Frankencows: A Complete Misunderstanding Of Science
from the way-to-go-media dept
Anyone who makes a habit of taking a cursory look at news sites is probably aware both of the Genetically Engineered Food Right To Know Act currently in front of Congress, and of a vocal animosity towards genetically modified agriculture. We've discussed GMOs here a few times as well and, yes, I'm perfectly aware that Monsanto is quite likely run by a corporate board that includes Satan, Hitler, and Timothy McVeigh. But that doesn't mean that all genetic techniques for food are bad and it certainly doesn't excuse hysteria-producing misinformation campaigns perpetrated in part by media members.
Yet that's exactly what has been occuring in the case of the hornless dairy cows.
“Scientists are designing a health and safety cow, genetically altered to have no horns,” claimed the Sunday Times. “Hornless ‘Frankencow’: Genetic engineers aim to create super-bovine,” shouted Russia Today. Geneticists, various reports claimed, are “extracting” a strip of DNA from the genome of one cattle and “implanting” DNA it into another. A stream of stories read like pages from the anti-GMO playbook. The reports were liberally sprinkled with code words about designer animals, transgenics and Frankencows. No wonder people are in a tizzy.The problem, of course, is that none of those claims are true. They're a complete misunderstanding of the specific science involved in creating, or I would better say encouraging, production of hornless dairy cows. Livestock that are hornless, commonly referred to as polled livestock, occur naturally. More to the point, breeding techniques (read: the original genetic engineering) to produce more polled animals have been around for at least half a century, and likely longer. Scott Fahrenkrug of the University of Minnesota teamed up with other geneticists to form Recombinetics, a company that uses so-called molecular scissors simply to shift natural DNA around within animal genes. In other words, all of the attacks by anti-GMO folks were baseless.
Fahrenkrug’s technique does not involve transgenics, which results from moving genes from one species to another. While utterly safe, the very mention of genetic manipulation enrages anti-GMO activists. In this case, Recomibinetics is mirroring nature—taking snippets of DNA that first appeared through natural, spontaneous mutations in livestock hundreds of years ago to create hornless cows. The snippets are copied—not inserted as various reports had it. They are not moved. No “foreign” DNA is inserted. We’ve been eating these cows and drinking their milk for centuries—so we are sure there are no adverse health consequences.The entire process could be done through selective breeding. The problem with that is that it would take far more time and would require both the beef and dairy industry to take huge production hits in the meantime as the animals were used. This method doesn't offend Mother Nature beyond making her look less efficient. It produces animals that are genetically the same as what we're already consuming. As the article notes, people should be cheering this technique on, as it results in less animal cruelty and a higher production of milk. Hell, PETA is reportedly on board with this, and they get pissed off over Pokemon games.
The point is that whatever your thoughts on the more invasive GMO techniques, you can't let that mute a demand for factual information. And when we talk about legislation, there needs to be pushback on broadly-worded clauses that function as a catch-all for food technology.
[Fahrenkrug] pointed to a central clause in the “Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act,” introduced in Congress last week. The wording was clearly guided by activists rather than scientists, he told me. For example, the bill now uses a sweeping and very unscientific definition of “genetic engineering” to include “in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant DNA and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles.” That’s stunning in its breadth, and would result in mandatory labeling of natural processes, such as those introduced by Fahrenkrug. In effect the poorly written legislation attempts to re-classify some simple techniques used in classical breeding as GMOs—and could in the process endanger the technologically enhanced classic breeding techniques that are poised to revolutionize animal welfare. However intended, that’s just one of many passages in this shabbily written bill that will retard the biotechnology revolution.Anti-science legislation as a reaction to unsubstantiated fear? This is becoming far too par for the course for my tastes.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: gmo
Reader Comments
The First Word
“In a related topic, the dangers of a mono culture should not be waved aside lightly with flippant comments about the hippies who oppose GMO. There are real concerns, voiced by those who would know. But I'm sure it is much easier to regurgitate biased opinion heard on faux news.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Awww!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These crackheads need to revert back to reality and stop fighting anything and everything. You know, distinguish giants from windmills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Disclosure, at the very least is preferable.
How about let's not attack the strawman of Greenpeace where we equate them to hippies instead of looking at how their arguments holds up to scrutiny, hmmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I agree with that where there's been genetic modification but this is just using natural selection in your favor. We already eat such meat naturally. So I don't see the need in this case. Why would you label something warning that a natural feature that was intensified with a little help (ie: inseminating the right egg with the right spermatozoon to produce the desired genetic combination)
How about let's not attack the strawman of Greenpeace where we equate them to hippies instead of looking at how their arguments holds up to scrutiny, hmmm?
That's why I said they have very good stuff there. As PETA has despite their misguided shots at Pokemon for instance. However, some nutty campaigns or actions end up ruining the efficacy of other good ones. You see I love Pirate Parties in general for instance. But I also criticize some moves or ideas that demerit the whole thing sometimes. I'm not attacking Greenpeace out of something I built in my mind nor I'm saying they shouldn't exist. On the contrary they are much welcome but we need reasonable actions and goals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullshit it's more like out_of_the_blue, Charles Carreon, and John Steele
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Franken-Puter
But, I mean who wouldn't want an over grown cow with bolts in its neck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Franken-Puter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fOR WHAT REASON?
In the last 20 years..
Dairies have moved out of S. California..They stink.
Dairies have reduced the number of cattle..And STILL produce more then enough.(over 20%)
Dairies have to much milk and cant sell it..Enough to make MORE MONEY..
Dairies use Drug/chemicals/hormones, (what ever) to force cattle to make EXTRA milk..(seems backwards, as they have TO MUCH)
Average life of a Dairy cow, is 5-7 years..THEN it ends up on your plate..Funny for a creature that can live for 40+ years.
After being a dairy cow, you are Burned out..cant have babies anymore and you cant produce enough milk for market, as well as WHAT THOSE chemicals/drugs/whatever does to the cow.
Those old enough to REMEMBER milk..has it changed flavor? is it abit THINNER?
Dont ask, dont tell..is not always a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
That. And I'm only 28. I personally try to avoid the main brands, the niche ones are more expensive but they sure as hell are much healthier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
Also you need to understand exactly what a "free range" chicken is and what qualifies as "free range".
Reading these comments has been downright painful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
Better? Can we stop with the animosity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
There is no qualification on labelling a chicken as free range or organic.
All they have to do is keep them in the exact same space, exact same area, but without cages, the chicken may be in squalor and unable to move around much, but it can still be called a "free range chicken".
So no, the animosity will persist. I dislike when people read a label and think they're doing something better despite not actually knowing how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
Maybe in your country and then I cannot argue with you. I've been to farms where they are created freely in the full sense of the word.
I dislike when people read a label and think they're doing something better despite not actually knowing how it works.
I'll not dispute the label part but I'll leave to you, the master specialist, to explain the difference in color and taste. As for the rest of your sentence, you are doing exactly that. So chill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
Egg color and taste can be determined by things like, say, region, diet and plain old genetics.
Also yes, some farms do it properly, but it's not required for them to do so, so ASSUMING that it's being done that way because the label says so is incorrect.
You can be belligerent about it if you like, but that's how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
I'm not assuming they were created free just because the label says so. I am assuming they are created in a different manner and I know from first hand experience that those freely created chicken are more expensive so I did make the link. Again, why the animosity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
General dislike of people who claim "all organic" is the way to go as most people who make those claims don't understand the wider implications of why we grow food the way we do.
And general dislike of people who claim things are healthier cause they look at a label and it says something that sounds kinda good. So they assume that's what they're getting when they really aren't, and then they SAY it like it's fact.
So the animosity was not directed at YOU per se, but at the thread in general and people who don't understand agriculture or livestock at all or breeding techniques at all.
People saying we can't use science to advance our capability to produce food is like saying we should wash ourselves in rivers because metal pipes pollute the water.
It's asking progress to halt because science is bad and "long term effects!", which to me is equivilent to "think of the children!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
And I live in Canada.
Pardon me for being informed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
Think about something..ok.
It used to be that Many towns had their OWN slaughter houses..and meats an such were VERY LOCAL..If you had good Beef in the area, you had good beef on the table.
NOW, your animals are TRUCKED 3 states over..Then slaughtered, then SENT someplace else. And sometimes BACK to your area.
Chickens are the same. But you wont find that many Egg farms.. They have been consolidated.. from being outlawed in some areas, to JUST cant afford it, to Regulated to DEATH.
When animals have enough ROOM, and do what they DO.. Even if you use them for milking. They are healthier, they need LESS CARE, SHOTS, DRUGS, CHEMICALS..
It used to be, eating FISH wasnt a problem. I suggest you look at suggestions about them NOW. Lead, mercury, and other poisons have built up in the environment tot he point, you can Poison yourself, just by eating. It dont matter if it was Aquaculture raised or NOT..
If you like strange facts, I will let you count the number of animals species displaced and no longer in Good supply, Around the world. Consider that Humans have decimated the animal population by over 60% in the last 400 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
Do we really need MORE cows?
IF they could? would they make a cow with no legs, so it didnt wonder?
its all for the convenience of HUMANS and making Food.
Do you think that changing something, created by nature, that DOES what it DOES, into something JUST so we can EAT IT.. is a good thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bring on the Chimeras!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a related topic, the dangers of a mono culture should not be waved aside lightly with flippant comments about the hippies who oppose GMO. There are real concerns, voiced by those who would know. But I'm sure it is much easier to regurgitate biased opinion heard on faux news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, and make sure that any patents do not create the situation where each and every morsel of food I eat creates a payment to someone who is not part of the actual production chain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Human history.
Done.
If you think our crops have been unmodified until recently and that only advanced sciences allowed altering crops, crossbreeding, or selection for best "genes", then you don't know anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not like were inserting rat DNA into crops or into cows because GENETICS. As for animals, we don't gene splice for food stuff, the concern is for the things we use to get the animals to grow up faster afterwords, not for trying to promote cows who have the genes we want to become predominant at a faster rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And there's hundreds of years at least of "evidence" that shows genetically modified crops aren't killing off the human race.
The conclusions are not in agreement, at all. And alot of the evidence is faulty in alot of the studies.
And and and, I could go on for a long time, but don't pretend that it's a cut and dry issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not sure what your point is, perhaps you misunderstood. Doesn't matter. Many conclusions about the detrimental effects of mono culture are in agreement, but do go on wont you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do realize that when you say things like this ("But I'm sure it is much easier to regurgitate biased opinion heard on faux news.") you sound just as dumb as the people that you consider dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It was not intended to imply dumb, perhaps you took it wrong.
In the future I will try to be more pleasant toward your Fox and Friends - not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The genetic mods we really need
1. Want to be eaten.
2. Be able to speak and clearly express this wish.
Is that too much to ask?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Timmy, what point would you stop corporations at?
It's absolutely certain that they'll go too far, and we won't know that in advance. The mono-culture in grains that Monsanto wants, for instance, leaves the entire world vulnerable to the probably inevitable natural genetic variation of some plant disease that's perfectly tuned to it, just as disease blighted Irish potates mid-19th C.
But besides that, the MAIN increase of farm production has been from petroleum and machinery, NOT genetics. There's NO real advance, it's just corporatizing farming. We've let corporations tinker enough with complex interactions that can't be predicted, besides that their only real purpose is CONTROL of the food supply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Timmy, what point would you stop corporations at?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Timmy, what point would you stop corporations at?
Other than that your comment is pretty much on spot. I'd advise you to watch Wall-e, Soylent Green and the likes. Enlightening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems dehorning is painful for the animals and must be expensive (if done properly).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insert subject here.
I do not condone GMO's of other kinds (e.g. genetic transfer). Most of GMO technologies isn't for the benefit of the people that eat the food, it's modified to be more profitable (insert genes and the crops start sprouting cash lol). They're modifying organisms to produce more monoculture which would diminish resilience to catastrophic events. One super crop, hit with calamity they didn't plan for and whole crops are lost. We lose entire food supplies. But they don't care as long as it drives up profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see what you did there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Anti-GMO crowd
Advances in crop yields through science helped avoid cataclysmic problems in the 60s-70s. The anti-GMO crowd wants to stop those kind of advances cold and relegate the globe to famine again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Anti-GMO crowd
GMO - what could possibly go wrong ....
Damn hippies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Anti-GMO crowd
What could go wrong is that high yield crops will be actively discouraged banned, and those lower yields will cause starvation.
Or crops designed to have better nutrition will be actively shunned and lead to mal-nutiriton.
See: golden rice. The anti-GMO crowd is already harming people in the 3rd world with that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Anti-GMO crowd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All three, nature-initiated (random), and human-initiated "old school" techniques are fine, but take it to the next level and Satan et. al enter the picture.
I am a bit surprised the GMO critics are not also calling for labeling of anything that has undergone genetic modification of any type. If he was alive, I would not at all be surprised to find George Washington Carver on their hit-list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The way this science is described is a lie
Totally wrong - this description is a lie. Many genes have multiple functions, and genes may overlap, so there's no such thing as using "molecular scissors" to snip out just one gene and move it around. There are always possible undesirable side-effects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC327103/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DNA
As a different thought, to those who might actually know, how much impact does ones consumption have on DNA? In other words, hypothetically of course) take a pair of identical twins with identical DNA, feed one naturally, without GMO's and the other with only things that have modifications. Would their DNA diverge over time with these two differing inputs? (I guess we would have to say that all other conditions were similar).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DNA
Did you get all the ideas from a bad Sci Fi B movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DNA
You are what you eat!
Another example, corn fed beef. Great marketing. They fail to point out that cows were never designed (by you know who or anyone else) to eat corn. They have to add chemicals to get them to digest it. Yet, the American public thinks 'corn fed beef' is a good thing. What else are they lying about, even if it is lye by omission?
See The Omnivore's Dilemma for more information. Trust someone to tell us their gene tampering is OK without multi-generational tests? Take a hike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DNA
Corn is a portion of diet to help fatten them up yes.
No chemicals are required for them to eat the corn, and a 100% corn fed cow isn't going to happen, it's usually mixed in with other feed to give them proper nutrition.
If you feed a cow too much corn it gets a condition called acidosis, which can be recovered from, much like an upset stomach.
The lesson in this is, don't eat an entire container of candy or you too might feel like a cow that ate too much corn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DNA
Even if everyone HAD the same DNA they would not have the same fingerprints, iris patterns, etc.
That�s not how it works! Those patterns are the result of randomness during the construction process.
And your DNA will not change regardless of what you eat. Except if you get cancer, of course. Your genetic expression may change. How that DNA is interpreted. And possibly you may have epigenetic changes. Although other environmental factors change that as well.
Regardless. Any diet �natural� or otherwise will affect depending on the specific composition. If we have identical diets one GMO and one not then any effects due to GMOs will be dependent on the specific changes introduced.
If for example the GMO is developed to be resistant to insects and viruses, the net result will be that you get less toxins from damaged infected plants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DNA
Some of the GMO plants were developed to be resistant to herbicides, so the farmers could use the herbicides around them. But now weeds are developing a resistance to the herbicide so the farmers and agri-business are back to square one.
Similarly, GMO plants that have been engineered to include their own pesticide are resulting in pests who are resistant to that pesticide.
And there are now genes that are becoming antibiotic-resistant because of GMO use.
Here's one such article about what is happening.
Trouble on the horizon for genetically modified crops?: "Pests are adapting to genetically modified crops in unexpected ways, researchers have discovered. The findings underscore the importance of closely monitoring and countering pest resistance to biotech crops."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You could remove the word "anti-science" and this statement would still be completely accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People use hysteria, attacks with no evidence, false analogies of future events and other reasons to justify hating it. Of course these are usually the people who HAVE the capability to complain about these things cause their food is abundant.
Most "genetically modified" food is pretty much crossbreeding different crops, they aren't going into the DNA structure of the plant and poking at cells and inserting random things to make them better. Now the real risks come from what we give them AFTER they're born, growth hormones and other junk in order to get them big faster, but that's different from this, and that has side effects, bit essentially breeding cows or crops in a certain fashion? No, not really.
It sickens me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I quite agree that people can get stupid about technology, but regardless of what the groups trying to get this bill passed _think_ they are doing, they are really just promoting better ingredient labeling. Anyone who panics over this has only themselves to blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you want specifics, what are you gonna do, post a novel o nthe back of every food item in existance?
And of course if EVERYTHING says "genetically modified." then it's the same as NOTHING saying it. Just look back at the article about warning signs.
Everything has been modified, but hey if you want to return to 80% agricultural society in order to grow those natural crops we need to survive in order to avoid genetically modified foods, feel free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And your comment about writing a novel is even more stupid. Lets examine the ingredients on this box of children's tylenol I happen to have next to me: (non-medicinal) citric acid, copovidone, corn starch(GMO), croscopovidone, ethylcllulose(GMO?), flavour, lactose, magnesium stearate, mannitol(GMO), silicone dioxide, tsorbitol(GMO), sucralose(GMO). The only thing I changed was to add (GMO) to ALL plant matter listed above based on your assumption that ALL of it HAD to come from modified produce (ethylcllulose is debatable since it is more plastic then organic). If you think that's a novel then perhaps you should sue your grade school teachers. And adding patent numbers is also not a hardship - my phone lists more then 20 of them.
And where did you get the idiotic idea that "EVERYTHING" is genetically modified? While it is certainly true that a great number of products - especially things such as wheat, corn, and beef - are USUALLY from modified sources, claiming that "EVERYTHING" is modified is just stupid.
Now I will admit it might make more sense to reverse the process and simply allow companies to specifically label products that DO NOT contain GMOs, and allow people to assume what they want about the remainder, but that's another matter. At this point we are discussing whether such labels are a good, bad, or indifferent idea. Personally, I support anything that educates people, and oppose anything that hides information.
I also think that once people start realizing just how much of what they consume comes from GMs they may stop reacting so stupidly. I really hate it when I get flooded by people getting all excited because they just discovered a farmer somewhere has bred his cows to be bigger. I want to smack them and scream "They've been doing that for thousands of years you uneducated dolt!" :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Claiming something is or isn't genetically modified is much different.
I won't even get into the misleading aspect of labelling things as "organic.".
I never said the industry would collapse, my statement was what would labelling something as containing geneticaly modified products DO for the consumer? EVERYTHING uses genetically modified products, maybe not all products used gene splicing, but everything we eat now is not at all how it was in the wilds a hundred, two hundred, or even more years ago.
Sticking GMO next to something doesn't inform the consumer of anything, what was modified, how much, etc, you're just leading to a situation where people will make not only uninformed decisions, but irrational ones too.
Yeah, people know what sucralose is, or can look it up themselves if they don't, will telling people it's genetically modified do anything? I think only writing "has genetically modified products" in it is enough, but I question the impact it will have. Like labelling cigarettes as cancer causing and putting disgusting images on it, the collective agreement towards that approach has been a gigantic "meh".
I also find people on the "organic" or "free range" bandwagons annoying, just as much as people who bash foodstuffs for various reasons because they just don't understand anything about where it comes from or how it works or how it's necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I'm convinced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cows used to eat grass for feed. Now they eat corn, GMO corn. Do you know what that does? Their manure ends up with high concentrations of e. coli and with crowded feedlot conditions, the meat is often tainted. What do they do? Anti-biotics, hormones, washing the meat in ammonia and chloride to prevent infection when all they had to do is give the cows more space and feed them grass. It's the grass that allows their digestive system to keep e. coli down in the first place.
They use viruses to inject genetic code into plant cells. I'm sure that's not asking for trouble. What if they mutate? What if the genes have unforeseen consequences further down the food chain? What if the gene mods cause a crop to make a pest super resistant to any sort of pesticides and they devastate entire yields of crops? Hurray for monoculture! We put all our eggs in one basket and now that crop has an unbeatable pest that wipes out our food supply overnight.
There has already been studies that show hormone usage in live stock has an effect on the people that eat them, just like BPA and phthalates act like estrogen on the body when you keep your foods in BPA containers. Yeah, the GMO opponents don't have any reason to be upset. Consuming hormone and anti-biotic meat does affect your body.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The industrialization of agriculture has created its own set of problems, most evident in the rise of antibiotic-resistant illnesses linking to the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture.
There are real reasons why a significant number of people are wary of the "solutions" agri-business provides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
like a lob...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's difficult to discuss this rationally - for everyone
The biggest problem is that horned cattle are not as big an issue as the GMO companies would want us to believe. The other problem is that there is a dichotomy in their facts. Sometimes they want us to believe that GMO tech is no different than what has been happening for millenia, other times they want it to be different enough that they can patent it. You can't have it both ways.
Let's look at the state of cattle in the US first. How many horned breed are used in major production? There are polled breeds and there are horned breeds. But it is hard to determine how many horned cattle there are because the polled gene is dominant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polled_livestock
If I went out in my pasture and counted how many of my renter's cattle had horns, I might find half a dozen, including those shorthorn cows with one short, flattened horn against the skull. Cattlemen have selected against horns for a long time. Cattlemen have also bred for temperament, too, which is a more important characteristic for safety. But unless you are a cattleman, you don't know which physical characteristics to look at to determine temperament.
Here's a list of cattle and which are horned and polled, based on pictures and my observations of who actually keeps breeding stock with horns. Source for breeds and pictures is here: http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/
The major breeds
Beef:
Angus - polled
Hereford - horned
Simmental - polled
Charolais - polled
Chianina - polled
Shorthorn - horned, but many polled
Polled hereford - polled
Limousin - polled
Dairy:
Holstein - polled
Jersey - polled
Brown Swiss - polled
Guernsey - polled
Ayrshire - horned
Less numerous breeds
Beefalo - polled
Belgian Blue - polled
Belted Galloway - polled
Brahman - horned - like pitbulls, used mainly in rodeos
Devon - horned
Dexter - horned
Dutch Belted - horned
Gutch Freisian - polled
Galloway - polled
Gelbvieh - polled
Milking Devon - horned
Milking Shorthorn - polled
Piedmontese - polled
Red Angus - polled
South Devon - polled
So how dangerous are horns? Have any of you had a friend killed by a cow or bull? I have. It wasn't a horned cow, either. Cattle are dangerous with or without horns. Breeding out horns really avoids more property damage, more damage to other cattle, and getting horns caught in chutes and trucks racks. I've never been stepped on by a cow, although a sow stepped on my sneakered foot, and I'm not volunteering for the cow.
Bottom line is that traditional breeding techniques seem to have been working very well, and have already substantially solved the problem that the GMO companies want to re-solve. It's not like every cow has a rack like an Ankole-Watusi or a Madagascar Zebu.
If the GMO companies re-solve the problem, they then get control of the food supply. Is that what you really want? Privatized food supplies, just like the Pharaohs?
----
Question - Is GMO the same as traditional breeding techniques? The GMO companies would have you believe so. And I am not including �in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant DNA and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles.� in my definition of traditional breeding techniques. Those have not been used for centuries.
When GMO companies patented their genetic modifications, they claimed that they were different than existing techniques. That got them the patent.
When GMO companies applied for FDA approval of said GMO products, they claimed that they were "substantially equivalent" to existing products.
My question is "Which answer is true?" I am not a moron because I ask this question. I didn't set this situation up. I just want an answer. And while we're at it, I would like copies of any studies done to prove that GMO food is safe. Studies were provided to the FDA in the approval process, but are kept secret because they are trade secrets, despite being patented. The two studies which were doneo n GMOs showed health problems in humans. These studies were attacked (obviosuly) by the GMO companies, but they never offered any of their own studies in evidence. They just said "trust us!". I don't trust them, and the law says that I don't have to trust them. Upton Sinclair helped make sure that our food supply COULD be trusted by NOT trusting the food companies.
Patents are supposed to disclose the method for the advancement of science and the good of the public. Just show me the beef, so to speak, and I'll be happy.
There are a lot of other mis-statements in the article, but they all flow from these two errors, so I won't waste more electrons debating them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's difficult to discuss this rationally - for everyone
Nobody here I think is argueing that cattle can't be dangerous just because they don't have horns either, anyone who has been around cattle knows this.
The issues regarding GMO patenting and then claiming it against everything under the sun is a problem with patent law, as well as their ability to keep it all secret.
That's not up for debate, but alot of peoples arguments seem to argue against all forms of modification *in general* because they don't understand how genetics or our food supply works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's difficult to discuss this rationally - for everyone
Well, that's the problem in a nutshell, isn't it? NOBODY understands how genetics works - YET! If we understood genetics, then we wouldn't be using terms like "junk DNA", which just describes parts of the gene that we can't attribute any function to - YET!
We have made great strides in understanding protein folding, but how those different discrete protein folds work together? Not so much.
And to keep harping on the universally ignored problem - Where is the documentation that GMOs are safe, as is required by the FDA and federal law? Next commment, please address this part of the problem.
The whole reason for GMOs is that it allows large corporations to do a land-grab of the public domain and sequester our common heritage and support of life itself. All for profit. Profit vs. Life. There is no other reason for it. Or perhaps you would like to quantify just exactly how large this cattle safety problem is that GMOs will solve so that we can do a risk analysis and a cost-benefits analysis to see what it is costing us to throw away the public domain?
But corporations don't want to wait for the proper scientific investigation to happen with appropriate isolation until the coast is clear. They want to make money off it immediately.
I am also a Farm Bureau member, and FB is very raucous about the harm caused by "those radicals" who don't want GMOs. So who is spreading the chaos here? Just address the facts, and I'll be happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's difficult to discuss this rationally - for everyone
Well, I'll agree they shouldn't get patents, but here's why your argument is about as bull as the creatures you speak of.
Similarity of patents is a comparison of methods.
Similarity of foodstuffs is comparison of product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's difficult to discuss this rationally - for everyone
Next objection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's difficult to discuss this rationally - for everyone
That's one of the very big problems with GMOs these days. It's about control of the food supply by a few companies. That's one reason people are wary of it.
Even if you got rid of patents, if GMOs end up invading non-GMO plants/animals and wiping them out, that's a negative for the environment. We want more diversity, not a few super-species.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's difficult to discuss this rationally - for everyone
Citizens in the US have more than enough calories (hence the obesity problem), but in many poor areas, there's not enough affordable or available quality food. So industry hasn't been addressing the right problems.
And in some countries it isn't the amount of food being produced (which is adequate), but the ability of the system to get it to people who need it. Producing more crops with GMOs doesn't solve starvation problems if there is no way to get that food to starving people.
Being able to produce mass amounts of food at low cost isn't all that much of value if the produced food isn't very good and if it doesn't get to the places where it is most needed.
Do we really need a system, for example, that produces corn to make more corn syrup to go into soft drinks? Maybe we'd be much better off have lots of local gardens so people can have cheap, fresh, healthful food.
In other words, some of the innovation that the argi-business has given is to solve problems we didn't really have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I worked on a dairy farm
Typically the males are used for studding or slaughtered. But they have their horns removed. It is not like a major undertaking. And the farms already do a massive amount of natural selection breeding. The lineage of every cow is tracked along with how much milk it produces and what the climate was like. They produce less when it is too hot.
They also track food and illness.
So this seems like a waste of time and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]