I once posted about GM foods being produced for commercial purposes. Here is a page from the 3 issue of Present Perfect for this year.

To summarise, this article talks about the cons of organic food, and about how organic food growing is not sustainable due to the world hunger problem of today's world population , cost-effectiveness and more.

Disadvantages Of Organic Food?

Guest post by Jerett Turner

The trouble with organic food is not in eating organic. Who can argue against consuming fruits, vegetables, and grains grown without pesticides? Organic isn’t a new concept. It’s more of an old concept that’s been re-discovered. As far as I know, 19th century farms didn’t use lab synthesized fertilizers. But I would argue that organic has a long way to go before it becomes mainstream…again.

Below are a few reasons why organic isn’t turning everyone’s head just yet:

Cultivation and Productivity

Organic is paraded as better for the environment and our bodies. Again, it seems hard to argue that putting man made chemicals on our food is superior for either us or the ground.

But the current food cultivation and production system is what has allowed first world countries to progress so quickly. Growers and distributors have tweaked and refined a food system that runs near flawless. Rarely a day passes without your favorite local grocery store being stocked from floor to ceiling.

Organic growing, on the other hand, is inherently a slower process. Crops must be rotated more often to allow the dirt to replenish its nutrients. Weeding and pest control require more human eyes and hands to manage. Weather dictates what and when plants can be grown. The result? Lower harvest yields. And different produce throughout the year.

We don’t think twice that we can pick up a bunch of bananas or bag of oranges on our way home from work in the middle of January. Our food—it’s just there

In other words, organic is inconvenient. Why spend an entire Saturday morning hunting down produce when I can drive five minutes and buy anything I want anytime of the year? And when I do find organic produce in a more convenient location (i.e. a giant grocery store), it’s more expensive.

Cost and Distribution

Organic growers simply don’t have the manpower or, quite frankly, the technology to grow on a large scale. But, that’s the point. The only technology that organic needs more of is the sun.

Organic produce is left on the vine longer to ripen. Food that is fully ripened before it hits store shelves is usually rotten by the time it makes it. Mass produced food is picked early and allowed to ripen on it’s cross-country journey to retail outlets. Large trucks can carry tons of produce without worry that it will spoil in transit.

Organic must be picked late and quickly sold. This isn’t a novel concept. Our farming ancestors picked their ripened produce and either canned it for later use or kept it in a root cellar. When you’re growing most, if not all, your food, you’re typically not concerned with long term freshness.

Sustainability
One distinct advantage of organic farming is crop rotation. Crop rotation allows soil to naturally replenish nutrients. In mass food production, the soil is chemically recharged. In this way, land can be harvested indefinitely.

So the question remains, how do we continue to feed a growing country (and world) with a system that slows down production? A system that requires land to stay fallow every few seasons? How to work effectively within the disadvantages of organic farming? Within any disadvantage of organic food?

The only answer is that more individuals must take it upon themselves to grow, or raise, a portion of their own food. Either in back yards or on small land plots. A large scale organic food system is the sum of it’s individuals. We as individuals are the key to large scale organic food production.

There are organic food disadvantages, but they can all be overcome. But it will take time and it will take effort from many people.

http://worldsstrongestlibrarian.com/7574/disadvantages-of-organic-food/

GM food: we can no longer

afford to ignore its advantages

To alleviate some of the worst dangers from the looming food crisis, we must tap into the rich potential of genetic modification

Given the crises facing the planet, with the population set to reach the 9 billion mark by 2050 and increasing strains being placed on water, energy and food supplies, it would be wrong to hope there could be a single solution to the storms that lie ahead. 

However, the population biologist added a crucial caveat. It would also be foolish not to make the maximum use of the new technologies that we are developing in order to alleviate some of the worst dangers we will face in the decades that lie ahead.

And among those scientific wonders, the use of genetically modified crops has a particularly rich potential, Beddington added. "Just look at the problems that the world faces: water shortages and salination of existing water supplies, for example. GM crops should be able to deal with that."

It is a good point. Consider the simple issue of food that is lost before it can be harvested because it has been eaten by pests that humans have never learned to control. That loss comes to around 30%, agriculture experts calculate, a rate that cannot be allowed to continue. And GM crops are perfectly placed to solve that sort of problem.

The work of scientists at the Rothamsted research station in England provides a good example of the sort of benefits that can be achieved through genetic modification. They have engineered a strain of wheat so that it emits a chemical called E-beta-farnesene which is also emitted by aphids when they are threatened. In effect, it tells other aphids to fly away. For good measure, E-beta-farnesene also attracts aphid predators such as ladybirds and wasps. In short, it delivers a double whammy – and one with rich potential. Aphids cause an estimated £100m of damage to crops every year in the UK alone.

At present, the effectiveness of Rothamsted's anti-aphid GM wheat has only been demonstrated in the laboratory. Earlier this year field trials were prepared but were threatened by anti-GM campaigners. However, their protest fizzled out, a development that suggests the green movement is growing up over its opposition to genetically modified crops.

In the end, however, science can only delay the inevitable, as Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington has made clear. We need to act now to start to cope with crises over water supply, world population numbers and rising carbon emissions in the hope that advances in agriculture and genetics can give us time for such measures to be introduced and take effect.

Or, as Beddington has made clear, there are almost a billion people today who are suffering from serious food shortages and who face starvation. "It is unimaginable that in the next 10 to 20 years there will not be a worsening of that problem unless we take action now, and we have to include the widest possible range of solutions."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/13/gm-food-crops-genetic-modification

Calls for a mood change on GM foods

Thirteen years ago 28 supporters ofGreenpeace broke into a field near Norwich and trashed the crop of genetically modified wheat.

It marked the start of a high profile campaign which forced the government to back down and brought an end to much of the research into the new technology.

Since then we've heard very little about the subject, but could all that be about to change?

This week the MP for Mid Norfolk, George Freeman, used a speech to a farming conference in Norfolk to call for a new debate into the benefits of GM.

"The public mood is changing," he told them.

"We need a grown-up debate about GM - we need to look at how we can unlock the power of that science to help the rest of the world.

"And we in government need to do more to support this important sector."

Food production

“Start Quote

"GM is taking off around the world whether we like it or not. ”

George Freeman MP(Con) Mid Norfolk

Mr Freeman is a great supporter of new technologies and bio science.

He is a government advisor on life sciences and chair of the Science and Technology Select Committee, and he feels farming and local research is losing out.

"GM is taking off around the world whether we like it or not," he later told us.

"The choice is whether we are a bystander or whether we take part in it."

"At a time when the world is crying out for ways of growing more food, it would be negligent for us not to look at our science base in Norwich and Cambridge, and look at how we can grow food for the rest of the world.

"If we are going to increase food production then innovations like the blight resistant potato bred here in Norfolk and using traditional strains and varieties and gene traits, have a huge role to play."

Future crops

The Norfolk farming conference was dominated by talk about coping with the drought and the need to increase food production.

The conference was told that the world demand for food will have increased by 50% by 2030.

"We are not developing the crops we need for the future," said Peter Kendall, the President of the National Farmers' Union.

"We need to develop crops which will help us manage with less water and crops which don't need to be sprayed for insects.

"The resilience we need for the future will be delivered by smart plant breeding - and that's all GM is."

Advisors still fear the public reaction.The present government is more pro-GM than the previous one but even though it is not the issue it used to be, we understand that there is still some reluctance within Downing Street to give the go ahead to the full scale use of GM.

"I think there are still a lot of people who say, 'We do not want GM food, it's bad for our environment and it's potentially dangerous'," says Rupert Read, the leader of the Green Party in the Eastern Region.

"What worries us is that GM is not about feeding the world, it's about making money for a few big corporations.

"British farmers would be in a much better situation if there was more research into organic farming or into how to make small scale farming more successful."

Mr Freeman says he isn't forcing GM on people who don't want it, he just wants there to be a choice for those who do.

And he admits there is still a long way to go to win over public opinion, but he and other MPs believe the tide is turning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17157306

Presentation

Since we have decided to present our views in a debate style, we shall work on our presentation together. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10PU_QreiCYVWndD07_VYQeKX6HiZTR1IVcOdOhbm7VQ/edit#slide=id.gbc7b60ce_013

I saw this on a granola packet. It seems to state that non-GMO is healthy and natural.

New York Times

http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/the-year-in-ideas-a-to-z-genetic-pollution/

The way we think about and deal with pollution has always been governed by the straightforward rules of chemistry. You clean the stuff up or let it fade with time. But what do you do about a form of pollution that behaves instead according to the rules of biology? Such a pollutant would have the ability to copy itself over and over again, so that its impact on the environment would increase with time rather than diminish. Now you’re talking about a problem with, quite literally, a life of its own.

This year, the idea of genetic pollution—the idea, that is, that the genes of genetically modified organisms might end up in places we didn’t want them to go—became a reality. In September the Mexican government announced that genes engineered into corn had somehow found their way into ancient maize varieties grown there—this despite the fact that genetically modified corn seed has not been approved for sale in Mexico. The country where corn was probably first domesticated, Mexico is today the source of the crop’s greatest genetic diversity. Now that diversity could well be threatened.

Companies like Monsanto have long acknowledged that their engineered genes (“transgenes”) might on rare occasions “flow” by means of cross-pollination from one of their crops into neighboring plants. But because sex in nature takes place only between closely related species, and because most crop plants don’t have close relatives in North America, the risk that new genetic traits would contaminate the genome of the world’s important crops was, the companies claimed, remote. As long as genetically modified corn seed wasn’t sold to Mexican farmers, or potato seed to Peruvians, these crucial “centers of diversity” could be protected.

So how did transgenes ever find their way into traditional Mexican corn varieties? It’s a mystery, but the leading theory is that some campesinos in remote mountainous fields outside Oaxaca bought some genetically modified corn as food—then planted the kernels as seed. No matter how it happened, Monsanto’s genes have spread widely in the region.

Why does this matter? The presence of transgenes in what some experts call “the cradle of corn” represents a threat to the crop’s biodiversity. Should the traits introduced into Mexican fields confer an evolutionary advantage (for insect resistance, say) on certain plants, their offspring could crowd out older varieties, leading to the extinction of genes we may someday need. For whenever a food crop suffers a catastrophic failure—as when blights destroyed the potato crop in Ireland in the 1840′s—breeders return to that crop’s center of diversity to find genes for resistance. Next time around, those genes may be nowhere to be found, a casualty of genetic pollution.

Greenpeace has called on the Mexican government to halt imports of genetically modified corn, but the genie is already out of the bottle. Genes released into the environment can replicate themselves ad infinitum. Indeed, some studies suggest that transgenes are particularly “sticky”—better at getting themselves around in nature than ordinary genes, possibly because of the viral and bacterial vectors used to engineer them. So far that’s just a hypothesis; we don’t really know how transgenes will behave once they’ve found their way into a crop’s center of diversity. What we do know, now, is that we’re about to find out.

http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/question148.htm
The rationale why I did not choose to copy and paste the text is because there is actually a video uploaded in the webpage.Basically,it talks about GM food and organice food.But the main subject is on the topic of GM food.

Interviews.

We interviewed 5 of our classmates about GM foods and organic foods using a few questions as a guideline for Socratic Questioning. Here are their individual responses.

Zhi Yuan (Negative example)

Group members: What is your understanding of GM foods?

Zhi Yuan: What's GM food?

G: Genetically modified foods.

Z: Okay, I don't really know about genetically modified food. I think I've heard of it before, like sometimes   they use like tomatoes, they try to plant it with some [genes] or something so to make it more productive of the tomatoes they use.

G: So basically these are GM foods.

Z: Oh, okay.

G: What is your understanding of organic foods?

Z: It's food that contain lesser chemicals compared to some food because like it's much more healthier. 

G: Would you eat GM foods in the future?

Z: I would not eat GM foods in the future because it's not natural.

G: Why is it not natural?

Z: Because... Usually food that is genetically modified, it'll somehow contain some substances that are different from how it naturally occurs. 

G: What would that do to your health? (Linking to earlier response)  

Z: I think it would probably cause some unknown diseases if you eat it long term. Because sometimes you won't know what will happen to you in the future unless you eat it for a long time, right?

G: How about organic foods?

Z: I would eat organic food if possible because organic foods are usually natural and it won't cause anything that will cause like diseases and conditions. 

G: Why would it not cause "diseases and conditions"?

Z: Because... It doesn't contain any chemicals... 

G: How popular do you think GM foods are?

Z: I feel that GM foods are quite popular in the market now as compared to the past because sometimes I will see GM foods in supermarkets whenever I purchase my vegetables and fruits.

G: And why is that so?

Z: Probably because it will be more reproductive if you use these kinds of methods rather than naturally occurring because it will increase the amount you can produce every year.

G: How popular are organic foods?

Z: Organic foods are quite popular now, because some people are quite health conscious people. Organic food is healthier for them.

G: What if it is scientifically proven and tested that GM foods do not cause any health problems? Would you eat GM foods in the future?

Z: Yeah, I would eat GM food in the future if it's not related to health problems. 

G: Who are the main consumers of GM foods?

Z: I think it's for everyone, because everyone is suitable for consuming GM foods if it is not related to any diseases.

G: Then how about organic foods?

Z: Organic foods is apparently suitable for everyone. It's just that it's their own preference because organic foods are slightly more expensive compared to normal food. So organic food probably won't cause much diseases.

G: So you're saying that GM foods are normal foods?

Z: Yeah.

G: However, you seem to perceive that GM foods is going to cause a lot of health problems. What if these effects are removed? It would be safer to consume.

Z: Probably I would still consider it if it was removed, because it doesn't really make much of a difference to me, whether it's GM foods or like normal food (She mentioned GM foods are considered normal. Why the sudden change?) as long as it has nutritional values.

G: So you feel that you do not have to be stringent about the food you eat if it does not cause health problems.

Z: Yeah. 

(Here we see a large amount of assumptions that seem to be mainly about health issues.)

-End-

Millie (Positive example)

G: What is your understanding of GM foods?

M: GM food is food that is being modified to extend the expiry date or to increase the quality or increase production rate.

G: What is your understanding of organic foods?

M: It's like food that has not been modified or not been grown specially to fit special needs?

G: Given a choice, would you eat GM food in the future? Why or why not?

M: Given a choice, I would prefer to eat organic and wouldn't want to eat GM foods because it's like modified and we don't know what substances they put inside to make it even better so if possible, I wouldn't want to eat it unless there's no choice.

G: Do you think GM foods are popular?

M: Popular? Maybe, I think a lot of farmers use that method because it helps them to sell more and many food places use it too. So, popular? Yeah, I think it's kind of popular. Because it's also kind of cheaper.

G: How about organic food?

M: Organic food is more of the expensive side so I don't think it's that popular.

G: Who are the main consumers of organic food?

M: Maybe senior citizens because they are more concerned about their health, they don't want to die early.  (Too crude?)

G: How about GM food?

M: Maybe for those people who want cheap stuff. Because the supply is higher than the demand, so of course it will be cheaper.

G: However, we know that GM food is quite expensive to process.

M: Yes, but they produce a lot, so they can definitely cover the cost. (Agreeable.)

G: What if scientists have proven that GM food does not do any harm to our health? Would you still eat GM foods?

M: I would say I would prefer not to eat GM foods because it is still modified. I prefer... natural. 

G: So this is more of your personal preference.

M: Yeah.

G: If too many people started eating GM foods, what do you think will happen?

M: It depends on if the food has a harmful effect or not. If there isn't, then it's fine. If there is then...  you will see something harmful happen.

G: What would happen to the production of organic foods?

M: It really depends on personal preference. Some people still want to stick to organic foods. You can't help it. You can't force them to eat GM foods.

G: So, do you think people always prefer to eat GM food over organic foods, or the other way round?

M: I think most people prefer... I am not sure about that. 

G: Why do you think we asked these questions?

M: So that you can find out if GM foods are preferred over organic foods?

G: What do you think are the other benefits of GM foods?

M: Maybe it can become healthier and help a person's ability. Other than that, I'm not sure. 

G: However, we are currently talking about first-world countries. GM foods can help alleviate problems in third-world countries, where people do not get enough to eat. Do you think it will help to solve this problem?

M: Yes, it will help to solve this problem as there would be more food that can be grown under different conditions so it will help to solve this problem.

(Not as much assumption. A wider perspective.)

-End-

Priyanka (Unable to pinpoint)

G: What is your understanding of GM foods?

P: I think GM foods are healthy and help people make accurate choices about their diet (Interesting viewpoint).

G: What is your understanding of organic foods?

P: I think organic foods are a way for businessmen to make money because I think most of the organic foods are just plain foods just grown at home (Isn't that the meaning of organic?). They just claim to be healthy but maybe it doesn't make a big difference.

G: Given a choice, would you eat GM food in the future? Why or why not?

P: I don't think so because GM foods may have effects on my body (Contradicting statement?) which may cause long term diseases.

G: How about organic foods?

P: I think I won't eat organic food because it's just a waste of money.

G: So you're saying you won't eat GM foods or organic foods.

P: I would just eat foods that are grown using normal agricultural methods.

G: What do you think would happen if everyone started to buy GM foods?

P: Genetic modification would be heightened, ultimately leading to low levels of the true identity of food. (Very different perspective.)

G: What would happen to the popularity of other foods?

P: People might actually forget that we have those kinds of foods, and they might even become an exquisite cuisine of some sort.

G: What if scientists have proven that GM food does not do any harm to our health? Would you still eat GM foods?

P: I think I will consider [because] I need to assure myself that I will not be harmed because of these foods.

G: Do you think that GM foods can help to solve the problem of hunger in third-world countries?

P: I think so because in third-world countries the main concern is food, not healthy food. So they would be able to live for a short while even if it the food has an adversely negative effect on them. (Prior knowledge on world hunger.)

G: What assumptions do you think you have made?

P: I think I have assumed that GM foods are like some mad scientists coming up with chemicals that are used in poisons…

G: Is there any evidence to show that GM foods are not that healthy?

P: I don’t think so (Actually, there are.) but I always eat food that has been fresh from the supermarket which are not GM or organic so I consider them to be abnormal and different.

G:  So besides GM or organic foods, there is another type of food?

P: Yes.

G: How is it grown?

P: You plant seeds and they grow into trees and you pluck out the fruits.

G: How are GM foods grown?

P: For example, there is this long-living… fish. So they impart the DNA from this fish into, say, an apple, to make it long lasting and more people would buy it.

G: How about organic foods? Do you think that they are just a ploy or are they really organic?

P: I think that they are just a ploy, I mean that it’s like, in a normal situation, 100 apples are grown in a plot. But organic is 20 apples, grown in 5 different plots. I don’t understand the difference it makes.

G: If you don’t understand the difference, then what do you think are the cons of growing the plants close together, according to what you just said?

P: Maybe the plots are smaller, because the company does not want to incur any losses. It’s a way of advertising.

G: So you mean that when companies label their food organic, they might not actually be organic, and may in fact be no different from GM foods. So you would eat foods that do not claim to be organic or GM?

P: Yes.

(Here, we see a confusing viewpoint, until the end, when we have finally gotten her to clarify her thinking. There seems to be quite a bit of prior knowledge, but opinions are direct and sound like assumptions.)

-End-

Indhu (Negative example)

G: What is your understanding of GM foods?
I: I think that it’s kind of weird that they want to change something that’s already good as it is.
G: What is your understanding of organic foods?
I: I think organic foods are healthy because they don’t use pesticides and all those things that might eventually poison us.
G: How popular do you think GM foods are?
I: I think they’re quite popular because they are visually appealing and the food is exactly how the consumers want it.
G: So consumers are attracted to the appearance of the food?
I: And the taste because they change the taste to suit their needs and the fruits can be bigger and the taste nice, as compared to smaller fruits with nice taste.
G: What are the other advantages of GM foods?
I: I think you can get better quality foods because with GM foods, everyone can get a lot of nice food instead of just the richer people, and people can afford foods that taste nice.
G: How about organic foods? Do you think they are popular?
I: They’re popular because they’re healthy but they are also expensive so a lot of people don’t buy them often.
G: Who do you think are the main consumers of organic food?
I: I think it’s those richer people and people who want to maintain a healthy life, and those people with diseases like diabetes.
G: How about the main consumers of GM food?
I: They are those healthy people who don’t have many diseases that require organic food.
G: So you think that if you’re healthy then you eat GM foods and if you’re not healthy you eat organic foods?
I: Not exactly… Well I don’t know how to say this, but… If you are a huge health freak, you should eat organic food.
G: What if scientists have proven that GM food does not do any harm to our health? Would you still eat GM foods?
I: Probably.

G: Why is that so?
I: The taste and size of fruits are enhanced because they are genetically modified. It’s now worth what you’re paying for.
G: What do you think would happen if everyone started to buy GM foods?
I: Other foods will get neglected (Same thought as Priyanka).
G: What would happen to the popularity of other foods?
I: Since consumers purchase more GM foods than other foods, farmers might not want to grow other foods since it would be a waste of time.

G: Do you think that GM foods can help to solve the problem of hunger in third-world countries?
I: Yes, because if they want to eat organic food, they won’t be able to afford it as it takes more work to grow. GM foods taste nice yet are cheaper, so it can help. (Answer is only skimming the surface)
(A few important points but others are quite undeveloped.)

-End-
Fatimah (Positive example)

G: What is your understanding of GM foods?
F: I have no idea about GM foods…

G: What is your understanding of organic foods?
F: They are grown with more care and are healthier than other foods.
G: How popular do you think GM foods are?
F: Not very popular, I guess?
G: How about organic foods?
F: I think organic foods are quite popular but they are quite expensive so probably less people will buy them.
G: You said that you do not know about GM foods. Are you aware that you are consuming them practically every day?
F: No…
G: Well, GM foods are genetically modified foods. It’s simply adding genes and fertilisers and similar substances to enhance plant growth. As you know, farmers find ways to make their farming more productive and let their foods grow well so that they will be able to earn more profits and more popularity. Now that we have explained what GM foods are, what do you think about them?
F: I think that food grown naturally is better than GM food.
G: And why do you think so?
F: Because GM foods are foods with their process of growth changed. So I guess it’s not that good to consume them.
G: Why is it not good to eat foods when they are changed?
F: Maybe it’s because of the chemicals that affect the food and make it less healthy.
G: What could possibly happen, then, if you consume too much of the food?
F: [Health problems]
G: What do you think would happen if everyone started to buy GM foods?
F: There would be more occurrences of health problems and everyone wouldn’t be so healthy because they do not eat much of healthy food.
G: What would happen to the popularity of other foods?
F: It would decrease.
G: However, we are currently talking about first-world countries. GM foods can help alleviate problems in third-world countries, where people do not get enough to eat. Do you think it will help to solve this problem?
F: For third-world countries, I think that it is fine for its consumers to eat GM food as the food will grow faster and they will not go hungry to eat pure, organic food.
G: Who do you think are the main consumers of organic food?
F: People who are aware of the GM food problem and don’t mind spending more to eat healthier food.
G: So these people are more health conscious as compared to those who are not aware?
F: Yes.
G: What if scientists have proven that GM food does not do any harm to our health? Would you still eat GM foods?
F: Probably yes, because I want to save money (So money is a concern). I would still prefer organic food to GM food but since there is no harm in it I would eat GM food.
G: Do you feel that the statement that organic food is healthier than GM food is an assumption?
F: I think it’s an assumption because… There has to be more research done on GM food before actually stating that it is less healthy for consumers.
(This was not exactly easy as she did not have any prior knowledge at all and so whatever thoughts that she had were likely to be assumptions as she only knew that little information that we gave her.)

From these interviews we have gathered that:

• Main concerns of GM foods are health problems.
• The factor that keeps consumers from buying organic food is the price.
• There was no mention of repelling pests from crops.
• It is quite evident that our classmates have never given this issue much thought.
• Most of them are not sure of their information.
• Even though the health risks of GM food is removed, they will still prefer organic food.
• World hunger can be resolved by using GM food as the main concern is the existence of food and not how healthy it is.
• Organic food is stereotyped as food for extremely health conscious people.
• All of them seem to be against GM food due to potential health problems.
• Some of them feel that if GM foods were to become more popular, foods that have not been genetically modified would eventually die out, while others feel that they would still be consumed by health conscious people.

GM fish could hit dinner plates soon

Salmon created by Singaporean scientist set to be approved by US food watchdog

A genetically modified salmon created by Singapore scientist Hew Choy Leong more than 20 years ago looks set to be the world's first GM animal to hit dinner plates.

The transgenic Atlantic salmon - inserted with genes from the Chinook salmon and ocean pout so it can grow twice as fast - is safe to eat and will not harm the environment, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has decided after lengthy evaluations.

A final hurdle remains: a public consultation process on the environmental assessment. But industry players say it is almost a foregone conclusion that the FDA will give the final nod after the deadline for voicing concerns is up at the end of this month.

Most countries take the lead from the powerful watchdog agency, so a "yes" by the FDA would open the doors to the world market, said Professor Hew.

And farms in the United States and China have already indicated interest in breeding the fish.

The approval will bring no great riches to the 70-year-old emeritus professor at the National University of Singapore's (NUS) Department of Biological Sciences, who created the fish while doing research in Canada.

The pending decision by the FDA comes some 17 years after the company behind the fish - AquaBounty Technologies in Boston - applied to produce the fish commercially.

Prof Hew left the company he formed in 1999 to focus on his duties at NUS, although he still has a small number of shares. There will also be no royalties from his patent as it runs out this year.

"If you're looking for fast returns, this was definitely not the venture to be in," he said. "But as a scientist, looking back I have no regrets. This technology can contribute to solving food shortages given the increasing world population."

He has eaten the fish himself many times, and said that detractors who call GM salmon a "Frankenfish" are missing the science.

"The science is solid and the FDA has made its decision based on science," he said.

The fish has been judged as having no biological differences from regular Atlantic salmon, and is just as safe to eat.

The US National Marine Fisheries and the Fish and Wildlife Service have come to the same conclusion as the FDA - that the fish do not present an environmental danger, he noted.

Anti-GM groups, however, are dead set against it.

British-based GM Freeze, for instance, said that the FDA decision was based on "wholly inadequate safety data" and that the environmental impact could be considerable.

To prevent GM fish from escaping and spawning in the wild, however, they are bred in inland facilities, and the fish produced are female and sterile.

Many scientists have also endorsed the fish - the AquAdvantage salmon - and say the technology behind it is a way of easing the world's food burden.

One group of researchers, developers and investors feel so strongly about the bureaucratic bottlenecks that they petitioned US President Barack Obama last year.

"Any further unexplained delay in moving forward with the regulatory process of this precedent-setting case diminishes existing and future investment and innovation across the entire range of agriculturally important animals," they said.

"Animal biotechnologies have the potential to help address the challenges of food security at a time when the US and the other countries of the world could greatly benefit from such innovation."

http://www.soshiok.com/article/22628

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish
http://blogcritics.org/tastes/article/can-gmo-food-be-organic/page-2/

GMO Food: Genetically-modified organisms. This refers to the act of scientifically modifying the genetic structure of an organism. The resultant organism will have specifically defined characteristics. This is frequently done with seeds for crops. In the U.S., most of our soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola are genetically modified. Recently, the U.S. allowed GMO alfalfa to be planted without restriction. The genetically modified seeds can be patented. After all, the research to make them costs money. The argument for seed patents is that the investor must receive a return, or there will be no more investment money for research.

  

Until recently, I assumed GMO food could not be called "organic." The U.S. and Canada both prohibit 100% certified organic food from containing GMO ingredients. However, contamination of the crops may cause organic feed to contain some percentage of GMO ingredients. At the Straus Family Creamery in California, for example, Farmer Straus spent nearly $10,000 tracing back the ingredients in his organic supplies, to remove the GMO traces. Basically, the problem is that GMO crops spew pollen into the air, as all crops do. This pollen cross-breeds with organic feed, which pollutes and corrupts the organic farms.

It is a normal practice for organic farmers to save their seed for the next year. With GMO crops growing nearby, however, the organic crops become infected with the GMO seed. When the farmer saves his seed, he is then infringing on Monsanto Corporation's patent. Monsanto issued policies about patent infringement and their methods of enforcing patent law on these seeds. In these policies, Monsanto takes the position that their patented seed is desirable, and therefore the farmers who normally save their own seed are taking something away from the company.Organic farmers point out that they are no longer organic when their seed is contaminated by genetically-engineered cross-pollination. They are the victim, not the perpetrator. The Monsanto Corporation protests that it has sued only 145 farmers for patent violation. Meanwhile, the Organic Consumers Organization has organized a Millions Against Monsanto campaign to pressure Congress to force foods to be labeled as GMO. This would allow consumers to decide whether they will risk their health with GMO foods. The FDA does not determine whether or not GMO is safe. It only determines whether evidence has been provided to declare it unsafe. No evidence, no reason not to eat it.

Of course, whether GMO food is safe will not be determined until after people have eaten it for 20 or more years. By that time, non-GMO seeds may no longer be available on the planet, as the wind and the birds cross-pollinate our fields. Although dramatic increases in the incidence of allergies and immune system diseases have occurred over the last 20 years, science have not been able to identify why this has happened.