Genetically Modified Salmon Becomes the first Genetically Engineered Animal to be Approved for Consumption

GE salmon (rear), non-GE sibling (front)
Source: New York Times

On November 19, 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved genetically engineered (GE) salmon as being safe to sell to consumers. "AquaAdvantage", a fast growing genetically altered salmon has become the first genetically modified animal deemed fit for human consumption.

The Food Empowerment Project defines genetic modification as the process of inserting genes from one organism into the genetic makeup of another, in order to produce a new genetically modified organism (GMO) that never existed before.  These organisms are made to exhibit beneficial characteristics (by way of the inserted gene) that give the GMO an edge over conventionally grown organisms.

"AquaAdvantage" salmon is a type of genetically modified (GM) Atlantic salmon that has been modified to allow it to grow to market size in half the amount of time that it takes for conventionally grown salmon to grow to that size. AquaBounty Technologies is the company responsible for this engineering. The approval for the consumption of GE salmon represents a milestone in the chapter of genetically modified foods, not only because AquaBounty has struggled in getting approval from the FDA since the 1990's, but also because "AquaAdvantage" salmon is the first animal-based food that has been approved for human consumption.

The salmon has been engineered to grow quickly through the insertion of two genes from other animals: a growth gene from the chinook salmon and a genetic switch from the ocean pout which keeps the growth hormone active within the salmon. Due to this modification, "AquaAdvantage" can grow to market size in 18-20 months, compared to normally grown salmon that grows to market size in 28-36 months.

Approval for GE Salmon Has Sparked Opposition From Consumers and Fueled the Debate on the Safety and Consequences of GM Foods

Even before the formal approval of transgenic salmon, in response to consumers' complaints, hundreds of seafood providers, grocers and restaurants have pledged not to distribute GE salmon. When considerations were being made for the approval of AquaAdvantage, nearly 2 million people spoke out against the approval of the "frankenfish" in a broad coalition organized by the Center for Food Safety.  Since the approval, the FDA has been under severe opposition from consumers and environmental groups, who do not believe in the thoroughness of the safety checks made for GM salmon before the approval, carried out by the FDA.

To make matters worse, despite the modifications made to the salmons' genetic code, it is not mandatory for GE salmon to be labeled as being genetically modified. This is of course to the dismay of many consumers, who want complete transparency about the quality and origin of the foods that they purchase from providers. The FDA justifies its decision by stating that there are "no material differences between the genetically engineered salmon and a conventionally grown counterpart". In other words, there is no difference between a GE salmon and a normally farmed salmon.

The FDA also claims that there is no evidence that the genetic modification of foods has any effect on the quality or safety of the food. In spite of the FDA's confidence in the safety of AquaAdvantage, environmental groups are still opposing the approval due to  concerns for environmental safety. They are concerned about the possible effects GM salmon could have on existing salmon populations, should they ever escape into the wild. Yan-Jen Lo, a Computer Science student at the University of Maryland, who has done extensive research on GMO technology, shares some of the health and environmental concerns that people have for genetically engineered foods.

The point Lo made about health concerns that people have regarding GM foods highlights why people are outraged by non-mandatory requirements for the GE salmon to be labeled. The effects of food allergies that people have can range from being harmless to potentially deadly. If foods are not labeled adequately to inform consumers about the details about what they are purchasing, then it will be difficult for people to avoid foods that can exacerbate food allergies.

If the research conducted on how GM foods will react within people are not extensive enough to account for all the possible consequences, then consumers might be exposed to health risks that makers of GM foods do not currently expect. Also, the fact that the salmon will not be labeled as GM might suggest to consumers that there is something to hide. People might expect that if something is safe to eat, there should be no reservations about disclosing the origin of the food.

Despite the fact that the United States is the leading producer of GE crops, polls conducted by ABC News show that most Americans are skeptical of genetically modified foods in general. Because of this, people want their food to be properly labeled to tell if they are genetically modified or not so that they can avoid them.

Most people think that GMOs are unsafe to eat, and are more likely to buy food that are labeled as organic. It is no surprise then, that there would be widespread disapproval for the approval of the GM salmon. David Myers Ph.D , PLA and ASLA, from the University of Maryland, speculates the reasons for such widespread distrust.

GE Foods Could Be the Solution to Feeding the World's Human Population

Estimates made by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization state that the world will need to produce 70% more food by 2050 in order to feed an additional 2.3 billion people. This represents an extremely challenging feat, given the fact that natural resources are scarce and food prices are significantly high.

This compounds the already existing problem of  796 million people in the world, or 1 in 9 people, suffering from chronic hunger, according to the World Hunger Education Service. The Earth's population of humans is growing at an exponential rate. Even as far back in history as 1789, British economist Thomas Malthus recognized the exponential nature of the growth of the human population, and predicted global starvation when human populations eventually out-grow food production.

GMOs are safe to eat, making them a reliable food source, in the context of a possible food shortage. In order for GMOs to reach the market, they have to be put through rigorous testing that can span 7-10 years. Safety checks for GMOs include testing any possible threat to human, wildlife, or environmental health. GMOs are in fact, tested more thoroughly than conventionally grown crops. Hundreds of studies carried out have also found no evidence to say that GMOs pose a threat to human health.

Golden Rice (left), regular rice (right)
Source: allowgoldenricenow.org

Additionally, GMOs are reliable since they often contain a higher nutritional content than regular crops. Golden Rice for example, is a GM form of rice that has been enriched with Vitamin A, which regular rice is deficient of. This is significant especially for people who live in third world countries, where Vitamin A deficiency is prevalent and has caused widespread blindness and even death, in these countries. Pregnant women and children are particularly vulnerable to Vitamin A deficiency.

Genetically engineered foods are argued to be an efficient source of food for the world since scientists can control the behavior of the food. For example, GMO's are made to grow faster than conventionally grown foods. This is particularly advantageous, especially for regions that are prone to natural disasters, because it allows for bigger yields and makes efficient use of arable land. GE crops, for example corn, are also made to be resistant to pests, weeds and diseases, compared to normal corn which is highly vulnerable.

GMOs also appear to be the solution to a potential food crisis, in an era where we are battling climate change and its consequences. Scientific American claims that drought, changes in precipitation, and higher temperatures have contributed to poor soil conditions that are unsuitable for farming. A reduction in crop yields will force the price of food to increase, making food and good nutrition inaccessible to many people, particularly those who live in developing countries. Despite backlash from consumers and even bans on GE crops in various countries, there are good reasons to support the production of GMOs and trust in their safety.

Humans Have Been Altering Their Food For Millennia, but Differences in Techniques May Be the Reason for Skepticism of GE

Contrary to common knowledge, genetic modification is not a new technological advancement. Then what accounts for people's increased skepticism of GMOs? Well, even though genetic engineering is not new, the techniques by which we alter organisms is new.

In the past, people manipulated organisms by cross-breeding them with others that were related. In other words, they had a similar genetic makeup. This process involved crossing over tens of thousand of genes and was usually a very slow process. Contemporary genetic engineering now involves transplanting a single gene from an organism, into a totally unrelated creature, in order to give that organism a desired trait that it would not normally have.  As such, few genes get crossed at a time and the process is relatively quick. These processes are unknown to ordinary people which might contribute to skepticism and fear. Professor Myers elaborates on the possible reasons for fear of GMO technology today versus traditional hybridization techniques..

While there are plausible arguments to support GMO production and distribution, scientists must be understanding of consumers' hesitance to trust GMOs. People are, for good reason, becoming more health conscious, and since most people do not produce their own food, but get it second-hand from producers, it is understandable why people will be skeptical about the food that they purchase, and require total honesty about how the food is produced.

 In order to reconcile the need for GMOs with issues of consumer trust, scientists and policy makers should make the efforts to educate the public about the facts of GMOs, including how they are produced, how safe they are, and the state of the world that makes these transgenic foods necessary. Myers highlights the requirements of people who make GMOs which include disclosing the associated benefits.

However, in light of increasing human populations, and rising global temperatures, the use of GMOs is something that will need to be fully agreed upon by world leaders and regulators in order to combat a potential food crisis as one global community. Everyone needs to be on board on the matter of GMOs including consumers, in order for humans, as a species to move forward. Public education might be the only way to gain people's trust and co-operation in ceasing or at least mitigating world hunger, and securing an adequate food supply for generations to come.

 Scientists will need to be totally honest about GMOs, and producers will need to be absolutely transparent about the food they distribute (through detailed labeling) if they expect to gain consumers' trust. Scientists will also need to be strongly convincing that GM technology will not have devastating environmental consequences that are not currently obvious. They will need to prove that GM technology will not undermine sustainability, which is an issue that the world currently struggles with. Global cooperation is needed in order to ensure the welfare of the whole human race.

Americans' Trust in the Integrity of Mass Media is On the Decline Due to Perceived Bias in News Coverage

 According to this CNN article, the percentage of Americans who trust the media has fallen from 54% in 1999, to 40% as of 2015. This shows that in less than a decade, the number of people who trust the mass media has fallen dramatically. This is also surprising if you consider the fact that even in the late 1990's, just over half of the population of Americans trusted the media.


One might expect that more people would have trusted the media, yet that number was considerably low even in the 1990's. Polls also show that younger Americans, seem to not trust the media, as opposed to older Americans who seem to have more trust. 

Lack of Trust in the Media Might Be an Issue of Individual Bias, and Not of Media Content Itself

Perceived bias in information distributed through the media increases audiences' distrust in mass media producers. This effect is termed the "hostile media perception" (HMP), which describes, according to a study, "Mapping Boundaries of the Hostile Media Effect", people's tendency to judge mass media coverage as biased and contrary to their own opinions (Gunther and Schmitt). The problem however, might be due to bias in the minds of readers themselves.

According to an article by The Washington Post, even though no news source is 100% bias free, there is little to suggest that the media is consistently biased in one direction, in terms of politics.  While people often perceive bias, research shows that news reports tends to point toward the middle because "that's where the people are". The study even outlines a case where two readers from opposing viewpoints have sent letters to the editor of a newspaper company, complaining about the biased nature of the news coverage. The fact that partisans from both ends of the issue perceived bias in the same piece, suggests that the problem might lie within audiences.

The study mentioned above supports this idea by explaining the results of exposing two opposing partisan groups on the issue of genetically modified (GM) foods to a reading about GM foods. Some partisans received the reading in the form of a newspaper article, while others received the reading in the form of a student's essay. Results showed that even though the content of the pieces were exactly the same, the difference in source of the piece (a student's paper vs. a newspaper article) determined the readers perception of bias in the article. Those who read the student's essay felt that the information was favorable to their opinions, while those who read the newspaper article perceived bias in the information.

Cases of Dishonest Reporting in News Organizations Might Contribute to Americans' Lack of Trust in the Media

Brian Williams

One example of this is the scandal involving NBC news reporter, Brian Williams, who lost the trust of many by giving inaccurate accounts of his involvement in the Iraq war in 2003. Williams stated in his account  that the military helicopter he was in was forced to land after being hit by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), when in fact he was in a trailing helicopter far behind the one that was hit. His initial account of the incident made no mention of his helicopter being hit, but throughout the decade following, his story became increasingly inconsistent and exaggerated.

The truth became known when other soldiers who were present during the incident, including the ones who were on the helicopter that was attacked, took to social media to voice their frustration with Williams' dishonest account of the incident. Their acts of protest sparked much excitement, leading to "amateur sleuths" fact-checking Williams reports of the story in
videos posted on YouTube.


Even though much of the attention surrounding the scandal is placed on Brian Williams, he was not the only one aware of the inaccurate accounts, including the crew members who were on his helicopter and the NBC employees who worked on the story with him. This incident raises questions as to how the mistakes were made in the first place. This might explain why the source of information acted as a determining factor for partisans perception of bias in the study above.

As it relates to the HMP theory, while instances of dishonesty might contribute to people's distrust of the media, it is only a theory that explains people's distrust. There are other factors that could explain the HMP theory, such as the level of involvement an individual might have in a particular issue that the news might cover. The study on HMP highlights this factor.

The hostile media effect is a curious phenomenon, since there is also strong evidence to support people's tendency to perceive information as being in favor of their opinions, the "biased assimilation" effect. It is unknown exactly what causes the hostile media perception effect, but speculations have been made as to why people tend to be skeptical of the mass media. 

I think people distrust the media because we live in an age where people have more access to information that, although comes from non mass media sources, can be quite reliable, so there is no reason to place all of one's trust in the mass media since there are credible alternatives. Also, instances of extremely biased or dishonest story covers might be etched into the minds of media consumers, causing them to be skeptical of any news coverage or report.

Since we only find out if a story was false, or significantly skewed, after the fact, it is probably easier for people to be skeptical of everything instead of trusting. Additionally, in my opinion, we live in an age where people are moving away from traditional ways of thinking and are no longer relying on traditional sources of information, like the media, to get credible information. More people are becoming educated and are able to think for themselves and be intelligently skeptical of incoming information. 

NodeXL Depicts Connections Between Twitter Users Who Tweeted About "World Obesity Day" in a Complex Visualization

Source: NodeXL Graph Gallery

The featured graph is a representation of a network of nearly 1,000 Twitter users, whose tweets contained the hashtag, "#WorldObesityDay". The first "World Obesity Day" was held on October 11, 2015, and is an effort made by the World Obesity Federation to increase awareness of the obesity epidemic, and to have a single World Obesity Day, that brings attention to the efforts made, worldwide, to tackle obesity. 

My first reaction to this data graphic is that the information represented in the graphic looks very clustered, confusing, and hard to decipher. However, the confusing nature of the graphic is just a reflection of how complex and interconnected networks can be. A normal social media user will not realize how similar he/she is to other users around the world in terms of the content that they post. The interface that a user interacts with on social media sites does not allow him/her to see the complexity.

 It is only through data analysis tools such as NodeXL, and actually mapping out the connections between people's social network activities, that a person can actually see how often a particular topic is discussed or how popular an issue is. The graph is also a reflection of how interconnected the world is becoming, through the use of social media.

Despite the confusing layout of the graphic, a lot of useful information has been extracted from the graphic and grouped into various categories, such as "Top Hashtags" which are #worldobesityday and #obesity), "Top Replied To", which is the World Obesity Federation, and "Top Influencers" which is also the World Obesity Federation. 

It is also important to note the prevalence of edges, compared to self-loops, in the graph. The edges are the green links between nodes in the graph, and represent any "replies to" or "mentions" relationship between tweets. The self-loops however, start from and end at the same node. This demonstrates the interactivity of people on twitter, whose tweets relate, in some way, to "World Obesity Day" and emphasizes the significance of social networks in today's age.

This graphic demonstrates the importance of data analysis software and its ability to depict the complexity of social networks which have become such a significant part of people's lives. Many people use social media regularly, but do not actually see the connections in social networks. Now, people can see these connections thanks to data analysis software, like NodeXL.

Naturalista, Whitney White, better known among her fans as "Naptural85", gets a special feature on Business Insider.

I would share this with my social network because I was inspired by this influential YouTube-er to love my God-given hair, and she serves as an example of a bold, intelligent young woman who can make a difference by sharing her experiences with others. I also have a few friends who are or are becoming natural, so this article would be something worth sharing with them.

-Jonelle B

Test Post

This is just a test post.

-Jo