Genetically modified cows produce 'human' milk

I've often wondered how primitive man figured out many of the foods we eat.

Since you mentioned wine- who would have thought, hey, let's squish a bunch of grapes, have them rot on a barrel, and then drink it!

Or cheese- let's let milk sit around until it gets hard, and then eat it!

And now think of all the things they must have tried that did not turn out so good!
:)

It's about money through legislation and fear....my son was raised on formula from the age of two months due to a major case of thrush that affected my wife's nipples. He is five years old now and was just tested for progress of growth and intelligence. Results, top 3% for for heigth, perfect body weight for heigth, and an Intelligence Quotiant of 174. But you know formula isn't good for your childs development....sure.

By scaring mothers out of using formula a replacement must come from somewhere, and this is an extremely cheap option as far as production goes.

You nailed it.

And the FDA gets bought off and approves it. Life is grand for the upper crust.

How? In what way?

Unlike killing and eating them!?

De acuerdo. I wish EthicalVegan would chime in here. If so many didn't give
Animalia Libero so much shit, he'd still be the voice of conscience amongst
us. Humans are part of the animal kingdom. What humans do to other animals
is Karma that will bite their grandchildren in the ass down the road, somehow.
It's as inconscionable to enslave other animals and interfere with their natural
evolution as it is to do the same to other humans because they're of another
nationality etc..Same old moraly bankrupt song. " The end justifies the means "
That's been Historicaly proven to be a long slipery slope.

they did and that has given me nightmares. they have also turned off the beak gene in chickens and now have chickens with dinosaur teeth.

Simple answer, by percentage of genetic code cows are closer to humans evidently, not a geneticist myself but cow blood has been used for transfusions for a couple hundred years now because it doesn't get rejected by the human body...I would assume this provides some form of stability in the genetic manipulations.

You indicate "evidently", yet we don't actually know that. I question it only because it would be a curiosity that goat milk would be far closer chemically to human milk than cow's milk is, yet their blood might be less similar than cow blood to human blood. Even not as a geneticist, this would be interesting to know, and maybe i'll google it.

I indicated "evidently" because I don't actually know. I was surmising my inequity in the "geneticist" column. However I DO have knowledge in the biology field. This is a question of stability of the manipulations, I have no corrolation for the differences in composition of the different milk sources. Such manipulations are not always stable, and not always accepted by the host body... so because the code of cows is closer to humans the cows body is -less- likely to accept the human genetic material being used to alter thier mammories, where as thet goat is -more- likely to reject the foreign material, leading to systemic failures and eventually death. Note also the less v more, as some cows will undoubtedly reject these materials (for things as simple as RH factors) and I would assume with enough practice or manipulation genetic manipulation of goats with human genome is possible, just not as easy or cheap....

Cheap...thats the whole purpose of this to start with, a cheap to produce replacement to formula.

If you can find a good technical page/site on this sorta genetic manipulations I am sure several of us will find it enlightening.

lmao!

:::chuckle:::

Maybe one day soon, the cow really will jump over the moon.

Weird- I don't know why it does not show up. It's just a group of kids in halloween costumes.

Yet possible!

so is cancer and other diseases we've never seen before and are not equipped to deal with...

Right, cancer is possible. Good one!

Genetic engineering is the way we will be equipped to deal with them.

so you're saying its ok for our food to give us cancer because we will be able to genetically modify our cells and tissues to fight cancer?

and yes you are right, science and genetic engineering will one day cure cancer because genetic engineering done to human tissue is well researched before it is introduced to the masses... food is not

by the way... you do know that modified and engineered are two different words with two separate meanings dont you?

does it hurt to be that ignorant or does it feel blissful?

You say:
"so you're saying its ok for our food to give us cancer because we will be able to genetically modify our cells and tissues to fight cancer?"

And again with the straw men.

You say:
" genetic engineering done to human tissue is well researched before it is introduced to the masses... food is not"

Your issue is about politics and regulations, NOT science.

You say:
"by the way... you do know that modified and engineered are two different words with two separate meanings dont you?"

*sigh*

Somehow I don't think that my two sentences displayed ignorance.

i realize what i said... thanks for recapping... that was a great waste of both of our time. you didnt say anything that would oppose what i said... i see you have your target set on me... from now on, you are going to follow me around current and belittle me at every turn, arent you? because i dont agree on the subject with you... i'm a terrible person because i believe in science and research.
i thought you were a reasonable person until today. i thought you were intelligent. i thought you were ethical and fair. i have defended you on numerous occasions. i have stood by a lot of your comments that others found unpopular. but ever since my account got deleted and i've been using this name, you have dug your claws into my back relentlessly. it ends here. it ends now. i am not some weak girl that is going to let you harass me and belittle me and degrade me because we dont agree on a topic. it ends now. goodnight.

This post of yours reflects the persecution complex I mentioned earlier.

We are simply having an internet conversation about a scientific topic, and you are turning it into an emotional attack, including accusations of stalking, harassment, and degradation that never occurred.

If this is how you take a regular polite conversation about a topic that is not even an emotionally loaded one like sex, politics or religion, then perhaps it's time for you to lay off the internet for a while, and take a breather.

You say:
" i'm a terrible person because i believe in science and research."

The only one accusing you of being a terrible person is you.
I didn't.

Yet, you think I'm a terrible person because I UNDERSTAND science and research, rather than simply believing what sensationalist media say about it, and then take that out of context.

Articles about plants made to resist pesticides have nothing to do with cows made to produce healthier milk.

Persecuted, I have not been persecuting you.

I was reasonable, presenting logical arguments.

I'm the same person I have always been- I did not suddenly transform into a monster just because I'm talking to you.

You have turned this entire conversation into something personal, when it never was- even to the point in making homophobic attacks that I ignored.

You need to take time to relax, take a breather, calm down, re-read through this conversation again, and notice exactly what was going on here.

Whats dangerous about combining genes? Ever heard of minotaurs?

GM will never be organic, its a contridiction in terms.

"Unethical and questionable" stem cell research, well which is, unethical or questionable to use stem cells from ALREADY aborted fetuses to cure disease?

Who made you Pope to pontificate that stem cell research is "unethical"? That statement alone negatively prejudices anything else you might have contributed on the subject!

Next step.... the human super race only for the super rich. Republicans must be licking their lips.

I really hope this is sarcastic and part of some well played piece of performance art. If not thren wow, sweet jesus wow. Minotaurs, really?

You say:
"I can't help but point out all the hypocrites here. On one side you're all behind ..."

Don't treat all people who post on this website as a single group-mind.

We are all different people, with different opinions on different topics.

You say:
"Ever heard of minotaurs?"

Either you think mythical mosters are real, or you meant to say Chimeras. And chimerism occurs in nature, and has nothing to do with the topic.

You say:
"GM will never be organic, its a contradiction in terms."

DO you know what the word organic means?
GM is ALWAYS organic. It can be nothing other than organic, because only organisms have DNA. Inorganic substances like rocks cannot be genetically modified, because they have no DNA.

You say:
"Next step.... the human super race only for the super rich. Republicans must be licking their lips."

That is a bizarre slippery-slope argument.

Your argument is not against genetic engineering, but against limited access to the benefits of it.

How about improved crops, food and nutrition for everyone?
And improved medical care, health and longevity for everyone?

How about everyone, and everything in life getting "superior"?

Do some research into ancient races, specifically giants and half humans. Most all ancient cultures had legends of these creatures, and evidence has been found to support the existence of several creatures we used to pass off as mythological.

Actually many creatures that we have for centuries just considered myths have started to come to light as real through discoveries of skeletal remains.

Organic=natural, in all senses
GM=typically unnatural manipulation of genetic structure

I'm familiar with cryptozoology, but that has nothing to do with creatures that are half human, half animal. They exist only in the imagination.

And by your definition of organic, nothing is organic.

We have been manipulating the DNA of plants and animals since the dawn of agriculture, through selective breeding. The crops and domestic animals you consume are nothing like their wild ancestors.

I know what a minotaur is. If didn't I wouldn't have found your post so funny in the first place.

That being said if I wanted to concede that your point is valid, which it isn't, a cow genetically modified to produce human milk no more creates a minotaur in all its human eating, labyrinth dwelling horror then a sheep genetically modified to produce spider silk creates an eight legged wooly blood sucker. But if it did, what's the problem dude? A cowboy centaur would be more than enough to tackle one dumb minotaur.

how about record levels of cancer and other unexplained health problems... how about obesity, heart disease... the list goes on...

What about them?
You just listed more problems that can be solved with genetic engineering.

I want you to picture this- a caveman, let's call him Ogg, is sitting at the mouth of the cave, rubbing two sticks together.

Another caveman, called Grog, comes up from inside the cave to talk to Ogg, just as the sticks form a spark, and lite a fire in the pile of sticks below.

"What is THAT!?" says Grog, frightened.

"It's Fire." Says Ogg, proud of his accomplishment.

"Why is it here?" says Grog, as he approaches it hesitantly.

"Well," says Ogg, "it lights up the cave so we can see, even at night. It also keeps the cave warm in the winter. It frightens animals away, so they don't attack us or steal from us. We can use it to cook our food, so we can store it longer without it rotting."

Grog was not listening, as he reached out and touched the fire- and got burned.

"Fire is bad!" said Grog. "It can cause burns like this! What if the children get burned! We could all burn! We could all die in a blaze of burning death!"

Grog was getting hysterical, running around and panicing.

Ogg said "those are valid concerns, but all we have to do is put a ring of rocks around the fire so it does not spread, and make sure an adult is guarding the fire at all times..."

"Put it out! Put it out!" Screamed Grog. "Until you can give me a 100% chance no one will ever get hurt from fire ever, then no fire!"

Ogg, regretfully, put it out.

They look up into the sky, and see an airplane flying by.

Ogg says "what is that?"

Grog says "I don't know, but I'm afraid of it!"

And the two continue their caveman existence, while the world passes them by.

as always... getting voted down for stating the truth... vote me down, and then dont comment on what you disagree with... typical... i remain persecuted... as do all people who speak nothing but the truth.

You are likely already eating Genetically Modified Foods..... GMO is the reason we can have many fruits year-round.

You probably got voted down because you tried to pass off scientifically ignorant fearmongering as "truth." Call me crazy but unless you actually have proof that this milk would cause kids to mutate and die off then you shouldn't be offended when people directly or indirectly call bullshit.

There was absolutely no truth there.
You confuse your opinion with truth, and that is a dangerous thing.

Saying "our babies will start mutating and dying off" is not truth- it is bizarre ignorant fear-mongering.

Shame on you.

Saying "they should not be genetically modifying shit that we eat" is not truth- it is an opinion, stated as a proclamation. THere is nothing wrong with having an opinion- but calling your opinion truth, and developing a persecution complex because of it, is all kinds of wrong.

Plus, your opinion is based on your ignorance of the fact that every single thing you eat has been genetically engineered, for thousands of years- it is just that in the past, genetic engineering was done through the slow inexact process of breeding programs, while now it is done with greater precision.

its one thing to say, i think you're wrong... its a whole nother thing to be so mean... you have been particularly nasty to me lately. i used to really like you and agree with most everything you say. for some reason, you can point out your disagreement with others, but when you disagree with me, your comment is littered with underhanded name calling and downright meanness.

but i guess i'm the only person who finds fault in GM foods... oh wait... no i'm not... so are the record number of people dying of cancer... so are the scientists who come out with studies nearly on a daily basis that one GM food or another is causing problems... so are all the farmers who see first hand the problems that SOME GM foods can create... and so are all the people on here who constantly talk about the problems with GM foods...
sure, i have no scientific proof that GM milk is a problem... but where is your proof that GM milk is NOT harmful? but i for one, do not want to find out through the deaths of babies... lets test it on the babies in YOUR family if you feel its so safe.

where is the proof that its NOT harmful? what are the long term effects of injecting hormones from one animal into another and giving it to our babies? oh thats right... there hasnt been enough research yet to prove that....

GM foods are the reason why so many of us have cancer and health problems at a level that we've never seen before

Nothing I said to you was mean, unless you meant the phrase "shame on you".

You thinking it was mean goes to the persecution complex I mentioned.

Your entire second paragraph, again, was fear-mongering.

You fear GM without proof, while demanding proof not to fear it.

You confuse problems with crops genetically modified to be resistant to pesticides with cows genetically modified to produce more nutritious milk, as if both are the same thing.

Your fears about genetic engineering, as I said, are based on your ignorance of genetic engineering.

Screaming about mutated dead babies is pure ignorance, and yes, you should be ashamed of that.

GM the reason for cancer? Oh really?? I'd love to read your source.

i dont have a persecuted complex... it was a joke... current was deleting every screen name i came up with and this was the last one that they didnt delete... sort of a poke at myself... and you said lots of mean things... as far as not having any proof? a simple google search will turn up tons of scientific PROOF... since you are being a lil gay dick about everything you say to me, i'll go ahead and be a bitch and post tons of scientific information concerning the dangers of GM foods... go ahead and call me ignorant... call me uneducated... tell me that my opinions are not based on facts... as you read the facts... or skip over them and pretend that i'm stupid... either way... the facts remain

What are some of the criticisms against GM foods?

The human health risks associated with genetically modified food have deliberately been underplayed. The 'scientific loudspeakers' of the GM industry have been so orchestrated that the moment you mention the health impact of the genetically altered foods, they pounce upon you like vultures. The reason is obvious: the financial stakes involved are so high that the industry is desperately trying to keep the food scare out of the ongoing debate.

The British Medical Association (BMA) efforts to stand up despite the industrial pressure is therefore laudable. The BMA has been relentlessly asking for more scientific studies to evaluate the long-term impacts on human health. For some strange reasons, in India and for that matter in other developing countries, the medical fraternity is woefully quiet on the health risks associated with GM foods. Perhaps the main reason being that the GM foods have still to be part of food menu in the developing world.

We present two reports, which warn against ignoring the health risks of GM foods.

1. GM expert warns of cancer risk from crops

http://www.sundayherald.com/29821

Demand for executive to ban crop trials until effects of GM food on health are studied

By Rob Edwards, Environment editor

EATING genetically modified (GM) food could give you cancer. That is the stark warning today from one of Scotland's leading experts in tissue diseases.

Dr Stanley Ewen, a consultant histopathologist at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, says that a cauliflower [mosaic] virus used in GM foods could increase the risk of stomach and colon cancers.

He is calling for the health of people who live near the farm-scale GM crop trials in Aberdeenshire, Ross-shire and Fife to be monitored. Their food and water will be contaminated by GM material, he said, which could hasten the growth of malignant tumours.

'I don't want to be scare-mongering, I want to be understated,' Ewen told the Sunday Herald. 'But I'm very concerned that people who rely on local produce might be endangering themselves.'

The government, backed by its scientific advisors, has always insisted the GM trials pose no risk to human health or the environment. Nevertheless, the trials have provoked widespread opposition, with dozens of protesters arrested for damaging GM crops.

Ewen's warning, which has been delivered to the Scottish Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee, is bound to be seized on by critics . The committee is just completing an investigation into the safety of GM food and is hoping to report its findings this week.

Ewen, who has 29 years' experience as a histopathologist, is currently leading a pilot project in Grampian to screen people for colon cancer. In 1999, along with Dr Arpad Pusztai, a former researcher at Aberdeen's Rowlett Institute, he published a study suggesting that GM potatoes harm rats.

In his submission to the health committee, Ewen expressed 'great concern' about the use of the cauliflower mosaic virus as a 'promoter' in GM foods. The virus is used like a tiny engine to drive implanted genes to express themselves.

But Ewen pointed out that the virus is infectious, and could act as a 'growth factor' in the stomach or colon, encouraging the growth of polyps. The faster and bigger polyps grow, the more likely they are to be malignant, he added.

There are also risks in feeding GM products like maize to cattle, he cautioned.

'It is possible cows' milk will contain GM derivatives that can be directly ingested by humans as milk or cheese. Even a lightly cooked, thick fillet steak could contain active GM material.'

GM material can be destroyed by cooking or boiling for 10 minutes, and it can be broken down by the acids and enzymes in the stomach. But Ewen is worried that genes in uncooked GM fruit and vegetables could survive common stomach infections.

'It is possible GM DNA could affect stomach and colonic lining by causing a growth factor effect with the unproven possibility of hastening cancer formation in those organs,' he stated.

Ewen stressed that he is not opposed to all GM technology, which he believes could have real benefits, particularly in medicine. But he is sufficiently alarmed by the current use of the technology to urge the health committee to call for a ban on GM crop trials while their safety is tested on animals.

Doctors from the British Medical Association have also suggested a GM ban to the committee because of the unknown effects on health. The committee's investigation was prompted by a petition of 6000 signatures gathered by protesters who maintained a vigil at a GM trial site at Munlochy in Ross-shire.

'What is most worrying about Dr Ewen's evidence is that while his concerns are disease-specific, the risks extend to a wide range of GM food crops,' said Jo Hunt, director of the lobby group Highlands and Islands GM Concern.

'The effects are caused not by just one 'bad' DNA fragment, but are a result of the reaction of plant cells to genetic engineering itself. All the major GM food plants currently produced could have the same effect when eaten.'

Hunt argued that long-term research was needed to establish whether GM food was safe. 'But instead of looking at the impact of GM food on people's health, the Scottish Executive has spent over £5 million on farm-scale trials to see how growing GM crops on Scottish farms will affect butterflies and weeds. The Executive has already released GM at 11 sites and is considering allowing GM to be released anywhere in the country from 2004, before it knows whether GM food is safe to eat.'

The Executive also came under fire from the Scottish National Party's shadow environment minister, Bruce Crawford, who demanded a freeze on GM crops trials. 'We cannot allow GM material to enter the food chain until there are absolute guarantees that there are no risks,' he said.

He pointed out that, in a recent letter, the environment minister, Ross Finnie, had admitted to him that plants around GM crops could become contaminated. Finnie added, however, that the government's advice was 'unanimous in its conclusion that GM crops that have approval do not pose a safety threat.'

2. Submission of evidence to the Clerk to the Health and Community Care Committee of The Scottish Parliament

Dr Arpad Pusztai, FRSE

you ever heard of google?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/suppress...

http://www.ghorganics.com/GM%20food%20can%20cause%20cancer.htm

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/2269/gm-crops-solution-world-food-...

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/monsanto-gmo-corn-causes-cancer-mammals....

http://www.gmwatch.eu/component/content/article/11612-qgm-food-can-cause-cancerq...

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19457.cfm

http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/genetically-engineered-foods.htm

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/geff4.html

http://healthfreedoms.org/2009/10/27/gm-food-can-cause-cancer/

http://www.biotech-info.net/cancer_risk.html

do you need more sources? just let me know if you do... theres plenty more where that came from

Health Impact of GM Crops

1. For reasons based on the precautionary principle as reinforced by the results of our research on GM potatoes carried out between 1995 and 1998 and funded by the then SOAEFD and other evidence as detailed below under point 2 of the original questionnaire the Scottish Executive should prevent the continuation and the starting up of further new GM crop trials so as not to jeopardize the health of the peoples of Scotland and also to prevent the Scottish countryside from irreversible genetic contamination that may threaten the health of future generations of the land.

2. Regulatory framework

The risk assessment procedure for GM crops currently in place is not sufficiently robust to ensure public health and safety because the regulatory process is fundamentally flawed. GM-foodstuffs are presently accepted on the basis of their "substantial equivalence" to their non-GM counterparts. This concept is not only unscientific but also potentially dangerous because the present analytical methods used for establishing equivalence do not allow for the discovery of new antinutrients, toxins and allergens formed as the unintended consequence of the genetic transformation of the crops. This fault is compounded by the practice of the regulatory authorities' almost exclusive reliance on unpublished results of "in house" work of the biotech companies contained in their submission. Even if these are scientifically valid, they fall down on the public's (and other scientists') demand of transparency because it is not required by the regulatory authorities that the results of biological risk assessment or nutritional/physiological studies carried out with GM-crops should be made available for scrutiny to other scientists and interested persons and published in peer-reviewed journals. Moreover, if the regulators wish to confirm or reject any of the results in the submissions, their hands are tied because they cannot commission new independent work. As the forte of most of their members is scientific administration, the Committees should not only be strengthened by the presence of consumer and environmental pressure groups but also by the appointment of active scientists of different disciplines.

The lack of proper science basis of crop genetic modification

The present method of gene transfer which enables scientists to transform any plant using virus and antibiotic resistance genes and which is now the dominant technique for the creation of GM crops is based on the fundamentally flawed principle of genetic determinism, requiring that one gene expresses only one protein but without influencing the expression of other genes or without other genes and gene networks influencing the expression of the gene newly transferred into the crop plant genome. However, as a result of the human genome project we now have incontestable evidence that this is not true and therefore all present GM crops are the products of the same imprecise and unpredictable technology that may harm both human health and the environment. Additionally, the use of naked viral DNA promoters which are known to be hotspots of recombination with host DNA and may induce horizontal gene transfer, the inclusion of antibiotic resistance genes in the gene-transfer construct and the unpredictability of both the site of insertion and its consequences for the plant genome makes this method unacceptable. In addition, present day GM-crops designed for increased pest resistance, such as those expressing Bacillus thuringiensis lectin endotoxins (Bt toxin crops), are not sufficiently selective and specific for their major pests and, by inflicting damage to beneficial insects, they destroy the natural balance between pests and useful organisms. Neither have these crops be shown to be harmless for human/animal consumers. Indeed, there is good peer-reviewed published evidence to show that Bt toxins are both immunogens and immunoadjuvants for mammals and as such they have profound influence on the functioning of both the humoral and mucosal immune systems1. Moreover, it has also been shown that Bt toxins bind to the mammalian small intestine and have major effects on its proper functioning(2).

Comparison of the potential health risks of GM vs. conventional foods

The often-heard statement that GM crops are just another cultivar is simply untrue. No viral, bacterial or mammalian DNA found in present day GM crops resulting from the process of genetic transformation could have been introduced into the plant genome by natural means or traditional cross-breeding. GM-food therefore contains foreign genes and their products that may not have ever been eaten before and whose effects on health and metabolism of mammals are unknown, unpredictable and untested. Although most nutritional journals are full of papers of animal feeding studies in which the nutritional value and potential harmful effects of plant based conventional feedstuffs are evaluated, only a handful of such studies with GM-crops have been published in peer-reviewed science journals(3). Moreover, except our two published studies(4,5) most of these published articles have resulted from the work of biotech imdustry scientists. With the exception of a present FSA (Food Standard Agency) sponsored but unpublished study with human volunteers with externally fitted intestinal pouches who were given a single dose of GM soya-based food, the possible health effects on the human digestive tract and its bacterial population have never been tested. This is the more serious because this study showed evidence that bacteria in the pouch contained pieces of DNA used in the genetic conversion, clearly demonstrating that horizontal gene transfer is not only a theoretical possibility but also a reality. It is also expected that with the likely prospect of the inclusion of more GM-crops into the human diet in future, such as unprocessed/uncooked greens, vegetables, fruits, etc, the potentially harmful effects of foreign DNA and gene products on human/animal health will be substantially increased, particularly because of "tradition" these crops are accepted as a matter of course and without proper testing.

The results of our GM potato studies and their possible consequences for human health

In 1995 we started a publicly-funded (by the then Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department, SOAEFD) major scientific investigation into the possible environmental and health hazards of GM-potatoes that had been transformed by British scientists using a gene taken from snowdrop bulbs. This is still to date the only truly independent investigation of the potential health effects of a GM crop. The gene of this sugar-recognizing protein (GNA) has been known to give natural protection against insect pests. We have also shown in extensive and appropriate nutritional studies carried out by our research group at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen before the genetic modification of our potatoes with the GNA gene that animals ingesting this protein as part of their diet even at an 800-fold excess of that present in GM-potatoes, suffered no significant harmful consequences. We have, therefore, expected it to be safe for animal and, later after appropriate testing, possibly for human consumers. Unfortunately, our expectations were dashed as our studies revealed that the two lines of field-grown GM-potatoes which originated from the same transformation and were both resistant to aphid pests were not substantially equivalent in composition to parent line potatoes, nor to each other. Even more importantly, we showed from the results of four rat feeding studies of different designs and durations (10 to 110 days) that diets containing GM potatoes in comparison with iso-proteinic and iso-energetic non-GM parent potato diets had in some instances interfered with the growth of young rapidly growing rats, the normal development of some of their vital organs, induced changes gut structure and function and reduced their immune responsiveness to injurious antigens. In contrast, the animals fed on diets containing the parent, non-GM-potatoes or these potatoes supplemented with the gene product had no such effects. Some of these results has been published(4-7) and are also given on my own website: http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai

Our findings have been attacked by many but never materially disproved by repeating our work, coming to different conclusions and publishing these. Thus, these people have only voiced their personal opinions which have no scientific standing and should be ignored. Our work has in fact clearly demonstrated that, in addition to possible toxicological studies, the safety of GM-foodstuffs must be established in short- and long-term feeding, metabolic and immune-response studies with young animals as these should be the most appropriate to respond to and show up any nutritional and metabolic stresses affecting the normal development of young animals into healthy adults a view that is shared by other scientists. Multivariate statistical analysis of our results carried out independently by SASS (Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service) has suggested that the major potentially harmful effects of our GM-potatoes were only in part caused by the presence of the GNA transgene but that the method of genetic transformation and/or the disturbances in the potato genome also made major contributions to the changes observed.

The method of genetic engineering we used for the transformation of the potatoes was almost identical to most if not all the GM-crops released to date and it is now clear that none of these have been subjected to rigorous nutritional, metabolic and immunological testing similar to ours. As our GM-potatoes have not been released because their possible hazards for human/animal consumers, our results suggest that all GM-foodstuffs produced by the same/similar genetic engineering methodology ought to be withdrawn from human food products and animal feeds until and unless appropriate, rigorous safety tests could be carried out on them to show that they had no harmful effects. Moreover, no further field trials of GM crops or releases of GM foods must be allowed until they are shown to present no or minimal risks for consumers and/or the environment by commonly agreed, independently carried out and transparently reported nutritional, metabolic, toxicological and immune safety tests. This should equally apply to so-called second generation GM-crops with apparent nutritional advantages because presently the methodology used for their development is similar to that of other present GM-crops. In addition, to the relatively short-term safety assessment, the possible long-term adverse effects of GM-crops on animal reproduction must be established, with particular attention to the use of parasitoid DNA components, such as viral and bacterial promoters, plasmids, antibiotic resistance genes, etc. The long-term effects of these on horizontal gene transfer, DNA recombination and incorporation into the genome of bacteria, viruses, plants and animals must also be addressed by fundamental and independent academic studies. Indeed, we need to re-think the whole strategy of genetic engineering and because of its potential importance for and effect on mankind it should not be left to the decision of a few multinational companies. We have to find appropriate and transparent ways for independent and publicly-funded scientists together with the industry, religious, political leaders, NGO-s and other legitimate and interested stake-holders and members of the public to debate and finally agree as how to solve this problem for the common good while all the time keeping the precautionary principle as our guiding light to avoid any reckless adventures.

4. The answer is a most definite yes to the question whether the Scottish Executive ought to monitor the health of people living around the GM farm scale evaluation sites for reasons as detailed under point 2 of my submission. As some of the methods used in our rat studies and other non-invasive techniques such as blood sampling, immune responsiveness and gut/faecal bacterial DNA tests and possibly even histopathology of gut biopsy samples are even more conveniently applicable to humans than to small laboratory animals, no legitimate objections could be raised against such health monitoring. Quite the contrary, the results of monitoring could make a long-overdue scientific contribution to a rather sterile and non-factual but opinion-based debate on the possible health consequences for people of exposure to GM-crops and GM-food.

Environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups, professional associations and other scientists and government officials have all raised concerns about GM foods, and criticized agribusiness for pursuing profit without concern for potential hazards, and the government for failing to exercise adequate regulatory oversight. It seems that everyone has a strong opinion about GM foods. Even the Vatican19 and the Prince of Wales20 have expressed their opinions. Most concerns about GM foods fall into three categories: environmental hazards, human health risks, and economic concerns.

Environmental hazards

Unintended harm to other organisms Last year a laboratory study was published in Nature21 showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Nature study was not conducted under natural field conditions, the results seemed to support this viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study is being reexamined by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study may have been flawed22, 23. This topic is the subject of acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument are defending their data vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further.
Reduced effectiveness of pesticides Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides.
Gene transfer to non-target species Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops. The possibility of interbreeding is shown by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's GM crops planted a field or two away. More investigation is needed to resolve this issue.
There are several possible solutions to the three problems mentioned above. Genes are exchanged between plants via pollen. Two ways to ensure that non-target species will not receive introduced genes from GM plants are to create GM plants that are male sterile (do not produce pollen) or to modify the GM plant so that the pollen does not contain the introduced gene24, 25, 26. Cross-pollination would not occur, and if harmless insects such as monarch caterpillars were to eat pollen from GM plants, the caterpillars would survive.

When I referred to your percussion complex, I did not mean you name.
I referred to your attitude here.

Now, back to what I said, that you did not read:

You confuse problems with crops genetically modified to be resistant to pesticides with cows genetically modified to produce more nutritious milk, as if both are the same thing.

Now, pay attention:

You just posted a bunch of articles about crops genetically modified to be resistant to pesticides.

Now, tell me how I'm suposed to respond to that in a non-rude way, to tell you that you just proved my point.

AGAIN, the two have nothing to do with each other.

For example: Hemlock is a plant. It is 100% natural. It is also poisonous.
Does that mean all plants are poisonous?
Does that mean all natural things are poisonous?
Does it mean anything at all about natural things at all?

AGAIN, My point:

Your fears about genetic engineering, as I said, are based on your ignorance of genetic engineering.

Screaming about mutated dead babies is pure ignorance, and yes, you should be ashamed of that.

i actually didnt say that the reason for cancer is gm foods... i said the reason why cancer has sky rocketed since gm foods have been so openly on the food market is because of gm foods... it used to be rare to get cancer... wonder why so many people are getting cancer now days? hmm... maybe its what they're eating? scientists seem to think so... at least the ones who dont work for monstato... i love your support of the corporate food system though... thats terrific...

you should be ashamed of yourself for ignoring mass amounts of scientific evidence and ignorance about the truth.... you keep throwing that word ignorance into this... ignorance is a lack of education or knowledge... now that i have posted several sources of scientific proof, your refusal to budge shows your real ignorance.

now stop this discussion... you're being a real dick

I ignored nothing, and in no way was I being a "dick".

You did not even read what I wrote- which was much shorter than your long cut and paste job.

Again, none of the evidence you provided suports your position in the least.
And I told you WHY it does not suport your position, in detail.

Do you have the ability to have a rational discussion about this topic without getting emotional?

You have fears, and your fears are based on ignorance.

It is ignorance of the unknown.

It is not an insult to say you are ignorant- you are NOT a genetic engineer, so of course you are ignorant.

I know a lot about biology and some genetics, but I'm no engineer. There is a lot of this I'm ignorant of too.

But I don't fear things simply because I don't know them.

I provided you with simple, easy to understand explanations as to WHY your fears are wrong- yet you cling to them simply because you are having an emotional battle of wills.

How sad this government allows this type of science, without the proper research. Well, that's nothing new since we hail the rich and the corporations, while they attack the poor and innocent.

Sadly, It's nothing New....

I believe this was done by Chinese 'scientists.' Same thing though. Faulty research, no regulation. Just get it out to the stores and make a profit.

Who are you to say they are not doing the proper research? Do you actually have a source?

And who said they don't know the consequences or care about them?

Pretending that all scientists have no clue what they are doing and are callous about the results IS disgusting, and holds back progress of all kinds.

Do you? Do you have a source? where's your proper research? don't just suck on the product and get rowdy when someone starts asking questions or makes a statement. My statement is based on the fact, yes FACT, that the US allows more chemicals in their food, than any other country. FACT.

Let me know when you have done some research and can provide a source, everything's going to be peachy...

It sure is, imho.

“Do you? Do you have a source? where's your proper research? don't just suck on the product and get rowdy when someone starts asking questions or makes a statement. ”

Of course I have a source. Here you go

http://current.com/news/93127362_genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.ht...

If you scroll down you’ll find a guy named Ksirys. In his post he claims the scientists have not done the proper research. So now that we’ve taken care of that let’s hear it. I want a source for your claim.

“My statement is based on the fact, yes FACT, that the US allows more chemicals in their food, than any other country. FACT.”

So now chemicals and genetic modification are the same thing? Well ok then by that logic you are also a genetic modification since you are made up of water which is also a chemical.

Jan, the very foundation of Science includes "crossing boundaries without knowing the consequences." It's why we have hypothesis. It's why we have experiments. It's why we use control groups and count for variables.

Science = exploration.

Genetically modifying cows to produce human breast milk? HARDLY animal abuse. They're already milk factories, so what does it matter?

Let me guess -- you're against stem cell research, too.

really, we're playing second grade antics? like i said before, stop sucking on the tube and do some research...

Wow that sounds like a whole lot of projecting. Here’s a recap to explain why.

You make the claim that this experiment lacks the necessary research.

I ask you to confirm this claim with facts and evidence.

You get mad and go on a rant about chemicals, yet fail to provide evidence of your claim. Which is probably the worst possible thing you could do since the central theme of your argument is that these scientists have not done the proper research. So you would expect that you would, unlike these evil scientists, have done the proper research into this issue and at least have at hand evidence confirming this. Unfortunately you haven’t or won’t post it.

Then you demanded a source for my argument even though my argument was essentially “you’re not providing enough evidence to make this claim.” Or in other words my source is your claim itself.

At this point your argument is “I know you are but what am I?” Yet somehow I’m the second grader?

Let's recap this... i don't know where you saw me get upset... when i get upset, i start calling names, use profanity and the F word comes flying like there's no tomorrow... so i don't know how you got that, but if you're sensitive to questions and don't like being questioned, than too bad... you decided to question me, i simply answered.

secondly, i made a statement, an opinion.. you do know what that is right? a statement on how this type of nonsense is allowed and we (the people in the US) don't find out until after people are dying or sick. Because we actually know in advance this time, it doesn't mean we are going to know all the issues with this process. The only thing we are going to know, is that it's making money for the corp that created it.

third, my second comment "My statement is based on the fact, yes FACT, that the US allows more chemicals in their food, than any other country. FACT" read it again, no matter of fact, read it three times and see what it says... the reason for me making the previous comment, is because my country allows more chemicals in their food than any other country. Not that my previous statement was a fact... learn to read.

Lastly, if you need sources and links for my statements, look them up and do your own research. I'm not your teacher or professor. I'm not here to educate you or train you. Look it up and if you find that i lied or provided false information, than provide some source and prove me wrong... i don't need to prove anything to you, you're nothing to me... specially when you're here questioning me, when i'm making a comment on how this country is allowing mostly anything into our foods. If you love the corporations so much, keep bending over and let them take care of you.

Considering that the cows eat alfalfa, and humans eat McDonalds and Pepsi, I think the milk from cows would be more nutritious.

Extremely valid point, but remember it isn't patentable so Proctor & Gamble arent intersted.

You say:
"Why don't they just allow humans sell their breast milk? Solution to female unemployment and its not some dangerous GM milk."

Because that would be FAR more dangerous, to an extreme degree.

Unless you mean the women will be raised on a farm and not allowed to leave between milking, then the women's diet is completely unregulated.

And any woman who would sell her milk for money is probably not eating well.

Plus, she could very likely be a drug user, or have HIV or other diseases.

Real known dangers are far worse than simple hypothetical fears.

I don't think they generally milk dead cows.