Is It Safe To Eat Genetically Modified Animals?

Recently, the FDA approved the sale and consumption of genetically modified salmon. Will this change the food industry forever?
Read More:
China Is Building a Giant Animal-Cloning Factory to Feed the Masses
“While the rest of the world sorts out its feelings about the safety and ethics of cloning animals for food production, China is charging ahead and building the world’s largest animal cloning factory, set to begin operations in 2016. The 200 million yuan (over $31 million) commercial animal cloning center will be located in the Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area, a government-sponsored business area about 100 miles from Beijing.”


Will We Ever Eat Genetically Modified Meat?
“In 2012, the AquAdvantage salmon, reared by the US-based AquaBounty Technologies, looked set to become the first GM animal approved for human consumption. A panel appointed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said the fish is safe to eat and poses no threat to the environment.”
____________________

DNews is dedicated to satisfying your curiosity and to bringing you mind-bending stories & perspectives you won't find anywhere else! New videos twice daily.

[GheyForGames]

i dont get why gmo foods are bad at all?! using crazy insecticides and fertilizers are what scares me, thats the shit thats killing the bees....i think

[zedwolf]

"We already have genetically modified plants growing in nature around the U.S. that escaped from farms"... Hold on. How does a plant escape from a farm?

[alainischileno]

this should've been a 7 second video of trace saying "yes." then staring into the camera for 6 seconds

[Eysc]

if its one of those 2 headed cows from fallout, then yes.

[megagene]

That eel-like species you refer to... Would you say that's a moray?

[moonflowerljg]

I feel that playing around with nature -in so far as a food source- is asking for trouble. Everything we put into our bodies has an effect on our bodies. It has been deemed safe to consume fast foods, but proven that consuming nothing but those "safe" fast foods for 30 days can be so dangerous as to pose the risk of fatality. Just because we deem something to be safe doesn't make it essentially true-- besides, "safe" means different things to different people. For example, to me, "safe" means that the thing in question- when used as intended- poses absolutely no kind of threat in any amount to anyone-- even when used over any continuous length of time, and such has been proven. The US FDA, on the other hand, pretty much says something is "safe" if it doesn't (or doesn't seem to) kill immediately.

In my opinion, consuming genetically modified substances would logically lead to modification or mutations in the genetic makeup of those who consume, and since it may take generations for these to show up, I believe there is no possible way for us to know for sure that these things would not only be an impossibility, but also to know that in the rare chance the modifications and/or mutations do occur, that they wouldn't be to a negative outcome.

Also, with as many large nations and countries around the world which have BANNED GMOs, it seems to me that they either have access to (or otherwise deem credible) other studies which either prove the lack of their safety, or they have determined a lack of enough information to claim that these unnatural, lab-created substances won't negatively change humanity's genetics over time. Perhaps they know something we aren't willing to admit to ourselves- probably because there is money to be made when the world believes a new resources is available to substitute resources which are feared to be running out due to "overpopulation." Let's not forget that here, in America, money is held in high regard, i.e., profits over people, which could ultimately be a motivation for those with power to consistently claim something to be a safe solution to our problems, despite every other major country acting & claiming otherwise.

In the last 10 years since changing the diets of all members in my household, my sister's household, and my parents' household to organic, non-gmo foods, there are very few illnesses running through the family- meaning fewer costly trips to a doctor, less of those expensive pharmaceuticals being taken, no loss of income due to taking sick days from work-- all occurring in a family that had previously suffered from and with many ailments and illnesses for which modern medicine said there were no ways of "fixing." This, in and of itself, is enough evidence on a personal level to say that I & my family will be sticking with our ORGANIC, NON-GMO food sources and boycotting those producers, manufacturers, and distrubutors of such (sorry, Kraft, Chef Boyardee, and all of ConAgra's or Monsanto's affliates).

On a side note: IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT MONANTO DOESN'T OFFER GMO PRODUCTS TO THEIR EMPLOYEES IN CAFETERIAS OR ANY VENDING MACHINES ON COMPANY GROUNDS. If true, then it would serve as enough proof to me that there is a known possible risk by the creator and largest distributor of GMO foods, and therefore the biggest reason to continue being naturally organic and non-GMO.

[PotatoMagnet]

Omg, I've learned so much from all your channels and videos. Never stop making videos man.

[saeku]

I just ate a turducken for Thanksgiving... so BRING IT ON, SCIENTISTS!

[blaegme]

Making a blanket statement that "GMO are dangerous" is like saying "any car modified from factory default is dangerous."

It's not about if it's been changed, but how it's been changed. The danger is that we don't fully understand genetics, so we should proceed with caution. Make sure a given modification does what it was intended to and doesn't become unstable or gain unintended effects after generations.

Make our food healthier or more resilient to disease? Good if we make sure that's what happens.

Make bacteria that can digest plastic, but need the moist warm environment of a landfill? Would be nice.

Make an organism that produces crude oil or petroleum as a waste product to power our future? How about we hold off on stuff that produces anything toxic to us or the environment until we know more.

[Minale__]

Oh boy, that's a topic my mom brings up aaall the time.. and everytime, the fight goes like "BUT YOU'RE A CHEMICAL ENGINEER, YOU KNOW THAT SH'T'S ALL JUST CHEMICALS, RIGHT?" - "Yes, mom, and as a chemical engineer, I can assure you tHAT ALL THE SH'T AROUND YOU IS LITERALLY JUST CHEMICALS."

Most people have no idea that they've been eating genetically modified fruits and veggies for maany many years, and nothing happened. They don't modify stuff genetically to make people sick, they do it because people want sweeter fruits, bigger veggies and more nutrients for the smallest price possible - it's all just supply and demand.

[mastring]

I think the bigger concerns revolve around when the scientists turn on or off specific gene's in a plant or animal that has been found to effect those who consume them. Creating hybrids is significantly lower on the "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE" scale.

It's more "they turned off that gene that made the plant unpalatable to certain bugs and now I can't absorb this vitamin or mineral after I ate the plant". The law of unintended consequences is rife when doing that kind of thing.

[keeperman]

7 billion people and growing means we need more food and this our best idea yet. I'd eat that salmon any time. Sounds yummy

[MoookOfDuty]

Yeah, they will grow wings and lungs able to survive outside water, then kill eagles.

[BOBOUDA]

>Humanity needs food sources that have a lesser impact on the environment.

I'm pretty sure that eating no meat is better than modifying meat to have a less huge impact on the environment.

[Leo_Keys]

I just think of GMO's as a faster natural selection. It's not like they bombarded the genes with radiation to produce the results.

[jock]

I'm perfectly fine eating GMO's because we have been modifying foods "naturally" by selectively breeding livestock for millennium. I prefer the much safer way of just genetically changing and then testing to make sure it is safe. It has gone through more testing than most of the food we eat, so let's have at it!!

[SPACAR-RESCUE]

"Save the oceans, save animal wildlife..."

:::Okay, we made this fish that will allow us to pull less wildlife out of the oceans, and be easier on the environment, and use less resources to feed more people. Science is fun!:::

"Okay... we were really just looking for shit to complain about, and really didn't expect you guys to follow through. What jobs can we get with Liberal Arts degrees in Poetry?"

[Tomyb]

The only logical argument that I can think of that is against GMOs is that one can't know for sure how changing one gene will affect everything else in an organism's metabolism. Said differently, each gene just codes for a specific protein, but it is the interaction of all those proteins with different organelles and compounds that make an organism be what it is and looks like; and one cannot know for sure how a different protein would interact with absolutely everything else.
The thing is that there is a LOT of research done in this field and still, the GMOs are tested countless times to make sure that if there is an adverse effect, it is not dangerous in any significant way.

[upgrader]

would anyone say "I'd rather have GMO on my plate instead of something I grew/raised myself, that I knew to be non-GMO?"

I mean... I get it that the science is saying it's safe. But in Fallout 4, you don't eat the "Bits-o-squirrel" very often I bet.

[Baggytrousers]

I'm still waiting for GMO insects that taste like mcdonalds burgers.