Re: 'Frankenfish' or Tomorrow's Dinner?

From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Wed Oct 18 2000 - 10:18:05 EDT

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Different bodyplans"

    from part of a post by Moorad Alexanian:

    << The most prominent reason for concern is the "Trojan gene" hypothesis of
     Purdue University's William Muir. Using a different kind of genetically
     engineered fish, Muir found that larger, faster-growing biotech fish are
     more likely to succeed in mating than conventional fish. But the offspring
     of those biotech fish are genetically less well adapted to survive.
     Consequently, Muir believes, biotech fish could quickly decimate a fish
     population by their increased ability to produce damaged young. Muir has
     proposed further research into this hypothesis, but has been unable to get
     funding.
     
     Elliot Entis, president of A/F Protein, says that his company's studies have
     not found that its salmon end up being larger than wild salmon at sexual
     maturity, meaning they would not have a mating advantage. He also calls the
     Trojan gene hypothesis beside the point: Fish breeding technology can render
     the biotech fish almost 100 percent female and infertile, he said, and that
     means they simply can't reproduce.
     
     In addition, the company has proposed that fertile versions of the fish be
     raised only in tanks on land, and that only sterile fish be allowed to be
     raised in the traditional ocean cages now commonly found off Maine, Atlantic
     Canada, Chile and Norway. Even some critics of genetically modified salmon
     acknowledge that that could protect wild salmon from damage being done by
     fish farming.
     
     But critics warn that the precautions offered by A/F Protein to keep their
     salmon infertile and away from wild fish are not foolproof--and point to the
     recent discovery of unapproved biotech corn in taco shells as an indication
     of how easily things can go wrong. Even the escape of a handful of fertile
     biotech salmon, they say, could have enormous negative consequences.
    >>

    This is perhaps where there is some reason to be concerned. It is
    reasonable to wonder whether the wild salmon population could be
    innundated by a large influx of the "mutants".

    However, it seems that no one has raised any issue about why the fisherman
    have been allowed to over fished the wild salmon in the first place.
    Nor have consumers lost any desire to consume the wild salmon which
    is rapidly disappearing. Does the "law" create salmon or is
    it our stewardship that preserves salmon. There are serious signs
    of grave irresponsibility flying in all directions here, and not
    just at the companies of genetically modified foods.

    by Grace alone do we proceed,
    Wayne



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 18 2000 - 10:18:35 EDT