Comments on: FDA Considers Engineered Animals For Food

Agency Will Accept Industry Proposals To Sell The Public Animals With Mixed DNA

[thevicar1]

Of Course NO Stem Cell research that could benefit people but study away and alter animals that FEED PEOPLE - This is WRONG ------------------------------------------------------ Posted by rushliberal


Be patient!
We are gonna need PLENTY of stem cells to cure us from the tummy ache we get eating up all these new animals! That technology will be right around the corner!

[presjfk]

What a ridiculous proposition. If they allow this, expect great problems in the years ahead. This will make asbestos claims look like a picnic in the park.

[actornaught]

Posted by singinrich at 02:10 PM : Sep 18, 2008

You want the Smart People in charge??? Good luck with that one, bro...

[thevicar1]

Do you really think the wealthy, the politicians, the VIPs will be eating this genetically-engineered poison? NOT ON YOUR LIFE! Theyre NOT stupid enough to touch it! SO, we better NOT be, either! -------------------------------- Posted by stn_sage


Where is your sense of adventure? Have we totally lost our Pioneer Spirit?
We stand at the precipice of a Brave, New World, and you want to sit down???

[scallywag8]

I think people should be executed when they turn 50. That way it would save food and there would be no need for social security, retirement centers. We wouldn''t even have a gas shortage.

[lostchemist]

This is a provocative article but it has added some unnecessary confusion. First, engineered plants and engineered animals may present different types of problems and safety issues (granted, engineered animals are mostly abhorrent creations). In particular, the examples of soybeans and corn seem off base. That is for example, the oil produced by the soybean plant is presumably very similar to the "natural" oil and contains no new compounds and no abnormal proteins and DNA (hopefully also for corn kernels). This contrasts with the chicken where one is eating most of the organism and likely encountering abnormal substances.
The best approach borrowed from environmental approaches is the "precautionary principle", i.e., in a boiled down version "what might go wrong could go wrong in ways we are not expecting". Certainly, these developments cannot be regarded as GRAS (generally regarded as safe) and must be continually researched since our knowledge is incomplete. The labeling issue is a worthy fight for consumers. We might also consider the issue of radiation applied to foods because we know from experimentation that compounds found in the food are definitely altered by the radiation. This fact must force us to avoid the assumption that all is well. If the burden of proof becomes one of proving safety, then that requirement becomes a very difficult one to achieve.

[rushliberal]

Of Course NO Stem Cell research that could benefit people but study away and alter animals that FEED PEOPLE - This is WRONG.

[thevicar1]

Where are the animal rights activist? I can heard them coming after this one ------------------------------------------------- Posted by scallywag8


They should welcome this with open arms! It means MORE animals to defend:
Like, ''save the Chick-o-Dile'', or ''be kind to Kanga-Phants''!
''Killing Puppy-Dillos is MURDER''! ''No more testing on Tiger-Uffalos''!

[actornaught]

...If it keeps them from procreating, it''ll be a Godsend.
Posted by singinrich at 02:01 PM : Sep 18, 2008

Who''s to say. These''d still pass their IQ test.

[kaylag04]

Human beings have been "genetically engineering" their crops, pets and livestock for thousands of years through selective breeding and selective pollination. Unless domestic cows, dogs, sheep, corn, wheat, etc. were magically produced at the moment of creation, we have already accepted genetically modified food for generations.