Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   'Frankenstein' meat could soon be for sale in Europe. Digging up dead cows, giving them life, and then sending them the slaughterhouse seems unusually cruel, even for Europeans   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 79
    More: Scary, Frankenstein, genetically modified organism, Europe, European Food Safety Authority, IQ tests, dengue fever, Olympic Park, omega-3 fatty acids  
•       •       •

10177 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2012 at 10:25 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-16 12:16:48 AM  

TofuTheAlmighty: WorldCitizen: I challenge all opposed to stop eating any type of food source that has been altered by humans.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

There are some legitimate (non-IP related) issues with engineered plant crops, though. Jumping herbicide resistance genes spring to mind.


As far as I know the only gene transfer of herbicide resistance was to a wild relative of rapeseed(canola). Those plants were out competed by their uncrossed neighbors. Research is never ending though, so something new may have popped up.

Our domesticated plants are really bad at surviving in the wild. It's why we don't see corn growing throughout the country side in ditches, but just in fields, or beans growing alongside the road.

Then we have natural selection in action because farmers are not doing what they are supposed to with crop rotation(thinking corn root worms with BT resistance because farmers did exactly what they were told not to do and planted BT corn in the same fields 5 years running.
 
2012-07-16 12:27:15 AM  

Ambivalence: No one knows what this geneticly modified food will do to the human physiology or to other animals who consume it. It warrants some caution.


Like what? Just give an example. A single possible example. Noting that, oddly enough, the people who spend a lot of money on this sort of thing are probably going to test any finished product to make sure it isn't poisonous or non-digestible. One. One example of what you're 'concerned' about enough to 'just ask questions'.
 
2012-07-16 12:30:32 AM  

TofuTheAlmighty: WorldCitizen: I challenge all opposed to stop eating any type of food source that has been altered by humans.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

There are some legitimate (non-IP related) issues with engineered plant crops, though. Jumping herbicide resistance genes spring to mind.


You better stop eating, then. Or go out into the wilderness and pick your own wild food. Because in case you hadn't noticed, ALL food sources have been altered by humans.

Cattle are meatier and dumber than wild ox; chickens are heavier and calmer than wild fowl; teosinte, the precursor of modern maize, had so few kernels the inch-long cobs were roasted and eaten whole. Everything you eat has been altered by humans, the only difference being how long the process took.
 
2012-07-16 12:44:08 AM  
Has anyone ever been made ill by any GM food plant or animal that was meant for consumption ever?
 
2012-07-16 12:55:43 AM  

LowbrowDeluxe: Like what? Just give an example. A single possible example. Noting that, oddly enough, the people who spend a lot of money on this sort of thing are probably going to test any finished product to make sure it isn't poisonous or non-digestible. One. One example of what you're 'concerned' about enough to 'just ask questions'.


Don't you be throwing quotes at me like I'm some kind of troll.

I used the "glow in the dark kitten" example. That was creating using a combination of monkey and jellyfish genes. Neither of which are eaten by people. What if a similar combination was used in sheep to create "glow in the dark" wool? Even grown sheep are slaughtered for human and animal consumption. What proteins and chemicals would be created to make wool glow in the dark and what affect would it have on human and animal physiology?

Recently there was an article on Fark about a protein that opossums make that renders them immune to almost all known natural poisons. Pig Thyroids are already used to make prescriptions to treat Hypothyroidism. So what if they geneticly altered pigs with Opossum genes to make them capable of creating the same poison neutralizing proteins found in opossums. It's not like they'll harvest those proteins and dump that meat. There are millions of pigs in the U.S and they are physiologically similar enough to humans to be used in tissue transplants (heart valves) and hormone therapies. they represent a huge base of pharmaceutical manufacturing. BUT how would those proteins affect human and animal physiology if consumed in the quantities the average american consumes pork?

Ducks and geese and chickens and turkeys are food animals but there is also a market for their feathers. Again, glow in the dark feathers? Wouldn't that be something?

if it were just a matter of creating larger, meatier, disease resistant animals, that's one thing. That's the whole point of selective breeding. But when you start introducing genetic material that is not natural to that animal, and exists in animals that are not commonly or never consumed by humans or domestic animals, that has the potential to create problems.

And that's just the animals. Plant crops are far less controlable. Pollen gets everywhere. How you make sure your genetic modifications don't contaminate native plant species? Do we really want to risk a kudzu plant that is resistant or immune to weed killer?
 
2012-07-16 12:56:14 AM  
If they can do this for dairy cows would we also get rein-Carnation milk?
 
2012-07-16 01:02:57 AM  

Bermuda59: If they can do this for dairy cows would we also get rein-Carnation milk?


*groan* +1
 
2012-07-16 01:15:51 AM  
Stopped reading at "fish, insects and animals."
 
2012-07-16 01:38:40 AM  
mmm.. frankenwieners
 
2012-07-16 01:40:27 AM  
cdn1.gossipcenter.com
 
2012-07-16 02:00:15 AM  
Anyone point out yet that splicing together different plants (i.e. "entirely different species") has been a staple of agriculture and especially vinology since long before we even knew how genes worked? Or that a spliced gene will do exactly the same thing in the new organism as in the one it came from because of how expression works?

And, thus, that anyone that says "we don't know what affect these new genes might have" is so incredibly stupid that we haven't even developed words to describe the sheer level of retardation involved?

Yes?

Good.
 
2012-07-16 02:01:15 AM  
That's Frahnkensteer.

Also...

media.steampowered.com

Brooock baaaad!

/Prostituuuuuuu!!!
 
2012-07-16 02:02:47 AM  
copperkitten.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-16 02:38:05 AM  

Ambivalence: LowbrowDeluxe: Like what? Just give an example. A single possible example. Noting that, oddly enough, the people who spend a lot of money on this sort of thing are probably going to test any finished product to make sure it isn't poisonous or non-digestible. One. One example of what you're 'concerned' about enough to 'just ask questions'.

Don't you be throwing quotes at me like I'm some kind of troll.

I used the "glow in the dark kitten" example. That was creating using a combination of monkey and jellyfish genes. Neither of which are eaten by people. What if a similar combination was used in sheep to create "glow in the dark" wool? Even grown sheep are slaughtered for human and animal consumption. What proteins and chemicals would be created to make wool glow in the dark and what affect would it have on human and animal physiology?

Recently there was an article on Fark about a protein that opossums make that renders them immune to almost all known natural poisons. Pig Thyroids are already used to make prescriptions to treat Hypothyroidism. So what if they geneticly altered pigs with Opossum genes to make them capable of creating the same poison neutralizing proteins found in opossums. It's not like they'll harvest those proteins and dump that meat. There are millions of pigs in the U.S and they are physiologically similar enough to humans to be used in tissue transplants (heart valves) and hormone therapies. they represent a huge base of pharmaceutical manufacturing. BUT how would those proteins affect human and animal physiology if consumed in the quantities the average american consumes pork?

Ducks and geese and chickens and turkeys are food animals but there is also a market for their feathers. Again, glow in the dark feathers? Wouldn't that be something?

if it were just a matter of creating larger, meatier, disease resistant animals, that's one thing. That's the whole point of selective breeding. But when you start introducing genetic mater ...


People do eat jellyfish and monkeys btw.

And it's all about the protein intolerance in any species, and whether those proteins are processed, absorbed, or expunged. Basically if you asked that GM foods were fully protein sequenced to determine whether there are proteins that are potentially allergenic or toxic, the effort required would be so vast as to be incomprehensibly expensive.

You know how we did this tens of thousands of years ago, we tried eating something, depending on the taste & if you didn't die afterwards, we would decide to eat it again. I mean, heck, how else do you explain Fugu.

Please become more educated, and less easily swayed one way or another, both sides of the GM argument are to blame for poor research into the subject about which they wish to wax prolifically.
 
2012-07-16 04:43:05 AM  
Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen Link

GM Research: A gut feeling PDF

Spilling the Beans: Unintended GMO Health Risks Link
 
2012-07-16 05:08:03 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Anyone point out yet that splicing together different plants (i.e. "entirely different species") has been a staple of agriculture and especially vinology since long before we even knew how genes worked? Or that a spliced gene will do exactly the same thing in the new organism as in the one it came from because of how expression works?


If you're talking about grafting, that's entirely different, you are just using the host plant as a growth/nutrient transport medium.

It's simply a way of speeding up flowering/fruiting, there is no gene transfer betwee the plants.
 
2012-07-16 05:20:19 AM  
Wouldn't it be easier to send the cows to the slaughterhouse?
 
2012-07-16 06:30:26 AM  

Pinko_Commie: If you're talking about grafting, that's entirely different, you are just using the host plant as a growth/nutrient transport medium..


I think he means stuff like wheat, which was created by the ancient Egyptians as a hybrid of two or more other grasses (cite).

i.e. It has DNA which was combined artificially (by man) from different plants. That makes it a Frankenfood by any hipster definition and I think they should stop eating it.

There's almost no food in the shops which can be described as "natural". eg. Carrots are orange because they used to grow in Holland and they wanted them to be the national color. There's very little natural about apples. Wild bananas are small and inedible*, etc.

(*) Which is a perfect reply to Creationists when they pull out their "banana" argument.
 
2012-07-16 06:32:52 AM  

meat0918:
Then we have natural selection in action because farmers are not doing what they are supposed to with crop rotation(thinking corn root worms with BT resistance because farmers did exactly what they were told not to do and planted BT corn in the same fields 5 years running.


But, evolution doesn't happen and that corn was intelligently designed.
 
2012-07-16 07:11:01 AM  
If they can make meat taste like meat again, and not the bland fairly flavorless stuff it is these days, then I'm all for it.

/tastes like chicken because chicken no longer tastes like chicken. Or much of anything, really.
//Frankenchicken!
 
2012-07-16 08:17:13 AM  
ohh.. it's ok everyone, "male only" moths, incapable of having offspring.

No the DNA code isn't complete for them, but that's why we have frog DNA to fill in the gaps. What could possibly go wrong? They've spared no expense here to ensure our safety and comfort.

Jokes aside: It makes me wonder... if we came from primordial ooze, did mating pairs suddenly co-evolve from it together? for every animal, of every kind, on the planet?

It's the ONLY thing that gives me pause when dismissing creationism suggestions out-of-hand. It appeals to my Sci-Fi interests to suggest that we were a GM breeding experiment to someone.. whether it be God, or some aliens passing through trying to prove the validity of GM without getting in-trouble for doing it.

Or the Halo storyline. There, the entire universe is wiped clear of all life in an attempt to quell an out-of-control, space-faring, intelligent parasite; we reside as data in great big libraries, and upon the completion of the universe wipe-out, Artificial Intelligence constructs oversaw an operation designed to recreate us from the stored data (perhaps initially even raised on the "Garden of Eden" ring ships until we could form tribes of a sort to increase our odds for survival), and then seeded back onto the planets we'd initially been cataloged on. This included all the other animals that were cataloged as having also lived here.
 
2012-07-16 09:51:57 AM  

Dead-Guy: Jokes aside: It makes me wonder... if we came from primordial ooze, did mating pairs suddenly co-evolve from it together? for every animal, of every kind, on the planet?


no. At some point, some asexually reproducing organism developed a mutation that caused allowed for sexual reproduction. This allowed for more gene transfer and created a selective advantage due to more genetic variance. That organism is the common ancestor of every sexually reproducing organism on the planet (or at least the vast majority of them).
 
2012-07-16 10:00:01 AM  
"Unholy cow!"
 
2012-07-16 10:05:22 AM  

uber humper: Premeditated_Road_Rage: "This sandwich tastes funny. What's in it?"

"Baloney."

"What kind?"

"Abby...something." (begins singing) "My baloney has a first name, it's A-B-B-Y... My baloney has a second name, it's N-O-R-M-A-L..."

"Wait... You mean to tell me that you made my lunch with ABNORMAL meat?"

Funny!


Reminds me: a guy I worked with told me he once bit into a tumor (on the tripe) when eating a bowl of menudo.

I had to ask, how did you know it was a tumor?

he looked me in the eyes with a thousand yard stare: "you know when you bite into a tumor..."


And like that, my desire to eat for today is gone.
 
2012-07-16 12:34:02 PM  
Scare mongering. Mostly POLITICAL scare mongering. Genetic engineering is one of the few fields where the USA still leads the world. If you can't directly ban all products from the USA, just ban everything that might contain, or been fed a GMO product. The European ban on "Frankenfoods" is just politically inspired FUD.

It's funny though how in Europe higher levels of pesticide residue in foods is allowed. But they have to ban those e-v-i-l GMO foods..

http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/food_fear_food_labels_and_my_two _ cents-92078
 
2012-07-16 01:07:23 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: Ambivalence: No one knows what this geneticly modified food will do to the human physiology or to other animals who consume it. It warrants some caution.

Like what? Just give an example. A single possible example. Noting that, oddly enough, the people who spend a lot of money on this sort of thing are probably going to test any finished product to make sure it isn't poisonous or non-digestible. One. One example of what you're 'concerned' about enough to 'just ask questions'.


OK. Splicing in rose genes to tomatoes to make the tomatoes hardier.

How many people in the world have a deadly allergy to roses? One? Ten? A million? You could go your whole life without eating a rose.: rose hips aren't that popular. You could test it on thousands of people, but that doesn't mean that folks won't start dropping dead when they eat a tomato or two. Even if only 1 person in 1000 is allergic, that's still millions of people.
 
2012-07-16 06:51:25 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Frankenstein's monster wasn't genetically modified, it was stitched together from parts of different bodies.


I'm not sure about that. The book certainly refers to Victor raiding cemeteries for material to study and charnel houses for the creature's bones, but I think that it implies that the flesh is manufactured. Frankenstein explicitly says that his method cannot bring life to dead flesh.

Also, while we're on the subject, although Victor marvels at the power of nature when he sees lightning and it says that the creature first comes to life during a thunderstorm, it doesn't say that the lightning was used to bring the creature to life, but that image turns up in every Frankenstein movie.

/Not exactly a thread-jack
 
2012-07-16 06:53:21 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: You could test it on thousands of people, but that doesn't mean that folks won't start dropping dead when they eat a tomato or two. Even if only 1 person in 1000 is allergic, that's still millions of people.


If 1 in a 1000 people were allergic to rose-tomatoes, you would certainly see the effects if you tested the tomatoes on thousands of people.
 
2012-07-18 08:51:14 PM  

Dead-Guy:
No the DNA code isn't complete for them, but that's why we have frog DNA to fill in the gaps. What could possibly go wrong?


I suspect that the rate of ass-bumping while hopping will change dramatically.
 
Displayed 29 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report