Farms Could Raise Genetically Modified Fish if FDA Approves In the article, “Farms here Could Raise Genetically Modified Fish if FDA Approves” Doug Carsou has tried to assess the plausibility of the consumption of genetically modified salmon in the USA. Also he tries to focus both on merits and demerits of such genetically engineered food, though he has failed to draw an all-encompassing review on his topic. In this regard, he brings the concerns of the FDA in between the arguments of the pro and contra genetically-engineered food. But he is not successful, to a great a extent to, to uphold the FDA’s primary concerns about the genetically cultivated salmon.
After all, it can be said that Carsou’s article is not well-organized on the cause-effect relationship. In a para of the article, Carsou says that the debate which goes on in the US Food and Drug Administration is whether the genetically modified salmon should the nation’s first genetically engineered food. But in this para, he has not told much about the causes that triggered such debates on genetic food like salmon. So the harmony between the said-Para and the Para next to it is grossly hampered.
In the Para that comes immediately after it, he talks about the Boston-based company AquaBounty’s surety of not letting the Ohioan Salmon stray into the ocean, as he says, “To ensure the modified salmon won’t stray into the ocean……AquaBounty…. .told the FDA that it will be grown only in indoor tanks in inland areas” (Carsou 1). But either in the previous Para or in the same one, he has not mentioned why the genetically cultivated salmon should not be allowed to mix with the wild salmon in the sea.
Rather he touches the point around the middle of the article while discussing the economic and regulatory hurdles of the cultivating the genetically produced salmon. Even here not mentioning the disastrous effect of mixing of the Ohioan salmon with wild salmon in the sea, he simply says, “The genetically modified fish could escape and compete with already strained populations of wild fish” (Carsou 1). In his article, Carsou talks about the regulatory and economic hurdles.
But a careful reader would wonder whether the hurdles that the author upholds in the articles are explicit enough to make sense. While discussing the “yuck factor” as one of the hurdles, Carsou does not write anything about the contributing factors of genetically modified salmons. As he has tried to explore the plausibility of the Ohioan salmon, he should have discussed the economic contribution of genetic salmon also. Sometimes his evaluation of the genetically produced salmon is one sided. In another Para, he says, “FDA scientists found nothing to indicate that the meat is any different from natural salmon meat. ” (Carsou 1) Indeed one reference to the FDA scientists only is not sufficient enough to support his view.
Rather a plethora of opposing views would make his point stronger and reliable. Indeed to a reasonable extent Carsou has provided points that are more or less sufficient to support the reasons of pro-genetic meat eaters. As 95 percent of the genetically modified salmons are sterile and all of the fishes are female, all of the risk factors of the destructions of wild life are almost reduced.
After all, the article is more of an informative article than of a descriptive one. Works Cited Carsou, Doug. “Farms here Could Raise Genetically Modified Fish if FDA Approves. ” The Columbus Dispatch. 16 Sept. 2010.