Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Still Waters

Cows genetically modified to produce

31 posts in this topic

In two separate breakthroughs, researchers have revealed that they have successfully created a calf whose milk could be drunk by people suffering from lactose intolerance and a second animal whose milk contains high levels of "healthy" fat found in fish.

The cows are part of a growing effort by scientists to make food and drink products from livestock healthier by genetically altering the animals.

The work, however, is likely to inflame the debate about GM foods. Critics of the technology have reacted angrily to the research and questioned the safety of milk from genetically modified animals.

http://www.telegraph...thier-milk.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

I bet it will taste milky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfft, I won't be drinking it, real milk from unadulterated cows please - it's what we evolved with.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:no:

Everything about this feels wrong. I don't want to consume genetically engineered cows, and it kinda seems like animal cruelty.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Comme on! Theirs so easy way to drink ''milk'' whitout lactose; Soy Milk, Rice Milk, Almond milk etc(most are all FULL of calcium and protein, specialy soy milk).... So to waste time and money to geneticaly alter a cow for producing humanas drinkable milk, is... in MY opinion, idiotic!!!

Edited by Bildr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why couldn't we have genetically atlered scientist who wouldn't do stoopid research?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god, small minded anyone?

Eating pigs is eating altered pigs...fattening them up like that, it's not natural.

These cows don't know the difference between giving "regular milk" and "adjusted" milk.

This is not animal cruelty, nor idiotic.

Creating a dogbreed with legs as short as a pickle is animal cruelty. Is that acceptable? Or is GM just easier to call evil, cuz it's trendy to do?

Many ppl fail to understand the scientific implications of research like this.

Thanks to GMO's we can get a whole new set of medicines. It's already started with the first FDA-approved drug, taken from genetically engineered plants.

(The drug, called Elelyso, is a treatment for a disorder known as Gaucher disease that results from the lack of a specific enzyme.)

Try to think outside of the box instead of following the conservative crowd condamning everything without understanding it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cow's would still produce healthy milk, had their grass/plants not been poisoned by pesticides and all that other nasty, unnecessary, man-made poison.

Man causes Cow's to produce unhealthy milk, then goes on to make his own poor attempt to make Cow's once again produce healthy milk. Idiotic and redundant.

Leave nature alone.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cow's would still produce healthy milk, had their grass/plants not been poisoned by pesticides and all that other nasty, unnecessary, man-made poison.

Man causes Cow's to produce unhealthy milk, then goes on to make his own poor attempt to make Cow's once again produce healthy milk. Idiotic and redundant.

Leave nature alone.

Wow it's been less than an hour ago that i've metioned that ppl just don't seem to understand and just condamn. And here were are with yet another post of someone who does not understand.

have you even read the article?

it's not because of pesitcides that ppl became lactose intolerant lol.

And it's not because of pesticides that milk doesn't contain omega 3.

Cow's don't produce unhealthy milk, that's not what they are saying at all. They're saying they could make lactose intolerant ppl benefit from milk just like everyone else.

And they're saying they could add omega 3 to the already healthy milk. Just like they add more calcium to some brands of milk. Or more magnesium to cereals etc.

It's obvious to me that the mainstream of ppl who are against all of this are inable to read and/or to understand what this science is about.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wow it's been less than an hour ago that i've metioned that ppl just don't seem to understand and just condamn. And here were are with yet another post of someone who does not understand.

have you even read the article?

it's not because of pesitcides that ppl became lactose intolerant lol.

And it's not because of pesticides that milk doesn't contain omega 3.

Cow's don't produce unhealthy milk, that's not what they are saying at all. They're saying they could make lactose intolerant ppl benefit from milk just like everyone else.

And they're saying they could add omega 3 to the already healthy milk. Just like they add more calcium to some brands of milk. Or more magnesium to cereals etc.

It's obvious to me that the mainstream of ppl who are against all of this are inable to read and/or to understand what this science is about.

Sorry for the confusion, Render.

I didn't read the atricle, no. I'm just fed up with the state of the world & wanted to vent. It just seems as if overall, concerning nature, everything keeps getting altered. From GMO crops, genetically modified food and now milk.

Just stop modifying things and leave nature to be natural.

Edited by Insaniac
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's to understand? For a good majority of people, genetically modified is an automatic turn off switch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its not definitely the first successful attempt? I remember reading about a cow that produced milk containing 1.24g/L lactalbumin, that is considered to be healthy milk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need a better cow, we just need to feed and rise them better. Stop the factory farming and go back to real farming. The difference between grass feed beef and factory or feed lot beef is worth the price. Same goes with milk.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comme on! Theirs so easy way to drink ''milk'' whitout lactose; Soy Milk, Rice Milk, Almond milk etc(most are all FULL of calcium and protein, specialy soy milk).... So to waste time and money to geneticaly alter a cow for producing humanas drinkable milk, is... in MY opinion, idiotic!!!

Only bad thing about soy milk, if you're a man and you regularly drink it, it kills your testosterone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eating pigs is eating altered pigs...fattening them up like that, it's not natural.

These cows don't know the difference between giving "regular milk" and "adjusted" milk.

This is not animal cruelty, nor idiotic.

Ok, so when that cow gives birth and starts lactating, will its calves be allowed to nurse from it or will they have to be given some other cow's milk because they are genetically predisposed to need lactose? What if lack of lactose has the effect on them that the presence of lactose has on people? If calves get the runs, especially in the wild, they are quite unlikely to survive. So if that were the case, this cow would not be able to reproduce viable calves and feed them, taking away it's natural reproducive ability and right to add to the gene pool.

If that were done to a human, it would be cruel. Sure, we like to think that altering animals isn't cruel because it allows us to have what we want and still be able to sleep at night. Sadly, that doesn't make it true.

The ethical thing to do is leave them alone.

Creating a dogbreed with legs as short as a pickle is animal cruelty. Is that acceptable? Or is GM just easier to call evil, cuz it's trendy to do?

Are you assuming that because someone is against this topic it means they're ok with the way animals are selectively breed for aesthetic traits, or is only doing so to be trendy? WOW. Yeah, it's not because of personal or spiritual convictions. It's just because I want to be part of the hipster crowd.

I believe we should respect life as it evolved and not mess with it. Honestly, I have a problem with corn since it was selectively bred to be what we know today, producing WAY more food than the plant originally did. I say leave nature alone... all of it.

Many ppl fail to understand the scientific implications of research like this.

Thanks to GMO's we can get a whole new set of medicines. It's already started with the first FDA-approved drug, taken from genetically engineered plants.

(The drug, called Elelyso, is a treatment for a disorder known as Gaucher disease that results from the lack of a specific enzyme.)

Call me a monster...and someone probably will... but I don't think it is ok to genetically modify something else in order to relieve people of their suffering. It's transferring the suffering to another living being, and no matter how much we tell ourselves it's ok to do so, it is not.

Try to think outside of the box instead of following the conservative crowd condamning everything without understanding it.

Try to think outside of the box before assuming that this planet and all its creatures are here to be bastardized by humans for our own benefit and convenience.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Cow's don't produce unhealthy milk, that's not what they are saying at all. They're saying they could make lactose intolerant ppl benefit from milk just like everyone else.

And they're saying they could add omega 3 to the already healthy milk. Just like they add more calcium to some brands of milk. Or more magnesium to cereals etc.

Humans did not evolve to consume milk beyond a young age... so why push those whose ancestors didn't adapt to it to be able to consume it? Probably because the dairy industry would like to make more money.

The calcium, vitamin D, magnesium, iron, etc that is added to foods is added after the fact. They should add the omega 3 to the milk after it's out of the cow... why is it necessary to make the cow an omega 3 factory? Oh right, because it's more convenient.

It's obvious to me that the mainstream of ppl who are against all of this are inable to read and/or to understand what this science is about.

You know what they say about making assumptions.

Really it's as simple as this... everything evolved to be the way it is, and we shouldn't tweak everything we get our hands on to make it EASIER for our society.

Manipulating the genes, physical body, or living conditions of any animal is cruel. I have no problem with eating meat, but the animals should be treated with respect. They give their lives to sustain ours, and we just demand more and more and more of them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All animals modify their environment to suit their needs, we are just better at it. We can't help ourselves, It is who we are. Smart monkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GM needs careful regulation, but it can be one of the most important tools we have if we are going to meet the needs of a booming population. Food security is vital to all nations. Natural or unnatural is a debate that will rage forever, but the truth is the only way we will meet the demands of future generations is by this kind of research. GM foods can have huge environmental benefits i.e. lower pesticide use, less irrigation, less fertilizer, lower emissions etc. etc..

However when huge Goliaths like Monsanto use it as a tool to run huge monopolies and damage agriculture is what's wrong. We NEED to be open minded about GM, as part of a sustainable future, and as always price will dictate who buys into it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is disgusting and immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What happened to just having free range,genetically unaltered cows happily munching on grass?

Edited by Quiet Sky1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Healthier for who or is it whom? Cow milk is for calves. If we change cows to produce milk healthier for humans how do the calves, future steaks, fare?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Through combined utilization of genetic modification and robotics, we should soon be able to produce cow / milk trucks , which run on grass and make their own deliveries. ?¿? :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sorry for the confusion, Render.

I didn't read the atricle, no. I'm just fed up with the state of the world & wanted to vent. It just seems as if overall, concerning nature, everything keeps getting altered. From GMO crops, genetically modified food and now milk.

Just stop modifying things and leave nature to be natural.

And i apologize for reacting a tad aggressive. But like you, I'm fed up with ppl always giving their negative parrot-opinion on something they obviously don't understand.

I completely agree with the fact that we do destroy a lot of things and try to invent something to fix it.

And careful regulation is a must, especially in the field of GM.

On the other hand, things change and are modified ... this is evolution

The terms nature and natural aren't absolutes. Their definitions change.

Ok, so when that cow gives birth and starts lactating, will its calves be allowed to nurse from it or will they have to be given some other cow's milk because they are genetically predisposed to need lactose? What if lack of lactose has the effect on them that the presence of lactose has on people? If calves get the runs, especially in the wild, they are quite unlikely to survive. So if that were the case, this cow would not be able to reproduce viable calves and feed them, taking away it's natural reproducive ability and right to add to the gene pool.

PLEASE read the article first before you start with your fear-mongering.

If that were done to a human, it would be cruel. Sure, we like to think that altering animals isn't cruel because it allows us to have what we want and still be able to sleep at night. Sadly, that doesn't make it true.

The ethical thing to do is leave them alone.

You seem to think that by changing cow's milk ppl somehow hurt this animal and make it suffer excruciating pain. This ... is not the case.

Does it need to be monitered? Of course. As i've mentioned before, strong regulation is needed.

So, let's look at this hypothetical case of "what if this was done to a human".

What if a woman's breastmilk was enhanced and made sure her baby had a supreme immune system for the next 10 years ?

Does this sound cruel to you? Or does this sound like progress?

Do you think this mother will start screaming in pain that this is unjust? "please no, don't give my baby a supreme immune system, i want it be as vulnerable as a neanderthal..don't make things change pleeeease."

Are you assuming that because someone is against this topic it means they're ok with the way animals are selectively breed for aesthetic traits, or is only doing so to be trendy? WOW. Yeah, it's not because of personal or spiritual convictions. It's just because I want to be part of the hipster crowd.

I believe we should respect life as it evolved and not mess with it. Honestly, I have a problem with corn since it was selectively bred to be what we know today, producing WAY more food than the plant originally did. I say leave nature alone... all of it.

I never mentioned I assume ppl are OK with selective breeding. I mentioned this because more than often ppl who p*** their pants in fear of GM have selectivly bred pet.

And turn it as you will... it;s hip to be against GM these days. That's why ppl like you don't bother to read the article , they just see GM and go "oh my god, nature is gonna die. Scientist are cruel mimimiimi"

Call me a monster...and someone probably will... but I don't think it is ok to genetically modify something else in order to relieve people of their suffering. It's transferring the suffering to another living being, and no matter how much we tell ourselves it's ok to do so, it is not.

Try to think outside of the box before assuming that this planet and all its creatures are here to be bastardized by humans for our own benefit and convenience.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Humans did not evolve to consume milk beyond a young age... so why push those whose ancestors didn't adapt to it to be able to consume it? Probably because the dairy industry would like to make more money.

I don't find you a monster, i find you a bit narrow minded. Because you fail to see that this is part of evolution. Ppl like you just get scared because we're driving that evolution instead of evolution driving us.

Scientist aren't doing this "just because they can".

Creating a selective breed is doing it just because they can. It serves no purpose.

Researching GM and seeing how everyone can benefit from it, serves a purpose. It's not "just because".

Really it's as simple as this... everything evolved to be the way it is, and we shouldn't tweak everything we get our hands on to make it EASIER for our society.

Manipulating the genes, physical body, or living conditions of any animal is cruel. I have no problem with eating meat, but the animals should be treated with respect. They give their lives to sustain ours, and we just demand more and more and more of them.

Look back to what i mentioned before about evolution.

And you think putting a cow in a closed field, awaiting human consumption, is more respectful than upgrading it's milk for human consumption?

That's intresting. And also a very common view of ppl who scream murder when they hear or see GM ...

We're not demanding more of them. If you upgrade one cows milk, you don't need two cows their milk, you just need the one.

Anyways, in the future these discussions will all be outdated. Once we won't need live animals anymore for feeding. We'll just be able to create every piece seperately in the lab. I wonder if vegetarians will admit they can eat again then, or if they'll start screaming bloody murder that "it's not natural".

Oh wait, many already do scream bloody murder about that....

I guess you can't win with a scaredy cat.

Edited by Render

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh. I'm currently reading a book, "Robyn's Egg" by Mark Souza & the genetically perfected healthier cows that produced the most meat & the most milk in the book were duplicated & manufactured throughout the world....and then promptly wiped out by a single virus that removed the entire cow population becasue they were all one perfect genetic strand....welcome to the future of starvation & the extinction of the cow population. Diversity is necessity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And i apologize for reacting a tad aggressive. But like you, I'm fed up with ppl always giving their negative parrot-opinion on something they obviously don't understand.

I completely agree with the fact that we do destroy a lot of things and try to invent something to fix it.

And careful regulation is a must, especially in the field of GM.

On the other hand, things change and are modified ... this is evolution

The terms nature and natural aren't absolutes. Their definitions change.

I think you're confusing evolution with progress. Evolution is creatures adapting to their environment. Progress is creatures adapting the environment to suit themselves.

PLEASE read the article first before you start with your fear-mongering.

I did. Questioning the moral implications of something isn't fear-mongering. These are questions we SHOULD be asking so that we understand the implications of that final product of milk.

Fear mongering is saying something that isn't true in order to get people to run around scared. I don't think anyone should believe what I have to say about it any more than they should believe anyone else. They should ask questions and think for themselves, instead of just buying that cool new product off the shelf because it's THERE.

You seem to think that by changing cow's milk ppl somehow hurt this animal and make it suffer excruciating pain. This ... is not the case.

Does it need to be monitered? Of course. As i've mentioned before, strong regulation is needed.

No, I don't think that. I think that because cows can't speak for themselves we wouldn't know the consequences of our actions, if it was not something obvious or immediate (like all cows with the altered genes dying or having blatent defects).

My point is we do not know what the repercussions could be, and since it isn't something necessary to keep mankind from dying off, it should be left alone. Mankind isn't going to sink into the dark ages if cow's milk isn't modified to have less lactose.

So, let's look at this hypothetical case of "what if this was done to a human".

What if a woman's breastmilk was enhanced and made sure her baby had a supreme immune system for the next 10 years ?

Does this sound cruel to you? Or does this sound like progress?

Do you think this mother will start screaming in pain that this is unjust? "please no, don't give my baby a supreme immune system, i want it be as vulnerable as a neanderthal..don't make things change pleeeease."

Wow. That hypothetical doesn't even compare. The cows aren't being modified to give their offspring super immune systems. They aren't being modified to benefit cows. They are being modified so people who have to go through life not drinking milk (and survive just fine doing so) have the luxury of enjoying milk.

Do you not understand the difference between modifying a creature for our own convenience and modifying a creature to benefit that creature? Hell, this modification doesn't benefit humans, not in an evolutionary sense. How is it beneficial for people who do not need cow's milk to survive to start consuming something they don't need? Helloooooo greed.

The real hypothetical equivalent would be altering a human female's genetics so that she produces milk that can feed adult cows who otherwise would not drink human milk nor would they need it. Sure, some women wouldn't care and would take the extra buck for it (the cows don't get paid, they just get slaughtered once they don't produce well enough anymore) ... other women would be horrified or disgusted at the idea. If, for no other reason then they don't want to be modified or have to hand over their bodily fluids. Now take away those women's ability to speak up about it, and force them to proceed with the "milk donation". How is that not cruel? And yeah, I do understand that this applies to all milk not just GM.

I never mentioned I assume ppl are OK with selective breeding. I mentioned this because more than often ppl who p*** their pants in fear of GM have selectivly bred pet.

And turn it as you will... it;s hip to be against GM these days. That's why ppl like you don't bother to read the article , they just see GM and go "oh my god, nature is gonna die. Scientist are cruel mimimiimi"

Seriously, what's with this "people like you" crap? I did read the article. Do you know why I read the article? Because I wanted to know what it said instead of making assumptions.

It is assanine to say I didn't read it just because I don't agree with you on the subject.

I don't find you a monster, i find you a bit narrow minded. Because you fail to see that this is part of evolution. Ppl like you just get scared because we're driving that evolution instead of evolution driving us.

Scared? Of what? LOL

You have obviously come to this conversation with a pre-concieved idea of who I am and what I believe, based on other people you've encountered.

After this post, I'm done talking to you. If you can't set aside your delusions and actually pay attention to what I'm saying, this is pointless. All you've done is compare me to other people and assume I believe or think things that I do not.

I don't care if you disagree with me, but it's not possible to disagree with me unless you comprehend what I'm saying in the first place!

Scientist aren't doing this "just because they can".

Creating a selective breed is doing it just because they can. It serves no purpose.

Researching GM and seeing how everyone can benefit from it, serves a purpose. It's not "just because".

No, of course not. Scientists are working with genetics in an attempt to better mankind. I happen to disagree that it will actually better mankind. All progress has gotten us is a lazy, overpopulated society of people who can't think for themselves.

I guess that's a pointless statement because apparently, I can't think for myself... lol

Look back to what i mentioned before about evolution.

And you think putting a cow in a closed field, awaiting human consumption, is more respectful than upgrading it's milk for human consumption?

That's intresting. And also a very common view of ppl who scream murder when they hear or see GM ...

Wait, so farms are now a problem? That's part of progress, I thought you were a fan of that?

What I feel is respectful is letting the animals have their natural habitat, living out most of their lives and only consuming the elder animals and only IF you've got the skills to hunt them. The problem is that progress has made it possible for a vast number of humans to survive and breed, so now there are more humans than a natural population of animals can comfortably support. Factory farms and GM animals are the natural next conslusion of that, but it still doesn't make it right.

We're not demanding more of them. If you upgrade one cows milk, you don't need two cows their milk, you just need the one.

Sure, if we increased the number of milk drinkers by including all the lactose intolerant people, that wouldn't increase demand for milk. :rolleyes:

The purpose of the modification is that "people who cannot consume milk will be able to consume the modified product"..... so the whole point of the modified product is to increase demand, which increases the number of cows needing milked and/or modified.

Anyways, in the future these discussions will all be outdated. Once we won't need live animals anymore for feeding. We'll just be able to create every piece seperately in the lab. I wonder if vegetarians will admit they can eat again then, or if they'll start screaming bloody murder that "it's not natural".

Really? You don't think there will be purists who argue that unless it came from a living breathing animal it doesn't taste the same? I guarantee you that when there is petri-dish meat, people will find a reason that it's not good enough, and then petri-dish meat will be affordable for the average person and "real" meat will be an expensive delicacy. Similar to what happened with lobster.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Only bad thing about soy milk, if you're a man and you regularly drink it, it kills your testosterone.

Well, i've always wondered if that was true, since i've knowed guys who drank this for years and never had any problem at all. Even myself is drinking this for a long time and i'm still a hairy/bearded as hell guy(lol).

What I would really about is hormones is our meat; since that the vast majority of industrial farms give hormones to their cattle(specially pig and chicken).

Edited by Bildr
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.