Genetic Engineered Chicken

[CHRISTINE77]

ScienceDaily (Aug. 23, 2007) —

Researchers have found new evidence that soft drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) may contribute to the development of diabetes, particularly in children. In a laboratory study of commonly consumed carbonated beverages, the scientists found that drinks containing the syrup had high levels of reactive compounds that have been shown by others to have the potential to trigger cell and tissue damage that could cause the disease, which is at epidemic levels.

 

[Wirraway]

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.

ah… that’s what hybridization is: genetic manipulation of a prior stock. that’s how its been done in the past. why does this bother you? the original wild variety of corn, teosinte, wasn’t much more than a tough grass with small, unfused kernels.

I notice you didn’t explain your concerns about the genetic manipulation that resulted in insulin treatment for type 1 diabetes. why is this live saver bad?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

ah… that’s what hybridization is: genetic manipulation of a prior stock. that’s how its been done in the past. why does this bother you? the original wild variety of corn, teosinte, wasn’t much more than a tough grass with small, unfused kernels.

I notice you didn’t explain your concerns about the genetic manipulation that resulted in insulin treatment for type 1 diabetes. why is this live saver bad?

I don’t agree with genetically altering food. I’m sorry about people who suffer from type 1 diabetes, but there are other ways of controlling it.

Genetically modified (GM) foods are food products that have had their DNA directly altered through genetic engineering. Unlike conventional genetic modification that is carried out through time-tested conventional breeding and that have been consumed for thousands of years, GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. The most common modified foods are derived from plants: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil.

Many major controversies surround genetically engineered crops and foods. These commonly focus on the health and safety effects on human children, long-term health effects for anyone eating them, environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, environmental conservation, and potential disruption or even possible destruction of the food chain.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

 

[Dale_M]

ScienceDaily (Aug. 23, 2007) —

Researchers have found new evidence that soft drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) may contribute to the development of diabetes, particularly in children.

Very nice, but it doesn’t say that syrup from genetically engineered corn is more likely to lead to diabetes.

Whether or not high-fructose corn syrup is desirable is probably best left to a different thread.

 

[Wirraway]

I don’t agree with genetically altering food. I’m sorry about people who suffer from type 1 diabetes, but there are other ways of controlling it.

now you’re being evasive. the question referred to a genetic engineering process that produced insulin. why are you opposed to the production of insulin?

 

[Ana]

I don’t agree with genetically altering food. I’m sorry about people who suffer from type 1 diabetes, but there are other ways of controlling it.

There is NO OTHER WAY to control Type 1 Diabetes except with insulin. Without insulin, they will DIE! Insulin is the life support of those with Type 1 Diabetes. There is no other way. I will stake my tpe 1 diabeic husband and son’s pancreas on it!
(haha … it doesn’t work)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get your facts straight! There is enough misinformation and confusion out there!

 

[Ana]

Just wanted to say again, I think genetically modified food is yuck. For some of the reasons Christine mentioned. But mainly for the reasons I stated in an earlier post.

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, by always purchasing the cheaper alternative, if it means stepping into the world of Frankenstein.

Edited to clarify …

I don’t normally quote myself, but I was wondering if anyone had anything to say about this. Ala … Hillaire or Chesterston or something.

 

[Dale_M]

How about a quote from Jello Biafra?

*f it isn’t obscene enough that we’re not allowed to have labels on the food here, warning people that ingredients may be genetically modified “frankenfood,” they’re trying to get rid of other countries’ laws in this regard, too. I don’t mind genetically engineered food if people have a right to choose, but you don’t have a
right to choose when you don’t know it’s in your food to begin with.
*

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am not sure I understand the problem with a lot of this. Genetic “defects” and advantages occur all the time, as a consequence of DNA changes. I agree there is something distinctly unnatractive about somehow mixing mouse and cow DNA just for the fun of it. But as a layman, how can I be sure the DNA change that, for example, causes a Hereford cow to have “freckles”; something they don’t normally have, is not similar to whatever DNA causes humans to have freckles? In other words, are certain segments of the DNA chain of any species all that species specific? My impression is that they are mostly not.
My understanding is that the sequence may cause differences. But again, sequences are different within species also.

I understand as well that bacteria and viruses exchange DNA all the time. Human DNA has undergone changes due to exterior influences, e.g., white skin, relative Indo-European resistance to cattle vector diseases or relative Amerind resistance to parasites. The exterior influences clearly caused favorable DNA changes. I don’t support tinkering with human DNA except perhaps in the most extreme cases, as, for example, if human DNA could be altered to resist cancer; something some people manifestly already have. But I am not sure I understand why a human exterior influence is necessarily bad, when a non-human exterior influence like a cattle vector disease is okay.

When it comes to food, again, DNA changes happen all the time in plants. Some live, some don’t.

I can easily understand the potential for abuse. But I cannot understand objections to it per se.

 

[Dale_M]

In other words, are certain segments of the DNA chain of any species all that species specific? My impression is that they are mostly not.

Hmmm… I’m not sure.

In the case of BT corn, a gene from a bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis) has been inserted into the corn DNA. This new gene codes for a protein which kills the European Corn Borer, among others. I don’t think the species of corn had any gene remotely such as the one from the bacterium.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

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.

Ah!! Crops! (Sorry, I should have taken the time to actually think about it). I admit, I’m a bit of a zoo-centrist

Now I know very little about what constitutes a genuinely “organic” food source, though I was under the impression that “organic” implies that the population from which the food is taken has not been given an environmental additive (i.e. steroids, enhanced protein diet, etc compared to actually altering the DNA of it which is then passed on to the offspring and after which evolution will take over in either selecting for or against the modification).

I’m curious if you could shed some more light on possible negative effects of allowing such “cross-contamination”? (that is except for the loss of a claim to being “organic”). Is there anything detrimental to the animals/plants or the humans that consume them?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I don’t agree with genetically altering food. I’m sorry about people who suffer from type 1 diabetes, but there are other ways of controlling it.

Um… Please provide a source for this claim. As a Molecular Biologist, I find this rather specious. As far as I know, Insulin injections are the only efficacious treatment for Type 1 Diabetes.

Genetically modified (GM) foods are food products that have had their DNA directly altered through genetic engineering. Unlike conventional genetic modification that is carried out through time-tested conventional breeding and that have been consumed for thousands of years, GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. The most common modified foods are derived from plants: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil.

In all technicality the means by which these two occur are the same, the only difference is the time in which it takes to occur.

We can either do as our ancestors have done, which is selectively breed a population to such an extent that we find pleasing (whatever the phenotypic trait may be), or we can utilize the knowledge of exactly HOW that happens and speed up the process by directly introducing the genetic mutation into a specific individual and allow that individual to reproduce.

Both ways involve a/some mutated gene/s, the difference is how it arises. Either we toss the proverbial dice such a large number of times that we are destined to eventually get our desired result (i.e. the case of breeding) or we can directly introduce the desired effect immediately via nuclear transfusion techniques.

Again, in all reality, its the same mechanism at work just two different methodologies.

 

[Dale_M]

I’m curious if you could shed some more light on possible negative effects of allowing such “cross-contamination”? (that is except for the loss of a claim to being “organic”). Is there anything detrimental to the animals/plants or the humans that consume them?

My knowledge in this area is largely based upon newspaper articles so I am pretty much uninformed. I am not aware of any dangers to humans from eating genetically modified foods (or “frankenfoods” if you are in the UK). As for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) breeding with wild populations… I think the concern is largely fear of the unknown.

We don’t know if the GMOs will crowd out the original type (bringing a loss of bio-diversity) or what effect the GMOs may have on the food chain (salmon which suddenly grow to full size in 18 months instead of 3 years surely will have some impact).

But as I mentioned, my knowledge in this area is very sketchy. Its threads such as this which spur me to learn more.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As a non-scientific person, I probably shouldn’t embarrass myself by opining in public about such things. But, emboldened by the charity of my fellows in here, I can’t help but remark as follows:

Most, but certainly not all, accept the notion of evolution. Though it sometimes seems to strain the brain to think it, complex beings such as man are supposedly evolved, remotely, from primordial algae and such. Hard to think there weren’t massive DNA changes along the journey. So, aren’t we, again, just talking about telescoping time here?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

My knowledge in this area is largely based upon newspaper articles so I am pretty much uninformed. I am not aware of any dangers to humans from eating genetically modified foods (or “frankenfoods” if you are in the UK). As for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) breeding with wild populations… I think the concern is largely fear of the unknown.

The dangers to humans varies on exactly what the modification was. Too vast of possibilities to lay a blanket statement.

We don’t know if the GMOs will crowd out the original type (bringing a loss of bio-diversity) or what effect the GMOs may have on the food chain (salmon which suddenly grow to full size in 18 months instead of 3 years surely will have some impact).

Indeed a worthwhile concern to pursue (I have no speciality in ecosystems). I was more interested in, I guess you’d say “economic concerns” which I think farmers would be most qualified to answer.

Are you a farmer yourself or do you simply live near a lot of farms? What have been some of your neighbor’s concerns?

 

[Dale_M]

Are you a farmer yourself or do you simply live near a lot of farms? What have been some of your neighbor’s concerns?

I’d love to answer your question, but unfortunately I am a townie. My parents both grew up on farms and were quite eager to leave.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I am all for making plants and animals more productive and healthier. This can be done with selective breeding etc. It is when we cross species that I find it objectionable. Yes it might help in the short term. We have no idea what the long term consequences are for this remaking of nature. Just listening to all the ads on the TV about law suits of things approved by the government makes me try my best to stay away from these things.

 

[Calliso]

I am all for making plants and animals more productive and healthier. This can be done with selective breeding etc. It is when we cross species that I find it objectionable. Yes it might help in the short term. We have no idea what the long term consequences are for this remaking of nature. Just listening to all the ads on the TV about law suits of things approved by the government makes me try my best to stay away from these things.

Yeah exactly we really donlt know what the long term consequences are. I mean it;s like with antibiotics sure they are a great thing…but now look at all this trouble with resistant bacteria and what not. I imagine back when penicillin was discovered most people were probably not thinking that we would run into major resistant problems not too long down the road.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yeah exactly we really donlt know what the long term consequences are. I mean it;s like with antibiotics sure they are a great thing…but now look at all this trouble with resistant bacteria and what not. I imagine back when penicillin was discovered most people were probably not thinking that we would run into major resistant problems not too long down the road.

I agree. However, I might point out that resistant strains are the result of DNA changes, often “borrowed” from other microbes. If the enemies of man can adapt their DNA more rapidly than the normal “slow motion” we normally think evolution engages in, I find it hard to be persuaded that man should avoid doing the same.

 

[Digitonomy]

This can be done with selective breeding etc. It is when we cross species that I find it objectionable.

Aw c’mon, what do you have against mules?

Calliso:

I imagine back when penicillin was discovered most people were probably not thinking that we would run into major resistant problems not too long down the road.

Probably not. Would you have chosen not to go down that road, if you had been present with that knowledge? “Yes, it’ll save untold millions of lives, but after a few decades it won’t work quite as well as it does now, so we might as well not bother.”