(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Genetically altered food

Yesterday's Tractor Forums
J

john in la

Well-known Member
Location
What part of in La do you not understand
Was watching a show this past weekend about how genes are being altered in animals.

Had some pretty neat stuff like a cow that is part human so it can produce blood antibodies for humans.
A chicken with no feathers so it could grow better in a hot chicken house.

My concern is what is happening to our food supply. While I am all for research I just do not trust food that comes from altered animals. I know I eat food every day from cross breed hybrids or from growth hormones but when you start crossing genes in a lab that could never take place in nature just to make a bigger profit; are you crossing the line by doing that???
 
I've got a real problem with introducing human genes in to animals,but crossing animals? Why not. A general purpose critter where you can get pork chops from a steer? MMMMMM Tastes like chicken!
 
don't worry about it. Remember a DDT won't hurt you. It is good for delousing and such. Trust your government and industry ;)


Actually I don't know about the genetically altered stuff, but do not feel comfortable with it either.
 
It's amazing how much of RFDTV is now devoted to the topic of pesticide-resistant weeds.

Ten years was just about all it took for Mother Nature to put Monsanto in its place.
 
No one knows what the long term effects are going to be so the companies should not have been able to sell things that were GA now the American public are the guines pigs.Personally I want no part of it and have switched back to all open pollinated garden seed that comes with a guarantee of no GA content.More consumers feel the same way as non GA vegetables and grains bring a premium
 
Farmers genetically altered animals and crops for thousands of years through selective breeding and pollination. The labs just speed the process up.
 
I heard a week or so ago that the FDA had approved the sale of cloned animals for food. I dislike that idea. I personally do not want to eat cloned food, but since it won't be marked cloned, I'm sure I'll wind up with some on the table. On the other hand, maybe I'll make a deal with my neighbor and buy a calf from him. That way I know what I'm getting. He doesn't feed all these growth hormones, etc. that the cattle get in big feed lots.
 
One other thing, my sister does research on Monarch butterflies. If the caterpillars eat anything that has been genetically altered, they die. In England, and maybe here to, the GA plants weren't supposed to cross with weeds, etc. But, at least in England, the weeds close to fields with GA plants did cross to some extent and now they have "super weeds" that are very resistant to herbicides. Personal opinion - we are playing with fire and we are the ones who are going to get burned.
 
Why are people so willing to take advantage of the latest technology in all other aspects of their lives, ie. communication, transportation, treating cancer and other desease, and are so paranoid about it when it comes to food?
 
Every time Farmer Brown breeds his prize bull to Farmer Smiths prize cow, there's genetic alteration and selection taking place. For all intents and purposes, that's totally at random. Controlled genetics can eliminate some of the "game of chance" random selection of traits in animals. Sure, there's risk. There's a certain amount of risk in EVERYTHING we do.

Comments about "super weeds". That process takes place in nature without any help from us. Weeds and insects develope a tolerance to pesticides. That's nothing new. MAny weeds that occur naturally that were once able to be controlled with Roundup that now AREN'T.

This is science and NOT a evil spell being cast upon our farms.

The earth is not flat. We won't sail off the edge.
 
Just for one thing - BSE, mad cow disease. Feeding on the food was supposedly alright. It wasn't.

We also know that continual use of mobile phones can fry your brain. Some cheap phones were terrible and the recommendation was just that young children should not use them excessively

We know that living near high power sources of electromagnetic radiation can be harmful. 20 years ago it was alright - nothing to prove otherwise. Now it has all changed. Beekeepers have known for years that bees are affected by these fields and emissions.

Smoking has been touted by companies as good for you. Asbestos was the wonder insulator. DDT was an ideal insecticide. CFCs were inert and could propel almost anything from an aerosol can.

With many of the new technologies you can abstain from using it. With food - perhaps not so easy.

You are, as they say, what you eat.

There, you have a few reasons. Paranoia is perhaps too strong a word. There again maybe it's not.

Sooner or later there will be a slip up. Remember the Earth does not belong to us - take it as on loan from our grandchildren's children.

Humans have managed to screw up so much in the last hundred years or so. Why should they break a habit of a lifetime? Just to feed the unecessary mouths of a population spiralling out of control? Where will it all end? Who knows?

Hope that explains some of the paranoid reactions.

Lets face it, there is enough food to feed the world. It is just that some have far too much and just grow fat and obscenely obese while others don't have enough to stay alive. There is more waste around this planet than ever before. Will that ever stop in time to save the people and the planet. Methinks not.

Sorry if this upsets anyone, but I think it is quite near the truth of the matter.

RAB
 
While in college I used to work as a co-op in a lab that tested GMO vs. Non GMO food on rats, rabbits, mice, and dogs. After a year in mice, two in rats, 3 in rabbits and a 5 year test on dogs they found no effects of eating GMO food 24/7/365. I saw the effects first hand because I was the lead prosector on the line so I saw every animal before the pathologist saw them, I looked at a minimum one slide per organ per animal.

Another group in the same building was doing the HGPRT, AMES and RLCat testing along with DNA/RNA analysis on the tissues and cell cultures that were being tested. Still no change. I know a lot of people out there believe that all data from testing firms is changed, altered, and skewed to make it fit what the sponsor wants to happen but being there first hand I know this one wasn't.
 
The chances of you eating cloned beef is about "0". There is over $40,000 wrapped up in the bull, however some day their off spring's off spring might be in a hamburger.
 
There's a world of difference--literally--between crossbreeding within species (if that's the right term) (cows, horses, wheat, apple trees) and genetic alteration BETWEEN species.
I don't know if it's good or bad, because it hasn't been tested, or, more accurately, it is being tested, on us and our children, under completely uncontrolled conditions. If we begin to drop dead, or come down with chronic conditions, who's to say what the cause is??
Ever notice that when big business (which is not all bad) comes up with something new they think is safe, they ballyhoo it, spending millions on advertising, but when they've got something questionable, like irradiated or GA foodstuffs, all their efforts are to AVOID labelling and such??
The Canadian and Oregon cases (and probably dozens of others by now) have demonstrated GA crops can't be prevented from cross-pollinating "natural" varieties.
It may well be progress, if we're not all aboard a runaway train....
 
"Just for one thing - BSE, mad cow disease. Feeding on the food was supposedly alright. It wasn't."

Actually the US knew this a long time ago. That's why the practise was banned in the US decades ago, not that it has a lot to do with genetics.
 
I am a geneticist/molecular biologist who has performed laboratory research in this area for over 20 years (I just happen to like tractors and farming as well). This has included generating transgenic animals for research purposes. Over this time, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the current rhetoric surrounding GMO's, and the incredibly strong push to have society accept them as just any other technology. It is not just another new technology; it is altering the genetic control system of a living system, which can then reproduce.

Several posts below have suggested that creating GMO's is just a way of speeding up traditional cross-breeding procedures. This is simply not true, since we can create new gene combinations through genetic modification that can never appear through traditional methods. We can insert a unique gene from an organism such as the jellyfish into a plant. This is done a regular basis since a fluorescent protein produced in only jellyfish serves as a great marker to label plant cells under a microscope for research purposes. Such a GMO would not make it to the food chain, but it illustrates the power and non-traditional nature of the approach.

I am not an ardent anti-GMO activist. I have made my living doing research in this area for a long time. Eating a GMO per se is not necessarily dangerous; some are probably perfectly safe and others not. It depends on the genetic modification introduced in each case. However, we really need to exercise extreme caution on their introduction into the mainstream. Ecosystems are far too complex to fully predict any potential negative effects that may result. Once they are released, there is absolutely no looking back. We can clean up toxic spills, gather up cell phones and throw them out if we so desire, but we cannot remove genes from organisms in an ecosystem.

I think the point at which I really began to question the whole GMO in foods push was when I heard a Biotech company representative state that cross-pollination between GMO and non-GMO plants is not an issue as long as a 100 yard barrier is maintained around a field of GMO plants. They stated that numerous research studies had confirmed that pollen drift beyond this distance was not a problem (show me 20 scientific studies that support one opinion, and I can find you 20 others that support the contrary view). As I am sure every one on this board knows, pollen in plants has only one purpose, and that is to spread the genetic material of a parent plant from which it originated as far as possible from that plant. There are documented cases of pollen drifting several thousand miles from a plant of origin. So for a representative from a major company to make these statements without breaking a smile really made me question their motives. I haven't seen anything since that would make me change my mind.

I believe that GMOs can serve very valuable roles, and that it is a technology that will not and probably should not disappear. There are a lot of potential benefits I can see on the medical side as opposed to the food production side. However, every example I have examined to date is about relatively short term profit, and viable alternatives to the GMO are available if they had the economic backing to be properly developed.

Do I eat GMO foods? Not if I can help it (we raise all of our own food). And not because I necessarily think they are all inherently unsafe, but more because I do not agree with the way in which they are being pushed onto society, and the real lack of solid research with respect to the long term implications of the release of these organisms in our environment.
 
Yeah, but just goes to show you can't trust government to do anything right. They just look at the short term gains and stick their heads in the sand, or are run by a load of lobbyists who have huge financial interests or by those who pass over most cash to the sitting powers.

Regards, RAB
 
"How in the world would you cross a cucumber and a rat or some such thing? GA is a whole different new thing"



Who is crossing a rat with a cucumber?

The genetic research is producing plants and animals that improve upon the breeds the same way farmers have done since the dawn of time. When they get around to producing genetic freaks like "featherless chickens" or cows with a single teat udder I might have reason to pause.
 
Well said and a clear explaination. Now would you go ahead and explain that cloning is not the same as a GMO. A clone is just the same as the original
thanks
 
But then you still can feed cow blood to your barn calves and animal fat to your hogs and beef cattle without that product being checked for mad cow. There are many cases every year in MN of people with that die of a brain disorder but the name is changed from mad cow to CJD. No reason is given as to what causes it but it is just like mad cow. The whole thing is kept very quiet no matter what they call it.
 
Same way you put a human gene in a mouse. You don't believe it. We do it all the time. You can have the first bite of the cow that will come with a human gene. I don't like the idea of a corn plant producing it's own insecticide to kill root worm but you're already consuming such a product. I vote HFLL NO!
 
"But then you still can feed cow blood to your barn calves and animal fat to your hogs and beef cattle without that product being checked for mad cow."



That would be because BSE comes from animal brains not fat or blood. If that were an issue every cow butchered for HUMAN consumption (hamburger has fat and blood too) should be tested for BSE.
 
"don't like the idea of a corn plant producing it's own insecticide to kill root worm but you're already consuming such a product."



You know what - I've been eating it for years - along with a couple hundred million other people and everyone seems to be doing OK. I'm more worried about the Samolian that coughed up his lungs and of died of TB on the processing floor in the meat packing plant killing me than some guys in white coats.

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2007/jan/18/tyson_workers_death_related_tb/
 
You are right. A cloned animal or plant is an exact genetic duplicate of a single individual obtained without breeding. Some GMOs are also clones, but so are some non-GMOs. Grafting apple trees is a form of cloning, and without it we would not be able to propagate most types of apples.

Cloning animals is more complex, since we have to mimic the process of egg fertilization in order to have the resulting animal develop properly. The process of normal egg fertilization with sperm activates certain mechanisms in the egg that are still not fully understood; one of the reasons why cloning animals is still not a very efficient procedure.

The concern about using cloning is that if not controlled carefully you will end up with same problems that occur through inbreeding of purebred animals. Genetic diversity and mixing of genes through normal breeding is what ensures that animals can survive through the generations. Just look at the physical problems that can associated with some purebred breeds of horses, dogs and other animals where most of the breed can be traced back to only a handful of founder animals. Eventually the lack of genetic diversity leads to problems. Cloning will just accelerate this process.
 
You're making a blanket statement. Not all varieties of sweet corn are GMO. Sweet corn was grown for a long time before it was possible to genetically modify it with Bt or anything else. Thus, you can grow non-GMO corn if you wish. If you buy it commercially, it's a different story since you don't know it's origin.
 
There is some evidence that DDT is safe, that all the evils it is accused of were actually caused by PCBs, which were banned at the same time. More research is needed but won't be done.

The ecological activists will never admit they might have been wrong, because that would mean admitting that millions of people died of malaria because of eco-hysteria.
 
This thread has Watson and Crick (well, I'm sure about crick, for all I know Watson is still alive) spinning in their (his?) grave.
Some of this nonsense would have Crick wishing for another hit of the acid he was on when he theorized the double helix.

Now- the expert correctly said that a clone was "genetically identical", so lets explain why a clone is often not an "identical twin" from an appearance standpoint- and could infact be a differnt color.
Finally- knowing all this, and the wonderful complexity but logic of it all- deny the existence of a Creator! Only God could- and he is revealing it all to us in time!
 
As you said, not all genetically identical clones are identical in appearance. And many identical twins have very different personalities, etc. Most scientists are now willing to admit that environment can and does play an important role in inheritance, and that modifications to the genes of genetically identical individuals do occur. The most classic example is calico cats. They are virtually all female (genetics of this is well understood), but the orange and black coat colour genes are modified differently in each individual cat. So if you clone a calico cat, none of the clones will look the same.
 
It is the unintended consequences that get me.

You don't have to look too far to see them. Round-Up resistant weeds for an easy example, we have several in Minnesota. These aren't cross breeds, but actual resistant weeds. And then there are the resistant crosses a.k.a. superweeds. They didn't see that coming ?! What's next ?

Because a GA plant looks like corn or soy, it does not mean that it is the same, i.e. safe to eat. I don't care what the EPA or FDA says. That is simply absurd.

In Italy, when government gets in bed with industry, it is called f*scism. Let's be more careful here.

Greg

ps It appears that 'f*scism' is a prohibited word.
 
I'm told that in horses color and pattern is determined by the position of the embryo in utero as much as genetic material- have you heard of this?
 
Yes I eat sweet corn.
Merit
It is a old style not GA.

If I would have explained my question better though you would have know I was not talking a sweeter corn or a seedless tomato. I was talking a plant that the fruit looks like a tomato but taste like corn because the genes have been crossed.

Next time someone you know needs blood think about this. Did this blood come from a human; or did it come from a cow that can produce human like blood because of GA.
 
I have heard of this, but honestly do not know enough about it to comment on whether there is any real evidence in support of it. I can"t really see a reason why it would occur this way, but then the knowledge of many aspects of reproductive genetics is limited.

That said, it is true that for some embryos in non-placental animals (that develop outside of the mother), the local environment around the embryo plays an important role in directing their development. As an example, whether a male or female develops in some species of turtles and other reptiles is determined not by genetics but by the temperature at which their early development occurs.
 
I heard they was makin a new cerial out of GMO corn. After you pour milk on it it eats itself, I think its called Queerios!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Yesterday's Tractor Forums
Buy Tractor Parts Here Buy Tractor Manuals Here

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2025 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top