At the monday table talk, we discussed the implications of genetically engineered farm animals. Recently, a company has started selling salmon that has been genetically modified to grow twice as quickly as normal salmon. Genetically engineered plants have been on the market for years, but animals have not yet been sold in the United States. According to one of the scholars, the term “GMO” is not a technical term, as even selectively bred plants can be seen as “genetically modified.” We spent a great deal of time discussing whether GMO meat will have to be labeled as such, and whether it should be labeled as such. I agree with the scholar who stated that even if GMO products wouldn’t need to be labeled, anyone producing non-GMO foods will label their own products as “non-GMO” because it is a selling point for them. Of all of the ideas, this made the most sense to me, as you can see it in trends involving current food products. Fruit grown with pesticides aren’t labeled as “pesticide-grown,” but pesticide-free products are labelled as “organic.” Generally foods that appeal to these “conscious” consumers are labeled with whatever unusual selling point – vegan, gluten-free, soy-free, free range – instead of the other way around, due to the financial incentive for the producers. Someone mentioned that all GMO products will be legally required to be labeled as such, but if even QR-codes would suffice as “labels,” I think it is still likely that animal farmers will begin selling their products with GMO-free labels in order to clearly differentiate their food products

One topic that I would have liked to have discussed more is the idea of animal welfare and GMO’s. I am opposed to the creation of genetically engineered farm animals not because of health concerns, but because of the implications for animals’ wellbeings. The creation of GMO farm animals will only make animal agriculture more popular and more prevalent, resulting in more animals suffering and dying for human consumption. In addition, the genetic modifications made will be whatever results in the most profit for the producers, without taking into consideration how they might add to the suffering of the animals. For example, growing at twice their normal rate is likely physically painful and mentally traumatizing for the salmon in the article, but this is irrelevant to the fish farmers, who only care about how this makes their production cheaper.