Recently the FDA has approved of genetically modified salmon. What are your thoughts /ck/?
Welcome to three weeks ago
>>7147677
I will continue only buying wild caught fish, and being better than the majority of shit-for-taste Amerilards.
Would fish.
Wouldn't eat.
Hate myself for it, but I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to my ingredients.
>>7147677
sounds fishy
I only eat organic, vegan, Himalayan mountain spring salmon, shade grown, fair trade, all natural, non-gmo, caught by virgins using platinum fish hooks and organic home made bait.
>>7147714
I think your bait might be GMO though... doesn't sound natural senpai.
>>7147677
OP here. Forgot to tell my thoughts on this. Honestly I prefer wild caught due to freshness better taste etc.
>>7147677
Don't give a shit.
24oz salmon steaks
Don't care
>>7147677
>Recently the FDA has approved of genetically modified salmon. What are your thoughts /ck/?
you would think that grow-faster-fish would be missing some of the nutrition or healthy oils in the flesh of one that lived 3x longer? How come no one is talking about that?
I will try it out of interest. Considering how long they tested it and it being genetically sterile, I don't really think it's a big deal, it will probably just be meh farm salmon but cheaper at least
>>7147701
Enjoy your dry as shit salmon unless you live in Alaska and have a steady supply of chinook
>>7148414
Because it's completely baseless and unscientific just like most 'problems' with GMOs.
>>7149914
But plenty of people bitch about GMOs.
Any nutrient can be grown in a lab.
> implying gmos are scary
>>7148414
>you would think that grow-faster-fish would be missing
That makes no sense; why would anyone think that?
Also, even if you did get that silly idea into your head for some reason it's very easy to find out the answer two. Just look up the nutritional information and compare for yourself.
>>7149921
Plenty of people are religious as well.
GMOs are improvements. It's a well understood process that makes food better, or more abundant.
People think just because it involves a lab, it's bad. People are retarded and take the evil scientist trope way too seriously.
Do you know what else causes genetic modifications in organisms?
Reproduction.
>>7149932
Yeah I know. People are stupid.
>>7149932
>I'm skeptic about shady agro business practices therefore I'm retarded
That fish serves only one purpose: for big companies to make more profit regardless of the quality of the product.
To acquire taste, a food needs time to grow.
You're not sceptical of business practices, you're sceptical of scientists.
And why are you sceptical in the first place? Is it because, in general, you think others care about money more than people? Why would you even think that? Because it's true about yourself?
Business men don't need more money, they usually have plenty. Open up a fucking newspaper sometime, or if that's loominarty media to you, just look around you, talk to people, or develop a modicum of critical thought. Most of the good shit being done around the world is being done by business people.
What they're trying to do is feed people. Oh God, the horrors of capitalism! 100 years ago we could only support roughly three billion people, now we can support up to eleven (we don't because, sure, people are greedy, but people are charitable as well. And before you point fingers: do you eat meat or out of season fruit/vegetables? If you do you're just as much a part of the problem). The reason seven billion people manage on the planet today is because of gosh darned evil scientists and business people practicing their trade despite hippies on communes ignorantly judging them.
Speaking of which, if everyone wanted to eat organic, and live a typically hippy lifestyle, roughly five billion people would have to starve to death.
Stop being a delusional cynic. I know it's trendy to be willfully ignorant but, please, read a fucking book, or at least a few wikipedia articles.
>>7150002
>To acquire taste, a food needs time to grow.
Do you know what an extract is?
The chemistry behind taste is fairly well understood, well, obviously not by you.
>>7150002
lol
I bet there are people who actually believe shit like that.
>>7150042
>sceptical
>>7150065
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=sceptical&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=kxNnVpqdLKTZmgX3kKqwBg
There's a reason Americans are stereotyped as being ignorant mouth-breathers.
they need to GMO tuna to decrease the amount of mercury they have and increase the amount of protein they have
>>7150002
>To acquire taste, a food needs time to grow
Literally retarded.
Also has there ever been a study showing GMOs to actually have any harmful effects? I've only ever found 2 articles with any actual testing and they both were a load of shit. I'm not discrediting that genetically altering food enough could potentially cause it to become harmful, but at the same time all this anti-GMO seems pretty ridiculous without some real evidence.
>>7150109
>Literally retarded.
How so? It's obvious that the flavor of animals change as they age. A stewing chicken has a lot more flavor than a fryer, for example. Young feral hogs are delicious. The old ones are often so gamey that people don't even eat them. Etc.
>> anti-GMO seems pretty ridiculous without some real evidence.
Agreed about that. Perhaps you misunderstood the point? It's not that GMO salmon would be expected to be lacking in taste; but rather than YOUNG salmon would be lacking in taste compared to a fish that lived for a longer period of time.
>>7147701
waaaaaah
people like the taste of food i don't like!
fuck them, right guys?
>>7150138
Unless they figured out what causes the differences in tastes and, I dunno, used science and technology to make it more efficient?
Right?
Couldn't possibly be the exact topic of conversation.
Taste is more complex than you make it out to be. People have been fed Vanilla ice cream dyed brown and they convinced themselves they were eating chocolate ice cream. This is a test you can do yourself.
>implying salmon raised on those shitty farms aren't GMO by definition
>implying GMO is bad
>>7150151
>Unless they figured out what causes the differences in tastes and, I dunno, used science and technology to make it more efficient?
Sure, that's possible. Likely? I doubt it. The motivation here is clear: fast growth = saves money. This is not a company trying to make high quality salmon, this is someone trying to make cheap salmon, most likely at the expense of flavor.
This has already happened in the case of domestically raised pork and chicken, though it was done a few decades ago via selective breeding rather than GMO. Factory-farmed pigs and chickens are breeds which mature to market weight as fast as possible, taste be damned.
Speaking of examples that you can do yourself:
Go buy a normal supermarket chicken. The breed is a Jersey Giant, usually slaughtered at 6 weeks age. Go buy a chicken from an Asian supermarket; this will be a non-fast-growing breed that will have been slaughtered much later. Compare the two. Note that the Supermarket chicken has enormous amounts of breast meat but tastes like nothing.
Sure, it's theoretically possible that these guys could be engineering salmon where the goal was taste, but honestly I'm not buying it--especially when they haven't said anything about how they're improving the taste.
genetic engineering is a slippery slope and should be outlawed.
>>7147701
wild caught fish destroy the ecosystem due to overfishinh
YOU HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS
>>7147677
I don't care; humans have been genetically modifying for thousands of years.
Example: Apples. You take a wild apple. It grows fruit. You plant more apples; although you only grow the biggest of the apples off the tree. You do this through the generations of trees and you get trees that gradually produce bigger and bigger apples.
This can be done with any plant or animal. Sweet corn? Guess what. GModified through generational selection.
Using a different way to do GM makes no difference. GM is GM. Whether you turn wild "indian corn" through generational GM to get a 'popcorn kernal' or do it through a scientific process makes no difference to me.
>>7149932
>Do you know what else causes genetic modifications in organisms?
>Reproduction
I'll give you a >le tip of the fedora but natural breeding tends to kill and smother defects. As opposed to strawberries with fish oil and spider venom in them "just because" while fuckers like you crusade against even the simplest laws to make them have to label these things
>>7150293
The difference between selective breeding and genetic modification is that I can produce glow in the dark animals with one method and not the other.
>>7150339
>Glow in the dark
>Has to resort to extreme fantasy nonsense to continue argument
Humans have been genetically modifying our foods for millennia. I have no problem with that continuing.
>>7150339
>He thinks bio-luminescence ISN'T a naturally occurring evolved trait and is done only by mad scientists in labs
>>7147677
I'm of 2 minds. Fresh caught has been eating better typically, and thus will taste better. GMO is likely to be farm-raised, and thus fed on absolute garbage.
However, I hate how GMO is the boogeyman in food these days. The whole, fear of a process I don't understand thing is ignorant. If you have concerns, read up on the process. I know everyone thinks that there is a mad scientist in a lab slicing and gluing random bits of DNA together. But that's not how it works at all. The DNA still has to be able to pair. The trick is to find shit that will pair, and picking the most beneficial traits from the options you have. It's really not that much different than hybridization.
Science motherfuckers. Learn it. Love it.
>>7150348
>Humans have been genetically modifying our foods for millennia.
No, that is not the case. You're thinking of selective breeding, not splicing genes.
Recombinant DNA is a BAD IDEA. Lust for money is not an excuse to fuck around with DNA splicing, particularly in food products.
>>7150314
>natural breeding tends to kill and smother defects
That's not true at all. Many selectively-bred domestic animals are fraught with all kinds of health problems. Many breeds of dogs and cats have common congenital health issues associated with their breed. For example Dalmatians are often deaf, hip displaysia is common in many large dog breeds, etc. Some breeds have a hard time giving birth without human intervention. That's also true for Camels. In fact domestic camels sometimes need assistance in order to mate. Domestic chickens (most breeds) have lost their motherly instinct and often won't protect or sit on their eggs.
>>As opposed to strawberries with fish oil and spider venom in them "just because"
That makes for a nice headline, but I hope you realize that's not what's happening in GMO foods. There's a big difference between a one-time experiment in a lab somewhere versus what is actually being done on a large scale.
>>7150371
People use the terms "genetic modification" and "selective breeding" without realizing they're two different things.
>>7150042
You should be the one reading a book. Businessmen have ignored warnings from scientists because greed took over and prevented rational thinking.
>thalomide
>leaded petrol
The list goes on. I don't care about GMOs in our food but you're naive if you think it's the scientists who are fucking up our world.
>>7149928
>That makes no sense; why would anyone think that?
I would think that it makes sense, because wild and farm-raised already have different nutritional profiles. Now, if you speed raise them, less micro nutrients to build up in the flesh, much less mercury though, I'm sure.
Have a clue, dude.
>>7150380
Yet one is the subset of the other. Selective breeding is one method of genetic modification.
I can't believe the amount of bootlicking and obvious shilling in this thread (jk I can believe it).
The American public is pathetic, beta cvcklords.
You people should be trying to decentralize your food distribution system, not conglomerate it into fascio-corporate heartless profit driven tyrants.
You should be growing your own food. Raising your own fish. Fresh and poison free is best.
>businessmen don't need more money they're doing this for the good of the people!
Holy shit can't believe this one anon though, bootlicking shill to the fucking max.
The entire US economy is about businessmen making more money, often in direct detriment to the lives of Americans and other countries.
>>7150436
>economies are about money!
That's pretty thought provoking.
>>7150455
But businessmen don't need more money, they have enough! :^)
Don't question their business practices you fucking go.. guys.
They're doing it for your own good.
>>7150436
>You people should be trying to decentralize your food distribution system
I agree 100%. But that doesn't mean I can't call out bullshit about GMOs when I see it. I agree 100% that locally-raised, non-industrialized farming produces better tasting produce (and meat) hands-down. But I don't need to make up lies about GMOs in order to make my case.
>>7150368
>Gee son how would you get the gene from a jellyfish and put it into a sheep without doing it in a lab?
>Immediately jumps to lab
>Not letting the sheep fuck themselves to a healthy glow by keeping them in darkened conditions generation after generation.
>>7150469
I'll support you on this Anon.
I grow a large percentage of my own food via a garden and rabbit and quail breeding.
It's time consuming and certainly not available to people who don't own land. GMOs help to feed people. Every year, we produce more food on less land. With the population explosion here, and around the world, more production on less land is not a bad thing.
I do feel that we need to stop destroying our topsoil through factory crop techniques that strip mine nutrients and leave the topsoil to blow away, but that's a different war altogether.
I don't care because I don't live in the US.
I'm actually sorry for you guys. You guys can't even eat fish more than a few times a year because of mercury poisoning or you can if you have an unlimited budget.
When I see things like this I realize how I take my food for granted.
>>7150436
>we should all go back to being peasant farmers
yay
>>7150422
>>because wild and farm-raised already have different nutritional profiles.
What do differences in diet have to do with GMOs?
>Now, if you speed raise them, less micro nutrients to build up in the flesh
How can the fish grow if there is a nutrient deficiency? Either the fish does or does not have sufficient nutrients to grow and maintain the organs in its body. How would it be possible to grow if it lacked nutrients?
>>7150509
>work, get exercise, fresh air, feed yourself and family with fresh, poison free food
>work, get someone else rich, pay other rich people to eat poison laden food that has acceptable puss, insect parts, and poison limits
Hmm.
>>7150516
>there's no such thing as malnutrition
Shill detected shill detected shill detected
>>7150508
You think mercury contamination is restricted to the US? It's a problem in any fish as you move up the food chain. If you eat fish lower on the food chain, like salmon, tilapia, etc, it's not a big deal. You start eating too much shark or swordfish, and you're at risk. It's all about accumulation.
>>7150518
>I literally want to go backwards in time
You fucking degenerate
>>7150527
>men were men and women knew their place
>almost zero divorce rate
>almost no crime
>almost no diabetes or heart disease
>less sugar aka poison being sold in everything
Yeah sounds horrible.
>>7150526
It is mostly a US/China/Japan problem.
The Adriatic sea is pretty clean. Well the Croatian side at least.
>>7150548
Yeah? Well not all of us can fish in a tiny puddle. Some of us have more people in one city than you have in your entire country.
>>7150165
Your example is flawed as fuck because you don't account for any innate biases at all.
More like buy the two chickens, prepare them, mix the servings and see no one noticed the difference
>>7150525
What does malnutrition have to do with GMOs? Do you think that a GMO fish would be necessarily malnourished?
>>7150562
>More like buy the two chickens, prepare them, mix the servings and see no one noticed the difference
I assumed that part was obvious when I said "compare the two". Clearly the results would be meaningless unless you did a blind test, so go ahead and do it blind.
>>7150565
You can't argue with him Anon. Despite the evidence of chicken and pork production, which does not result in any difference beyond flavor, fish will magically defy all natural law and thrive without essential nutrients. Never minding that the same company is likely to make feed specifically to encourage growth through extreme nutrient density.
The man just wants to fuck us, and no logic will convince me otherwise!
Economics mate. an inflection point will be found between cost, speed of production, and quality that a consumer will pay for.
>>7150539
>almost no crime
my fucking sides anon, you had me for a while.
>>7150481
>letting the sheep fuck themselves to a healthy glow by keeping them in darkened conditions generation after generation
If anything, they'd just go blind and evolve sonar like bats but with their "baa" sounds.
>>7150635
The real trick would be getting them enough Vitamin D without sunlight.
>>7150644
It's OK I'm sure we can genetically modify them to produce their own Vitamin D somehow. Or we just put it in their food. Do hipsters dream of glowing sheep?
>>7150635
>Proposes some sort of weird bat-sheep that thrives in the dark and hunts down prey by the echoes of "baa" that its intended target cannot determing the direction they come from.
But you think a little gene-splicing of a tomato is more mad-science than your creepy B-movie stalker-sheep
>>7150657
Wait till the sequel, Glowing Sheep 2: GMO Tomato Bogaloo, comes out then call it a crappy B-movie to my face and not over the internet.
>>7150586
>which does not result in any difference beyond flavor
Farmers having to dip poultry in chlorine due to poor hygene in chicken concentration camps.
Porks becoming antibiotic-resistant pathogen reservoirs.
>Red flags everywhere
>b-but muh science!
>>7150561
That is true. And still my statement is the same
>I'm actually sorry for you guys
>>7150740
Those problems are caused by the conditions the animals are kept in, not the nature of the animal itself.
>>7150754
No, they're the consequences of politics driven by greed. As are the companies lobbying for their GMOs.
>>7150768
>No, they're the consequences of politics driven by greed
OK. But that's not the same as saying GMO cause it, now is it?
>>7150754
the nature of animals is to shit everywhere, walk through it and eat anything covered in it.
evolution and the diversity of life is truly awesome and amazing, but its also incredibly fucking retarded in a lot of instances.
thats why untold species have died out, and continue to die out.
>>7150042
>>7150193
Do you wash them in blackened mud?
>>7149932
>Do you know what else causes genetic modifications in organisms?
R>eproduction.
No. Reproduction results in a rearrangement of the genes found in the parents.
The term GMO very explicitly refers to organisms that are the result of using certain modern techniques of genetic engineering -- techniques that do not exist in conventional breeding.
>>7150293
Bullshit.
Selective breeding rearranges the genes found in the parents. It does not introduce new genes from other species.
There is a thing called horizontal gene transfer or lateral gene transfer in which genes can be introduced to a new organism that never had those genes before. The genetic engineering techniques that produce GMOs basically do this in a lab with much more controlled and a far higher success rate.
The term GMO refers only to organisms who's genes were manipulated in a lab with certain modern genetic engineering techniques. It was never intended to be applied to anything else such as selective breeding. Any attempt to use the term GMO to refer to normal reproduction is ignorant.
>>7150348
> Humans have been genetically modifying our foods for millennia.
Yet another failure of intellect. Humans have NOT been genetically modifying anything for millenia. GMOs were not possible until the necessary genetic engineering techniques were developed in the 1960s and 1970s.
>>7147701
Placebo.
>>7150376
To some degree it is true. Many serious defects are more likely to result in either a failure of the fertilized egg to grow leading to it being spontaneously rejected or it may result in a child that cannot survive.
To the extent that it is not true as you suggest, domestic animals often do have many such health problems. If you are a breeder and want to propagate very good traits, you may breed brother to sister knowing full well that you are more likely to find offspring that cannot thrive or that will have to be destroyed.
>>7150469
Very well said.
>>7150526
There are many lakes that one is well advised to not eat more than one fish caught in the lake per week because of mercury and other contamination.
