Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

FDA Closer To Approving Biotech Salmon 204

An anonymous reader writes with a story about the possibility of genetically engineered salmon showing up on your table. "A controversial genetically engineered salmon has moved a step closer to the consumer's dining table after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Friday the fish didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it. AquAdvantage salmon eggs would produce fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon. If it gets a final go-ahead, it would be the first food from a transgenic animal - one whose genome has been altered - to be approved by the FDA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FDA Closer To Approving Biotech Salmon

Comments Filter:
  • by swschrad ( 312009 ) on Monday December 24, 2012 @02:56PM (#42382977) Homepage Journal

    do NOT cook in an electric oven. you have been warned.

  • by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Monday December 24, 2012 @04:11PM (#42383427) Homepage

    The patented fish is infertile.

    I seem to remember that GMO soy beans and corn supposed to be infertile too.

    Hopefully, nobody used any frog DNA ....

  • by uncqual ( 836337 ) on Monday December 24, 2012 @04:52PM (#42383673)
    This always intrigued me.

    The neighboring farmer didn't sign a license agreement with Monsanto.

    Perhaps Monsanto should go after the farmer who didn't control their "Monsanto Pollen and Seed" properly (that, of course, will never happen because they are Monsanto's customer!) if the license requires that the licensee exercises such control over the product.

    It seems to me that the farmer whose crop got cross pollinated has no obligation to return or avoid use of that which someone distributed onto their property voluntarily -- much as if I leave a flyer on your front door, it's yours to do with as you like. This is not a case of "lost" property -- the distribution is expected, predictable, well known, and the actual item being distributed has no direct economic value.

    It seems to me that the "cross pollinated" farmer has more of a cause of action against Monsanto (for knowingly distributing a manipulated organism that interferes with the farmer's ability to grow premium valued organic, non-GMO crops).

    I'd be tempted to make an offer to Monsanto if I was a neighboring farmer whose crops had gotten cross pollinated: 'Monsanto, get every last bit of your pollution off my property. Access to do so will be granted at the rate of $x/acre per day until you return the land in an "as found" condition with the exception of getting your crap off it'

"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"