Genetically altered 'super chicken' on US dinner tables?

[theblackalchemist]

Genetically altered 'super chicken' on US dinner tables?

WASHINGTON: Super Chicken strutted a step closer to the dinner table on 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, hat 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.

 

US 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.

 

Reaction from consumer groups was mixed. They welcomed the government's decision to regulate genetically altered animals, but they cautioned that crucial details remain to be spelled out.

........

 

Genetically altered 'super chicken' on US dinner tables?-Health/Sci-The Times of India

[Galapagos]

Chickens have been genetically modified by humans for thousands of years through artificial selection. Genetically modified food is fundamentally the same as 'natural' food, there isn't some vital essence of chicken being violated when this is done.

[Tormod]

I don't agree that GM is the same as using selection. GM is a means of manipulating crops or stock directly without letting it work in nature first - in practice it eliminates natural selection, which still plays a role in the pruning of chickens for example. Thus the risk that GM food can be harmful to both people and nature is much higher.

[Moontanman]

Has anyone really quantified the any danger from GM foods or is it just another silly knee jerk reaction promoted by the anti technology people? I see no reason GM chicken would be any more of a danger than any other chicken. I can see how it might even be better for you. A GM chicken could be resistant to salmonella infection or be healthier in some other way. GM is nothing more than a short cut way to get the traits you want without hundreds of generations of breeding. It's no more unnatural than breeding for some trait by picking out the chicken that most closely matches the trait you desire.

[freeztar]

Has anyone really quantified the any danger from GM foods or is it just another silly knee jerk reaction promoted by the anti technology people?

 

Yes, tons.

Dangers of GM Foods - Institute for Responsible Technology

 

It's no more unnatural than breeding for some trait by picking out the chicken that most closely matches the trait you desire.

 

I agree with Tormod on this. GM is not the same as selection through breeding. You're highly unlikely to breed a chicken that produces human insulin with selection, whereas GE can make it possible in one generation.

[Galapagos]

Yes, tons.

Dangers of GM Foods - Institute for Responsible Technology

 

What do you make of this 2001 report of the EU reviewing 81 research projects over a 15 year period failing to find any new human/enviro risks posed by genetically modified crops?

Research - Quality of Life - Genetically Modified Organisms - A Review of Results

Our "natural" crops have "tried" to evolve bitter tastes and such as to deter us predators, and there was even a case of a strain of potato being removed from the market because it evolved irritants/toxins harmful to people:

Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural) ? PNAS

(Can't find the above one for free anywhere.....)

 

 

I agree with Tormod on this. GM is not the same as selection through breeding. You're highly unlikely to breed a chicken that produces human insulin with selection, whereas GE can make it possible in one generation.

But isn't this only because there wouldn't be any pressure to maintain the insulin mutation in the wild? Or is it that a larger segment of DNA must be modified to get the insulin in the first place? Or is the mutation one that would just never occur naturally for reasons in molecular biology? How are the induced and controlled mutations more dangerous?

I would assume that actually watching, testing, and controlling these mutations would be safer than blind artificial selection.

 

Also, interesting to note, the first piece of data on seeds of deception:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/119.pdf

Is about mice and GM potatoes containing lectin. Firstly, this study done by the Rowett Research Institute shows different results:

Studies on crops genetically modified to include lectins with the potential to enhance the plants’ resistance to insect and nematode pests

But at the beginning of the seeds of deception piece above, it has a warning about how some studies may have had ulterior motives.

However, on page 252 of "Genome" by Matt Ridley Amazon.com: Genome: Matt Ridley: Books http://www.amazon.com/Genome-Matt-Ridley/dp/0060932902

the author writes specifically about this example and the sensationalism surrounding it(in the UK, obviously), and observes that this study told us less about GM, and more about the safety of lectins(known to be poisonous to animals).

I agree with his observation. Genetic modification seems to be as safe as the genes that are being modified.

Thoughts?

[Moontanman]

Yes, tons.

Dangers of GM Foods - Institute for Responsible Technology

 

 

 

I agree with Tormod on this. GM is not the same as selection through breeding. You're highly unlikely to breed a chicken that produces human insulin with selection, whereas GE can make it possible in one generation.

 

Nearly everything in those links is things that might happen or could happen. We have created a great many health problems by our slow selection for desired traits. things like chicken pox, measles, small pox, even salmonella. Should we then stop keeping and breeding animals for food altogether? Risk management is necessary for nearly all of the things we do to stay alive. I don't see GM foods being dangerous in any special way that reasonable risk management couldn't fix.

[freeztar]

What do you make of this 2001 report of the EU reviewing 81 research projects over a 15 year period failing to find any new human/enviro risks posed by genetically modified crops?

Research - Quality of Life - Genetically Modified Organisms - A Review of Results

 

I've never read it, but from the link you give, I found this summary statement (preamble):

WORKSHOP SUMMARY

 

The EU's Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources research programme reflects in its activities the routine and widespread use of the techniques of modern biotechnology and potential applications of GM technologies. Although these appear to offer many potential benefits there is growing public concern and resistance to their use, in particular in the areas of agriculture and food. This situation led the External Advisory Groups of the programme to convene a workshop in order to canvass a wide range of opinions on GMO research, and to examine the questions and concerns, as a preparation to providing the Commission with advice on programme planning. The workshop thus brought together personalities from many different backgrounds and perspectives, including representatives of consumers' organisations, ecologists and industry.

 

The workshop identified a series of practical research lines where the Quality of Life Programme could clarify issues where GMOs appear to cause public concern. It also drew attention to the way in which research is carried out, how it is planned, who participates and who finances it, and stressed the overarching need for research activities to be better tuned to the needs and perceptions of society. Lastly, it called for closer contact and communication between the research community and society at large in order to establish mutual trust and to enable the best use to be made of scientific advance.

 

Such was the satisfaction with the constructive atmosphere generated that it was suggested to develop the workshop into a continuing informal forum in which to maintain and expand the dialogue, thereby ensuring that public interests and concerns continue to be clearly identified and addressed by EU research.

 

According to this opening statement, it seems that the whole point is to clarify (dispel rumors and ensure scientific credibility). I applaud both these endeavors. I have not read the paper as it was freezing up my browser and took about 2 minutes to scroll down to the second page. (server problem?)

Anyhow, I would welcome specific citations which I can navigate to. :lol:

 

I must admit that the source I gave was a bit tongue in cheek. I'm hoping this will blossom into a great discussion on the issue! :)

 

Our "natural" crops have "tried" to evolve bitter tastes and such as to deter us predators

 

What do yo mean by "tried"?

 

Plants have developed several defense mechanisms through evolution. What if some of those were not actually defense, but marketing? :hyper:

 

and there was even a case of a strain of potato being removed from the market because it evolved irritants/toxins harmful to people:

Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural) ? PNAS

(Can't find the above one for free anywhere.....)

 

That article is from 1990. It would be nice to read the whole thing to see if it still applies today, but regardless, a lot has changed in 18 years of pesticide research, and indeed GE/GMOs.

 

But isn't this only because there wouldn't be any pressure to maintain the insulin mutation in the wild?

 

Yes, but at the same time, if humans were using the chicken insulin, the species would be selected for the most insulin/best insulin producing chicks.

 

Or is it that a larger segment of DNA must be modified to get the insulin in the first place?

 

Indeed.

 

Or is the mutation one that would just never occur naturally for reasons in molecular biology? How are the induced and controlled mutations more dangerous?

 

Good question! I'm not going to pretend to be capable of correctly answering this question, but I will propose that the benefit of natural selection is a "tried and true" model, whereas a species that is engineered might be completely benign for 2 generations of humans and then exhibit some fatal, unforseen flaw that causes a breakdown.

 

I guess I'm just a bit apprehensive because I've seen what has happened in the plant world. We've been engineering plants for a long time now. I don't find it so far fetched to extend our knowledge of plant engineering into the animal realm, but I hope everyone keeps the "failures" in mind as well.

 

I would assume that actually watching, testing, and controlling these mutations would be safer than blind artificial selection.

Not necessarily. You can breed the perfect corn crop in the lab and it could fail miserably in the field. It basically boils down to the fact that we don't have enough knowledge to manipulate our environment at our whim. We've just barely understood that we have an impact on Earth's climate! (but that's a strawman :hihi: )

 

Also, interesting to note, the first piece of data on seeds of deception:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/119.pdf

Is about mice and GM potatoes containing lectin. Firstly, this study done by the Rowett Research Institute shows different results:

Studies on crops genetically modified to include lectins with the potential to enhance the plants’ resistance to insect and nematode pests

But at the beginning of the seeds of deception piece above, it has a warning about how some studies may have had ulterior motives.

However, on page 252 of "Genome" by Matt Ridley Amazon.com: Genome: Matt Ridley: Books

the author writes specifically about this example and the sensationalism surrounding it(in the UK, obviously), and observes that this study told us less about GM, and more about the safety of lectins(known to be poisonous to animals).

I agree with his observation. Genetic modification seems to be as safe as the genes that are being modified.

Thoughts?

 

I'll still stand by my thoughts that GM'ing can have undesired effects. Heck, artificial selection can be just as bad really! Ask a pine plantation owner that has experienced pine beetles!

[freeztar]

Nearly everything in those links is things that might happen or could happen.

 

Nearly everything?

 

We have created a great many health problems by our slow selection for desired traits. things like chicken pox, measles, small pox, even salmonella.

 

Huh? How so?

 

Should we then stop keeping and breeding animals for food altogether?

 

Yes. :)

I hate PETA and love me a Ribeye, but in reality, the answer to your question, as related to the global environment, *should* be yes. :hihi:

(but not altogether!) :lol:

 

Risk management is necessary for nearly all of the things we do to stay alive. I don't see GM foods being dangerous in any special way that reasonable risk management couldn't fix.

 

You might be correct, and I certainly hope you are. :hyper:

I'm not usually conservative in science endeavors, but I think we've f'ed the ecology of most places so much that we should really tread lightly from here on out.

[Moontanman]

Nearly everything?

 

There was a minor thing i wasn't sure of.

 

Huh? How so?

 

Many of mankind's diseases originated from our long association with our food animals, the keeping a breeding these animals for desired traits necessitated very closely living with and eventually allowing their diseases jump to us.

 

 

 

Yes. :)

I hate PETA and love me a Ribeye, but in reality, the answer to your question, as related to the global environment, *should* be yes. :hihi:

(but not altogether!) :lol:

 

GM crops and animals could cut down on the problems with the husbandry of animals and allow fro bigger yields that would mean less resources going to animal culture and plant culture. Fart less cows, chickens that produce less waste, pigs that grow faster and bigger. the possibilities are endless. Eventually I can see plants that produce meat, kind of like having a huge banana like fruit that you peal to reveal a rib eye roast! Risk management is what it's all about and so far i see nothing that would indicate the risk is much higher than what we already do.

 

 

You might be correct, and I certainly hope you are. :hyper:

I'm not usually conservative in science endeavors, but I think we've f'ed the ecology of most places so much that we should really tread lightly from here on out.

 

GM would be the technology that would allow us to tread very lightly compared to what we do now.