Genetically modified animals. Any issues?

I don't even know what this means.

Are you saying that GM beef has pig or orangutan or crocodile genes introduced to its DNA?

Would there be an ethical issue if a HUMAN gene proved useful to altering the bovine genotype?

I was not aware that cloned animals have been introduced to the US food supply. Details, please.

I'd have to research the use of human genes in bovines Bernard. I started this thread considering two types of cloning: one, cloning semen or tissue from a bull to create clones of that bull, and cloning tissue from an animal to create a clone that would be eaten. I'm not up to date on possible use of human or other species' genes in bovines.

However, I do know the FDA is supporting the use of a human gene in three varieties of rice; there's quite a bit written about that, including this very recent article.

Extract:

The Agriculture Department has given a preliminary green light for the first commercial production of a food crop engineered to contain human genes, reigniting fears that biomedically potent substances in high-tech plants could escape and turn up in other foods.

The plan, confirmed yesterday by the California biotechnology company leading the effort, calls for large-scale cultivation in Kansas of rice that produces human immune system proteins in its seeds.

The proteins are to be extracted for use as an anti-diarrhea medicine and might be added to health foods such as yogurt and granola bars.

"We can really help children with diarrhea get better faster. That is the idea," said Scott E. Deeter, president and chief executive of Sacramento-based Ventria Bioscience, emphasizing that a host of protections should keep the engineered plants and their seeds from escaping into surrounding fields.

But critics are assailing the effort, saying gene-altered plants inevitably migrate out of their home plots. In this case, they said, that could result in pharmacologically active proteins showing up in the food of unsuspecting consumers.

Although the proteins are not inherently dangerous, there would be little control over the doses people might get exposed to, and some might be allergic to the proteins, said Jane Rissler of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science policy advocacy group.

"This is not a product that everyone would want to consume," Rissler said, adding that other companies grow such plants indoors or in vats. "It is unwise to produce drugs in plants outdoors."

Consumer advocacy groups, including Consumers Union and the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, have also opposed Ventria's plans. "We definitely have big concerns," said Joseph Mendelson, the center's legal director.

Ventria has developed three varieties of rice, each endowed with a different human gene that makes the plants produce one of three human proteins. Two of them -- lactoferrin and lysozyme -- are bacteria-fighting compounds found in breast milk and saliva.

My goodness, you've got all the usual suspects there except CSPI. Where's Jacobsen and the rest of the lawyers, ahhhh \\\\\\\\\\ scientists?

I'd have to research the use of human genes in bovines Bernard. I started this thread considering two types of cloning: one, cloning semen or tissue from a bull to create clones of that bull, and cloning tissue from an animal to create a clone that would be eaten. I'm not up to date on possible use of human or other species' genes in bovines.

Actually, you started the thread talking about GM *and* cloning, two distinct issues which I think some folks have been confusing here ever since. I myself have no problem with the GM aspects - as Stuart points out, humans have been practicing haphazard GM for a long, long time - but I can (barely) understand those who view GM with disquiet. Objections to cloning livestock I have a harder time understanding. After all, everybody from ranchers to dog breeders has been doing their level best to approximate cloning for eons. We're long accustomed to eating beef from cows whose father, grandfather and great grandfather are the same bull. Why we'd be more afraid of health problems from the consumption of meat produced by actual cloning than from the approximate version is beyond me.

I agree that I used GM loosely in the first post, Mark. Genetic modification (or GM) is a term for the process of manipulating genes, generally implying that the process is outside the organism's natural reproductive process.

What you call "haphazard GM" is within the natural reproductive process, and many people would not call it GM for that reason. To the extent my post caused confusion, my apologies.

I believe people are more comfortable with the process of choosing the parents of offspring and breeding to a desired type using the organism's natural reproductive process simply because humans have done so for thousands of years.

What you call "haphazard GM" is within the natural reproductive process

Selective breeding, crosses, artificial insemination, hormone treatments... I wouldn't call those traditional methods a "natural reproductive process." But that's just my take on the semantics. I don't think bulls and cows normally reproduce via a rubber glove and syringe...

But Stuart, selective breeding and crosses have been done by people for thousands of years. As a farm boy, I loved the Bible stories about how Jews were able to improve their flocks by selective breeding.

Selective breeding, crosses, artificial insemination, hormone treatments... I wouldn't call those traditional methods a "natural reproductive process."

One could argue, that almost all of those are "natural"..with the exception of the hormone treatments. If you put a bull in with herd of mixed breed cows, the bull won't care what breed is there...he's the least selective animal out there.

Prior to the last 200 years or so, pretty much all cattle were cross breeds of one type or another. Purebred animals came about because someone recognized that certain traits were passed on within a group of crossbreeds. Even nowadays , all it takes is a few generations of a crossbreed (about 7-10 years) to become its own purebred.

Artificial Insemination? What does "natural" mean? Its a method for conveying sperm to an egg. Everything after that is natural. Impregnation, gestation , birth, etc..

GM ought to be designated as the actual insertion of foreign genetic material into targeted host genetic material. These are the processes that concern me the most.

Richard

And, please, let's all recognize what an outstanding success the AKC breeding programs have done for dogs through their "natural breeding processes" over the last several years.

Forced inbreeding of dogs to create specific traits, usually resulting in some monstrous side effects that have to be destroyed versus laboratory-controlled cloning.....hmm, let's see, which one do I pick to get morally upset about? Decisions, decisions.

And, Richard, while you might think that any means of conveying sperm to egg falls under the category of "natural", I think many people might beg to differ. Certainly those in the fundamental/conservative religious arenas would take issue with that. Let's run it past Dobson and see what he thinks.

Or me, for that matter. I don't like the turkey baster; if a woman wants my genetic material, she's gotta work for it.

Hoke,

Certainly those in the fundamental/conservative religious arenas would take issue with that.

I suspect they would. But you can't argue science with Luddites. Or you could, but it wouldn't do any good.

Turkey Baster?? In the case of bovines...think of it as an elongated mechanical syringe that empties the sperm into..well, you get the idea.

In any case, the truly unnatural part comes with the sperm collection which uses a 2 ft long electric anal probe to stimulate the prostate....etc..hmmm, perhaps alien abductees were failed veterinarians or animal technicians??

Richard

Hoke,

Certainly those in the fundamental/conservative religious arenas would take issue with that.

I suspect they would. But you can't argue science with Luddites. Or you could, but it wouldn't do any good.

Turkey Baster?? In the case of bovines...think of it as an elongated mechanical syringe that empties the sperm into..well, you get the idea.

In any case, the truly unnatural part comes with the sperm collection which uses a 2 ft long electric anal probe to stimulate the prostate....etc..hmmm, perhaps alien abductees were failed veterinarians or animal technicians??

Richard

Have you heard Yaniger's new theme song:

"Green Acres is the place for me..."

Or me, for that matter. I don't like the turkey baster; if a woman wants my genetic material, she's gotta work for it.

If you get any offers let me know. Hell if she's scraping the bottom of the barrel there might be something for me? Can't be too fussy at my age!!!!

[James Roscoe]

Or me, for that matter. I don't like the turkey baster; if a woman wants my genetic material, she's gotta work for it.

If you get any offers let me know. Hell if she's scraping the bottom of the barrel there might be something for me? Can't be too fussy at my age!!!!

This thread has officially crossed the line into surreal!