1. Sceintific Perspective

Q. What's the difference between cross pollination/grafting/selective breeding that farmers have been doing for centuries and genetic modification? Just curious, because it seems like farmers have been screwing with genes for a long time now. – Joe, NY

Farmers have used selective breeding for ages. But there are some pretty huge differences between the techniques they’ve traditionally used and the high-tech ones being implemented today on mega farms that produce GM monsters! If traditional selective breeding is like two people with two different sets of genes being paired up by a matchmaker who thinks they’ll have pretty, healthy kids together, then modern high-tech GM breeding is like Victor Frankenstein slicing ‘superior’ body parts out of fifteen different corpses and using them to sew together his powerful, yet frighteningly unpredictable, monster.

Whoops. Did that sound slightly unscientific and/or possibly biased? Then don’t take it from me—take it from Craig Holdrege, director of The Nature Institute.

http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/stories/genetic-engineering-vs-selective-breeding


Modern breeds of Belgian Blue cattle are the creation of genetic engineering conducted by Professor Hanset at an AI Center in Begium (Oklahoma state website), with the specific goal of expanding the muscular content of the animals as much as possible.


Craig Holdrege, director of The Nature Institute. He explains that the most critical difference between natural and GM breeding is that natural breeding crosses only organisms that are already closely related—two varieties of corn, for example—whereas, in contrast, GM breeding slaps together genes from up to 15 wildly different sources. Here’s how he explained the convoluted GM breeding process to me in an email:

To make a GM plant, scientists need to isolate DNA from different organisms—bacteria, viruses, plants, and sometimes animals (or humans if the target gene is a human gene). They then recombine these genes biochemically in the lab to make a "gene construct," which can consist of DNA from five to fifteen different sources. This gene construct is cloned in bacteria to make lots of copies, which are then isolated. Next, the copies are shot into embryonic plant tissue (microprojectile bombardment), or moved into plant tissue via a particular bacterium (Agrobacterium) that acts as a vector. After getting the construct copies into the embryonic plant tissue, whole plants are regenerated. Only a few plants out of many hundreds will turn out to grow normally and exhibit the desired trait—such as herbicide resistance.

Or take it from Joe Mendelson, director of the Center for Food Safety. Here’s how he put in it in an email:

The difference is pretty large. In regular cross pollination, the species being crossed have to be related . . . basically respecting their common evolutionary origin. But with GMOs, you can take any gene from any species and splice it into a crop. So you get fish genes in tomatoes or the like.

And it’s not just cotton, corn, soy, and canola that are being genetically modified anymore—GM alfalfa and GM sugar beets are on the way.

Many food safety activists are, like Holdrege and Mendelson, concerned about the effects these six major GM crops will have on ecosystems, on agricultural production, and on our bodies. All that aggressive lab work, they argue, has the potential to bring consequences we can’t anticipate. Genetic modification has certainly upped agricultural output, which is a plus when food prices are high and many parts of the world are experiencing or are at risk for famine. But because almost all of us eat GM foods and produce every day, you’re wise to ask tough questions about the relatively new and largely untested technology.

Story by Tobin Hack. This article appeared in "Plenty" in October 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Life Quality of GM Cattles

Modern breeds of Belgian Blue cattle are the creation of genetic engineering conducted by Professor Hanset at an AI Center in Begium (Oklahoma state website), with the specific goal of expanding the muscular content of the animals as much as possible.

Belgium Blue cattle are characterized by this extreme muscling, known as "double-muscling," the result of a mutation in a myostatin gene that prevents control of muscular growth. This mutation causes extreme over-development of muscle in the cattle, which provides great benefits to producers and consumers, but causes harm to the animals. The continued growth of lean-quality meat sales, despite accompanying ailments due to the cattle's genetically-imposed composition, brings into question how far we as a society should be allowed to alter the natural order to ensure a profit.

However, these cattle are susceptible to many medical complications. Some problems attributed to the Blue Belgium's highly-muscular physique involve macroglossia, which causes a swelling of the tongue that may also interfere with a calf's ability to nurse and cause premature death; congenital articular rigidity, a chronic ailment that affects a calf's ability to stand on its legs, also affecting its ability to nurse; cardio-respiratory problems which can cause death in calves within two days of birth, due to insufficient oxygen intake; and dystocia (Lips, Tavernier, Decuypere, and Van Outryve), which is a general term for birthing complications.

Dystocia is the most common medical complication, and although "factors affecting dystocia are similar in double-muscled cattle to those in non-double-muscled cattle [...] the occurrence of dystocia is greatly increased in double-muscled cows" (Fiems, Campeneere, Caelenbergh, and Boucque). These birthing complications necessitate operative assistance, specifically caesarian sections, which occur in double-muscled cattle as often as 89.5 percent of the time (Fiems, Campeneere, Caelenbergh, Boueque).

This need to undergo constant operations is a topic highly open to ethical criticism. These animals have been bred for specific characteristics which include the inability to safely give birth to healthy offspring. So, in a sense, unhealthy and unnatural breeds are being created for the benefit of commercial producers, with no thought to the discomfort and pain of the animals. It is assumed that "caesareans cause a lot of suffering to the animals, but also that their high incidence is an indication of the excessive instrumentalisation of these animals" (Lips, Tavernier, Decuypere, and Van Outryvre). Scientists have similarly tried to increase the meat in sheep and pigs by inserting modified growth genes into the animals. This experimentation also resulted in reproductive abnormalities, and "sexual behavior was anomalous; females were anestrous and boars lacked libido" (Rollin). Scientists use animals as instruments to meet their goals, but have little thought as to the resulting harm to the animals in the process. Their creations have produced pigs so unhealthy they have no desire to proliferate, and cattle which have the potential of being mortally harmed each time they give birth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------



3 MORAL PERSPECTIVE:

Since the devil worshippers are trying to play God,
the countdown of the Destruction of our Genes has begun!
Only thing they can do by doctering on our DNA is to demage, the already perfect DNA of the species!
Since its impossible for ANYONE (expect the creator)
to create life from death matter, only thing they can do is manipulate the perfect order of our dna!


Resident Evil isnt that fictious anymore...