3

votes

GMO Fish on the horizon.

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created December 21, 2012 at 9:09 PM

This upset me: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/business/gene-altered-fish-moves-closer-to-federal-approval

I really wish those Liberals over at the FDA wouldn't just green-light every dumb idea that was thrown on their desk. Does this represent the end of fishing as we know it? Will fishing be pushed back into a small pocket of society, like raw milk farmers?

Farmed fish = corn-fed fish, which is bad because it's got less omega 3s, but there's definitely worse CAFO food out there. In terms of health, it's safe to assume GMO fish will be even worse than CAFO fish.

Does this upset anyone as much as it does me? Are there any people in the US besides Sally Falon and Mary Enig fighting to preserve the sanctity of food through lobbying? WAPF is a lobby in its own right.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19473)

on December 22, 2012
at 03:42 PM

This is where corporatism has gotten us. Government isn't for the people by the people, it's for the corporations, by the corporations. As long as people in the industry are allowed to work for the FDA and/or vice versa, and lobbyists are allowed, the people are screwed over and over again.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19473)

on December 22, 2012
at 03:40 PM

@polynesian-metal: they do that to cat food and dog food too. One of the first ingredients is gluten. I guess this is where it goes after they remove it for "gluten free" foods.

47edf681280750c3712a3a56f2eae33b

on December 22, 2012
at 07:03 AM

I have pet fish and their fish food is mostly other fish, yeast and wheat gluten with traces of soy. I know I specifically sought out the most' Paleo' fish food for them so they don't get corn but it is raining outside so I probably should forage them some worms and fungus.

7a6529ea25b655132fe58d793f95547a

(2040)

on December 22, 2012
at 12:30 AM

Fish farming is okay as long as it's out of the water. Wherever there are fish farms natural fish stocks decline.

75d65450b6ff0be7b969fb321f1200ac

(2506)

on December 21, 2012
at 09:26 PM

No, I don't think it bothers me as much as it does you. Overfishing has been a serious problem for many years. Fish farming makes sense to me in this over-populated world. The creation of GMO fish was inevitable. HOWEVER I do wish all GMO fish be labeled. I personally would pay more for wild caught fish because of its better nutritional profile ... and I want to avoid GMO anything. But others have differing views. Let the consumer decide.

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10979)

on December 21, 2012
at 09:12 PM

lol +1 because you pointed out how we grow corn, harvest it and then feed it to fish...

  • 3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

    asked by

    (2919)
  • Views
    1.2K
  • Last Activity
    1576D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

4 Answers

5
96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19473)

on December 22, 2012
at 03:52 PM

This is where corporatism has gotten us. Government isn't for the people by the people, it's for the corporations, by the corporations. As long as people in the industry are allowed to work for the FDA and/or vice versa, and lobbyists are allowed, the people are screwed over and over again.

There are nearly zero requirements to prove the safety of these things, from the FDA's point of view, "it's equivalent", so if someone says they're safe, it takes their word for it. Burden of proof doesn't exist. From the patent's office point of view however, it's not equivalent, it's intellectual property. How can something be and not be at the same time? When there's big profit involved.

Why are grains so cheap? Because our tax dollars subsidize them, but then, most corporations are setup to pay the least possible amount in taxes. Where's this money coming from? From your pockets, so the big agra can produce toxic crap food in a box to feed back at you, so you can be perpetually sick, so that big pharma can perpetually sell drugs to doctors, who are their real clients, so that you, and insurance companies can fork over more of your dollars to the doctors. The doctors in turn, thanks to lawyers, need to pay tons of their dollars to malpractice insurances, and to pay off their medical school bills.

Who wins? The corporations, and the middlemen. Who loses? The people.

This isn't about liberal vs conservative, it's about extracting the most money as efficiently as possible from the people.

GMO fish is just one little footnote in this big huge predatory system. It happens to be an untapped market. They'll happily use the vegan agenda when they can create animal free meat like substances grown out of vats. They already have this in the works, it just doesn't taste good. Note that this will not profit the vegans one bit, but rather they'll use the same words and language that the vegans use to get them to buy their toxic crap when it's hyperpalatable, addictive, and harmful enough to sell. And they'll be the first to push politicians to outlaw real meats "for the sake of future generations and the environment."

The "carbon tax" is just that. More profiteering. It doesn't reduce actual pollution, it simply is another revenue source.

There is a specific term for when governments and corporations are wedded together. In the 1940's it was called "national socialism", but that was the other way around: a government seized control of all its corporations. This is the reverse. Yet, to the citzenry, the effect is just as damaging.

5
00cd3b6f51530a6832fcda1712edbec3

(2411)

on December 21, 2012
at 09:29 PM

As to your characterization of "those liberals at the FDA," it wouldn't matter if they were liberals or conservatives. The agency is captive to the industries it oversees, regardless of who heads the agency.

1
3fc95bca9e723edfbbb72b172798ab49

(1354)

on December 22, 2012
at 06:50 AM

You know, GMO is one of the those things I wish didn't have corner cutting, mega-profit, motivations driving it. The idea of genetically modifying our food to be abundant and, potentially, perfect for us is very appealing. Imagine if we were able to get a fish that COULD take all of that grain and be omega-3 balanced and healthy. What if we found a way to make the bio-accumulation of heavy metals a non-issue? Nature knows best? Well, we happen to be able to make nearly EVERY fish just as good as the best Mr. Caveman would have ever caught in his life.

The list could go on. But instead we get Australian cane toad type scenarios. That is, jumping in, head first, into a world that is not only poorly understood but with poor motivations. Rare few groups with the capital to do a proper GMO project are at all interested in putting in the time, painstaking research and money to make a product that is actually HEALTHIER. Usually they just want more volume or, possibly, flavor (although flavor rarely actually follows).

But I'm the perennial vindicator of technology. It's not the concept of GMO's fault that it's implemented so shitty. When good intentions and powerful technology come together it can create some amazing things. GMOs have the potential to help mankind so much, but it is controlled by the same type of people who try to shove Weight Watcher Snack Cakes down our throats. With the same groups who gave us the "food pyramid" at the helm of GMO I'm not too hopeful for a shiny, Star Trek, future for our food.

P.S. I was genuinely SHOCKED when the forced GMO labeling proposition didn't pass in California. I guess the last second blitz campaign coupled with the already huge agriculture in California put it down.

0
7a6529ea25b655132fe58d793f95547a

(2040)

on December 22, 2012
at 12:39 AM

Ya it's very sad, there are ways of increasing our fish stocks without resorting to extremes like this.

http://www2.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/story.html?id=310cff74-f64d-4cc5-96d5-8e1b0f629fd3

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!