What impact can the cosumption of genetically modified salmon have on the human genes?
Every modification creates some kind of target effect whether in the long or short term. Therefore
modification in one species when consumed by another over a long perido of time will eventually manifest in some kind of distortion of dna, genes or birth defects for which scientists will not readily reveal the truth of point-of-origin. Mass production will produce mass death, thus fulfilling the aim of reducing population.

Cecilia, your post is uninformed, paranoid, and delusional. Genetic modification is not contagious. The salmon’s DNA is being changed before it ever even becomes a full fish. The meat of a genetically modified salmon should be no less safe to eat than a wild salmon.

The only true danger is the impact that these modified fish may have on the natural ecology. I imagine it would be similar to releasing an exotic species with no natural predators and that they will out-compete most fish around.

Well, if we had had this attitude from the beginning of the modern scientific era, we never would have had the myriad things we enjoy today. Every scientific advance has its down side, but there have been a great many more upsides. I sure am glad that a vial cotaining Pencillium mold was not left one the shelf because they were afraid of what the unintended consequences might be.

Alan
Biology, 1950

We never know the actual effects until we put it into use. Is our fish population so bad that we NEED to mass produce it? George, your response to Cecilia is not accurate. Even from this article we learn that the Genetic Modification has had an effect on Butterflies. Anytime we change the natural order of things we have a negative impact on the world around us. Sometimes this effect is not immediately recognized. The industrial revolution has led to an increase in waste. Our landfills have grown exponentially. The technological revolution may result in fat lazy males and an inability to communicate effectively without media. The altering of Bovine food sources have a correlation with female humans developing quickly. There is also a correlation with amoxicillin and ADHD. As well as other correlations that lead to increased cancer and other illnesses. When we alter the natural order of things, we alter the natural order of things.

For better or for worse, humans have a compulsion to modify nature. Always has been so, and always will be. On balance, our lives are infinitely better than the lives of our ancestors, because of our unique (among animals) curiosity. Just look at longevity.

The most difficult aspect of the compulsion of the human/nature relationship has been our penchant to move animals and plants from one place to another. More often than not, that has been harmful to the native residents.

As for the salmon, if evolution tells us anything, it tells us that if the escaped modified fish are superior to the wild fish, they will prevail. If they have no competitive advantage, they will disappear. Thus it has always been with mutations and natural genetic variation.

Having worked for more than 50 years as a science journalist, I have seen a lot first-hand. I worked at several of the international research centers and universities that were responsible for the “green revolution”, which was widely reviled by the far left. The fact is that hundreds of millions of people are receiving adequate diets because of the high-yield crop varieties and modern cultural practices that were developed by these centers and the Land-Grant universities. It was a privilege to have been a part of it.

Science is not our sinister enemy. It distresses me to see such irrational discussion from my alma mater, which gave me my basic science knowledge.

I don’t think anyone (except maybe Cecilia) is treating science as an enemy in this discussion. I think the point Dr. Matter was trying to make is that we need to use our scientific knowledge to look at the potential effects of modifying nature and make a rational decision about whether the benefits outweigh the costs. From an ecological standpoint, perhaps the risks are too high. From a human standpoint, maybe not. As a conservation biology MS student, I’m inclined to agree that the unforeseen ecological impacts could be very destructive.