GMO Animals for Food

bbiggs

This company is very close to bringing its genetically modified salmon to market.  FDA approved and will likely be ready by 2020.  It claims to be paving the way for more genetically modified animals.  When purchasing from the grocery store, consumers would have to scan the barcode with their phones to see the GMO label.  Bon Appétit! 

https://aquabounty.com/fast-growing-genetically-engineered-salmon/

brianlux

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

bbiggs

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

tempo_n_groove

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

Not sure how this happened but California actually voted "NO" on GMO labeling a few years ago?  How that happened is interesting to me.

I am actually leaning towards the GMO fish and here is why.  It won't have any Mercury in it.

The GMO fruits and veggies is another story.  Depending on what they do to it.  If they have strains of plants that are killing bees then it's a no go for me.  Basically if Monsanto has anything to do with it too.

mickeyrat

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

anything thats been crossbred is GMO..... could have happened  through branch splicing etc.... didnt have to originate in a lab. How do you think we get such a variety of apples as an example.

what of your pets is you have them? any that are cross bred or are they pure bred. if you have a crossbreed, then thats gmo too.....

Just saying.

PJPOWER

I am on the fence when it comes to GMOs.  Plants that are drought, insect, and disease tolerant are great things.  Nature genetically modifies all living things (over a lot longer time span of course.  As tempo said above, fish with no mercury is a good thing (if that is a proven result).  
I can see that if they are modifying plants to consume more nutrients and water for higher output, that could put a strain on the environment.  Same with animals, but anything is better than hormone injections in meat.
What are the main arguments against GMOs?
It almost seems like a topic for the “outrage culture” thread.

Meltdown99

mickeyrat said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

anything thats been crossbred is GMO..... could have happened  through branch splicing etc.... didnt have to originate in a lab. How do you think we get such a variety of apples as an example.

what of your pets is you have them? any that are cross bred or are they pure bred. if you have a crossbreed, then thats gmo too.....

Just saying.

Yup.  I have also read that GMO crops need less pesticides and farmers get more crop per acre...

of all the shit that could kill us food is the least of my concern...

however i I will never eat meat grown in a lab or that fake meat shit...

oftenreading

tempo_n_groove said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

Not sure how this happened but California actually voted "NO" on GMO labeling a few years ago?  How that happened is interesting to me.

I am actually leaning towards the GMO fish and here is why.  It won't have any Mercury in it.

The GMO fruits and veggies is another story.  Depending on what they do to it.  If they have strains of plants that are killing bees then it's a no go for me.  Basically if Monsanto has anything to do with it too.

I’m not sure you’re correct that GMO fish won’t have any mercury in it. The growth promoting genes are the only difference; otherwise, they will be fed the same food as any other farmer salmon. Farmed salmon already has lower levels of mercury than wild salmon, but salmon in general doesn’t have very high mercury levels compared to fish like tuna and swordfish. 

Spiritual_Chaos

Eat vegetarian. Let the fish live and be GMO free. Win-win

PJPOWER

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Eat vegetarian. Let the fish live and be GMO free. Win-win

No.

mickeyrat

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Eat vegetarian. Let the fish live and be GMO free. Win-win

No.

unless all that vegetarian food was hand reaped or picked, its more than probable some animals lost their lives in the harvest. just killed and left in the field or potentially mixed in with your grains and whatnot......

PJPOWER

mickeyrat said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Eat vegetarian. Let the fish live and be GMO free. Win-win

No.

unless all that vegetarian food was hand reaped or picked, its more than probable some animals lost their lives in the harvest. just killed and left in the field or potentially mixed in with your grains and whatnot......

Right you are.  I’ve plowed many of fields and can attest to your assertion, unfortunately.

bbiggs

mickeyrat said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

anything thats been crossbred is GMO..... could have happened  through branch splicing etc.... didnt have to originate in a lab. How do you think we get such a variety of apples as an example.

what of your pets is you have them? any that are cross bred or are they pure bred. if you have a crossbreed, then thats gmo too.....

Just saying.

Good points.  Cross breeds that have happened naturally over time are one thing.  Cross breeds that man has forced, especially when it comes to our food, is another in my opinion. Maybe it will be proven to be completely harmless over time, but I don’t want to be the guinea pig. 

tempo_n_groove

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

Not sure how this happened but California actually voted "NO" on GMO labeling a few years ago?  How that happened is interesting to me.

I am actually leaning towards the GMO fish and here is why.  It won't have any Mercury in it.

The GMO fruits and veggies is another story.  Depending on what they do to it.  If they have strains of plants that are killing bees then it's a no go for me.  Basically if Monsanto has anything to do with it too.

I’m not sure you’re correct that GMO fish won’t have any mercury in it. The growth promoting genes are the only difference; otherwise, they will be fed the same food as any other farmer salmon. Farmed salmon already has lower levels of mercury than wild salmon, but salmon in general doesn’t have very high mercury levels compared to fish like tuna and swordfish. 

Mercury is in the water and the food they eat.

Swordfish and Tuna live longer than a salmon so they have more mercury in them.

An Albacore has very little mercury compared to a bluefin.

Every fish has a trace of Mercury in them now, every single one.

Also if the fish farms are near the ocean they can still get Mercury, so you are right about that.

brianlux

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

Oh man, that is disturbing!

brianlux

mickeyrat said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

anything thats been crossbred is GMO..... could have happened  through branch splicing etc.... didnt have to originate in a lab. How do you think we get such a variety of apples as an example.

what of your pets is you have them? any that are cross bred or are they pure bred. if you have a crossbreed, then thats gmo too.....

Just saying.

Mickey, there's a difference between cross-breeding and lab style Frankenscience.

oftenreading

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

Not sure how this happened but California actually voted "NO" on GMO labeling a few years ago?  How that happened is interesting to me.

I am actually leaning towards the GMO fish and here is why.  It won't have any Mercury in it.

The GMO fruits and veggies is another story.  Depending on what they do to it.  If they have strains of plants that are killing bees then it's a no go for me.  Basically if Monsanto has anything to do with it too.

I’m not sure you’re correct that GMO fish won’t have any mercury in it. The growth promoting genes are the only difference; otherwise, they will be fed the same food as any other farmer salmon. Farmed salmon already has lower levels of mercury than wild salmon, but salmon in general doesn’t have very high mercury levels compared to fish like tuna and swordfish. 

Mercury is in the water and the food they eat.

Swordfish and Tuna live longer than a salmon so they have more mercury in them.

An Albacore has very little mercury compared to a bluefin.

Every fish has a trace of Mercury in them now, every single one.

Also if the fish farms are near the ocean they can still get Mercury, so you are right about that.

The food that farmed fish are fed is made from ocean going “trash” fish, hence has mercury in it, which is the source, not the water that they are grown in per se. Any farmed salmon will have less mercury than wild salmon; it isn’t specific to these faster growing fish. 
 

brianlux

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

Not sure how this happened but California actually voted "NO" on GMO labeling a few years ago?  How that happened is interesting to me.

I am actually leaning towards the GMO fish and here is why.  It won't have any Mercury in it.

The GMO fruits and veggies is another story.  Depending on what they do to it.  If they have strains of plants that are killing bees then it's a no go for me.  Basically if Monsanto has anything to do with it too.

I’m not sure you’re correct that GMO fish won’t have any mercury in it. The growth promoting genes are the only difference; otherwise, they will be fed the same food as any other farmer salmon. Farmed salmon already has lower levels of mercury than wild salmon, but salmon in general doesn’t have very high mercury levels compared to fish like tuna and swordfish. 

Mercury is in the water and the food they eat.

Swordfish and Tuna live longer than a salmon so they have more mercury in them.

An Albacore has very little mercury compared to a bluefin.

Every fish has a trace of Mercury in them now, every single one.

Also if the fish farms are near the ocean they can still get Mercury, so you are right about that.

The food that farmed fish are fed is made from ocean going “trash” fish, hence has mercury in it, which is the source, not the water that they are grown in per se. Any farmed salmon will have less mercury than wild salmon; it isn’t specific to these faster growing fish. 
 

Farmed fish-- bad news!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-farmed-fish-really-the_b_3455436

oftenreading

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

Not sure how this happened but California actually voted "NO" on GMO labeling a few years ago?  How that happened is interesting to me.

I am actually leaning towards the GMO fish and here is why.  It won't have any Mercury in it.

The GMO fruits and veggies is another story.  Depending on what they do to it.  If they have strains of plants that are killing bees then it's a no go for me.  Basically if Monsanto has anything to do with it too.

I’m not sure you’re correct that GMO fish won’t have any mercury in it. The growth promoting genes are the only difference; otherwise, they will be fed the same food as any other farmer salmon. Farmed salmon already has lower levels of mercury than wild salmon, but salmon in general doesn’t have very high mercury levels compared to fish like tuna and swordfish. 

Mercury is in the water and the food they eat.

Swordfish and Tuna live longer than a salmon so they have more mercury in them.

An Albacore has very little mercury compared to a bluefin.

Every fish has a trace of Mercury in them now, every single one.

Also if the fish farms are near the ocean they can still get Mercury, so you are right about that.

The food that farmed fish are fed is made from ocean going “trash” fish, hence has mercury in it, which is the source, not the water that they are grown in per se. Any farmed salmon will have less mercury than wild salmon; it isn’t specific to these faster growing fish. 
 

Farmed fish-- bad news!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-farmed-fish-really-the_b_3455436

That’s a 2013 article, Brian, and much of it isn’t true. Some of it wasn’t true then, and more of it isn’t true now. 

oftenreading

tempo_n_groove said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

Not sure how this happened but California actually voted "NO" on GMO labeling a few years ago?  How that happened is interesting to me.

I am actually leaning towards the GMO fish and here is why.  It won't have any Mercury in it.

The GMO fruits and veggies is another story.  Depending on what they do to it.  If they have strains of plants that are killing bees then it's a no go for me.  Basically if Monsanto has anything to do with it too.

Others on here know more about this than me, and it’s been discussed before, but it’s my understanding that it isn’t the plants themselves that are killing bees, but rather the pesticides that are used on the plants. 
 

oftenreading

I’m curious to see if the regulators allow these salmon to be grown in ocean net pens, or if they insist on land based closed containment. If closed containment, they’re probably doomed economically, but it may be that the quicker growth is enough of an advantage that they overcome the costs of CC. 

brianlux

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

Not sure how this happened but California actually voted "NO" on GMO labeling a few years ago?  How that happened is interesting to me.

I am actually leaning towards the GMO fish and here is why.  It won't have any Mercury in it.

The GMO fruits and veggies is another story.  Depending on what they do to it.  If they have strains of plants that are killing bees then it's a no go for me.  Basically if Monsanto has anything to do with it too.

I’m not sure you’re correct that GMO fish won’t have any mercury in it. The growth promoting genes are the only difference; otherwise, they will be fed the same food as any other farmer salmon. Farmed salmon already has lower levels of mercury than wild salmon, but salmon in general doesn’t have very high mercury levels compared to fish like tuna and swordfish. 

Mercury is in the water and the food they eat.

Swordfish and Tuna live longer than a salmon so they have more mercury in them.

An Albacore has very little mercury compared to a bluefin.

Every fish has a trace of Mercury in them now, every single one.

Also if the fish farms are near the ocean they can still get Mercury, so you are right about that.

The food that farmed fish are fed is made from ocean going “trash” fish, hence has mercury in it, which is the source, not the water that they are grown in per se. Any farmed salmon will have less mercury than wild salmon; it isn’t specific to these faster growing fish. 
 

Farmed fish-- bad news!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-farmed-fish-really-the_b_3455436

That’s a 2013 article, Brian, and much of it isn’t true. Some of it wasn’t true then, and more of it isn’t true now. 

We've been over this before so I won't beat the dead horse. 

My concern is more broad in terms of ocean health.  I have a life long boycott of all food that comes from the oceans with the exception of occasional sea vegetables.

tempo_n_groove

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

Not sure how this happened but California actually voted "NO" on GMO labeling a few years ago?  How that happened is interesting to me.

I am actually leaning towards the GMO fish and here is why.  It won't have any Mercury in it.

The GMO fruits and veggies is another story.  Depending on what they do to it.  If they have strains of plants that are killing bees then it's a no go for me.  Basically if Monsanto has anything to do with it too.

I’m not sure you’re correct that GMO fish won’t have any mercury in it. The growth promoting genes are the only difference; otherwise, they will be fed the same food as any other farmer salmon. Farmed salmon already has lower levels of mercury than wild salmon, but salmon in general doesn’t have very high mercury levels compared to fish like tuna and swordfish. 

Mercury is in the water and the food they eat.

Swordfish and Tuna live longer than a salmon so they have more mercury in them.

An Albacore has very little mercury compared to a bluefin.

Every fish has a trace of Mercury in them now, every single one.

Also if the fish farms are near the ocean they can still get Mercury, so you are right about that.

The food that farmed fish are fed is made from ocean going “trash” fish, hence has mercury in it, which is the source, not the water that they are grown in per se. Any farmed salmon will have less mercury than wild salmon; it isn’t specific to these faster growing fish. 
 

That should be wrong.  The fish are normally fed with soy and grain so that isn't where it come from.

The mercury is in the water itself.

If you read otherwise I would like to read the articles.  

mickeyrat

brianlux said:

mickeyrat said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

anything thats been crossbred is GMO..... could have happened  through branch splicing etc.... didnt have to originate in a lab. How do you think we get such a variety of apples as an example.

what of your pets is you have them? any that are cross bred or are they pure bred. if you have a crossbreed, then thats gmo too.....

Just saying.

Mickey, there's a difference between cross-breeding and lab style Frankenscience.

I agree but both are GMO ........ only question is, where is the science being done and how and with what....

tempo_n_groove

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

Not sure how this happened but California actually voted "NO" on GMO labeling a few years ago?  How that happened is interesting to me.

I am actually leaning towards the GMO fish and here is why.  It won't have any Mercury in it.

The GMO fruits and veggies is another story.  Depending on what they do to it.  If they have strains of plants that are killing bees then it's a no go for me.  Basically if Monsanto has anything to do with it too.

Others on here know more about this than me, and it’s been discussed before, but it’s my understanding that it isn’t the plants themselves that are killing bees, but rather the pesticides that are used on the plants. 
 

The plant growing is still in discussion.

Also if Monsanto has any part in it, which is the pesticide part then yes, they kill bees too.

oftenreading

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

Not sure how this happened but California actually voted "NO" on GMO labeling a few years ago?  How that happened is interesting to me.

I am actually leaning towards the GMO fish and here is why.  It won't have any Mercury in it.

The GMO fruits and veggies is another story.  Depending on what they do to it.  If they have strains of plants that are killing bees then it's a no go for me.  Basically if Monsanto has anything to do with it too.

I’m not sure you’re correct that GMO fish won’t have any mercury in it. The growth promoting genes are the only difference; otherwise, they will be fed the same food as any other farmer salmon. Farmed salmon already has lower levels of mercury than wild salmon, but salmon in general doesn’t have very high mercury levels compared to fish like tuna and swordfish. 

Mercury is in the water and the food they eat.

Swordfish and Tuna live longer than a salmon so they have more mercury in them.

An Albacore has very little mercury compared to a bluefin.

Every fish has a trace of Mercury in them now, every single one.

Also if the fish farms are near the ocean they can still get Mercury, so you are right about that.

The food that farmed fish are fed is made from ocean going “trash” fish, hence has mercury in it, which is the source, not the water that they are grown in per se. Any farmed salmon will have less mercury than wild salmon; it isn’t specific to these faster growing fish. 
 

That should be wrong.  The fish are normally fed with soy and grain so that isn't where it come from.

The mercury is in the water itself.

If you read otherwise I would like to read the articles.  

Actually, a big chunk of the diet of farmed salmon is fish meal and fish oil, though there is some use of plant material and even of some other animals. Of course, this is an oversimplification, because there is a huge amount of research into diets of farmed animals, and some of the research is around trying to reduce the use of other fish species in the diet, in order to reduce the impact on the marine environment, but the pellets are still largely fish meal. 

The diets of farmed herbivorous fish would be mostly plant based. 

 This article is a bit industry-speak heavy, but has info on diets. 

 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/feeds-aquaculture
 

oftenreading

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

bbiggs said:

brianlux said:

I won't get near the stuff, not one penny's worth.

I think we'd better start making some GMO Soylent Green before the whole planet becomes one massive GMO.

I agree, Brian. I want nothing to do with anything GMO and I avoid it at all costs. The problem is the ambiguous (or hidden) labeling that was described in the news special I watched. Also, as GMO salmon (and likely other animals) eventually hits the market, it’s likely that it will be sold to restaurants that will not be willing or able to differentiate between wild or GMO. Can’t we just get real food, not made in a lab? 

Not sure how this happened but California actually voted "NO" on GMO labeling a few years ago?  How that happened is interesting to me.

I am actually leaning towards the GMO fish and here is why.  It won't have any Mercury in it.

The GMO fruits and veggies is another story.  Depending on what they do to it.  If they have strains of plants that are killing bees then it's a no go for me.  Basically if Monsanto has anything to do with it too.

Others on here know more about this than me, and it’s been discussed before, but it’s my understanding that it isn’t the plants themselves that are killing bees, but rather the pesticides that are used on the plants. 
 

The plant growing is still in discussion.

Also if Monsanto has any part in it, which is the pesticide part then yes, they kill bees too.

I won’t dispute the second part at all. 

oftenreading

My point was more that “GMO plant” does not equal “bad for bees”. 

bbiggs

oftenreading said:

I’m curious to see if the regulators allow these salmon to be grown in ocean net pens, or if they insist on land based closed containment. If closed containment, they’re probably doomed economically, but it may be that the quicker growth is enough of an advantage that they overcome the costs of CC. 

The special I watched last night showed this company, that is the first GMO animal company going to market, growing salmon in an indoor tank in Indiana. There was strict regulation about NOT bringing any of the live fish out of the facility for fear of mixing them in with wild salmon. 

tempo_n_groove

oftenreading said:

My point was more that “GMO plant” does not equal “bad for bees”. 

Completely understand and completely agree.

oftenreading

bbiggs said:

oftenreading said:

I’m curious to see if the regulators allow these salmon to be grown in ocean net pens, or if they insist on land based closed containment. If closed containment, they’re probably doomed economically, but it may be that the quicker growth is enough of an advantage that they overcome the costs of CC. 

The special I watched last night showed this company, that is the first GMO animal company going to market, growing salmon in an indoor tank in Indiana. There was strict regulation about NOT bringing any of the live fish out of the facility for fear of mixing them in with wild salmon. 

Sure, a couple of these facilities exist, but their cost of production is extremely high so the market is small. They are basically experimental, or heavily subsidized. And of course it isn’t that they don’t have an environmental impact, they just have a different environmental impact than net pens. Construction and energy costs are high, and there is still the waste water treatment to deal with.