Genetically altered food

Had some pretty neat stuff like a cow that is part human so it can produce blood antibodies for humans.
A chicken with no feathers so it could grow better in a hot chicken house.

My concern is what is happening to our food supply. While I am all for research I just do not trust food that comes from altered animals. I know I eat food every day from cross breed hybrids or from growth hormones but when you start crossing genes in a lab that could never take place in nature just to make a bigger profit; are you crossing the line by doing that???

Now- the expert correctly said that a clone was "genetically identical", so lets explain why a clone is often not an "identical twin" from an appearance standpoint- and could infact be a differnt color. Finally- knowing all this, and the wonderful complexity but logic of it all- deny the existence of a Creator! Only God could- and he is revealing it all to us in time!

That said, it is true that for some embryos in non-placental animals (that develop outside of the mother), the local environment around the embryo plays an important role in directing their development. As an example, whether a male or female develops in some species of turtles and other reptiles is determined not by genetics but by the temperature at which their early development occurs.

If I would have explained my question better though you would have know I was not talking a sweeter corn or a seedless tomato. I was talking a plant that the fruit looks like a tomato but taste like corn because the genes have been crossed.

Next time someone you know needs blood think about this. Did this blood come from a human; or did it come from a cow that can produce human like blood because of GA.

Several posts below have suggested that creating GMO's is just a way of speeding up traditional cross-breeding procedures. This is simply not true, since we can create new gene combinations through genetic modification that can never appear through traditional methods. We can insert a unique gene from an organism such as the jellyfish into a plant. This is done a regular basis since a fluorescent protein produced in only jellyfish serves as a great marker to label plant cells under a microscope for research purposes. Such a GMO would not make it to the food chain, but it illustrates the power and non-traditional nature of the approach.

I am not an ardent anti-GMO activist. I have made my living doing research in this area for a long time. Eating a GMO per se is not necessarily dangerous; some are probably perfectly safe and others not. It depends on the genetic modification introduced in each case. However, we really need to exercise extreme caution on their introduction into the mainstream. Ecosystems are far too complex to fully predict any potential negative effects that may result. Once they are released, there is absolutely no looking back. We can clean up toxic spills, gather up cell phones and throw them out if we so desire, but we cannot remove genes from organisms in an ecosystem.

I think the point at which I really began to question the whole GMO in foods push was when I heard a Biotech company representative state that cross-pollination between GMO and non-GMO plants is not an issue as long as a 100 yard barrier is maintained around a field of GMO plants. They stated that numerous research studies had confirmed that pollen drift beyond this distance was not a problem (show me 20 scientific studies that support one opinion, and I can find you 20 others that support the contrary view). As I am sure every one on this board knows, pollen in plants has only one purpose, and that is to spread the genetic material of a parent plant from which it originated as far as possible from that plant. There are documented cases of pollen drifting several thousand miles from a plant of origin. So for a representative from a major company to make these statements without breaking a smile really made me question their motives. I haven't seen anything since that would make me change my mind.

I believe that GMOs can serve very valuable roles, and that it is a technology that will not and probably should not disappear. There are a lot of potential benefits I can see on the medical side as opposed to the food production side. However, every example I have examined to date is about relatively short term profit, and viable alternatives to the GMO are available if they had the economic backing to be properly developed.

Do I eat GMO foods? Not if I can help it (we raise all of our own food). And not because I necessarily think they are all inherently unsafe, but more because I do not agree with the way in which they are being pushed onto society, and the real lack of solid research with respect to the long term implications of the release of these organisms in our environment.

Cloning animals is more complex, since we have to mimic the process of egg fertilization in order to have the resulting animal develop properly. The process of normal egg fertilization with sperm activates certain mechanisms in the egg that are still not fully understood; one of the reasons why cloning animals is still not a very efficient procedure.

The concern about using cloning is that if not controlled carefully you will end up with same problems that occur through inbreeding of purebred animals. Genetic diversity and mixing of genes through normal breeding is what ensures that animals can survive through the generations. Just look at the physical problems that can associated with some purebred breeds of horses, dogs and other animals where most of the breed can be traced back to only a handful of founder animals. Eventually the lack of genetic diversity leads to problems. Cloning will just accelerate this process.

Another group in the same building was doing the HGPRT, AMES and RLCat testing along with DNA/RNA analysis on the tissues and cell cultures that were being tested. Still no change. I know a lot of people out there believe that all data from testing firms is changed, altered, and skewed to make it fit what the sponsor wants to happen but being there first hand I know this one wasn't.

Where did you do the testing and how about qouting some references that we can look up ?

Greg

Comments about "super weeds". That process takes place in nature without any help from us. Weeds and insects develope a tolerance to pesticides. That's nothing new. MAny weeds that occur naturally that were once able to be controlled with Roundup that now AREN'T.

This is science and NOT a evil spell being cast upon our farms.

The earth is not flat. We won't sail off the edge.

We also know that continual use of mobile phones can fry your brain. Some cheap phones were terrible and the recommendation was just that young children should not use them excessively

We know that living near high power sources of electromagnetic radiation can be harmful. 20 years ago it was alright - nothing to prove otherwise. Now it has all changed. Beekeepers have known for years that bees are affected by these fields and emissions.

Smoking has been touted by companies as good for you. Asbestos was the wonder insulator. DDT was an ideal insecticide. CFCs were inert and could propel almost anything from an aerosol can.

With many of the new technologies you can abstain from using it. With food - perhaps not so easy.

You are, as they say, what you eat.

There, you have a few reasons. Paranoia is perhaps too strong a word. There again maybe it's not.

Sooner or later there will be a slip up. Remember the Earth does not belong to us - take it as on loan from our grandchildren's children.

Humans have managed to screw up so much in the last hundred years or so. Why should they break a habit of a lifetime? Just to feed the unecessary mouths of a population spiralling out of control? Where will it all end? Who knows?

Hope that explains some of the paranoid reactions.

Lets face it, there is enough food to feed the world. It is just that some have far too much and just grow fat and obscenely obese while others don't have enough to stay alive. There is more waste around this planet than ever before. Will that ever stop in time to save the people and the planet. Methinks not.

Sorry if this upsets anyone, but I think it is quite near the truth of the matter.

RAB

You don't have to look too far to see them. Round-Up resistant weeds for an easy example, we have several in Minnesota. These aren't cross breeds, but actual resistant weeds. And then there are the resistant crosses a.k.a. superweeds. They didn't see that coming ?! What's next ?

Because a GA plant looks like corn or soy, it does not mean that it is the same, i.e. safe to eat. I don't care what the EPA or FDA says. That is simply absurd.

In Italy, when government gets in bed with industry, it is called f*scism. Let's be more careful here.

Greg

ps It appears that 'f*scism' is a prohibited word.

Actually the US knew this a long time ago. That's why the practise was banned in the US decades ago, not that it has a lot to do with genetics.

That would be because BSE comes from animal brains not fat or blood. If that were an issue every cow butchered for HUMAN consumption (hamburger has fat and blood too) should be tested for BSE.

Regards, RAB

Greg

Who is crossing a rat with a cucumber?

The genetic research is producing plants and animals that improve upon the breeds the same way farmers have done since the dawn of time. When they get around to producing genetic freaks like "featherless chickens" or cows with a single teat udder I might have reason to pause.

You know what - I've been eating it for years - along with a couple hundred million other people and everyone seems to be doing OK. I'm more worried about the Samolian that coughed up his lungs and of died of TB on the processing floor in the meat packing plant killing me than some guys in white coats.

Link

Ten years was just about all it took for Mother Nature to put Monsanto in its place.

Actually I don't know about the genetically altered stuff, but do not feel comfortable with it either.

The ecological activists will never admit they might have been wrong, because that would mean admitting that millions of people died of malaria because of eco-hysteria.