Genetic Engineered Chicken

[CHRISTINE77]

What do you feel about genetically engineered animals and plants? Do you feel it is morally wrong to “play God” with plants and animals, and feed the result to the people?

**‘Super chicken’ for dinner: FDA to allow genetically engineered animals for people to eat

The FDA today outlined the steps it will take to decide.

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR , Associated Press
Last update: September 18, 2008 - 3:07 PM**

WASHINGTON - Super Chicken strutted a step closer to the dinner table Thursday. The government said it will start considering proposals to sell genetically engineered animals as food, a move that could lead to faster-growing fish, cattle that can resist mad cow disease or perhaps heart-healthier eggs laid by a new breed of chickens.

The rules will also apply to drugs and other medical materials from genetically engineered animals, a field with explosive potential.

U.S. supermarkets currently sell no meat from genetically engineered animals. But a Boston-area company called Aqua Bounty Technologies hopes to win approval next year for its faster-growing salmon and make the fish available by 2011. “It tastes just like any other farm-raised salmon,” said vice chairman Elliot Entis, who has sampled it.

 

[una_ecclesia]

What do you feel about genetically engineered animals and plants? Do you feel it is morally wrong to “play God” with plants and animals, and feed the result to the people?

**‘Super chicken’ for dinner: FDA to allow genetically engineered animals for people to eat

The FDA today outlined the steps it will take to decide.

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR , Associated Press
Last update: September 18, 2008 - 3:07 PM**

WASHINGTON - Super Chicken strutted a step closer to the dinner table Thursday. The government said it will start considering proposals to sell genetically engineered animals as food, a move that could lead to faster-growing fish, cattle that can resist mad cow disease or perhaps heart-healthier eggs laid by a new breed of chickens.

The rules will also apply to drugs and other medical materials from genetically engineered animals, a field with explosive potential.

U.S. supermarkets currently sell no meat from genetically engineered animals. But a Boston-area company called Aqua Bounty Technologies hopes to win approval next year for its faster-growing salmon and make the fish available by 2011. “It tastes just like any other farm-raised salmon,” said vice chairman Elliot Entis, who has sampled it.

I thought most American food was already engineered or altered .

I don’t really know whether its moral or not… I just find it kind of strange imho.

 

[MugenOne]

I’m a commercial poultry farmer. Our chickens go from chick to dinner plate in 62 days. That’s genetic engineering if you ask me.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Does that mean I can get extra wings and legs? :hypno:

Seriously, the only difference between selective breeding and “genetic engineering” is mainly methodology. If it is deemed safe, why not?

 

[Wirraway]

… Do you feel it is morally wrong to “play God” with plants and animals, and feed the result to the people?..

if humanity hadn’t been tinkering with the wild ancestors of wheat at the beginning of civilization, there wouldn’t be civilization. same with domesticated cattle and other food animals.

what do you mean by to “play God”?

 

[MugenOne]

I agree. You can’t feed the world without organic agriculture or tinkering.

if humanity hadn’t been tinkering with the wild ancestors of wheat at the beginning of civilization, there wouldn’t be civilization. same with domesticated cattle and other food animals.

what do you mean by to “play God”?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

if humanity hadn’t been tinkering with the wild ancestors of wheat at the beginning of civilization, there wouldn’t be civilization. same with domesticated cattle and other food animals.

what do you mean by to “play God”?

Tinkering with DNA seems to be playing God. Putting mouse DNA into Cows seems pretty freaky to me. Putting spider DNA into a plant seems very very weird. What will be the future ramifications? I am amazed that all who have responded have no problem with genetic tampering.

 

[Dale_M]

Christine, I’ve got a link to your article:
startribune.com/lifestyle/health/28599619.html
but for future reference, we need to supply a current news link when we start a thread in this forum.

As for genetically modified food, I worry more about what it does to the plant or animal than what it might do to us. My first concern is that the animal would suffer (this isn’t as much of a concern for plants, I think), but my second concern is that the genetically modified stock will contaminate the unmodified stock, such as salmon escaping their pen or pollen drifting into other fields.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Tinkering with DNA seems to be playing God. Putting mouse DNA into Cows seems pretty freaky to me. Putting spider DNA into a plant seems very very weird. What will be the future ramifications? I am amazed that all who have responded have no problem with genetic tampering.

And putting human DNA into a bacterium has given us insulin and given hundreds of thousands of people with Diabetes decades in longevity.

Just because you find something to be “weird” doesn’t make it immoral.

I would argue that the technology to genetically modify individuals (of whatever species) is inherently amoral, however the way in which we utilize the technology (and for what purpose) determines the morality or immorality of the act.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Christine, I’ve got a link to your article:
startribune.com/lifestyle/health/28599619.html
but for future reference, we need to supply a current news link when we start a thread in this forum.

As for genetically modified food, I worry more about what it does to the plant or animal than what it might do to us. My first concern is that the animal would suffer (not much of concern for plants, I think), but my second concern is that the genetically modified stock will contaminate the unmodified stock, such as salmon escaping their pen or pollen drifting into other fields.

I’m not sure what you mean by “contaminate the unmodified stock”, but the first part of your post I agree with and believe much of the western world hasn’t paid close attention to.

For the sake of cost/price/profit efficacy, industrial farmers are utilizing genetic engineering to create animals that have more meat than their skeletons can support, animals without beaks/claws (so that they cannot protect themselves from other food sources), and even chickens that lay eggs that are larger than their uteral canal. In other words, business is utilizing such technology (which is inherently amoral) with complete disregard for the quality of life for these animals (which makes this specific case of utilization immoral in nature).

As far as the OP is concerned, the intentions of the FDA seem to be virtuous, though I’m not certain yet what the specific effects of them will be.

 

[Dale_M]

I’m not sure what you mean by “contaminate the unmodified stock”

I was afraid that it was too vague, but I was trying not to be too wordy. I live in Iowa and genetically modified crops have long been grown here , and Americans have been eating these crops for a long time. One of the issues organic farmers face is that pollen from genetically modified fields drift over to their fields, contaminating their crops and making them unsellable as organic.

A slightly different problem would be from genetically modified fish breaking loose and contaminating the gene pool of our wild fish. I think this is less of a problem with livestock since humans have selectively bred them for such a long time, they are no longer similar to their wild ancestors. Besides, stray livestock are easier to round up than stray fish.

As for your concerns about what selective breeding has done to animals, yes, I think you have given good examples of where it has gone too far. The practice of factory farming keeps food prices low, but it comes at a cost of suffering for the animals.

 

[Wirraway]

Tinkering with DNA seems to be playing God. Putting mouse DNA into Cows seems pretty freaky to me. Putting spider DNA into a plant seems very very weird. What will be the future ramifications? I am amazed that all who have responded have no problem with genetic tampering.

its just done more efficiently now than it was 6,000 years ago, in lab instead of a field, but it amounts to genetic manipulation none the less. mice and cows shared the same ancestors anyway, as they did with spiders and even plants.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Here is a quote from Mae-Wen Ho from her recently published
book, Genetic Engineering-Dream or Nightmare (where she
explains fully why genetic engineering is bad science):

(quote) Gene Technology is driven by a mindset that
recognises no moral values, is contrary to scientific
evidence, doesn’t work the way it claims and is oblivious of
the grave dangers posed by the technology. It is bad science
working hand in hand with big business corporations under
the banner of free trade and free choice. It will
effectively take control of every aspect of our lives from
food production to reproduction. In the process it may ruin
our food supply, destroy biodiversity and unleash pandemics
of drug and antibiotic resistant infectious diseases
(unquote).

 

[CHRISTINE77]

This we know. The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to
the earth. This we know. All things are connected, like the blood
which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. (Chief Seattle N American Indian.)

 

[Wirraway]

This we know. The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to
the earth. This we know. All things are connected, like the blood
which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. (Chief Seattle N American Indian.)

maybe you could, instead of a providing a spurious quote, explain why you are uncomfortable with the genetic engineering that yielded human insulin for diabetics.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

maybe you could, instead of a providing a spurious quote, explain why you are uncomfortable with the genetic engineering that yielded human insulin for diabetics.

Maybe if they had a better diet, they wouldn’t have diabeties.

 

[Ana]

Type 1 diabetes, which is the type that requires the kind of insulin Wirraway mentioned, is NOT IN ANY WAY CAUSED BY DIET or by ANYTHING the person did. It is NOT from eating too much suger, lack of exercise or anything else that could have been prevented that we know of. This would be Type 2, which can often be prevented.

It is important people understand this to avoid insensitive comments. It is hard enough living with a wretched **unpreventable, possible sudden death and serious **disease (Type 1) that shares a name with a not **preventable, not as serious, and that does not live under the cloud of death **disease (Type 2). This is not to imply that those with Type 2 do not have their own hardships to bear, and I am not without compassion for them. But it is difficult hearing my 8 yr olds 5 needles, 6 bloodsticks, a day, will I live through the night, invasion into his tender world compared, with a 60 yr old uncle who was 300 lbs, who can diet and take pills to control his already 3/4 of the way lived life. I would give my left arm for my son to have Type 2.

Anyway, I think the idea of chickens with no beaks, is DISGUSTING. I stopped eating non-organic chicken about two yrs ago. I do not think it is so much of playing God, as it is GREED, and a worship of money. You don’t ALWAYS have to make the VERY POSSIBLE MOST YOU CAN, regardless of people, animals, or standards. On the flip side, you don’t ALWAYS have to save the very most you can, if it means stepping into the world of Frankenstein.

That’s why I don’t mind paying a little more for organic. it costs them more to make it.

Obviously, I will purchase insulin. But I also have NO CHOICE in the matter.

 

[Wirraway]

Maybe if they had a better diet, they wouldn’t have diabeties.

so in light of Ana’s remarks, perhaps you’d explain why you are uncomfortable with the genetic engineering that yielded human insulin for Type 1 diabetics.

while most of us concede that the practice of genetic engineering can be abused (like most things), it seems that your beef is with the abuses, rather than the practice as a whole.

if you ate bread today, you are eating the results of genetic engineering.

“The two main types of wheat used these days are Durum wheat Triticum turgidum and bread wheat Triticum aestivum. Durum wheat is a variety of Emma wheat, the latter of which was the first type of wheat to be domesticated, about 9000 years ago. Bread wheat is derived from the hybridization of Emma wheat with the wild grass Aegilops squarrosa, which happened about 6700 years ago. Wheat is now the world’s major crop in terms of food production”.

after you comment on insulin, could you give your thoughts on this as well?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

so in light of Ana’s remarks, perhaps you’d explain why you are uncomfortable with the genetic engineering that yielded human insulin for Type 1 diabetics.

while most of us concede that the practice of genetic engineering can be abused (like most things), it seems that your beef is with the abuses, rather than the practice as a whole.

if you ate bread today, you are eating the results of genetic engineering.

“The two main types of wheat used these days are Durum wheat Triticum turgidum and bread wheat Triticum aestivum. Durum wheat is a variety of Emma wheat, the latter of which was the first type of wheat to be domesticated, about 9000 years ago. Bread wheat is derived from the hybridization of Emma wheat with the wild grass Aegilops squarrosa, which happened about 6700 years ago. Wheat is now the world’s major crop in terms of food production”.

after you comment on insulin, could you give your thoughts on this as well?

Sorry, I didn’t know it was Type 1. Type 2 can definitely be controlled by diet, and the modern foods we eat definitely contribute to it, namely corn syrup, of which corn is almost all genetically engineered.

Your wheat example doesn’t say anything about genetic engineering.

 

[Dale_M]

Type 2 can definitely be controlled by diet, and the modern foods we eat definitely contribute to it, namely corn syrup, of which corn is almost all genetically engineered.

Perhaps you are right, but the over-consumption of sugar (whether from beets, cane or corn) by the average American, and the resulting increase in type II diabetes, isn’t related to genetic engineering.

Your wheat example doesn’t say anything about genetic engineering.

I think the example uses a broader sense of the phrase “genetic engineering” than what most Americans give it. I think most of us regard genetic engineering as trans-species gene splicing, and exclude hybridization or selective breeding from the definition of genetic engineering.

I guess we need to define our terms in this debate.