 December 2013 12:00:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy