GMO Animals for Food

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. 

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 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
 

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

oftenreading said:

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

Completely understand and completely agree.

I've found that most people who are anti-GMO don't have a clue what they are talking about lol
They generally don't have a clue about where their food comes from at all. 
They've never seen the input and output of a farm, be it organic, traditional, modern, mono-crop, CAFO, or anything beyond what they find in a grocery store.
Worse still, most people have a sum total knowledge of genetics that begins and ends with that one scene in Jurassic Park.

 Most of the food we eat has been genetically modified.  Period.

GMO foods aren't unsafe just because they aren't wild versions of themselves, but that's not a blanket approval either, as pesticide resistance is not a responsible use of modification techniques.

mickeyrat said:

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 said:

rgambs said:

I've found that most people who are anti-GMO don't have a clue what they are talking about lol
They generally don't have a clue about where their food comes from at all. 
They've never seen the input and output of a farm, be it organic, traditional, modern, mono-crop, CAFO, or anything beyond what they find in a grocery store.
Worse still, most people have a sum total knowledge of genetics that begins and ends with that one scene in Jurassic Park.

 Most of the food we eat has been genetically modified.  Period.

GMO foods aren't unsafe just because they aren't wild versions of themselves, but that's not a blanket approval either, as pesticide resistance is not a responsible use of modification techniques.

Well said.

Corn is the most GMO food grown out there I believe.  Sweet corn, feed corn, fuel corn.  They've got it all.

I wasn't even talking about the patented modern GMO crops, I was talking about the fact that all of our food is genetically modified through selective breeding.
People who make a non-specific distinction are not usually very well educated on genetics or epigenetics.  If you are, you realize that "science" doesn't distinguish between the natural and unnatural, it only matters whether something works or not.
People hear about the sensational stuff, like making ordinary organisms bio-luminescent, and they think, "My good Lord, how unnatural that is!" and that's just not an informed or enlightened reaction.  
These same people eat massive heads of cauliflower each day and have never looked at a wild mustard plant and noted the differences.  Is cauliflower "natural"?  No.
Is a seedless watermelon a GMO freak?  Yes.  Breeding, gene splicing, epigenetics, it's all the same and the ramifications and sustainability of the species in question is the same equation no matter the source of modification.

Anybody here ever watched a Cornish X grow next to a (still highly modifiy) Heritage breed bird?  It's literal insanity.

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

rgambs said:

I've found that most people who are anti-GMO don't have a clue what they are talking about lol
They generally don't have a clue about where their food comes from at all. 
They've never seen the input and output of a farm, be it organic, traditional, modern, mono-crop, CAFO, or anything beyond what they find in a grocery store.
Worse still, most people have a sum total knowledge of genetics that begins and ends with that one scene in Jurassic Park.

 Most of the food we eat has been genetically modified.  Period.

GMO foods aren't unsafe just because they aren't wild versions of themselves, but that's not a blanket approval either, as pesticide resistance is not a responsible use of modification techniques.

Well said.

Corn is the most GMO food grown out there I believe.  Sweet corn, feed corn, fuel corn.  They've got it all.

I wasn't even talking about the patented modern GMO crops, I was talking about the fact that all of our food is genetically modified through selective breeding.
People who make a non-specific distinction are not usually very well educated on genetics or epigenetics.  If you are, you realize that "science" doesn't distinguish between the natural and unnatural, it only matters whether something works or not.
People hear about the sensational stuff, like making ordinary organisms bio-luminescent, and they think, "My good Lord, how unnatural that is!" and that's just not an informed or enlightened reaction.  
These same people eat massive heads of cauliflower each day and have never looked at a wild mustard plant and noted the differences.  Is cauliflower "natural"?  No.
Is a seedless watermelon a GMO freak?  Yes.  Breeding, gene splicing, epigenetics, it's all the same and the ramifications and sustainability of the species in question is the same equation no matter the source of modification.

Anybody here ever watched a Cornish X grow next to a (still highly modifiy) Heritage breed bird?  It's literal insanity.

I agree with everything you said above.  Part of me thinks that the GMO labels are nothing more than a marketing ploy.  You see this strategy everywhere, from “Grass fed” beef to most things “diet” actually being just as unhealthy as the regular.  People see “non-GMO” and automatically think they are getting something healthier, which is not necessarily the case.

I am coming around on GMO foods.  As mentioned above the "seedless" variety can't regrow so it's a novelty.

Pot is a great example of GMO.  The shit these mad scientists do now is crazy son!

The fish GMO I am still not sold on.  I mentioned mercury but the levels in these smaller fish isn't a crazy amount compared to the bigger Tunas.

I did read an article about the GMO fish having more bad omega 6 and less good omega 3's than a farm raised.  That was interesting.