Genetically modified salmon
The "Masterpiece" of Human Science and Technology - Genetically Modified Pigs
â—ŽLiu Jiayin
Salmon, also known as salmon, is a delicious and nutritious fishery product. However, due to the reduction of habitat and overfishing in recent years, the number of wild salmon has dropped dramatically. According to U.S. media reports, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is likely to approve the sale of "AquAdvantage® transgenic salmon" registered by a U.S. company called Shuibangiti. If it is recognized, it will become the world's first approved transgenic animal for human consumption. It has been predicted that this may lead to a series of transgenic animals becoming human food.
Artificial genetic mutations increase salmon growth
According to the company's company known as Shuibangti, “AquAdvantage® transgenic salmon†grows very quickly, and it takes only one and a half years to reach the normal three-year-old giant carp. Accelerated growth of salmon is obtained through genetic variation. Common squids secrete growth hormones intermittently, and the newly added genes enable squid to continuously secrete growth hormones, accelerating growth. The specific approach is to extract a gene that is responsible for the secretion of growth hormone from Chinook, added to the Atlantic salmon gene. However, if this gene is directly added, it does not work in Atlantic salmon, so it is still necessary to extract a piece of DNA from the American cotton cockroach and use it to change the gene extracted from Chinook Cocoon and activate it as a "switch". In order to make this variant of squid secrete growth hormone all year long.
With regard to the advent of this genetically modified fish, there have been mixed news reports and it is still under intense debate. In many viewpoints, some environmentalists believe that Shuibangiti Company has issued a number of misleading information and statements in order to pass the US Food and Drug Administration's certification and obtain the approval of consumers. This has caused many consumers to be overwhelmed by the listing of this genetically modified carp and believes that this new species has a short growing cycle, can provide more aquatic products, and solve the plight of endangered wild carp.
Perhaps the company’s statements can temporarily fool people who have little knowledge of genetic technology, but they cannot withstand rigorous scrutiny. After a brief inspection, it is not difficult to find that the intricacies of genetically modified technologies are not mature. The potentially harmful effects of bringing genetically modified animal foods to market are very serious and cannot be fully anticipated. It's like Pandora's box. What people are hiding inside doesn't know. When the box is opened and people understand the secrets of the genetically modified carp in Pandora's box, it may be too late.
Seven misleading and questioned
Let's take a closer look at the misleading information published by Shuibangiti.
â– Misleading: Variants of fish are the same in shape and taste as ordinary Atlantic salmon. Breeding techniques are similar to traditional crossbreeding techniques.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) survey report shows that the AquAdvantage® transgenic salmon has a high body shape mutation rate and often causes ugly ulcers and other undesirable phenomena. As for the taste, there is no quantitative investigation. However, we know that many animal and plant foods are not as tasty as they used to be. This is largely related to genetic modification, ripening, and yield increase. It is inferred that the genetically modified carp, which can mature in half the time, may not have the same taste as the wild carp.
According to the reporter's understanding, in the wild environment, Atlantic salmon and Chinook salmon or American cotton bran are unable to breed offspring, and their DNA will not be mixed together. This GM technology relies on viruses carrying new genes to change the original genes, which is completely different from traditional crossbreeding techniques.
â– Misleading 2: There are enough experiments to prove that variant fish does not harm the human body.
According to reports, first of all, currently there is no plan to conduct comprehensive allergy and allergen determination in the laboratory. This is something that needs to be learned through a large number of people. Secondly, FDA staff stated that the experimental data provided by Shuibangti Company to the FDA was very limited, and all of them were measured by internal personnel of Shuibangiti Company. There was no research by any third party organization. This data has not been disclosed to the general public. The only paper published on the AquAdvantage® variant fish that was made available to the public is the feature of the growth hormone gene that promotes the growth rate of Atlantic salmon and its long-term stability. "One article. The only piece of this single article is still full of mistakes. Some error authors have corrected in the later errata, but there are still many problems that are puzzling and contradictory. Some people have suggested that no one can come up with definitive evidence that variant fish are harmful. This is because the mutant fish is still a new thing and has not been widely spread. There are not many edible people, so the hidden dangers have not yet been revealed. However, if it is because of poor consideration in advance, it may be too late to control when it is proved to be harmful.
Misleading 3: The US FDA has a lot to understand about this case
Although Shuibangti Company submitted an application to the FDA as early as 1995, the FDA has always placed such cases aside and did not deal with them. It was not until 2008 that the FDA began to consider applications for genetically modified animals as human food. So far, the FDA has not established a complete approval process for such applications. Therefore, the GM fish have to be approved as GM drugs (not foods). We must know that because drugs can cure diseases and there are not a large number of people taking them for a long period of time, they are allowed to have certain side effects and other potential dangers. However, as a widely eaten food, the existence of such potential risks is probably more harm than good. It has been sloppily determined that the world’s first scientific review and approval process for the widespread sale of genetically modified animals as foods is cautious and complete. Isn’t it naive?
â– Misleading 4: Aquaculture variants grow fast, providing more people with aquatic products and protecting marine resources.
Mutant fish do grow fast, but carp is a carnivore after all. It takes three pounds of fish to grow a pound of fish. Breeding variant fish will inevitably reduce other types of fisheries. Shuibangti plans to breed and breed in Canada, then transport the fish eggs to Panama for aquaculture and finally ship them to the United States for sale to consumers. Such a plan is not at all environmentally friendly. The correct approach should be to try to protect the existing populations in the natural world so that their numbers can be picked up.
Misleading 5: Variant fish and common squid cannot produce offspring, so even polyculture will not harm ordinary squid.
According to experts, when food is lacking and the environment is harsh, variant fish are often more competitive than ordinary fish and can grab ground and food. If polyculture is introduced, it will inevitably invade the living environment of common squid and cause harm to common squid. Although AquAdvantage® variant fish are all female and 95-99% suffer from infertility, there is still one case of reproductive ability, and the effect of new genes on fecundity is not clear. If variant fishes inadvertently flow into the ocean, they will cause great risks.
â– Misleading 6: Transgenic fish do not need to be specifically labeled for sale because many genetically modified food products are not specifically labeled.
Shuibangti said that the so-called genetically modified fish is salmon, and its various indicators are no different from Atlantic salmon. There is no need to give special instructions when it comes to sale because many genetically modified agricultural products do not have special instructions.
If this claim is approved, more GM foods will soon flow into the market without labels, making it impossible for people to choose. Currently, there are only transgenic plants and no transgenic animals. Although in order to expand sales, so that consumers can not be identified, GM plant manufacturers continue to apply, hoping that the sale does not have to indicate that the product is genetically modified, but according to the relevant US regulations, most genetically modified foods must still be noted when selling, to protect the consumer Right to know.
Misleading 7: Genetically modified foods increase food diversity
Genetically modified foods are often controlled by a single company. If such products have high economic returns, they will certainly crowd out other similar products, resulting in reduced production of other similar products or even disappear. This may, on the contrary, reduce the variety of products on the market and make GM products gradually enter a monopoly position. If food is controlled by a single or small number of companies, they can control prices and create market price instability. In addition, most of the genetically modified foods are unable to breed offspring. Even if they can reproduce, the genes may not be stable. As a result, once these monopolistic companies have problems, they may lead to large-scale food shortage or famine. The real driving force of the company is not for consumers but for economic benefits. In order to recover huge amounts of investment and make profits, the company must pass the US FDA certification and obtain the approval of the consumers. Therefore, they tried their best to demonstrate and persuade the FDA to conceal the consumers.
FDA has held a variant fish hearing
In recent years, Shuibangti Company has repeatedly declared that their variant fish will soon pass the certification of the US Food and Drug Administration and be put on the market. However, under the influence of political forces, scientists, and civil organizations, FDA has not yet approved this fish as a food market. Even with FDA approval, the U.S. government may introduce a bill to regulate the behavior of genetically modified animals in the food market.
As early as September 2010, the FDA held a hearing on AquAdvantage® variant fish. At that time, the FDA had questioned the quality of the fish, such as the demonstration of low fish glucose, chin ulceration and high incidence of focal inflammation, and high concentrations of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1). This growth factor is probably a carcinogen, but it is not yet clear.
The US FDA's advisory board also agreed with the FDA's argument that the number of samples of genetically modified fish tested by Shuibangti Company is insufficient, information is incomplete, there are problems with screening, changes in the fish's appearance, and inadequate environmental and scientific assessments. In addition, information on the disease resistance and nutrient composition of mutant fish is also insufficient, which makes the safety of these fish not guaranteed. Gary Thorgaard, the only fishery expert on the FDA's advisory board, asked the FDA to make a statement of its environmental impact statement. Other members agreed to this requirement during the discussion.
Many opposition voices
In October 2010, the members of the Democratic Party of the United States, Peter Giorgio and Denis Kucinch, led 29 members of Congress and sent a letter to the FDA commissioner Margaret to request the FDA to stop the approval process for genetically modified fish.
Democrat Senator Mark Bitch also led 10 senators to submit similar letters to Marguerite. And Alaska’s Republican senators pointed out: “It is extremely irresponsible to bring unspecified mutant fish to the market. The FDA should carefully consider the consequences before approval.†Similarly, the Senate Republican of Maine also requested the FDA to stop approving variant catfish. The process believes that since this will be the first transgenic animal to be human food, the approval decision has an unprecedented historical mission and must not be taken lightly. A very transparent approval process should be provided to deal with this intricate and specific situation. The FDA is required to consult the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in accordance with the law and hold public hearings. Then the consultation opinions are fed back to Congress.
British environmental reporter Charles Crawford pointed out in the column that it is absurd to use the mutant fish to feed the people of the world, because each fish must consume three times its weight to grow. If you really want to raise fish to increase aquatic production, herbivorous fish should be selected.
The US Grassroots non-profit organization Food Safety Center also condemned the FDA's intention not to disclose all the evidence of the hearing, including documents that the new species would threaten the marine ecology. The Center for Food Safety also introduced that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, believe that the approval of new salmon species will violate the Endangered Species Act as it threatens the survival of wild Atlantic salmon.
There are also genetically modified pigs and genetically modified cattle waiting
There are a large number of organizations and individuals that have opposed this variant fish. Not only is the potential harm of the mutant fish itself, but also if the project is approved, it will certainly drive other transgenic animals to the food market. There are many such cases pending approval. For example, the report contained a genetically modified cow that did not develop mad cow disease because of a missing protein. There is also the development of genetically modified pigs in Canada. The pigs are said to have been implanted with a certain bacterial gene and thus able to digest the phosphate in the feed and reduce the pollution of their excreta. Since the transgenic plants entered the food market, they have had some impact on people's lives. For example, weeds have undergone genetic changes and have developed the same resistance as crop plants. Transgenic plants have affected the reproduction of nearby non-transgenic plants, preventing them from reproducing or reproducing naturally. Post-gene instability; taste changes; crowd allergic reactions increased. Therefore, before the approval of genetically modified animals to the food market, it must be carefully considered and should not be lost.
Color Mirror,Bronze Tinted Mirror,Tinted Glass Mirror Sheet,Color Mirror Ball
SHAHE HUAJINDE GLASS CO.,LIMITED , https://www.huajindeglass.com