British scientists have actually created a breed of genetically modified hens that produce cancer-fighting medicine in their eggs. These hens have been genetically modified to lay eggs that contain medicinal protein similar to medicine used to treat multiple sclerosis, skin cancer and arthritis.
To achieve this, human genes are added to the hen's DNA, and human proteins are secreted into the egg whites. The gene in the hens which produces ovalbumin is modified so that it will produce specific medicinal proteins. In the flock of the genetically modified hens, it was discovered that all the egg whites from the hens contain a monoclonal antibody that has the potential for treating arthritis and malignant melanoma; and an antiviral drug that resembles modern treatments for multiple sclerosis.
It was discovered that using farm animals to produce drugs is much faster, cheaper and more efficient than the current industrial methods. An example would be the hens used for the genetic modification, are from a common breed and are able to produce 300 eggs a year.
The production of pharmaceutical proteins has been shown previously in genetically modified mammals such as sheep, goats, cattle and rabbit. However, the proteins have been difficult to extract and the ability to produce useful proteins vanishes after a few generations. But, in this latest research, five generations of hens were bred and each produced good concentration of drugs. In theory, the technique can be used with a wide range of genes so that hens could produce many different drugs for a range of diseases.
Imagine, if it really happens in the future, and we are diagnosed with any type of diseases, all that we have to do is to consume the eggs of hens which contains the proteins to cure the disease, and we would be cured after that. Amazing isn't it. We would be able to save the costs of our medical fees. But then again, we would be exploiting the hens, and disturbing their natural being. Would that cause any negative effects?
References:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jan/15/medicalresearch.drugs
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
Monday, 4 July 2011
How Safe Is GM Food?
http://www.biotech-info.net/how_safe.html
while researching, i came across this information about how exactly is GM food safe??
According to the article, "In southern Africa, hunger now affects some 14 million people. The USA has donated GM maize to help alleviate the crisis, but in Zambia the food rots in warehouses because the government believes it unsafe. President Levy Mwanawasa has even called GM maize "poison", saying he is not prepared to "use our people as guinea pigs". In some areas, citizens have rioted and looted to get to the food."
But, what made them think that way?? Was it the lack of safety?? This reason was used as an excuse according to officials in USA as the donated food was they type of food the Americans have been eating for years, however, there are debates over this fact that the US, which is promoting biotechnology building is now using the UN to do its protectionist bidding.
Again, the topic of the safety of GM brings back to its advantages and disadvantages that most consumer worries. "The advantages, achieved through improved crop protection, include insect and virus resistance, and herbicide tolerance. Public health might be improved through a greater supply of hardier strains or through products that have been enriched with vitamins and minerals, such as "golden rice", to which vitamin A has been added.
Disadvantages, though, are that GM crops may threaten biodiversity, decrease the richness and variety of foods, and make farmers dependent on chemical and biotech companies, through the use of sterile seed or chemical products that would have to be purchased yearly. Health concerns include: allergenicity; gene transfer, especially of antibiotic-resistant genes, from GM foods to cells or bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract; and "out-crossing", or the movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops, posing indirect threats to food safety and security."
However, is it really the disadvantages that stops the consumer from consuming GM food, or is it the politics behind that restricted most GM food being imported thus causing a misunderstanding in consumers that the government thinks that GM food is unsafe??
-FM
while researching, i came across this information about how exactly is GM food safe??
According to the article, "In southern Africa, hunger now affects some 14 million people. The USA has donated GM maize to help alleviate the crisis, but in Zambia the food rots in warehouses because the government believes it unsafe. President Levy Mwanawasa has even called GM maize "poison", saying he is not prepared to "use our people as guinea pigs". In some areas, citizens have rioted and looted to get to the food."
But, what made them think that way?? Was it the lack of safety?? This reason was used as an excuse according to officials in USA as the donated food was they type of food the Americans have been eating for years, however, there are debates over this fact that the US, which is promoting biotechnology building is now using the UN to do its protectionist bidding.
Again, the topic of the safety of GM brings back to its advantages and disadvantages that most consumer worries. "The advantages, achieved through improved crop protection, include insect and virus resistance, and herbicide tolerance. Public health might be improved through a greater supply of hardier strains or through products that have been enriched with vitamins and minerals, such as "golden rice", to which vitamin A has been added.
Disadvantages, though, are that GM crops may threaten biodiversity, decrease the richness and variety of foods, and make farmers dependent on chemical and biotech companies, through the use of sterile seed or chemical products that would have to be purchased yearly. Health concerns include: allergenicity; gene transfer, especially of antibiotic-resistant genes, from GM foods to cells or bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract; and "out-crossing", or the movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops, posing indirect threats to food safety and security."
However, is it really the disadvantages that stops the consumer from consuming GM food, or is it the politics behind that restricted most GM food being imported thus causing a misunderstanding in consumers that the government thinks that GM food is unsafe??
-FM
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Pang Kar Min TA04
While researching,
(http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php%20)
environmental organizations and public groups are protesting strongly against GM food.
there's alot of issues on people against GM food and for GM food.
To debate among the pros and cons is really to difficult to decide whether its good to go for GM food or not.
Since population is growing abundantly now, isn't it good enough that GM is "curing" hunger.
people go against GM food due to environment factor, but then come to think again, can the world's environment be saved if we totally banned GM food? and what about the large population's hunger and the malnutrition problem faced? If people are so against GM food and wanting to stop it..but those people who go againsr it can they find alternatives way to 'cure' these hunger and malnutrition in time? is there sufficient? I think at this point of time we can only have both GM food and organic food's existence but we have no say to totally go against it or totally stop the manufacturing of GM food.
all we can do is to label and if people who are against can go alll the way for organic food.
however, there should be great demand in safety caution on GM food to reduce unintended harm to human health.
While researching,
(http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php%20)
environmental organizations and public groups are protesting strongly against GM food.
there's alot of issues on people against GM food and for GM food.
To debate among the pros and cons is really to difficult to decide whether its good to go for GM food or not.
Since population is growing abundantly now, isn't it good enough that GM is "curing" hunger.
people go against GM food due to environment factor, but then come to think again, can the world's environment be saved if we totally banned GM food? and what about the large population's hunger and the malnutrition problem faced? If people are so against GM food and wanting to stop it..but those people who go againsr it can they find alternatives way to 'cure' these hunger and malnutrition in time? is there sufficient? I think at this point of time we can only have both GM food and organic food's existence but we have no say to totally go against it or totally stop the manufacturing of GM food.
all we can do is to label and if people who are against can go alll the way for organic food.
however, there should be great demand in safety caution on GM food to reduce unintended harm to human health.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Even animals can are genetically modified for humans.
In order to produce a better nutritive milk, Scientist have induced human genes to around 300 cows.
Thus by doing so, cows are producing a so called " human milk" which helps to boost the immune system of a human child, or maybe the calf too.
It was argued it is not dangerous if done correctly, afterall, why would they induce genes that will harm the food source in which we consumes. Although many people are resistance to GM food, like ethical issue, or afraid of side-effects, these modified food can proven to be useful once proven to be safe, but it usually takes 10-20 years of experiment, even on humans, to see the side-effects as all these are accumulated in small amount.
However when consumed in small amount, won't it be passed out of the body if the body does not recognise it as a source of energy or nutrients?? if it recognise it as a source of nutrients or energy, wont it be the same, being absorbed normally? Having said that, unless it is in microbial secretion, may cause allergic reactions or hazards which is not yet discovered as things mutates over generation.
Reference Richard gray, science correspondent, retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.html on 28th june 2011.
By Quan Jin
Thus by doing so, cows are producing a so called " human milk" which helps to boost the immune system of a human child, or maybe the calf too.
It was argued it is not dangerous if done correctly, afterall, why would they induce genes that will harm the food source in which we consumes. Although many people are resistance to GM food, like ethical issue, or afraid of side-effects, these modified food can proven to be useful once proven to be safe, but it usually takes 10-20 years of experiment, even on humans, to see the side-effects as all these are accumulated in small amount.
However when consumed in small amount, won't it be passed out of the body if the body does not recognise it as a source of energy or nutrients?? if it recognise it as a source of nutrients or energy, wont it be the same, being absorbed normally? Having said that, unless it is in microbial secretion, may cause allergic reactions or hazards which is not yet discovered as things mutates over generation.
Reference Richard gray, science correspondent, retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.html on 28th june 2011.
By Quan Jin
Monday, 27 June 2011
Labelling of GM food . :)
As I was reading a post on the labelling of GM food posted by Fang Min and found it very interested and decided to research a little more about it.
As we all know that GM food have been incoroperated in our lives in such a wide area, we might be eating GM food daily without ourselves knowing as many GM food are not stated on their labelling. In different countries, there are different standards set in regards with the labelling of GM food.
Firstly, there are two diffeent types of labelling; voluntary labelling and mantory labelling(yes just like what we have for the labbeling of food packaging in singapore. :) ) of course many health organisations wishes that GM food would be labelled on food packaging in a mantory manner so as to the consumers know what they are eating but I believe this would result in extra cost for the company but if it is voluntery labelling, many companies would not even care to do any labelling for GM food.
Below is a list of how are the labelling system for GM food is like in different countries.
United States
Compulsary to label that it is GM food only when the food is very different in terms of nutritional values, composition and also the allergies present in them. If it does not fall under any of the stated terms, then the labelling is voluntary.
Countries from the European Union
All GM food has to be labelled since November 2003. In addition of that, processed food that contains more than 0.9% GM food has to be labelled too.
Australia and New zealand
All GM food that has be produced or imported must be labelled.
Japan
All GM food must be labelled. If in terms of processed food, the Gm food has to be labelled if the total weight of GM food used is more than 5% or the total weight.
Korea
GM food containing more than 3%GM materials have to be labelled. Processed food which contain any of the GM food containing more than 3%GM materials as the main 5 ingredients has to be labelled too.
China
All GM food should be properly labelled.
Reference
Centre for Food Safety, (2011). International development in labelling of GM foods. Retrieved on June 27,2011 from http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/programme/programme_gmf/programme_gmf_gi_info4.html
Chuiying (Yvonne)
As we all know that GM food have been incoroperated in our lives in such a wide area, we might be eating GM food daily without ourselves knowing as many GM food are not stated on their labelling. In different countries, there are different standards set in regards with the labelling of GM food.
Firstly, there are two diffeent types of labelling; voluntary labelling and mantory labelling(yes just like what we have for the labbeling of food packaging in singapore. :) ) of course many health organisations wishes that GM food would be labelled on food packaging in a mantory manner so as to the consumers know what they are eating but I believe this would result in extra cost for the company but if it is voluntery labelling, many companies would not even care to do any labelling for GM food.
Below is a list of how are the labelling system for GM food is like in different countries.
United States
Compulsary to label that it is GM food only when the food is very different in terms of nutritional values, composition and also the allergies present in them. If it does not fall under any of the stated terms, then the labelling is voluntary.
Countries from the European Union
All GM food has to be labelled since November 2003. In addition of that, processed food that contains more than 0.9% GM food has to be labelled too.
Australia and New zealand
All GM food that has be produced or imported must be labelled.
Japan
All GM food must be labelled. If in terms of processed food, the Gm food has to be labelled if the total weight of GM food used is more than 5% or the total weight.
Korea
GM food containing more than 3%GM materials have to be labelled. Processed food which contain any of the GM food containing more than 3%GM materials as the main 5 ingredients has to be labelled too.
China
All GM food should be properly labelled.
Reference
Centre for Food Safety, (2011). International development in labelling of GM foods. Retrieved on June 27,2011 from http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/programme/programme_gmf/programme_gmf_gi_info4.html
Chuiying (Yvonne)
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Contradiction of the benefits? by Ain
In contrary to what I've researched on earlier, GM crops may not actually have the benefits stated from my previous post. An article released on January 2006 by Friends of the Earth International showed to be otherwise.
GM crops are said to be the solution of hunger and poverty, the crops can be grown in alrge quantities in a smaller time frame, thus being able to meet the world's demands. However, the article stated that GM crops are used for animal feeds and not for food. The GM crops grown at developing countries are meant for 'export cash crops', which means crops that are grown for profit, just for exportation. In an example shown in the article, in Argentina only 2% of the GM soy grown is for the local usage.
GM crops are thought to be environmentally friendly, due to the decreased usage of pesticides. However, Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans have caused the increase of the usage of pesticides to 55 million kilogram.
GM crops are assumed to be cheaper as it is said to lower production costs. But it has been revealed that the GM crops are not cheaper, not better in quality and apparently, do not priovide any benefits to consumers. Only two modifications are grown commercially, which is herbicide tolerance and insect resistance.
It was said that by growing GM crops, the farmers would gain mutiple profits and be able to own luxurious items, but, developing countries such as India and Indonesia, where GM crops are grown, have encountered problems with Monsanto's Gm crops, and are leaving the farmers with debts. However, Monsanto continues to introduce aggresive royalty initiatives in South America to gain more profits.
Reference:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/monsanto_key_facts.pdf
GM crops are said to be the solution of hunger and poverty, the crops can be grown in alrge quantities in a smaller time frame, thus being able to meet the world's demands. However, the article stated that GM crops are used for animal feeds and not for food. The GM crops grown at developing countries are meant for 'export cash crops', which means crops that are grown for profit, just for exportation. In an example shown in the article, in Argentina only 2% of the GM soy grown is for the local usage.
GM crops are thought to be environmentally friendly, due to the decreased usage of pesticides. However, Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans have caused the increase of the usage of pesticides to 55 million kilogram.
GM crops are assumed to be cheaper as it is said to lower production costs. But it has been revealed that the GM crops are not cheaper, not better in quality and apparently, do not priovide any benefits to consumers. Only two modifications are grown commercially, which is herbicide tolerance and insect resistance.
It was said that by growing GM crops, the farmers would gain mutiple profits and be able to own luxurious items, but, developing countries such as India and Indonesia, where GM crops are grown, have encountered problems with Monsanto's Gm crops, and are leaving the farmers with debts. However, Monsanto continues to introduce aggresive royalty initiatives in South America to gain more profits.
Reference:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/monsanto_key_facts.pdf
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Benefits of GM crops - 'Ain
Hey guys, I've been doing the research on the benefits of GM foods and it was stated that growing GM crops would produce large amounts of profits, thus allowing farmers to be able to own luxurious items that they couldn't afford before. The reason why GM crops are said to be economically viable is due to the fact that they are pest resistant, herbicide tolerant, disease resistant, cold tolerant and drought/salinity tolerant.
Non-GM crops are commonly infected by pests, thus resulting in crops losses and financial loss for the farmers. By cultivating GM crops that are resistant to pests, the cost of bringing crops to the market would decrease, and farmers would not have to splurge on pesticides, which may in return cause health hazards and harm to the environment.
Besides that, weeds are often seen growing amongst crops, feeding on the crops nutrients from the soil. Also, weeds have a faster growth rate than most crops, and would block the sunlight from the crops when they have grown taller than the crops. Farmers would then have to use herbicide to destroy the weeds. At the same time, the farmers have to be aware that the herbicides would not harm the crops and the environment. By having crops that are resistant to herbicides, the usage of herbicides to destroy the weeds would be reduced greatly, thus preventing anymore damage done to the environment and reducing production costs.
Crops are prone to be infected by parasities, fungi, viruses and bacteria, causing plant diseases. This would cause crop losses and financial loss to the farmers. Crops that are gentically engineered to to be resistant to the diseases would reduce the production costs.
The cold, drought or high salt content can affect the growth of crops. For example, frost can destroy seedlings. By having crops that are tolerant of the cold, they will be able to grow throughout the cold season and would ensure a stable income for the farmers. The amount of land suitable for growing crops is diminishing, and farmers have limited land to grow their crops, unabling them to meet the population's demands. By cultivating crops that can withstand drought and high salt content in the soil, farmers would be able to grow their crops on lands that were previously designated as unsuitable for farming.
To add on, GM crops play a part in pharmaceuticals too. Medicines and vaccines are expensive to reproduce and may need special storage conditions that are not available in developing countries. Researchers are working on to create edible vaccines and medicines in vegetables, such as tomatoes. These edible vaccines would be easier to be transported, stored and administered than the injectable vaccines.
Lastly, GM crops are said to be more nutritious, thus being able to prevent malnutrition in developing countries. For example, rice does not contain the adequate amount of nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If the rice is genetically modified to contain all the necessary nutrients, the chances of having malnutrition of these nutrients would reduce greatly.
References:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr29/en/index.html
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
Non-GM crops are commonly infected by pests, thus resulting in crops losses and financial loss for the farmers. By cultivating GM crops that are resistant to pests, the cost of bringing crops to the market would decrease, and farmers would not have to splurge on pesticides, which may in return cause health hazards and harm to the environment.
Besides that, weeds are often seen growing amongst crops, feeding on the crops nutrients from the soil. Also, weeds have a faster growth rate than most crops, and would block the sunlight from the crops when they have grown taller than the crops. Farmers would then have to use herbicide to destroy the weeds. At the same time, the farmers have to be aware that the herbicides would not harm the crops and the environment. By having crops that are resistant to herbicides, the usage of herbicides to destroy the weeds would be reduced greatly, thus preventing anymore damage done to the environment and reducing production costs.
Crops are prone to be infected by parasities, fungi, viruses and bacteria, causing plant diseases. This would cause crop losses and financial loss to the farmers. Crops that are gentically engineered to to be resistant to the diseases would reduce the production costs.
The cold, drought or high salt content can affect the growth of crops. For example, frost can destroy seedlings. By having crops that are tolerant of the cold, they will be able to grow throughout the cold season and would ensure a stable income for the farmers. The amount of land suitable for growing crops is diminishing, and farmers have limited land to grow their crops, unabling them to meet the population's demands. By cultivating crops that can withstand drought and high salt content in the soil, farmers would be able to grow their crops on lands that were previously designated as unsuitable for farming.
To add on, GM crops play a part in pharmaceuticals too. Medicines and vaccines are expensive to reproduce and may need special storage conditions that are not available in developing countries. Researchers are working on to create edible vaccines and medicines in vegetables, such as tomatoes. These edible vaccines would be easier to be transported, stored and administered than the injectable vaccines.
Lastly, GM crops are said to be more nutritious, thus being able to prevent malnutrition in developing countries. For example, rice does not contain the adequate amount of nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If the rice is genetically modified to contain all the necessary nutrients, the chances of having malnutrition of these nutrients would reduce greatly.
References:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr29/en/index.html
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)