Talk:AquAdvantage salmon

Source

We need the primary source for the Purdue study. Knowledge Junkie (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Primary source is here with a mention in Nature here AIRcorn (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the references. The PNAS study used transgenic Japanese medaka as a model---not salmon. This should be clarified in some way because the way the data is introduced seems misleading/confusing. I also think it would be better if this study was introduced in it's own paragraph rather than immediately following a sentence about salmon escaping. The Nature news article is quite good in the way they used this study.Knowledge Junkie (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Other Transgenics

Why is the "Other transgenics" section in this article? There should be at most a see also; it's not relevant to the specific topic of GM salmon. Trebawa (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done agree AIRcorn (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Name Change?

Shouldn't this article be called AquAdvantage® Salmon? There are a number of possible Genetically Modified Salmon, and this article seems to be referring to a particular transgenic species, that is patented and trademarked by a company and sold as a product. I know things get a bit confusing in terms of how to deal with taxonomy of science vs. business language and Intellectual Property regimes, but in this case the article is about the specific animal/product created by AquaBounty and should reflect that in the title. Infoeco (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any links for the other GM Salmon? I had a quick look, but could not find anything. If we add the other examples that would solve the naming problem. AIRcorn (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any GM Salmon that is in the process of commercialization, although their are likely other transgenic Salmon in labs somewhere, just as there are many varieties of GM Tomatoes: Just two being FlavrSavr and Fish tomato. I think the point I am trying to make is that because this article is about a specific / product that is under review by the United States FDA that is the taxonomy we should rely on. The animal is patented and their is a trademark on the name. For example, it would be silly to have an article called Genetically modified tomato in the same way it would be silly to have an article called Organic tomato. I think this article should be as precise as possible and rely on a taxonomy, whether scientific, bureaucratic or business.

Infoeco (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you have a point. Other examples are GloFish not Genetically Modified Zebrafish (which there most certainly will be many examples and possible a future article) and Enviropig. I would drop the ® and just call it AquAdvantage Salmon though. It would probably be prudent to merge AquaBounty with this article if it is renamed as it appears to be their sole product. AIRcorn (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the both of you. I think the description of the GM salmon given here pertains specifically to the AquAdvantage salmon. I'll go ahead and make the change. Amnot Areso (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Taste?

Has anyone actually tasted the stuff? Dudes say it doesn't affect the appearence, etc... but I actually ate Ocean pout once when I was desperate. It wasn't pretty! I bet it could infect this thing!