Cows with Human milk??? Guh.. Genetically modified animals!!! Next?

Incariol · #31 12th June 2011, 03:25 PM

They aren't making cows produce human breast milk. They are doing a transgenic insertion of two genes, which code for two proteins. I don't understand why breast milk and formula is coming up so much.

Thekla · #32 12th June 2011, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by walkingxshadow

i will take your adamant disagreement and raise you another.

GMOs are beneficial. and not that hard to produce either. im only a senior in undergrad and i could make GMOs if i had the right equipment and materials. i cant tell you how many times just this past semester we transformed bacteria in lab and made them glow, or produce a protein they dont normally produce, or gave them certain kinds of resistances so they could be grown on selective media. between genetics, cell bio, molecular bio, and biochem the number of times ive transformed bacteria is probably numbering somewhere around 30 times or more. its not very hard and not terrribly expensive.

More recent findings on the effect of the intake of GM food have indicated that there are deleterious effects which were not revealed in short term studies. Science indeed has its place, but so does prudence, and man has been wont to proceed without full consideration for effects he has not thought of (and thus does not test for) as well as downstream unseen consequences.

and to go with your six arguments:

1)why does it matter how we "respect" the chickens? God gave man dominion over the earth to do with as he saw fit. and its just a chicken! no higher brain function. mostly instinctual. thats why you can chop its head off and it still run around. it functions mostly off its brain stem. theres not much actual brain there.

Our ability to properly exercise that dominion is concomitant with our relationship with God and our respect for His work; this right dominion was demonstrated in Adam's naming of the animals. It is not something that we typically demonstrate now.

If, for example, science is so apt in it's analytic and "creative" process, why is breast milk still superior to formula ?

2) what does the first part about pieces of a fetus' genes floating around have to do with milk intake? it also doesnt really make a lot of sense. genetic material is very fragile out side of the cell and/or not in a living cell. it would be broken down very quickly and filtered out of the blood stream as waste. the human body doesnt like naked DNA just floating around. now cancer is weird and can do weird things. so maybe a cancerous cell took up some free floating genetic material. but what does that have to do with anything. its cancer. by definition its a cell thats gone out of control and should be eliminated. this statement was also iffy because no one is introducing new genes to the baby. its just milk. there will be no genetic effect on the baby at all. take a genetics class. it doesnt work that way. and human experimentation is so far away it probably wont happen in our life time. theres just too much that can go wrong. what if the gene youre adding inserts into the middle of some other essential gene? youd fix one problem only to cause another.

The potential problematic effects of free floating genetic material in the bloodstream is aptly illustrated but the involvement of the fetus's genetic material as a potential causal factor in much later tumor growth in the mother (where completed pregnancy indicates a degree of compatability). The infant immune system is immature, and is inextricably linked to the gut. The presence of Bt in human blood points to the fact that GM materials are not actually digestible.

3) cant say i fully even understand what youre trying to say there. the milk coming out of the cows will be essentially identical to the naturally produced milk in a mothers breast. it will lack some of the natural antibodies but a baby's immune system is usually ramping up to speed not too long after that immunity wears off. and up till then they are still protected by their mothers shared immunity from the womb. thats why you get babies vaccinated at 6 months. because the mothers immunity is wearing off and they will need the help of a vaccine.

There is already a viable (and superior) alternative available for at risk infants. Immune factors in breast milk render a better coverage than formula plus vaccination. However, vaccination in this country starts the day of release from the hospital; there are several additional vaccinations given well before the 6 month age.

4)kinda covered that in number 3. the child is protected with its mothers immunities up until about 6 months. after that its own immune system/vaccines begin to take over.

Formula is a purchased commodity, and is expensive. People must be able to afford not only the formula on an ongoing basis, but have access to clean water, equipment, and the means to sterilize both the water and the receptacle for feeding. In poorer regions, where formula is introduced, this is not affordable - formula is excessively diluted leading to insufficient nutritional intake, water and/or feed receptacles are not sterilized, leading actually to increase in gut illness, including diarrhea. Even if the family decides to return to breastfeeding following formula introduction, relactation is difficult, sometimes impossible. IE, once formula is introduced, it is typically a permanent decision - again, where there is income insufficient to meet the expense downstream effect is amplified.
Further, most women breastfeed for a full 4 years; thus the child receives the benefit of the anti-diarrheal properties of breast milk for this period of time. In order to approximate this benefit, GM milk must be purchased and served properly for 4 years; the expense is thus greatly increased.
If indeed the human immune system is fully capable of fighting the causes of diarrhea after 6 months, no-one over the age of 6 months would get diarrhea.

5) who breast feeds toddlers!!! they play in the dirt and eat mud!! thats what they are supposed to do! thats where they get resistances from! if you want to blame anything for the amount of sick children around blame over protective mothers and all this antibacterial nonsense that is such the rage now. i ate dirt when i was little and played out side. and i am very rarely sick. you give toddlers mcdonalds and koolaid! theyre sufficiently developed that by the time their teeth are starting to come into that they can start eating real food. even if it has to be blended up first. this statement made very little sense. if they can talk you shouldnt be breast feeding...

Many women breastfeed toddlers; out side of the US and in rural "third world" setting, breastfeeding until the age of 4 is the norm.
I am not in the "clean" camp, and indeed refuse to use antibacterial soaps.

I think you must also be aware that the present state of broad spectrum antibiotic resistance is in part the fault of "science" (see your introduction and # 6), especially for-profit science in the service of factory farming which does not respect the God given "isness" of the animals (see your #1). Mad Cow Disease was the downstream effect of feeding animals what they would not naturally eat; ruminants do not eat meat voluntarily without heavily disguising their feed.

6) i will admit there are some shady dealing with ppl who are just trying to push a product but that shouldnt color your view of all GMOs. the corn you buy from the store. genetically modified. almost every brand of corn chip. genetically modifed. most tomatoes and a lot of other fruits and veggies. all genetically modified. and youve been eating them your whole life. are you still alive? still healthy? more than likely. what you should be worrying about is pesticides on apples. apples are the most pesticide ridden of any store bought produce. they also get gassed with plant hormones a good bit so they ripen faster but they lose a good bit of nutrition when they are gassed. buts thats how they make seedless grapes. they force them to ripen before the seed can be formed.

Actually, I have not been eating them.
I buy mostly directly from farms (where I question the farmer), a local organic food store, and organic at the grocery. I have found that, after a few months of eating conventional chicken when I could not find free range organic, upon finding a supplier and returning to organic, my children felt full after aprox. half the amount of chicken.

Nutritional content of food depends on variety, growing conditions, and soil health. As soil quality is not part of the priority in GM farming, the soil is more readily depleted. Additionally, GM plants do require additional soil amendments for survival (magnesium, for example) making them more expensive to grow beyond the additional expenses of patented seed that cannot be saved, and patented weed killer. (This does not even touch the present and growing problem with super weeds and water contamination.)

Beyond the issues I have already mentioned (and please see the studies on the effect of GM foods on internal organs), GM pollen is effecting seed quality and survival of traditional crops. (One company threatened lawsuits against Mexican farmers whose non-GM corn had been contaminated by GM pollen. Mexico is an important region, where exceptionally hardy and diverse corn varieties are grown: Mexico is the world's "corn trust".)

theres my response to what you wrote. i had honestly just responded to the OP and ignored the other replies. but since you wanted me to read yours here you go.

And, there is my response to your response

Philothei · #33 12th June 2011, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by walkingxshadow

i think this is perfectly fine. where do you think we get a lot of the insulin and other hormones that humans often take as medicine? we get them from genetically altered animals or bacteria. i think this falls under the same category for mothers who for some reason cant breast feed. and most of the food you buy and eat from the grocery store has been genetically modified to be hardier and more nutritious. all we are doing is taking what we have learned about genetics and using it to help improve out lives. not trying to play God just trying to make life a little better.

It is like slapping God on the face saying "nah you did not do it right the first time around we know better and we will "improve" things for us"

I cannot see that nature the way God created and meant it was "not improved" from the start. Actually I heard a joke about "improving" the other day.... I was more like "adding" stuff into recipes. Although a recipe you can do, for there is no harm into it for the long run. But to experiment with God's "creation" and human genetics is another. At least I would expect a testing of 30 years to see if human who actully took this milk and grew to be adults what consequences there would be...But today the industry is just in a hurry for the dollar and they won't test as they should.

From a Theological perspective all this does is "infusing" part of human into an animal. period.

walkingxshadow · #34 12th June 2011, 05:29 PM

Thekla:

to go into everything that youve either misquoted, misconstrued, or are just flat out wrong about would take more time then im willing to put into a response over the internet. it would actually involve me trying to teach you a couple classes. take a genetics class please. i am begging you. free floating genetic material does not survive in the body! dont know how your getting that but it just doesnt. why do you think theres a nucleus? it protects your DNA from degradation. your body contains things called nucleases that go around and chew up stray genetic material. you obviously have formed your opinion and are not going to change your stance or even entertain opinions or even facts to the contrary. good for you. i dont really care enough to keep arguing. i have taken a genetics and molecular biology class. i know what im talking about. if you choose to reject facts and years of scienfic study then thats your prerogative. unless you have a PhD in genetics you are insulting every one who does or is pursuing one(like myself) and/or simultaneously slapping them in the face. all these so called "facts" and "studies" you seem to like are all horribly one sided and out of context when not coupled with the other side of the story. while there is always a risk involved in everything you shouldnt just ignore the blaring benefits because of some sort of misplaced religious bias. we are not slapping God in the face when we modify and organism to make it better for us. we are just taking what God has given us and using it to its fullest extent. God gave us the building blocks and we are just building what is helpful to us. God gave man these amazing minds to question, research and discover. i consider it slapping God in the face not to push the scientific envelope and use the minds he has given us. i am not going to waste such a precious God given gift. you can by all means can ignore it but i choose to use my God given gift.

and another thing. chicken is delicious! i dont really care how it gets on my plate. in my opinion its just a chicken. they are no where near extinct or endangered. if it could talk or had feelings or any kind of sentience at all that would be another thing but it doesnt.

Incariol · #35 12th June 2011, 05:36 PM

Ingested free-floating genetic material is just going to be broken down by deoxyribonuclease anyways.

SpringerLink - The Histochemical Journal, Volume 33, Numbers 9-10

ScienceDirect - Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications : Mammalian Deoxyribonucleases I Are Classified into Three Types: Pancreas, Parotid, and Pancreas–Parotid (Mixed), Based on Differences in Their Tissue Concentrations*1

walkingxshadow · #36 12th June 2011, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Incariol

Ingested free-floating genetic material is just going to be broken down by deoxyribonuclease anyways.

SpringerLink - The Histochemical Journal, Volume 33, Numbers 9-10

ScienceDirect - Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications : Mammalian Deoxyribonucleases I Are Classified into Three Types: Pancreas, Parotid, and Pancreas–Parotid (Mixed), Based on Differences in Their Tissue Concentrations*1

THANK YOU!!!!!!!

Thekla · #37 12th June 2011, 05:57 PM

"Fetal cells, specifically fetal erythroblasts, as well as cell-free fetal DNA are present in the maternal circulation. Both are currently being investigated as a means for the non-invasive risk-free analysis of fetal genetic traits. The origin of this cell-free fetal DNA in the maternal circulation is currently unclear." Cell-free fetal DNA in the maternal circulation does not stem from the transplacental passage of fetal erythroblasts

Where full cells circulate in the maternal blood, they have been implicated in autoimmune disease through microchimerism.

Thekla · #38 12th June 2011, 06:02 PM

Monsanto provides it's own studies and studies that it directly funds.
This is one sided, and "unscientific".
Monsanto may legally do this because the elements needed for testing are covered under proprietary law.
Monsanto has historically refused to release it's proprietary holdings for testing purposes.

Thekla · #39 12th June 2011, 06:15 PM

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?: Scientific American

solarwave · #40 13th June 2011, 07:15 AM

Personally I don't care too much about cows with human milk. I'm not sure exactly what the point is, but as long as it doesn't do harm I don't find anything morally wrong with it.

Originally Posted by Philothei

I do not want to eat cow meat that has a human gene. Do you?

But all cows have human genes anyway and we have cow genes. A large amount of our DNA is the same as most other living things.