Genetically modified animals. Any issues?

I heard an interesting discussion on public radio yesterday about a dinner in Los Angeles where diners were unable to tell the difference between GM and non-GM beef. The reporter made a couple of points I hadn't focused on before.

1. The beef one eats is not from a genetically modified animal, but from clones of the GM animal. GM animals are very expensive and reserved for breeding purposes.

2. The practical effect is that the animals one eats are born and raised in exactly the same way other animals are born and raised.

3. Some of the practical objections to GM foods don't apply; for example, genetic diversity is not challenged in the way GM plants challenge the genetic diversity of other plants -- a GM bull could inseminate a relatively few animals.

I suppose some of the moral and ethical considerations might concern people, but it seems to me there is a clear distinction as a practical matter between cloned animals and plants.

As a footnote, the reporter mentioned that the wine served at the dinner had been produced using GM, grapes and yeasts, I suppose.

I'm not finding a reference to the piece on WNYC, but I'll tuck it into this thread later, if the thread develops any legs.

Regards, Bob

We've been eating and drinking stuff from genetically modified animals and plants almost exclusively for a few thousand years now. Our health and lifespans do seem to be better now than ever...

3. Some of the practical objections to GM foods don't apply; for example, genetic diversity is not challenged in the way GM plants challenge the genetic diversity of other plants -- a GM bull could inseminate a relatively few animals.

The problem with plants is that they reproduce via airborne pollen. So pollen from the GM field next door can fertilize the non-GM crop in my fields. You don't have this problem with animals.

-Paul W.

Clearly you've never owned a dog or a cat!

I'm kinda puzzled that anyone could object to eating "genetically modified" animals.

Ever since mankind starting eating domesticated animals, we were eating genetically modified animals.

The milk we drink is from a domestic animal that has been genetically modified to a very high degree. Some cows were genetically modified to deliver certain types of meat. Chickens were genetically modified to deliver certain types of eggs, others were geneticall modified to deliver certain types of meats.

Those wines you drink? They are virtually all the product of 100% genetically modified vines. Wild vines are all either male of female. Domestic vines are all hermaphroditic...they were genetically modified through selection over a long period of time.

Now if the objection is to HOW the genetic modification occurs...well, that's and entirely different matter.

How do you meet the objection that some people have moral and ethical problems with eating the offspring of GM animals, Hoke, and want the meat to be labeled so that they can choose whether to eat it.

My understanding from the show is that as a practical matter labeling is impossible. But shouldn't a consumer have the right to know?

I find myself torn on this issue -- no ethical or moral problems personally, but I do believe consumers generally have the right to know what they are spending their money on.

Clearly you've never owned a dog or a cat!

How do you meet the objection that some people have moral and ethical problems with eating the offspring of GM animals, Hoke, and want the meat to be labeled so that they can choose whether to eat it.

Uh, Bob, I don't have to meet the objection of those people who have moral and ethical problems. I don't produce meat products, whether modified or not (and they all are).

If I did, of course, I'd have to consider how to respond. I imagine I would elect to simply produce my meats and let people decide whether they wanted to buy them or not. I wouldn't feel obligated to go out of my way (i.e., specific labelling to highlight genetically modified animals, since all meat animals have been genetically modified).

I would however, provide any and all information to all purveyors and consumers who were interested in such, along with all the other information, most likely through a website.

On the other hand, if I was a producer that wanted to cater to that market, I'd put...in big print, mind you, with bright colors...that the meat was in no way genetically modified, heaven forbid, never happen, uh uh, now way.

Again the differentiation here is not whether the source animal was genetically modified, but whether it was done slowly over a long period of time through selection, or through DNA manipulation at the molecular level, i.e., in a laboratory.

If you're asking whether it bothers me or not....no, it doesn't particularly bother me, and I have no moral or ethical issues with it.

I save my concern and ire for hormone and pesticide use; don't waste it on genetic modification.

I'd be quite happy if someone could do successful genetic modification on me to eliminate some diseases and decrepitation, extend my life immeasurablly, or just make me an all around happier person. Why should I object if they can do the same thing to other plants and animals (I include myself in both categories, depending on time and mood.)

Hoke: You pro-cloning types always gloss over the Army of Hitlers problem. Please face that issue head on; what will you do to prevent cloning from being used to produce an Army of Hitlers? Huh? HUH?

Hoke: You pro-cloning types always gloss over the Army of Hitlers problem. Please face that issue head on; what will you do to prevent cloning from being used to produce an Army of Hitlers? Huh? HUH?

They're going to do it, too! I happen to know that they saved Hitler's brain - I saw it on TV!!



Mike

[James Roscoe]

Hoke: You pro-cloning types always gloss over the Army of Hitlers problem. Please face that issue head on; what will you do to prevent cloning from being used to produce an Army of Hitlers? Huh? HUH?

They're going to do it, too! I happen to know that they saved Hitler's brain - I saw it on TV!!



Mike

Isn't Hitler still alive and running Uraguay? Maybe it is Paraguay. I suspect Elvis is there too.

I save my concern and ire for hormone and pesticide use; don't waste it on genetic modification.

I save MY concern for antibiotic use.

Some of the best antibiotics in our arsenal for fighting human disease have been rendered useless because of their use/abuse in agriculture.

I'm sorry, mega-agribusinesses. If your methods of raising animals for food are only sustainable because you routinely administer antibiotics to the animals, then that's too bad. Human medicine--far more important--cannot afford to let you continue such practices.

-Paul W.

Is it no longer the Internet rule that the first person to mention Hitler loses the argument, Stuart?

Thoughtful answer as always, Hoke.

My guess is that producers won't have much say in the matter. The USDA is leaning strongly toward the proposition that there is no health risk with GM meat, which will toss the issue into the administrative and political arenas.

As to all those other benefits of cloning, my own view is my clones may benefit from all those good things, but as for me, I'm pretty well set in my ways by nature and nurture.

Just gotta find some more good wine -- that will make everything all right.

"I save MY concern for antibiotic use."

I'm not sure it's the use of antibiotics in agriculture, Paul, but the overuse of antibiotics in humans, that has caused the problems. It's very clear that pathogens in humans have developed immunity to antibiotics through their exposure in humans.

The interspecies immunities are must harder to document, unless there have been some recent, compelling studies that I haven't seen.

Bob:

Me, thoughtful? Hardly. Just reacting with my feelings, like a good liberal.

And you're correct, the producers won't have much say in the matter (beyond spending millions of lobbying money to line the pockets of politicians, I mean).

Paul: I agree with you on the profligate use of antibiotics. But I agree with Bob on the interspecies problem as well. On the other hand, having recently had a bout with pneumonia (and not having a spleen), I was very, very grateful for an antibiotic cocktail to keep me out of the hospital. So call me a hypocrite.

Hoke: You pro-cloning types always gloss over the Army of Hitlers problem. Please face that issue head on; what will you do to prevent cloning from being used to produce an Army of Hitlers? Huh? HUH?

Your timing is sooo good, Stuart. Right now I'm reading a trashy military/sci-fi novel ripped of from the Wacht am Rhein about Earth, and specifically the modern German government, faced with a nasty alien invasion and having the technology to rejuvenate a cadre of old SS (the fighting armor guys) to help recreate the old Korps to defend the Fatherland. Moral dilemmas ensue.

Of course, the French go down to ignominious defeat, being a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys, but that goes without saying, eh?

Nah, we don't want to clone an Army of Hitlers, The guy was a rabble rouser, but fact is, once he got up there, he did a really crappy job. He was a loser.

We could clone lots of people that could do a way better job of world domination, dude. We could have Alexander against Julius C, for instance. That would be a cool world conflict.

Another thing I'm reading now is a short story , alternate history thingie, where Young Temujin had a Jewish nanny, so he converted to Judaism and became a spreader of the faith. Oy vey!

What extent of genetic modification are we discussing here?

Technically, any selective breeding program is genetic modification.

Or is it the fact that stock animals are fed genetically modified corn, milo etc...or fed growth hormones?

Or is someone actually tinkering with the DNA or sperm / egg prior to artificial insemination?

Richard

The radio program wasn't entirely clear, Richard. They talked about cloning highly rated bulls, and then inseminating cows using the sperm from the cloned offspring.

One interesting comment from the show: "statistics on desirable cattle would put a baseball statistician to shame."

so he converted to Judaism and became a spreader of the faith. Oy vey!

Presumably, the author is not familiar with Judaism's non-conversion doctrine.

Richard, because of the wide range of Luddism, the concepts of cloning, genetic modification, and feedstocks have all gotten conflated. One indication that you're dealing with illogic.

[Robin Garr]

I suppose some of the moral and ethical considerations might concern people, but it seems to me there is a clear distinction as a practical matter between cloned animals and plants.

That makes sense, Bob, but I'm not buying the argument that latter-day industrial genetic modification is no different from natural selection or even accelerated natural selection through breeding.

While I don't have any particular moral scruples about GM or cloning, I'm less than confident that the corporate sector has consumer interests - or even health and safety - as its priority when it fools around in the lab. Remember, these are the people who brought us Prozac, Vioxx and winter tomatoes ...

I'm less than confident that the corporate sector has consumer interests - or even health and safety - as its priority when it fools around in the lab.

Is there anyone so stupid to think that, Robin?

***sigh*** Yes, I guess I think there is.

Still, not the point. The practice itself is not evil; it's what we lovely humans are willing to do with the practice that is evil.

[Robin Garr]

Still, not the point. The practice itself is not evil; it's what we lovely humans are willing to do with the practice that is evil.

Umm ... that's exactly what I meant, Hoke. Was I <i>that</i> unclear? Or are you agreeing with me?

No.

Yes.

Getting you back on point.

(No, you weren't unclear at all.

Yes, I was agreeing with you.

Noodging you that what the bidnessmen do with the ability to clone is not the issue; it's the question of being able to clone that is the issue. You're just going off on your usual liberal anti-business, anti-capitalist rant.

Even though I agree with you. )