Tuesday, September 25, 2012
The evil of Monsanto and GMOs explained: Bad technology, endless greed and the destruction of humanity
The evil of Monsanto and GMOs explained: Bad technology, endless greed and the destruction of humanity
9/23/2012
http://q.gs/21t6z
California universities pose as bogus front groups for bogus corporate science on GMOs, organics
9/25/2012
http://q.gs/21sbw
Meet Monsanto's number one lobbyist: Barack Obama
9/25/2012
http://q.gs/21snF
Claimed 'benefits' of GM mosquitoes disproven by Cayman trial results
9/25/2012
http://q.gs/21sp8
Labeling of genetically modified organisms GMOs
From: senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
To: paraservices@hotmail.com
Subject: Responding to your message
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:11:05 -0400
Dear Ms. Lewis:
Thank you for sharing your concerns about the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with me. I welcome this opportunity to respond.
American farmers have the ability to choose whether to plant seed derived from biotechnology or seed that has resulted from conventional plant breeding. American farmers and, in fact, farmers worldwide, have been choosing to plant more acres of varieties derived from biotechnology. One reason farmers choose these varieties is that they are able to apply fewer agricultural chemicals to the plants, thus reducing pesticide exposure in the environment and lowering their costs to produce the crop.
I support efforts to utilize more products derived from biotechnology. I believe the use of this technology can be beneficial and necessary to ensure that adequate and nutritious food continues to be available, particularly as the world population continues to increase. Varieties of seed derived from biotechnology show promise for making food more abundant, safer, and more nutritious.
I also have supported, and will continue to support, devoting more federal resources to agricultural research, including research related to agricultural biotechnology. I will follow the issue of label requirements for GMOs closely, and will have your thoughts in mind should the Senate consider this issue.
Again, thank you for taking the time to correspond with me.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator
To: paraservices@hotmail.com
Subject: Responding to your message
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:11:05 -0400
Dear Ms. Lewis:
Thank you for sharing your concerns about the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with me. I welcome this opportunity to respond.
American farmers have the ability to choose whether to plant seed derived from biotechnology or seed that has resulted from conventional plant breeding. American farmers and, in fact, farmers worldwide, have been choosing to plant more acres of varieties derived from biotechnology. One reason farmers choose these varieties is that they are able to apply fewer agricultural chemicals to the plants, thus reducing pesticide exposure in the environment and lowering their costs to produce the crop.
I support efforts to utilize more products derived from biotechnology. I believe the use of this technology can be beneficial and necessary to ensure that adequate and nutritious food continues to be available, particularly as the world population continues to increase. Varieties of seed derived from biotechnology show promise for making food more abundant, safer, and more nutritious.
I also have supported, and will continue to support, devoting more federal resources to agricultural research, including research related to agricultural biotechnology. I will follow the issue of label requirements for GMOs closely, and will have your thoughts in mind should the Senate consider this issue.
Again, thank you for taking the time to correspond with me.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator
How To Reduce GMO Contamination
How To Reduce GMO Contamination
by Allison Scott
March 30, 2011
For those of us who would like to eat foods free of GMOs, we turn to organic foods. However, organics may not always be the best way to avoid GMOs. There is no mandatory testing for GMOs on organic farms. A survey of organic farmers showed that only "17% of respondents have had GMO testing conducted". This means that about 83% of organic farms have never been tested for GMO contamination! Of the 17% of organic farms tested for GMO contamination "11% of those who have had GMO testing done recieved a positive test result."
=====
How much contamination is there? "Organic dairy farmer Albert Straus started testing corn fed to his 300-head dairy herd in 2007, and found that about one-third had GE contaminants."
http://q.gs/21uE9
So what do we do to avoid GMO contamination of our food.
Step 1. Ask your local organic farmer not to grow plants that could be contaminated by GMOs through cross fertilization and to test for GMO contamination.
Do not buy the crops most likely to have been contaminated by GMOs, such as corn, canola or soy or any products containing them, even if they are organic. We should be able to be sure that we are not eating GMOs and not just hoping our food has not been contaminated. By not growing the crops most likely to be contaminated by GMOs and testing for GMOs organic farmers will be able to give us much more assurance that our food is not contaminated by GMOs.
Step 2. Native Plants.
There are hundreds of native edible plants in the U.S. that are not generally grown agriculturally for food. This means it is very unlikely that these native edible plants will ever be genetically modified. Even if companies decided to genetically modify native plants in the U.S. they would have a fight on their hands. Many native plants are considered sacred by native americans. For example kalo(taro) which is sacred to Hawaii was banned from being genetically modified in parts of Hawaii.
http://q.gs/21uG8
Another example is wild rice which is sacred to the Anishinaabekwe (Ojibwe), "a protection bill for wild rice was signed into law in early May 2007. The legislation requires that any entity wanting to grow genetically engineered wild rice in Minnesota must file an environmental impact statement with the state. It also requires that state entities notify the tribes of any permits granted to grow genetically engineered wild rice in other states, and that they engage in studies to better understand the threat that genetic engineering poses to wild rice."
http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2007/Ricekeepers-Struggle-LaDuke1jul07.htm
Eating native plants not generally used for agriculture will not only reduce our chance of eating GMO contaminated food but will also benefit the planet including the native animals in our area. There are over 600 endangered or threated native animals and over 700 endangered or threatened native plants in the U.S. About 42% of those endangered and threatened native plants and animals are endangered or threatened because of invasive plants and animals. There are about 4000 species of invasive plants in the wild in the U.S. This is about 25% of all the plants in the wild in the U.S. There are also about 500 species of invasive animals in the wild. There have been 200 native plants that have become extinct in the u.s. and about 5000 species are considered at risk.
Not only do GMOs have the potential to harm wildlife, so do invasive species. Many of us are growing invasive species on our property right now and may not even know it. If you have a grass on your lawn there is a good possibilty it is an invasive grass. If we want to reduce GMO contamination and help the environment we should eliminate the invasive grass on our lawns which are a waste of valuable land and replace it with native edible plants. Join your local Native Plant Society to learn more about which plants are native to your area, how to plant them etc..
Many native plants have had little research done on them yet they have been eaten for thousands of years. For all we know a native plant may contain the cure for cancer etc. By growing native plants researchers will be more likely to study these plants for their medicinal and nutritional values. Perhaps researchers will even decide to spend more time studying the native plants etc. which already exist, before trying to genetically modify plants and animals etc.
A "Native Diet" may also be healthier than a "Western Diet". The Pima Indians who adopted a "Western Diet" who "are now running a 51 percent rate of diabetes, had only one single documented case of diabetes by 1920 when they were still living on their land and eating their indigenous diet. Their cousins, the Tarahumaras, who have stuck with a natural diet and remained on their land, have only 6 percent incidence of diabetes."
http://www.naturalpedia.com/Pima_Indians.html
Step 3. Breed indoors.
By eating the edible native plants that are not generally used for agricultre we will avoid cross fertilization but there are other ways GMOs can contaminate our food such as Horizontal Gene Transfer.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/new_route_for_GM_gene_escape.php
To avoid Horizontal Gene Tranfer as much as possible we should set up a breeding program indoors or in a greenhouse etc. where they will not be as exposed to possible contaminants. A closet in your house may be enough space to have an area to breed for most plants. So give to charity or have a yard sale to get rid of all the "extra stuff" you never use anyway and you should be able to clear out a closet. If you have a yard sale you may even make enough to pay for the lighting etc. you will need for your closet. The seeds from the plants grown indoors will be less likely to be contaminated and will better ensure that you have GMO free food in the future.
Step 4. Convince your neighbors to grow native.
If you replace your front lawn with one type of native edible plant and convince your neighbor to replace their front lawn with a different native plant, you will be able to trade with your neighbor. If you can convince several of your neighbors to do this you will likely have a variety of plants to eat just in your neighborhood. By convincing your neighbors to grow native plants you will also be reducing the chances of your own plants becoming contaminated by GMOs. Remember if your neighbor grows any GM plant on their property it increases the risk of GMO contamination to your plants from Horizontal Gene Transfer.
Step 5. GMO Awareness
Many people do not even know what a GMO is. By increasing awareness we will be informing people of the possible health risks of GMOs and possible environmental impact as well. This may lead people to avoid buying GMOs which would lead to less of a demand and less farmers growing GMOs which will reduce GMO contamination. By getting people to sign petitions to get GMOs labeled the average consumer will become aware of what foods contain GMOs and will be more likely to avoid them. You can increase awareness by getting bumper stickers and t-shirts with GMO messages on them, sending emails, joining groups about GMOs etc.
by Allison Scott
March 30, 2011
For those of us who would like to eat foods free of GMOs, we turn to organic foods. However, organics may not always be the best way to avoid GMOs. There is no mandatory testing for GMOs on organic farms. A survey of organic farmers showed that only "17% of respondents have had GMO testing conducted". This means that about 83% of organic farms have never been tested for GMO contamination! Of the 17% of organic farms tested for GMO contamination "11% of those who have had GMO testing done recieved a positive test result."
=====
How much contamination is there? "Organic dairy farmer Albert Straus started testing corn fed to his 300-head dairy herd in 2007, and found that about one-third had GE contaminants."
http://q.gs/21uE9
So what do we do to avoid GMO contamination of our food.
Step 1. Ask your local organic farmer not to grow plants that could be contaminated by GMOs through cross fertilization and to test for GMO contamination.
Do not buy the crops most likely to have been contaminated by GMOs, such as corn, canola or soy or any products containing them, even if they are organic. We should be able to be sure that we are not eating GMOs and not just hoping our food has not been contaminated. By not growing the crops most likely to be contaminated by GMOs and testing for GMOs organic farmers will be able to give us much more assurance that our food is not contaminated by GMOs.
Step 2. Native Plants.
There are hundreds of native edible plants in the U.S. that are not generally grown agriculturally for food. This means it is very unlikely that these native edible plants will ever be genetically modified. Even if companies decided to genetically modify native plants in the U.S. they would have a fight on their hands. Many native plants are considered sacred by native americans. For example kalo(taro) which is sacred to Hawaii was banned from being genetically modified in parts of Hawaii.
http://q.gs/21uG8
Another example is wild rice which is sacred to the Anishinaabekwe (Ojibwe), "a protection bill for wild rice was signed into law in early May 2007. The legislation requires that any entity wanting to grow genetically engineered wild rice in Minnesota must file an environmental impact statement with the state. It also requires that state entities notify the tribes of any permits granted to grow genetically engineered wild rice in other states, and that they engage in studies to better understand the threat that genetic engineering poses to wild rice."
http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2007/Ricekeepers-Struggle-LaDuke1jul07.htm
Eating native plants not generally used for agriculture will not only reduce our chance of eating GMO contaminated food but will also benefit the planet including the native animals in our area. There are over 600 endangered or threated native animals and over 700 endangered or threatened native plants in the U.S. About 42% of those endangered and threatened native plants and animals are endangered or threatened because of invasive plants and animals. There are about 4000 species of invasive plants in the wild in the U.S. This is about 25% of all the plants in the wild in the U.S. There are also about 500 species of invasive animals in the wild. There have been 200 native plants that have become extinct in the u.s. and about 5000 species are considered at risk.
Not only do GMOs have the potential to harm wildlife, so do invasive species. Many of us are growing invasive species on our property right now and may not even know it. If you have a grass on your lawn there is a good possibilty it is an invasive grass. If we want to reduce GMO contamination and help the environment we should eliminate the invasive grass on our lawns which are a waste of valuable land and replace it with native edible plants. Join your local Native Plant Society to learn more about which plants are native to your area, how to plant them etc..
Many native plants have had little research done on them yet they have been eaten for thousands of years. For all we know a native plant may contain the cure for cancer etc. By growing native plants researchers will be more likely to study these plants for their medicinal and nutritional values. Perhaps researchers will even decide to spend more time studying the native plants etc. which already exist, before trying to genetically modify plants and animals etc.
A "Native Diet" may also be healthier than a "Western Diet". The Pima Indians who adopted a "Western Diet" who "are now running a 51 percent rate of diabetes, had only one single documented case of diabetes by 1920 when they were still living on their land and eating their indigenous diet. Their cousins, the Tarahumaras, who have stuck with a natural diet and remained on their land, have only 6 percent incidence of diabetes."
http://www.naturalpedia.com/Pima_Indians.html
Step 3. Breed indoors.
By eating the edible native plants that are not generally used for agricultre we will avoid cross fertilization but there are other ways GMOs can contaminate our food such as Horizontal Gene Transfer.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/new_route_for_GM_gene_escape.php
To avoid Horizontal Gene Tranfer as much as possible we should set up a breeding program indoors or in a greenhouse etc. where they will not be as exposed to possible contaminants. A closet in your house may be enough space to have an area to breed for most plants. So give to charity or have a yard sale to get rid of all the "extra stuff" you never use anyway and you should be able to clear out a closet. If you have a yard sale you may even make enough to pay for the lighting etc. you will need for your closet. The seeds from the plants grown indoors will be less likely to be contaminated and will better ensure that you have GMO free food in the future.
Step 4. Convince your neighbors to grow native.
If you replace your front lawn with one type of native edible plant and convince your neighbor to replace their front lawn with a different native plant, you will be able to trade with your neighbor. If you can convince several of your neighbors to do this you will likely have a variety of plants to eat just in your neighborhood. By convincing your neighbors to grow native plants you will also be reducing the chances of your own plants becoming contaminated by GMOs. Remember if your neighbor grows any GM plant on their property it increases the risk of GMO contamination to your plants from Horizontal Gene Transfer.
Step 5. GMO Awareness
Many people do not even know what a GMO is. By increasing awareness we will be informing people of the possible health risks of GMOs and possible environmental impact as well. This may lead people to avoid buying GMOs which would lead to less of a demand and less farmers growing GMOs which will reduce GMO contamination. By getting people to sign petitions to get GMOs labeled the average consumer will become aware of what foods contain GMOs and will be more likely to avoid them. You can increase awareness by getting bumper stickers and t-shirts with GMO messages on them, sending emails, joining groups about GMOs etc.
GE Papayas GM Papayas
Illegal GE papayas in China
2009-05-14
The Japanese don’t want them. Nobody except China and the US grow them. So how do you feel about eating genetically-engineered papaya?
http://q.gs/21u0C
Forbidden Fruit: Transgenic Papaya in Thailand1
Sarah Nell Davidson
2008
http://q.gs/21u38
http://q.gs/21u6M
http://q.gs/21u8K
Aloha, genetically engineered papaya. Goodbye, Papaya sales
Feature story - May 25, 2006
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/aloha-ge-papaya/
Global Alarm Over GE Papaya Grows
POSTED: 30 MAY 2006 - 10:00am HST
http://islandbreath.org/2006Year/16-farming/0616-07GMOPapaya.html
GE papaya scandal in Thailand
Illegal GE seeds found in packages sold by Department of Agriculture
July 27, 2004
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/news/ge-papaya-scandal-in-thailand/
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW US PATENTS ON GE PAPAYA IN THAILAND
Greenpeace | September 2004
http://www.grain.org/fr/article/entries/2153-unfinished-business-us-patents-on-ge-papaya-in-thailand
2009-05-14
The Japanese don’t want them. Nobody except China and the US grow them. So how do you feel about eating genetically-engineered papaya?
http://q.gs/21u0C
Forbidden Fruit: Transgenic Papaya in Thailand1
Sarah Nell Davidson
2008
http://q.gs/21u38
http://q.gs/21u6M
http://q.gs/21u8K
Aloha, genetically engineered papaya. Goodbye, Papaya sales
Feature story - May 25, 2006
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/aloha-ge-papaya/
Global Alarm Over GE Papaya Grows
POSTED: 30 MAY 2006 - 10:00am HST
http://islandbreath.org/2006Year/16-farming/0616-07GMOPapaya.html
GE papaya scandal in Thailand
Illegal GE seeds found in packages sold by Department of Agriculture
July 27, 2004
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/news/ge-papaya-scandal-in-thailand/
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW US PATENTS ON GE PAPAYA IN THAILAND
Greenpeace | September 2004
http://www.grain.org/fr/article/entries/2153-unfinished-business-us-patents-on-ge-papaya-in-thailand
Ways to avoid GMOs
Pocket Shopping Guide to avoiding GMO foods
http://q.gs/21tjh
Avoiding GE food Guide from Greenpeace
http://q.gs/21tlB
Non GMO Shopping Guide
http://q.gs/21tqE
http://q.gs/21twN
http://q.gs/21tjh
Avoiding GE food Guide from Greenpeace
http://q.gs/21tlB
Non GMO Shopping Guide
http://q.gs/21tqE
http://q.gs/21twN
Breakthroughs by CUHK Boosts Soybean Research and will Make Cover in Nature Genetics
What do you think about the following ? GMO research ?
Breakthroughs by CUHK Boosts Soybean Research and will
Make Cover in Nature Genetics
15 November 2010
http://q.gs/21tZQ
Resequencing of 31 wild and cultivated soybean genomes identifies patterns of genetic diversity and selection
http://q.gs/21tcF
Addendum: Resequencing of 31 wild and cultivated soybean genomes identifies patterns of genetic diversity and selection
http://q.gs/21tel
Figure 2: Summary of resequencing data of 17 wild and 14 cultivated soybean accessions.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v42/n12/fig_tab/ng.715_F2.html
http://nogmo2.blogspot.com/2011/12/blog-post.html
Dear XXX,
Our publicaiton is on the comparative analysis of wild and cultivated soybean genomes. The soybean lines we are working on were obtained using methods of traditional breeding.
Whether we can identify molecular markers for marker-assisted breeding or recover genes for making transgenic plants are
FUTURE tasks.
I hope that my clarfication is clear enough. Please feel free to email me if you have further questions.
Regards,
Honming
Breakthroughs by CUHK Boosts Soybean Research and will
Make Cover in Nature Genetics
15 November 2010
http://q.gs/21tZQ
Resequencing of 31 wild and cultivated soybean genomes identifies patterns of genetic diversity and selection
http://q.gs/21tcF
Addendum: Resequencing of 31 wild and cultivated soybean genomes identifies patterns of genetic diversity and selection
http://q.gs/21tel
Figure 2: Summary of resequencing data of 17 wild and 14 cultivated soybean accessions.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v42/n12/fig_tab/ng.715_F2.html
http://nogmo2.blogspot.com/2011/12/blog-post.html
Dear XXX,
Our publicaiton is on the comparative analysis of wild and cultivated soybean genomes. The soybean lines we are working on were obtained using methods of traditional breeding.
Whether we can identify molecular markers for marker-assisted breeding or recover genes for making transgenic plants are
FUTURE tasks.
I hope that my clarfication is clear enough. Please feel free to email me if you have further questions.
Regards,
Honming
Genetic engineering: The world's greatest scam?
Genetic engineering is a threat to food security, especially in a changing climate. The introduction of genetically manipulated organisms by choice or by accident grossly undermines sustainable agriculture and in so doing, severely limits the choice of food we can eat.
http://easss.com/health/gmo
Once GE plants are released into the environment, they are out of control. If anything goes wrong - they are impossible to recall.
GE contamination threatens biodiversity respected as the global heritage of humankind, and one of our world's fundamental keys to survival.
http://easss.com/health/gmo
Once GE plants are released into the environment, they are out of control. If anything goes wrong - they are impossible to recall.
GE contamination threatens biodiversity respected as the global heritage of humankind, and one of our world's fundamental keys to survival.
Does GMO Corn Really Cause Tumors in Rats?
Does GMO Corn Really Cause Tumors in Rats?
9/21/2012
http://q.gs/1xe30
This week, a French research team published a paper in a peer-reviewed US journal showing that rats exposed to low doses of both genetically modified corn and the widely used herbicide Roundup had negative health effects. The results, already generating plenty of debate, are not as clear-cut as they seem at first glance. But they do shine a harsh light on the ag-biotech industry's mantra that GMOs have indisputably proven safe to eat—and establish an urgent need for more long-term research.
Monsanto's GM corn and weedkiller cause rats tumors and mortality
9/19/2012
http://q.gs/1xeOC
Results of first animal feeding trial on GM maize & Roundup
9/19/2012
http://q.gs/1xe69
As Scientists Question New Rat Study, GMO Debate Rages On
9/20/2012
http://q.gs/1xe9N
9/21/2012
http://q.gs/1xe30
This week, a French research team published a paper in a peer-reviewed US journal showing that rats exposed to low doses of both genetically modified corn and the widely used herbicide Roundup had negative health effects. The results, already generating plenty of debate, are not as clear-cut as they seem at first glance. But they do shine a harsh light on the ag-biotech industry's mantra that GMOs have indisputably proven safe to eat—and establish an urgent need for more long-term research.
Monsanto's GM corn and weedkiller cause rats tumors and mortality
9/19/2012
http://q.gs/1xeOC
Results of first animal feeding trial on GM maize & Roundup
9/19/2012
http://q.gs/1xe69
As Scientists Question New Rat Study, GMO Debate Rages On
9/20/2012
http://q.gs/1xe9N
Genetically modified cows produce 'human' milk
Genetically modified cows produce 'human' milk
Scientists have created genetically modified cattle that produce "human" milk in a bid to make cows' milk more nutritious.
Researchers say they are able to create cows that produce milk containing a human protein called lysozyme
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
2 Apr 2011
telegraph.co.uk
The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk.
Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections.
The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute.
http://easss.com/health
They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company.
The work is likely to inflame opposition to GM foods. Critics of the technology and animal welfare groups reacted angrily to the research, questioning the safety of milk from genetically modified animals and its effect on the cattle's health.
But Professor Ning Li, the scientist who led the research and director of the State Key Laboratories for AgroBiotechnology at the China Agricultural University insisted that the GM milk would be as safe to drink as milk from ordinary dairy cows.
He said: "The milk tastes stronger than normal milk.
“We aim to commercialize some research in this area in coming three years. For the “human-like milk”, 10 years or maybe more time will be required to finally pour this enhanced milk into the consumer’s cup.”
China is now leading the way in research on genetically modified food and the rules on the technology are more relaxed than those in place in Europe.
The researchers used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows before the genetically modified embryos were implanted into surrogate cows.
Writing in the scientific peer-reviewed journal Public Library of Science One, the researchers said they were able to create cows that produced milk containing a human protein called lysozyme,
Lysozyme is an antimicrobial protein naturally found in large quantities in human breast milk. It helps to protect infants from bacterial infections during their early days of life.
They created cows that produce another protein from human milk called lactoferrin, which helps to boost the numbers of immune cells in babies. A third human milk protein called alpha-lactalbumin was also produced by the cows.
The scientists also revealed at an exhibition at the China Agricultural University that they have boosted milk fat content by around 20 per cent and have also changed the levels of milk solids, making it closer to the composition of human milk as well as having the same immune-boosting properties.
Professor Li and his colleagues, who have been working with the Beijing GenProtein Biotechnology Company, said their work has shown it was possible to "humanise" cows milk.
In all, the scientists said they have produced a herd of around 300 cows that are able to produce human-like milk.
The transgenic animals are physically identical to ordinary cows.
Writing in the journal, Professor Li said: "Our study describes transgenic cattle whose milk offers the similar nutritional benefits as human milk.
"The modified bovine milk is a possible substitute for human milk. It fulfilled the conception of humanising the bovine milk."
Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, he added the “human-like milk” would provide “much higher nutritional content”. He said they had managed to produce three generations of GM cows but for commercial production there would need to be large numbers of cows produced.
He said: “Human milk contains the ‘just right’ proportions of protein, carbohydrates, fats, minerals, and vitamins for an infant’s optimal growth and development.
“As our daily food, the cow’s milk provided us the basic source of nutrition. But the digestion and absorption problems made it not the perfect food for human being."
The researchers also insist having antimicrobial proteins in the cows milk can also be good for the animals by helping to reduce infections of their udders.
Genetically modified food has become a highly controversial subject and currently they can only be sold in the UK and Europe if they have passed extensive safety testing.
The consumer response to GM food has also been highly negative, resulting in many supermarkets seeking to source products that are GM free.
Campaigners claim GM technology poses a threat to the environment as genes from modified plants can get into wild plant populations and weeds, while they also believe there are doubts about the safety of such foods.
Scientists insist genetically modified foods are unlikely to pose a threat to food safety and in the United States consumers have been eating genetically modified foods for more decades.
However, during two experiments by the Chinese researchers, which resulted in 42 transgenic calves being born, just 26 of the animals survived after ten died shortly after birth, most with gastrointestinal disease, and a further six died within six months of birth.
Researchers accept that the cloning technology used in genetic modification can affect the development and survival of cloned animals, although the reason why is not well understood.
A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals said the organisation was "extremely concerned" about how the GM cows had been produced.
She said: "Offspring of cloned animals often suffer health and welfare problems, so this would be a grave concern.
"Why do we need this milk – what is it giving us that we haven't already got."
Helen Wallace, director of biotechnology monitoring group GeneWatch UK, said: "We have major concerns about this research to genetically modify cows with human genes.
"There are major welfare issues with genetically modified animals as you get high numbers of still births.
"There is a question about whether milk from these cows is going to be safe from humans and it is really hard to tell that unless you do large clinical trials like you would a drug, so there will be uncertainty about whether it could be harmful to some people.
"Ethically there are issues about mass producing animals in this way."
Professor Keith Campbell, a biologist at the University of Nottingham works with transgenic animals, said: "Genetically modified animals and plants are not going to be harmful unless you deliberately put in a gene that is going to be poisonous. Why would anyone do that in a food?
"Genetically modified food, if done correctly, can provide huge benefit for consumers in terms of producing better products."
Scientists have created genetically modified cattle that produce "human" milk in a bid to make cows' milk more nutritious.
Researchers say they are able to create cows that produce milk containing a human protein called lysozyme
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
2 Apr 2011
telegraph.co.uk
The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk.
Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections.
The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute.
http://easss.com/health
They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company.
The work is likely to inflame opposition to GM foods. Critics of the technology and animal welfare groups reacted angrily to the research, questioning the safety of milk from genetically modified animals and its effect on the cattle's health.
But Professor Ning Li, the scientist who led the research and director of the State Key Laboratories for AgroBiotechnology at the China Agricultural University insisted that the GM milk would be as safe to drink as milk from ordinary dairy cows.
He said: "The milk tastes stronger than normal milk.
“We aim to commercialize some research in this area in coming three years. For the “human-like milk”, 10 years or maybe more time will be required to finally pour this enhanced milk into the consumer’s cup.”
China is now leading the way in research on genetically modified food and the rules on the technology are more relaxed than those in place in Europe.
The researchers used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows before the genetically modified embryos were implanted into surrogate cows.
Writing in the scientific peer-reviewed journal Public Library of Science One, the researchers said they were able to create cows that produced milk containing a human protein called lysozyme,
Lysozyme is an antimicrobial protein naturally found in large quantities in human breast milk. It helps to protect infants from bacterial infections during their early days of life.
They created cows that produce another protein from human milk called lactoferrin, which helps to boost the numbers of immune cells in babies. A third human milk protein called alpha-lactalbumin was also produced by the cows.
The scientists also revealed at an exhibition at the China Agricultural University that they have boosted milk fat content by around 20 per cent and have also changed the levels of milk solids, making it closer to the composition of human milk as well as having the same immune-boosting properties.
Professor Li and his colleagues, who have been working with the Beijing GenProtein Biotechnology Company, said their work has shown it was possible to "humanise" cows milk.
In all, the scientists said they have produced a herd of around 300 cows that are able to produce human-like milk.
The transgenic animals are physically identical to ordinary cows.
Writing in the journal, Professor Li said: "Our study describes transgenic cattle whose milk offers the similar nutritional benefits as human milk.
"The modified bovine milk is a possible substitute for human milk. It fulfilled the conception of humanising the bovine milk."
Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, he added the “human-like milk” would provide “much higher nutritional content”. He said they had managed to produce three generations of GM cows but for commercial production there would need to be large numbers of cows produced.
He said: “Human milk contains the ‘just right’ proportions of protein, carbohydrates, fats, minerals, and vitamins for an infant’s optimal growth and development.
“As our daily food, the cow’s milk provided us the basic source of nutrition. But the digestion and absorption problems made it not the perfect food for human being."
The researchers also insist having antimicrobial proteins in the cows milk can also be good for the animals by helping to reduce infections of their udders.
Genetically modified food has become a highly controversial subject and currently they can only be sold in the UK and Europe if they have passed extensive safety testing.
The consumer response to GM food has also been highly negative, resulting in many supermarkets seeking to source products that are GM free.
Campaigners claim GM technology poses a threat to the environment as genes from modified plants can get into wild plant populations and weeds, while they also believe there are doubts about the safety of such foods.
Scientists insist genetically modified foods are unlikely to pose a threat to food safety and in the United States consumers have been eating genetically modified foods for more decades.
However, during two experiments by the Chinese researchers, which resulted in 42 transgenic calves being born, just 26 of the animals survived after ten died shortly after birth, most with gastrointestinal disease, and a further six died within six months of birth.
Researchers accept that the cloning technology used in genetic modification can affect the development and survival of cloned animals, although the reason why is not well understood.
A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals said the organisation was "extremely concerned" about how the GM cows had been produced.
She said: "Offspring of cloned animals often suffer health and welfare problems, so this would be a grave concern.
"Why do we need this milk – what is it giving us that we haven't already got."
Helen Wallace, director of biotechnology monitoring group GeneWatch UK, said: "We have major concerns about this research to genetically modify cows with human genes.
"There are major welfare issues with genetically modified animals as you get high numbers of still births.
"There is a question about whether milk from these cows is going to be safe from humans and it is really hard to tell that unless you do large clinical trials like you would a drug, so there will be uncertainty about whether it could be harmful to some people.
"Ethically there are issues about mass producing animals in this way."
Professor Keith Campbell, a biologist at the University of Nottingham works with transgenic animals, said: "Genetically modified animals and plants are not going to be harmful unless you deliberately put in a gene that is going to be poisonous. Why would anyone do that in a food?
"Genetically modified food, if done correctly, can provide huge benefit for consumers in terms of producing better products."
Chimeric Monkeys With 6 Genomes Are Scientific First
Baby Monkeys With 6 Genomes Are Scientific First
There are no plans to create human chimeras, a researcher emphasized. This research by itself should help with biomedical research more relevant to humans
By Jeanna Bryner , Stephanie Pappas and LiveScience | Friday, January 6, 2012
Scientific American
Roku and Hex, two of the world's first chimeric primates.
They look like ordinary baby rhesus macaques, but Hex, Roku and Chimero are the world's first chimeric monkeys, each with cells from the genomes of as many as six rhesus monkeys.
Until now research on so-called chimeric animals, or those that have cells with different genomes, has been limited to mice; a recent procedure produced mice using cells from two dads.
The researchers turned to monkeys for more insight into the capabilities of embryonic stem cells. Most experiments on stem cell therapies are based on mice, and the researchers wanted to understand whether primate embryonic stem cells respond the same way as those of mice do.
To create the chimeric monkeys, researchers essentially glued together cells from individual rhesus monkey embryos and then implanting these mixed embryos into mama monkeys.
The key was mixing cells from very early-stage embryos, or blastocysts, that consisted of just two to four cells – each one of the cells still totipotent, capable of transforming into a whole animal as well as the placenta and other life-sustaining tissues. (This is in contrast to pluripotent stem cells, which can differentiate into any tissue type in the body, but not certain embryonic tissues or entire organisms.)
"The cells never fuse, but they stay together and work together to form tissues and organs," said Shoukhrat Mitalipov of the Oregon National Primate Research Center at Oregon Health & Science University. "The possibilities for science are enormous."
Try, try again
The researchers first tried creating chimeric monkeys using the process for chimeric mice. In this procedure, embryonic stem cells are injected into a host embryo after they have been cultured for as long as decades.
These stem cells will mix with the host embryo's cells to produce tissues and organs and ultimately offspring. When these offspring are mated, the resulting offspring have cells derived solely from the implanted stem cells. If you were to pluck two cells from a chimeric mouse's body, you could get two different genomes – complete sets of chromosomes and genetic information.
But the methods that work to create chimeric mice failed in rhesus monkeys, leading to offspring with cells only from the host embryo.
"Unfortunately that didn't work," Mitalipov told LiveScience in a telephone interview. "We produced offspring that way and they didn't show any contribution of stem cells." The stem cells seemed to have gotten lost somewhere, he said.
The researchers guessed that the culturing somehow had changed these embryonic stem cells. So they recovered stem cells from an embryo's inner cell mass (rather than from the freezer after being cultured) and, without culturing them, injected the stem cells into a host embryo.
Rather than one chimeric monkey infant, the result was two separate fetuses — twins.
Finally, the researchers hit on a successful method, using early blastocysts that had split into no more than four separate cells. They took individual cells out of these clumps and aggregated them back together, mixing and matching between three and six individuals to create 29 new blastocysts. The researchers picked the 14 strongest-looking of them and implanted them in five surrogate mother monkeys.
All five got pregnant. Researchers terminated the pregnancies of three of them to test the fetuses for chimerism, and they found it. Soon after, the remaining two monkeys delivered twins (named Roku and Hex for the Japanese and Greek words for "six") and a singleton, Chimero. All appear male, though testing on their cells reveals that they also contain individual female genomes.
Growing up chimeric
The monkeys were delivered by C-section. Their mothers rejected them, probably in response to the nonnatural method used to deliver them, so now they are being raised by a foster mama.
Researchers aren't yet sure whether Roku, Hex and Chimero will be able to reproduce. It takes rhesus macaques four to five years to reach sexual maturity.
There are no plans to create human chimeras and no need to, Mitalipov emphasized. This research by itself should help scientists in conducting biomedical research more relevant to humans, he said.
Chimeric mice, for instance, are used to produce genetically engineered "knock-out" mice that carry deletions of important genes. In that way, researchers can see firsthand what genes do or don't do.
The results may be useful in stem cell therapy, Mitalipov said. Researchers believe that stem cells cultured in Petri dishes could be transplanted into adult patients to treat conditions such as paralysis or Parkinson's disease.
"But this is based on mouse models," Mitalipov said. "We didn't know whether primates have this capacity."
The chimeric monkey study, reported today (Jan. 5) in the journal Cell, shows that primate cultured stem cells probably have some potential to differentiate, but they aren't comparable to in-vivo stem cells, or stem cells produced in the body, Mitalipov said.
"We cannot model everything in the mouse," Mitalipov said. "If we want to move stem cell therapies from the lab to clinics and from the mouse to humans, we need to understand what these primate cells can and can't do. We need to study them in humans, including human embryos."
Even though the researchers found success without culturing, cultured cells shouldn't be written off, said Richard Behringer, a geneticist at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. The reason the cells didn't work in monkeys may be due to something in the laboratory process, not because of the cells themselves, Behringer told LiveScience.
"We know so little about the early embryology of our cells," Behringer said. "We know about the fertilization to the blastocyst stage because you can do that in vitro, but after that there's very little known about human embryology — this is when a woman may not even know she's pregnant. Having the monkey model is useful to understand the early embryonic development, where the monkey can stand in for the human."
----------------------------------------
http://easss.com/travel
World's first chimeric monkeys
Researchers in Oregon have produced the world's first chimeric monkeys. Unlike naturally-conceived animals whose individual cells contain the same genetic structure, the monkeys are composed of a mixture of cells containing different genomes. Scientists have conducted research with chimeric mice for many years, but the primate model gives scientists new insight into the study of numerous diseases that affect humans. The paper was released on Thursday, January 5, in the online journal ''Cell''.
Worlds First Mixed-Embryo Monkeys have been Born in the U.S.
Researchers merged cells from six different embryos, in effect advancing medical research.
Scientists in Oregon created melded primates by altering the method used to make mice.
These researchers combined cells from a early stage known as totipotent, at this stage they can actually rise
a animal, placenta and other life-dependent tissues.
Embryos of Primates won't allow stem cells to be comined, as with mice.
Lead researcher Shoukhrat Mitalipov representing Oregon National Primate Research Center at Oregon Health and Science University said "The cells never fuse, but they stay together and work together to form tissues and organs,..The possibilities for science are enormous."
The experiment produced three healthy male rhesus monkeys with gene traits from all of the individual embryos.
There are no plans to create human chimeras, a researcher emphasized. This research by itself should help with biomedical research more relevant to humans
By Jeanna Bryner , Stephanie Pappas and LiveScience | Friday, January 6, 2012
Scientific American
Roku and Hex, two of the world's first chimeric primates.
They look like ordinary baby rhesus macaques, but Hex, Roku and Chimero are the world's first chimeric monkeys, each with cells from the genomes of as many as six rhesus monkeys.
Until now research on so-called chimeric animals, or those that have cells with different genomes, has been limited to mice; a recent procedure produced mice using cells from two dads.
The researchers turned to monkeys for more insight into the capabilities of embryonic stem cells. Most experiments on stem cell therapies are based on mice, and the researchers wanted to understand whether primate embryonic stem cells respond the same way as those of mice do.
To create the chimeric monkeys, researchers essentially glued together cells from individual rhesus monkey embryos and then implanting these mixed embryos into mama monkeys.
The key was mixing cells from very early-stage embryos, or blastocysts, that consisted of just two to four cells – each one of the cells still totipotent, capable of transforming into a whole animal as well as the placenta and other life-sustaining tissues. (This is in contrast to pluripotent stem cells, which can differentiate into any tissue type in the body, but not certain embryonic tissues or entire organisms.)
"The cells never fuse, but they stay together and work together to form tissues and organs," said Shoukhrat Mitalipov of the Oregon National Primate Research Center at Oregon Health & Science University. "The possibilities for science are enormous."
Try, try again
The researchers first tried creating chimeric monkeys using the process for chimeric mice. In this procedure, embryonic stem cells are injected into a host embryo after they have been cultured for as long as decades.
These stem cells will mix with the host embryo's cells to produce tissues and organs and ultimately offspring. When these offspring are mated, the resulting offspring have cells derived solely from the implanted stem cells. If you were to pluck two cells from a chimeric mouse's body, you could get two different genomes – complete sets of chromosomes and genetic information.
But the methods that work to create chimeric mice failed in rhesus monkeys, leading to offspring with cells only from the host embryo.
"Unfortunately that didn't work," Mitalipov told LiveScience in a telephone interview. "We produced offspring that way and they didn't show any contribution of stem cells." The stem cells seemed to have gotten lost somewhere, he said.
The researchers guessed that the culturing somehow had changed these embryonic stem cells. So they recovered stem cells from an embryo's inner cell mass (rather than from the freezer after being cultured) and, without culturing them, injected the stem cells into a host embryo.
Rather than one chimeric monkey infant, the result was two separate fetuses — twins.
Finally, the researchers hit on a successful method, using early blastocysts that had split into no more than four separate cells. They took individual cells out of these clumps and aggregated them back together, mixing and matching between three and six individuals to create 29 new blastocysts. The researchers picked the 14 strongest-looking of them and implanted them in five surrogate mother monkeys.
All five got pregnant. Researchers terminated the pregnancies of three of them to test the fetuses for chimerism, and they found it. Soon after, the remaining two monkeys delivered twins (named Roku and Hex for the Japanese and Greek words for "six") and a singleton, Chimero. All appear male, though testing on their cells reveals that they also contain individual female genomes.
Growing up chimeric
The monkeys were delivered by C-section. Their mothers rejected them, probably in response to the nonnatural method used to deliver them, so now they are being raised by a foster mama.
Researchers aren't yet sure whether Roku, Hex and Chimero will be able to reproduce. It takes rhesus macaques four to five years to reach sexual maturity.
There are no plans to create human chimeras and no need to, Mitalipov emphasized. This research by itself should help scientists in conducting biomedical research more relevant to humans, he said.
Chimeric mice, for instance, are used to produce genetically engineered "knock-out" mice that carry deletions of important genes. In that way, researchers can see firsthand what genes do or don't do.
The results may be useful in stem cell therapy, Mitalipov said. Researchers believe that stem cells cultured in Petri dishes could be transplanted into adult patients to treat conditions such as paralysis or Parkinson's disease.
"But this is based on mouse models," Mitalipov said. "We didn't know whether primates have this capacity."
The chimeric monkey study, reported today (Jan. 5) in the journal Cell, shows that primate cultured stem cells probably have some potential to differentiate, but they aren't comparable to in-vivo stem cells, or stem cells produced in the body, Mitalipov said.
"We cannot model everything in the mouse," Mitalipov said. "If we want to move stem cell therapies from the lab to clinics and from the mouse to humans, we need to understand what these primate cells can and can't do. We need to study them in humans, including human embryos."
Even though the researchers found success without culturing, cultured cells shouldn't be written off, said Richard Behringer, a geneticist at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. The reason the cells didn't work in monkeys may be due to something in the laboratory process, not because of the cells themselves, Behringer told LiveScience.
"We know so little about the early embryology of our cells," Behringer said. "We know about the fertilization to the blastocyst stage because you can do that in vitro, but after that there's very little known about human embryology — this is when a woman may not even know she's pregnant. Having the monkey model is useful to understand the early embryonic development, where the monkey can stand in for the human."
----------------------------------------
http://easss.com/travel
World's first chimeric monkeys
Researchers in Oregon have produced the world's first chimeric monkeys. Unlike naturally-conceived animals whose individual cells contain the same genetic structure, the monkeys are composed of a mixture of cells containing different genomes. Scientists have conducted research with chimeric mice for many years, but the primate model gives scientists new insight into the study of numerous diseases that affect humans. The paper was released on Thursday, January 5, in the online journal ''Cell''.
Worlds First Mixed-Embryo Monkeys have been Born in the U.S.
Researchers merged cells from six different embryos, in effect advancing medical research.
Scientists in Oregon created melded primates by altering the method used to make mice.
These researchers combined cells from a early stage known as totipotent, at this stage they can actually rise
a animal, placenta and other life-dependent tissues.
Embryos of Primates won't allow stem cells to be comined, as with mice.
Lead researcher Shoukhrat Mitalipov representing Oregon National Primate Research Center at Oregon Health and Science University said "The cells never fuse, but they stay together and work together to form tissues and organs,..The possibilities for science are enormous."
The experiment produced three healthy male rhesus monkeys with gene traits from all of the individual embryos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)