Food Bubble

[English_Bob]

There is a huge difference between selective breeding and slicing genes and slapping them together to see how it comes out. They are trying to mix genes of difference animals species. They have done it with salmon and its on the market. The powers that be are screwing up more then they are fixing food productivity with the chemical fertilizers they pushed on the US and the world in the 50s. If they screw up all their gene splicing its more then an oops.

National Geographic dedicated a whole magazine to the coming food crisis and in it they show statistically that the chemical fertilizer in farming is not working. It destroys arable land. You see anyone forcing food on the starving of the world or stopping genocide in Sudan so they can feed people. They run out of food they will have a huge population drop. One thing that I see in the favor of Africa is huge chunks of land are being bought up by entrepreneurs to grow food as they are hoping to cash in on the need for food.

Education and lack of food will have a big impact on population just because it works that way. I don't see people handing out man made meat pies to help the poor starving masses. Monsantos is on its way to mutating all our food and there is evidence that the food they invent has dangerous side effects ,but they have the power and they are pushing their inventions. You see Monsantos as a nice old man wanting his company to feed the poor of the world? You think everything will be fine then good for you. I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and simply trust the ingenuity of man and I don't think we all should wait till people are starving to death more then they already are to talk about the subject. You really think Thailand will be free of hardship in a global food crisis. The last economic crisis shows how the world is effected as a whole. I find Bruce's posts informative and on the most important of subjects and preachers would but suggest its not a bad idea to have a discussion if they are indeed spiritually motivated.

No there isn't a huge difference between selective breeding and splicing genes.

They both start the same way... trying to find a solution. By trial and error.

I looked at the map the Bruce posted... the areas at most risk are almost all desert... And the people trying hardest to fix the problems are Western scientists.

What you and Bruce do is nothing. You do nothing.

Posting alarmist reports on Thailand Friends is pointless. It's the wrong audience and you don't DO anything. Cut and pasting someone else's work might ease your conscience, but as far as practicalities are concerned, the pair of you are cyber-environmentalists - ie completely useless.

What is the point? REALLY what is the point of this continuous barrage of anti-human propaganda the pair of you keep posting on a light-hearted social network/dating site?

For all your whinging and bitching neither of you have any workable solutions. If either of you actually DID something, you might have a moral standpoint.

As things stand, you benefit from all the great work that went before you. You love all the advantages that you get from fossil fuels and intensive farming. But in the comfort of your own, aircondtioned home you preach austerity and fantasy to everyone else.... It's tiresome and hypocritical.

[eagle]

There is a huge difference between selective breeding and slicing genes and slapping them together to see how it comes out. They are trying to mix genes of difference animals species. They have done it with salmon and its on the market. The powers that be are screwing up more then they are fixing food productivity with the chemical fertilizers they pushed on the US and the world in the 50s. If they screw up all their gene splicing its more then an oops.

National Geographic dedicated a whole magazine to the coming food crisis and in it they show statistically that the chemical fertilizer in farming is not working. It destroys arable land. You see anyone forcing food on the starving of the world or stopping genocide in Sudan so they can feed people. They run out of food they will have a huge population drop. One thing that I see in the favor of Africa is huge chunks of land are being bought up by entrepreneurs to grow food as they are hoping to cash in on the need for food.

Education and lack of food will have a big impact on population just because it works that way. I don't see people handing out man made meat pies to help the poor starving masses. Monsantos is on its way to mutating all our food and there is evidence that the food they invent has dangerous side effects ,but they have the power and they are pushing their inventions. You see Monsantos as a nice old man wanting his company to feed the poor of the world? You think everything will be fine then good for you. I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and simply trust the ingenuity of man and I don't think we all should wait till people are starving to death more then they already are to talk about the subject. You really think Thailand will be free of hardship in a global food crisis. The last economic crisis shows how the world is effected as a whole. I find Bruce's posts informative and on the most important of subjects and preachers would but suggest its not a bad idea to have a discussion if they are indeed spiritually motivated.

No there isn't a huge difference between selective breeding and splicing genes.

They both start the same way... trying to find a solution. By trial and error.

I looked at the map the Bruce posted... the areas at most risk are almost all desert... And the people trying hardest to fix the problems are Western scientists.

What you and Bruce do is nothing. You do nothing.

Posting alarmist reports on Thailand Friends is pointless. It's the wrong audience and you don't DO anything. Cut and pasting someone else's work might ease your conscience, but as far as practicalities are concerned, the pair of you are cyber-environmentalists - ie completely useless.

What is the point? REALLY what is the point of this continuous barrage of anti-human propaganda the pair of you keep posting on a light-hearted social network/dating site?

For all your whinging and bitching neither of you have any workable solutions. If either of you actually DID something, you might have a moral standpoint.

As things stand, you benefit from all the great work that went before you. You love all the advantages that you get from fossil fuels and intensive farming. But in the comfort of your own, aircondtioned home you preach austerity and fantasy to everyone else.... It's tiresome and hypocritical.

If you don't want to talk about it don't. Your not serving any purpose hacking on us for choosing to discuss the subject. You have your comfort and you choose to think everything will be fine. I happen to feel something for the many who's lives are not fine and those who will find themselves struggling in the future. We choose to discuss and share info. You choose to say everything will be just fine. Just a different brand of whine. TF has had discussions on many world events, why is this subject out of order just because you don't like our point of view. Thats why there are so many forum topics. If you tire of our point of view you can jump into Random Inanity and discuss something you find more palatable.

[eagle]

EB wrote:

No there isn't a huge difference between selective breeding and splicing genes.

They are splicing genes from animals who cannot breed naturally. I see that as a huge difference. What they are doing with grains is a horror story.

[eagle]

From Bruce's initial post:

In Kibera, Nairobi, the largest slum in Kenya, more than 1,000 women farmers are growing "vertical" gardens in sacks full of dirt poked with holes, feeding their families and communities. These sacks have the potential to feed thousands of city dwellers while also providing a sustainable and easy-to-maintain source of income for urban farmers. With more than 60 percent of Africa's population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, such methods may be crucial to creating future food security. Currently, some 33 percent of Africans live in cities, and 14 million more migrate to urban areas each year. Worldwide, some 800 million people engage in urban agriculture, producing 15–20 percent of all food."

Out of necessity come great ideas. Its being done in the US and sold as hanging gardens and the potential is huge. There was a group who gathered at my Cafe hang out to discuss peak oil and local food production and distribution. So much energy is used to transport food when it could be locally available. I thought of using it so I wouldn't have to fight the animals so much.

We all have the potential to grow food with the lights in our home if using the right bulbs or sky lights if possible. What people will need to do this are seeds which Monsantos is trying to take total control of in the US.

[CiaranM]

There is a huge difference between selective breeding and slicing genes and slapping them together to see how it comes out. They are trying to mix genes of difference animals species. They have done it with salmon and its on the market. The powers that be are screwing up more then they are fixing food productivity with the chemical fertilizers they pushed on the US and the world in the 50s. If they screw up all their gene splicing its more then an oops.

National Geographic dedicated a whole magazine to the coming food crisis and in it they show statistically that the chemical fertilizer in farming is not working. It destroys arable land. You see anyone forcing food on the starving of the world or stopping genocide in Sudan so they can feed people. They run out of food they will have a huge population drop. One thing that I see in the favor of Africa is huge chunks of land are being bought up by entrepreneurs to grow food as they are hoping to cash in on the need for food.

Education and lack of food will have a big impact on population just because it works that way. I don't see people handing out man made meat pies to help the poor starving masses. Monsantos is on its way to mutating all our food and there is evidence that the food they invent has dangerous side effects ,but they have the power and they are pushing their inventions. You see Monsantos as a nice old man wanting his company to feed the poor of the world? You think everything will be fine then good for you. I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and simply trust the ingenuity of man and I don't think we all should wait till people are starving to death more then they already are to talk about the subject. You really think Thailand will be free of hardship in a global food crisis. The last economic crisis shows how the world is effected as a whole. I find Bruce's posts informative and on the most important of subjects and preachers would but suggest its not a bad idea to have a discussion if they are indeed spiritually motivated.

No there isn't a huge difference between selective breeding and splicing genes.

They both start the same way... trying to find a solution. By trial and error.

I looked at the map the Bruce posted... the areas at most risk are almost all desert... And the people trying hardest to fix the problems are Western scientists.

What you and Bruce do is nothing. You do nothing.

Posting alarmist reports on Thailand Friends is pointless. It's the wrong audience and you don't DO anything. Cut and pasting someone else's work might ease your conscience, but as far as practicalities are concerned, the pair of you are cyber-environmentalists - ie completely useless.

What is the point? REALLY what is the point of this continuous barrage of anti-human propaganda the pair of you keep posting on a light-hearted social network/dating site?

For all your whinging and bitching neither of you have any workable solutions. If either of you actually DID something, you might have a moral standpoint.

As things stand, you benefit from all the great work that went before you. You love all the advantages that you get from fossil fuels and intensive farming. But in the comfort of your own, aircondtioned home you preach austerity and fantasy to everyone else.... It's tiresome and hypocritical.

it's a damm sight more interesting than some of the inane babble posted on TF !!!

[English_Bob]

It's fine - when there is a discussion.

But this is the first time.

99.9999% of the time this is the procedure...

1 Bruce cuts and pastes 2000 words of someone else's work.

2 Eagle says, "I agree"

3 End of forum.

[eagle]

It's fine - when there is a discussion.

But this is the first time.

99.9999% of the time this is the procedure...

1 Bruce cuts and pastes 2000 words of someone else's work.

2 Eagle says, "I agree"

3 End of forum.

And if the information is important and I find it accurate thats all I would have to say. I'm trying to be civil and don't discount some of your points but I see the food crisis looming not years away. Sharing and discussing important subjects as this is important. Like pebbles in clear water information has a rippling effect. Bruce shares info and doesn't seem to profess himelf a writer extraordinaire. I also find promoting solar power to be a huge benefit.

[CiaranM]

It's fine - when there is a discussion.

But this is the first time.

99.9999% of the time this is the procedure...

1 Bruce cuts and pastes 2000 words of someone else's work.

2 Eagle says, "I agree"

3 End of forum.

i would guess a number of ppl (myself included) find some of the information a bit overwhelming .... but when i have the time to read it i do find some of the articles quite interesting !!!

[admin]

The population growth is highest in the poorest regions - Indian and China. when food becomes short or too expensive, people will control the birth rate naturally.... Of course they will... that's what people do

also in the western world ppl r living a lot longer than they used to, but r having (relatively) fewer kids .... this could lead to a seriously out of balance population in the future !!

There's been lots of discussion on how this will effect the social security program in the US. Between economic disasters and environmental disasters anywhere in the world could find itself in trouble.

Actually, it's already a problem in many European countries. Each generation is having less and less children which is upsetting the social security programs put in place when birthrates were much higher.

[English_Bob]

It will be OK.

You know how I know? Because it always has been.

Since the dawn of man we have improved and adapted at an incredible rate. Mankind is incredibly versatile and inventive. Life in the past century has improved globally for everyone.

Of course there are still poor people and there are still people starving, but fewer and fewer every year.

The doommongers have always been wrong. Always. Despite having several thousand years to get one prophecy right, they have never succeeded.

The end of the world eco-prophecies are scaremongering and exaggerated. It's the same as the fire and brimstone threats of fanatical preachers. It's just another group of shaman telling people how to live their lives.

[Loburt]

Of course there are still poor people and there are still people starving, but fewer and fewer every year.

Not true. The number of starving people has increased during the last several years.

Is it a blip? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure you will make a flippant response that it is, but you're not in possession of enough facts to really know. Nor am I.

Your "it will all be okay" version of history in which mankind's ingenuity and technological prowess always come to the rescue is also at odds with the facts.

Several civilizations failed to deal with environmental or other crises - either for want of developing the appropriate technology fast enough or for other non-technology reasons - and essentially disappeared from the face of the earth. The Aztecs, the Empire of Angkor, etc, etc, etc.

The world didn't end, but their world did. Some survived, but many more died and many more suffered. It wasn't something anyone would want to live through.

It is possible we could be heading toward a very dark and terrible period in the history of mankind. The risks are real and the warning signs are there.

Will we come up with the solutions that will prevent these scenarios from actually happening? I sure hope so.

But history is littered with the dust of peoples, empires and civilizations that did not.

You can call that doom and gloom if you like, but it's a fact.

If ringing alarm bells helps accelerate searching for and finding solutions, then ring away.

[Stramash]

I sort of see both viewpoints. I think Dave is being slightly optimistic, blinkered and simplistic, but he does have an underlying point.

Loburt also makes valid points.

History is littered with extinctions, both societal and wildlife. In the animal world, die back is nothing new; new species evolve and adapt, and the same can be said for man.

Look at the 2 biggest upheavals of the last 2 millennia; the fall of the Roman Empire and the Black Death.

The fall of the Roman Empire led to a period of chaos and upheaval. Massive amounts of learning and technology were lost and it took centuries for some societies to re-emerge from a dark period. But re-emerge they did, and adapted, and with the new learning from the Muslim world became stronger.

Then, when population levels were getting beyond what the infrastructures of the time could support, along came the black death. Between 30 and 60% of Europe's population died. This should have meant disaster, but instead led to the Renaissance; a massive explosion of learning, artistic and technological advances which (eventually) led to the industrial revolution.

I believe we will see climactic upheaval, but not the extent some would have us believe. There will be more natural disasters and perhaps even pandemics of science resistant disease.

But maybe that's not such a bad thing. History has shown that these periods of chaos inevitably lead to a period of regrowth and advances. So why should it not be true this time?

Our current infrastructures and technology is NOT yet at the level to support our population. So maybe we do need another period of chaos?

[Admin_2]

I'll take the easy stance and side with EB here. If the world is fucked and he is wrong, we'll have more things to worry about than ragging on EB.

Honestly, I've taken the stance that shit will (basically) hit the fan. The economy will get worse before it will get better, but we won't see massive droughts of energy and food that the world scaremongers are screaming about.

On a semi-related note, I've been investing in precious metals (mostly gold) because of this basic idea. I think the US economy is screwed, and that the price of gold will hit 3,000 soon after Obama leaves office. I'm just giving a time frame, and that has nothing to do with Obama's admin per say.

I got in when it was about 950, and I still think it's a good investment even if you think all is pretty and glamorous in today's world...

[English_Bob]

The Roman Empire was destroyed by war, infighting and a plague.

Angkor Wat? No-one knows for sure, but the generally accepted theory is that the irrigation system was insufficient for the size of city.

Did that mean millions dying? No. Otherwise we would be digging up mass graves. People moved and started living elsewhere.

This idea that people will sit there while food runs out and the sea slowly drowns their villages is ridiculous.

And while it is fashionable (and probably accurate) to blast Monsantos, they are doing more to increase food production than the doommongers.

There have always been prophets of doom telling us God will punish us, eclipses are omens, we're all about to die in a nuclear war, Y2K will destroy the world, alcohol is going to kill us, the sea will overwhelm us.

And when these things don't happen, there are no consequences. Just for once I'd like to see one person stand up and say, "Oh... sorry for scaring everyone. I was wrong."

[Bruce551]

I agree with scientists like Jim Hanzen of NASA who says that human activities responsible for the increased greenhouse gases which are causing Global Warming and Climate Change which effects our environment in ways that the earth has not seen for millions of years. As Dr. Steven Chu says, " we will not know the full effect of our actions for 100 years. And it may take 1,000 years for the planet's eco-system to recover from environment effects of global warming.

Most scientist and technocrats believe that we have means to reduce production of CO2 though energy efficiency, renewable energy, better farming practices. I know there are millions of people worldwide who are willing fight for cleaner less polluted world. We are the cause of Global Warming.

Global Warming is the straw that broke the camel's back.

[Loburt]

Disease wiped out millions in Central America. Yet there are no mass graves. The absence of mass graves doesn't support your case.

There are also examples of people who ignored warning signs and suffered the consequences.

Just for once I'd like to see one person rise from the dead and say "Oh ... sorry for ignoring all the warning signs. I was wrong.''

[English_Bob]

I agree with scientists like Jim Hanzen of NASA who says that human activities responsible for the increased greenhouse gases which are causing Global Warming and Climate Change which effects our environment in ways that the earth has not seen for millions of years. As Dr. Steven Chu says, " we will not know the full effect of our actions for 100 years. And it may take 1,000 years for the planet's eco-system to recover from environment effects of global warming.

Most scientist and technocrats believe that we have means to reduce production of CO2 though energy efficiency, renewable energy, better farming practices. I know there are millions of people worldwide who are willing fight for cleaner less polluted world. We are the cause of Global Warming.

Global Warming is the straw that broke the camel's back.

Millions of years.... except for ice ages and the years when the earth was warmer. Except for the times when there were oceans where there are now deserts. Except for the shellfish found on mountaintops.

I want to see a reduction in fossil fuel use - because I don't like the pollution. Because I don't like being dependent on Arab countries for power. Because I want cheaper fuel.

The glacial melting has been happening for years before the Industrial Revolution.

The water from glaciers will not cause sea levels to rise anywhere near the billions of tons of sediment and rocks eroded from the earth by rivers and tides.

Terrestrial and underwater volcanoes are spewing millions of tons of matter into the ocean constantly. This water must be displaced...

But no-one is interested in that because it's natural and there is no media-mileage from saying, "Bad stuff happens and there's no-one to blame."

We live in a world where SOMEONE has to be the bad guy. Unfortunately, leftists and ecomentalists like to point the finger at mankind.

The truth is, mother nature is a bigger killer and destroyer than all of man's actions combined.

People are sick of preachers telling them their lives are wrong. And the worst preachers are the ones who enjoy all the modern trappings and yet still preach to everyone else.... They call themselves 'environmentally concerned'... I call them 'hypocrites'.

[eagle]

That is a toothless insult. Being aware and sharing info about serious subjects that will effect everyone is the least anyone can do. To sit and scoff and mock anyone who chooses to be concerned when noted scientist say these things are happening is ridiculous. The environment sustains us and there is no hypocrisy being concerned about its effects on our lifes and the future of man.

[English_Bob]

That is a toothless insult. Being aware and sharing info about serious subjects that will effect everyone is the least anyone can do. To sit and scoff and mock anyone who chooses to be concerned when noted scientist say these things are happening is ridiculous. The environment sustains us and there is no hypocrisy being concerned about its effects on our lifes and the future of man.

Cut and pasting doomsday scenarios and blaming mankind for all the ills of the world is irresponsible and tedious.

You think these are serious scenarios, but we've heard a thousand before and none of them come true. Noted scientists told us alcohol was bad for us. Then it's good for us. Y2K will cause planes to fall out of the sky. AIDs will kill us all. Swine flu and Sars and Bird flu will kill us all. The oceans may rise 50cm in the next 10, 20 50 or is it 100 years?

The environment can no longer sustain us without help. It hasn't been able to for decades. The naive idea that nature knows best and mankind can't (or shouldn't) help is asking for trouble.

Throwing around words like 'Franken-foods' is melodramatic at best and dangerous at worst. Science works on trial and error. They will splice genes and play around. Sometimes they will **** up. But geneticists will make meat cheaper and healthier for the world. They will make salt resistant wheat and rice strains. They will make food production efficient and affordable - because they want the profit.

And who cares if they become billionaires if they feed the world? They deserve it. This lefty-socialist idea that people should work for altruistc reasons is bullshit - people work harder if they think they will drive a Ferrari and **** supermodels at the end of it.

It's easy to cry the sky is falling down and we must all change the way we live.

BUT it's unrealistic and foolish to think people are going to accept austerity measures based on the shaky predictions of scientists who can't agree on what will happen or when.

You and your ilk enjoy throwing stones at 'mankind'. But it's 'mankind' that has evolved the fastest and most successfully. Mankind cure diseases - not just in ourselves but in other species too. Mankind tries to preserve species. Mankind has improved life for virtually everyone on the planet. And you still belittle our achievements.

These changes didn't come about from standing still or halting progress. It came about because of visionaries - creators who made things happen. And people like that are still working, but they are facing an uphill battle fighting against the green wing who are hampering man's advancement and evolution based on an Armegeddon prophecy without basis...

YOU don't like the idea of gene splicing? Bad luck - in 10 or 15 years' time, you will be eating it because you have no choice. You want to stop the process - stop people being born, or kill 'em before they can become a drain on resources.

[admin]

That is a toothless insult. Being aware and sharing info about serious subjects that will effect everyone is the least anyone can do. To sit and scoff and mock anyone who chooses to be concerned when noted scientist say these things are happening is ridiculous. The environment sustains us and there is no hypocrisy being concerned about its effects on our lifes and the future of man.

Yes, but I think the point is that they are noted because they play into what people want to believe. When someone makes a prediction and is wrong, either because they grossly overestimated or they completely missed the mark, and then makes more predictions and is still called noted . . . it sort of odd. That's why I keep bringing up the thing about oil. You can document "noted" scientists who have said we would run out of oil in 10 or 20 years going back 50 years. Yet you can still quote them as being "noted" scientists because other scaremongers quote them and they keep updating their predictions as they are proven wrong.

Like I have said in either this thread or a similar thread, I don't have any doubt that man is impacting the planet. On the other hand when I hear a supposedly "noted" scientist say something like rising sea levels will put Bangkok underwater which means that 12 million people will die you have to laugh your ass off. Are people so stupid that they won't move? They completely destroy their credibility with their lack of understanding of human nature.

I much prefer to listen to economists who try to predict the fallout of certain events (like rising sea levels, rising temperatures, etc) than environmental scientists who make outlandish predictions in order to get media attention.

[eagle]

That is a toothless insult. Being aware and sharing info about serious subjects that will effect everyone is the least anyone can do. To sit and scoff and mock anyone who chooses to be concerned when noted scientist say these things are happening is ridiculous. The environment sustains us and there is no hypocrisy being concerned about its effects on our lifes and the future of man.

Yes, but I think the point is that they are noted because they play into what people want to believe. When someone makes a prediction and is wrong, either because they grossly overestimated or they completely missed the mark, and then makes more predictions and is still called noted . . . it sort of odd. That's why I keep bringing up the thing about oil. You can document "noted" scientists who have said we would run out of oil in 10 or 20 years going back 50 years. Yet you can still quote them as being "noted" scientists because other scaremongers quote them and they keep updating their predictions as they are proven wrong.

Like I have said in either this thread or a similar thread, I don't have any doubt that man is impacting the planet. On the other hand when I hear a supposedly "noted" scientist say something like rising sea levels will put Bangkok underwater which means that 12 million people will die you have to laugh your a*s off. Are people so stupid that they won't move? They completely destroy their credibility with their lack of understanding of human nature.

I much prefer to listen to economists who try to predict the fallout of certain events (like rising sea levels, rising temperatures, etc) than environmental scientists who make outlandish predictions in order to get media attention.

You can find web pages supporting both sides but to call someone concerned a hypocrite for being concerned has no merit. I get my info from National Geographic among others, I'll trust them before Glenn Beck.

[English_Bob]

Oh look what the nasty geneticists did....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12181382

World's first flu-resistant GM chickens 'created'

Pallab Ghosh By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News

Professor Helen Sang: "Not only could we use this approach to tackle bird flu but other diseases"

UK scientists have created the world's first genetically modified chickens that do not spread bird flu.

Writing in Science journal, the team says their work demonstrates it is possible to create a variety of GM farm animals resistant to viral diseases.

The research team inserted an artificial gene into chickens; this introduces a tiny part of the bird flu virus into chicken cells.

These birds become infected but render the virus harmless to other poultry.

The team believes that the genetic modification they have introduced is harmless to the chickens and to people who might eat the birds.

Professor Helen Sang of Edinburgh University told BBC News that genetic modification is potentially a much better way of protecting against diseases than vaccination because the GM technique works even if the virus mutates.

"It will protect a whole flock from avian influenza infection. This is really exciting because bird flu is a real challenge to poultry production and if it were introduced to poultry breeding it would protect our large scale production flocks from avian inlfuenza," said Professor Sang.

The researchers say that, in principle, the technique could be used to protect any farm animal from any disease. The eventual aim is to develop animals that are completely resistant to viral diseases.

GM chicken (Science) Genetic modification could be an alternative to vaccination, scientists say

According to co-author Dr Laurence Tiley, from the University of Cambridge, UK: "Agricultural selective breeding has made huge improvements on productivity of many livestock - but it's reaching the point where it's now limited.

"And the GM technologies allow you to introduce novel genes that don't exist in nature but are based on our detailed knowledge of the molecular biology of viruses. We can specifically target these viruses to prevent them from replicating."

The researchers say they think the technology has the potential to boost food production and reduce costs.

"There's going to be a real problem in feeding the world as the population increases," says Professor Sang.

"As the demand for animal products increases and it's going to get increasingly expensive and we are looking at different ways to tackle that problem."

GM techniques could also have benefits for human health, according to Professor Sang. If fewer animals are carrying viruses there is a lower chance of them mutating into a form that would be deadly to humans and so create a pandemic.

But the news received a cautious welcome from the poultry industry. Peter Bradnock of The British Poultry Council said more research was needed to assess the long term impact on farm animals before food producers would even consider using the technology.

Even then, companies would have to assess the likely reaction from consumers: "We have to have a big debate as to whether society wants to have GM animals even for this very good potential benefit," he told BBC News.

And Tim Elsdale, who is an organic farmer in East Sussex, said it was better to adopt good farming practices to avoid animals getting diseases in the first place than to create GM farm animals.

"We don't suffer much from animal diseases on this farm," he said.

"Organic methods of husbandry doesn't encourage disease if the animals are well spaced enough. They live in a natural environment and they eat normal food then a lot of diseases that are prevalent on conventional farming would not be apparent to us".

If the food and farming industry did want to use GM technology in this way in the UK, they would need to seek prior approval from the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The FSA would conduct a full detailed safety evaluation before any of this GM produce could enter the market.

In addition to that, produce would need to be labelled so that consumers would be able to make a choice about the food they eat. If there were an application, the authorisation process could be carried out in a matter of months.

The FSA's Chief Scientist, Dr Andrew Wadge said it would be interesting to see if the debate over GM animals would go the same way as the debate over GM crops:

"I do think it's interesting that so far with GM technology it's not really a benefit for consumers and wouldn't it be interesting if we had produce that did offer a benefit?

"For example, food safety for us is about a bacteria found in chickens called Campylobacter which makes 500,000 people ill each year.

"If we could develop a GM chicken that is resistant to Campylobacter it would be very interesting indeed to see how consumers saw that technology and whether it was a technology they would be willing to embrace".

Those BASTARDS!!!

[English_Bob]

They just won't stop, will they?

Now they are trying to find a way to stop good honest people from having cancer if they want it!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6261427.stm

Anti-cancer chicken eggs produced

UK scientists have developed genetically modified chickens capable of laying eggs containing proteins needed to make cancer-fighting drugs.

The breakthrough has been announced by the same research centre that created the cloned sheep, Dolly.

The Roslin Institute, near Edinburgh, says it has produced five generations of birds that can produce useful levels of life-saving proteins in egg whites.

The work could lead to a range of drugs that are cheaper and easier to make.

Professor Harry Griffin, director of the institute, told the BBC: "One of the characteristics of lots of medical treatments these days is that they're very expensive.

"The idea of producing the proteins involved in treatments in flocks of laying hens means they can produce in bulk, they can produce cheaply and indeed the raw material for this production system is quite literally chicken feed."

Roslin has bred some 500 modified birds. Their existence is the result of more than 15 years' work by the lead scientist on the project, Dr Helen Sang.

But it could be another five years before patient trials get the go-ahead and 10 years until a medicine is fully developed, the Roslin Institute cautioned.

Anti-viral approach

Therapeutic proteins such as insulin have long been produced in bacteria; but there are some complex proteins that can only be made in the more sophisticated cells of larger organisms.

Scientists have successfully made a range of these molecules in the milk of genetically modified sheep, goats, cows and rabbits.

The work at Roslin shows it is now possible to use chickens as "biofactories", too.

Go-ahead for 'pharmed' goat

Some of the birds have been engineered to lay eggs that contain miR24, a type of antibody with potential for treating malignant melanoma, a form of skin cancer. Others produce human interferon b-1a, which can be used to stop viruses replicating in cells.

The proteins are secreted into the whites of the eggs. It is a fairly straightforward process then to extract and purify them.

Dr Sang said the team was highly encouraged by the level of the birds' productivity, but further improvements were required.

"We're probably getting a high enough productivity if you want to make a very active protein like interferon, but not enough yet if you want to make an antibody because people need large doses of these over long periods; so one of our next challenges is to try to increase the yield in egg white," she told BBC News.

Wider role

Chickens had some advantages over other animals for "pharming" because their lifecycles were shorter, said Dr Sang.

"Once you've made the transgenic birds, then it's very easy; once you've got the gene in, then you can breed up hundreds of birds from one cockerel - because they can be bred with hundreds of hens and you can collect an egg a day and have hundreds of chicks in no time," she explained.

The Roslin research is part of the Avian Transgenic Project, a joint venture with biotechnology firms Viragen and Oxford BioMedica.

Details of the latest work are to be published this week in the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The Roslin team also expects its engineered chickens to provide new insights into aspects of reproductive biology.

It says the ability to modify birds' embryos will allow researchers to study fundamental processes that control the very early development of vertebrates.

It is just over 10 years since the Finn Dorset lamb called Dolly was born at the institute.

She was the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell - making her a genetic replica of a six-year-old ewe. She was put down in 2003 after contracting a common lung disease.

I don't know HOW they sleep at night...

[eagle]

Its said that hemp will destroy cancer cells, but that would be too easy. I don't think man is responsible enough to mess with the gene pool like this. Man is causing the cancer surge with pollution so instead of curbing pollution they change a gene in a chicken. And that sounds good to you ? sheeeses

Einstein had his regrets....

[eagle]

I saw the front page of Forbes magazine with a picture of a scientist who spliced soybean seed up so it makes better oil to control blood cholesterol. Now you can eat all the pig you want. Sound good to you ? sounds backward to me...