22 Comments

  1. Paulo Andrade says:

    Please, enlighten me and the other readers: what are
    precisely the risks, specially for the USA
    environment, since the eggs will be produced in Canada, the triploid, female
    fish will be grown in Panamá and only the fish flesh will reach USA? This is
    how it will work, as specifically approved by the FDA.

    1. Todd Burgess says:

      Them canadian fish wunt dare cross ower border. I jus dares em. Terrorists, them canadian fish.

    2. ThinkingAhead says:

      Why have the FDA approve selling fish they won’t allow to be grown in the USA? Why is it ILLEGAL to grow the eggs in the USA but supposedly LEGAL to grow the eggs in Canada? And these ILLEGALITY / LEGALITY circumstances = A REQUIREMENT of the acceptance of the GMO sale of fish in the USA? What is this NONSENSE?

      1. Paulo Andrade says:

        You did not answer my question.

        1. Look it up. GMOs of all sorts are very risky.

          1. Paulo Andrade says:

            Please tell us what have been the damage, after 180 million hectares have been planted with Gmo varieties, vaccines, Drugs and other molecules are eargerly consumed worldwide and even teansgenic mosquitoss are finding their way to the market…

          2. The risk is environmental and we are only learning the consequences. LOOK IT UP.

      2. Paulo Andrade says:

        FDA approved the use of GM salmon as food in USA. The production outside USA is not FDA business. In a very exceptional decisivos, it accepted the company business strategy, involving other contries. As simples as that.

    3. Tom Sawyer says:

      Ever wonder how fish get to small isolated ponds in the middle of no where? Birds like the crane carry the fish eggs on there legs.

  2. Tom Sawyer says:

    I think messing with animals this way is going to far to fast. Go ahead and troll me.

    1. Paulo Andrade says:

      We have been “messing” with our animals in the last 200 years, fortunatelly. That is why beef, eggs and milk are affordable. The biotech animals will be just another step in the same direction.

      1. Tom Sawyer says:

        Selective breeding is not the same as gene splicing.

        1. Paulo Andrade says:

          No, genetic engeneering (or editing, but never splicing) is not the same as selective breeding: it is safer im most instances.

          1. Tom Sawyer says:

            How do you know, have any examples. If this fish gets out it could upset ecosystems just like any other invasive species.

          2. Paulo Andrade says:

            Salmons are not invasive species, they not display the characteristic traits needed for invasion of new ecosystems or ecotones. Feed eager salmos, like this GM salmos, even less.

          3. Tom Sawyer says:

            What are you talking about, you don’t think this GMO salmon chinook eel fish will not force out other species if it gets out, I’m not talking about natural salmon.

  3. ThinkingAhead says:

    There’s a clear scam here. Since when can anyone argue that “because there is no real difference between the GMO and the wild fish” there is no need for labeling, but, obviously, “because there is a real difference between the GMO and the wild fish” the company needs a patent on the GMO fish. I don’t understand why no one but no one is challenging the legality of this have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too fallacy.

  4. I read all this and then I see the ridiculous trending articles and offers and think uuuuummmmmm, is this for real

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *