PDA

View Full Version : Genetically Engineered ‘EnviroPig’ Waiting for Approval in US and Canada



MarketNeutral
8th April 2010, 10:34 AM
In the race to genetically engineer food that is tastier and cheaper, Canada’s University of Guelph is instead finding a way to produce meat that may be more environmentally friendly. For more than a decade the UoG has been developing the ‘enviropig‘, a genetically modified line of pigs that are better able to digest and process phosphorus. They are cheaper to feed because they do not require separate phosphorus food supplements, and they are better for the environment because they release up to 70% less phosphorus in their waste. Now in their eighth generation of enviropigs, the University of Guelph is still pursuing US FDA approval, and recently applied for the same from the Canadian Regulatory Agency. If successful, enviropigs could be the first transgenic meat to make a big impact on both pollution and your plate. Should the other billion or so pigs on the planet be nervous?




University of Guelph's enviropig is better at digesting phosphorus in feed grains, making them cheaper to raise and better for the environment.

Genetically modified food is already on your table. Corn, soy, and rice (the big staple foods) have been GM for a while now, especially in the US, and the practice is growing all over the world. Generally the aim is to modify food so that it is pest and herbicide resistant, as well as bigger, juicer, tastier, etc – and there have been some promising results. Most countries have stalled in accepting genetically engineered meat, however. GE animals seem like a larger risk than plants. It’s unclear if or when the public will warm up to the idea of modified meat, but genetic engineering has far more applications than just dinner. GM animals are likely to provide insights into how we may engineer ourselves for longevity, health, and intelligence – though probably not for taste.

For now, the enviropig has some promising advantages to offer, and they all center on phosphorus. Phosphorus is an important element, it’s the ‘P’ in the famous NPK fertilizer approach to increasing crop yields. But that agricultural benefit can also be a curse. When pigs on modern farms defecate and urinate, they release a lot of phosphorus in the environment. With our centralized industrial agricultural system, this means that there is occasionally huge amounts of phosphorus dumped into a small area. When this element is washed into rivers and other bodies of water it can lead to steep increases in algae. Algae blooms disrupt natural oxygen levels and kill fish. In short, pig waste can be an environmental hazard. Enviropigs release up to 70% less phosphorus in their urine and feces. That means a smaller impact and a better chance of keeping balance in the ecosystems surrounding pig facilities.


Eight generations of enviropigs have been raised in Canada since 1999. The genetically modified animals are still waiting for FDA and CRA approval.
Enviropigs also eat better than their non-genetically modified brethren. DNA from mice and Escherichia coli bacteria have been spliced into their genome giving them saliva that helps to digest the phosphorus in grain. Most phosphorus (50-75%) in standard grain feed is indigestible to traditional pigs. Farmers have to give pigs supplements, or feed them phosphorus digesting enzymes (phytase) to keep them healthy. With the mouse and bacteria genes, enviropigs can eat a steady diet of feed grain without supplements, making them cheaper (and easier) to raise.

Why not just feed pigs something other than these grains? Well, those grains are cheap (sometimes because they are subsidized) and can be acquired in the huge amounts necessary to raise the millions of pigs we eat every year. Organic farmers (and other food advocates) point to the subsequent need for genetic modifications as a sign that the entire industrial-agricultural system needs rethinking.

Another concern about GM animals is the narrowing of the gene pool. Already the pigs we eat come from a very restricted number of bulls – yielding piglets that gain weight faster and produce juicer cuts of meats. This narrow gene pool, however, has also made the pigs more vulnerable to infection (amplified by the factory-style conditions of the modern farm). It’s important to note that the FDA and CRA applications for the enviropig involve just one lineage of stock (the Cassie line, descended from one of the originally modified pigs). Proper breeding practices would keep the introduction of the enviropig from developing into a monoculture, but GM animals are undoubtedly going to narrow gene pool even further.

Whenever politics and economics come into play it’s hard to predict how science will develop. Certainly there are some amazing benefits to be had by exploring genetic modification in animals. Those benefits probably need to be considered in the larger context of our modern industrial agricultural system. There’s no reason why we can’t pursue the best of all worlds: organic distributed farming (“traditional” agricultural) coupled with a polyculture approach to genetic engineering. No matter what the current politics and economics trends may be, there’s little doubt that genetics will have an increasing role in agriculture in some fashion. Dairy cows are being genetically tested for breeding, flowers are being engineered to have different smells – the genie’s already out of the bottle. It may be that GE foods, including pigs, will continue to form an increasing portion of our diets. Or we could jump ahead and just start eating artificial meat. Either way we’re soon to find out just how tasty science can be.
http://singularityhub.com/2010/04/07/genetically-engineered-enviropig-waiting-for-approval-in-us-and-canada/

DMac
8th April 2010, 10:39 AM
A nice idea in theory, but damn does it give me the willies.

Ponce
8th April 2010, 10:41 AM
I can only wonder if the Jews and Muslims will be able to eat it.

MarketNeutral
8th April 2010, 10:46 AM
A nice idea in theory, but damn does it give me the willies.


Future human organ donors.

DMac
8th April 2010, 10:52 AM
A nice idea in theory, but damn does it give me the willies.


Future human organ donors.


Winston backs breeding 'designer pigs with hearts for humans' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481023/Winston-backs-breeding-designer-pigs-hearts-humans.html#ixzz0kX3wMOLI)


10 September 2007

...The animals would ultimately carry a ready supply of hearts, kidneys, livers and other organs for transplant into humans.

...This means organs grown in pigs could be used in human transplants within a decade.

Ponce
8th April 2010, 10:54 AM
If I get one of their organs I can only hope that I don't go.....oik oik oik ...once in a while in public.

Celtic Rogue
8th April 2010, 10:55 AM
I dont think I will be eating it any time soon if I have any say in the matter!

techguy
8th April 2010, 10:57 AM
No thanks.

Think of how susceptible our food supply is to DNA and proteins that shouldn't be there... think mad cow, or CJ disease.

Ponce
8th April 2010, 10:59 AM
tech???, thanks, you just made me sick.

ximmy
8th April 2010, 11:06 AM
http://www.skrewtips.com/img/gmo-food-box.jpg

techguy
8th April 2010, 11:33 AM
tech???, thanks, you just made me sick.


I'm here to help!

FiftySense
8th April 2010, 11:56 AM
That which does not follow the path of natural order does not follow the path of my plate and my fork.

techguy
8th April 2010, 12:06 PM
That which does not follow the path of natural order does not follow the path of my plate and my fork.




Are you saying you have an issue with my jalepeno flavored cheezits?

madfranks
8th April 2010, 02:11 PM
Most countries have stalled in accepting genetically engineered meat, however.

It's because the GM animals suffer from all sorts of maladies that are clearly visible, i.e. arthritis, organ dysfunction, cancer, mutations, etc. While the same thing happens to the plants, it's not as obvious.

The way they genetically modify an organism's genetic code is really rather brutal. They explode a batch of the new genes into the code, damaging the surrounding genes, destroying others, but one or two of them end up getting embedded in the code and get read with the rest of them. But since it's in the "junk" area, they don't think it matters. Remember, the scientific consensus is that the majority of your DNA and genetic code is junk, useless remnants from your evolutionary past, and so there is no harm to destroy or remove it to fit in a more acceptable gene.

uranian
8th April 2010, 02:39 PM
Fears grow as study shows genetically modified crops 'can cause liver and kidney damage (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244824/Fears-grow-study-shows-genetically-modified-crops-cause-liver-kidney-damage.html)


Fresh fears were raised over GM crops yesterday after a study showed they can cause liver and kidney damage.

According to the research, animals fed on three strains of genetically modified maize created by the U.S. biotech firm Monsanto suffered signs of organ damage after just three months.

The findings only came to light after Monsanto was forced to publish its raw data on safety tests by anti-GM campaigners.

They add to the evidence that GM crops may damage health as well as be harmful to the environment.

The figures released by Monsanto were examined by French researcher Dr Gilles-Eric Seralini, from the University of Caen.

Yesterday he called for more studies to check for long-term organ damage.

'What we've shown is clearly not proof of toxicity, but signs of toxicity,' he told New Scientist magazine. 'I'm sure there's no acute toxicity but who's to say there are no chronic effects?'

The experiments were carried out by Monsanto researchers on three strains of GM maize. Two of the varieties contained genes for the Bt protein which protects the plant against the corn borer pest, while a third was genetically modified to be resistant to the weedkiller glyphosate. All three strains are widely grown in America, while one is the only GM crop grown in Europe, mostly in Spain.

Monsanto only released the raw data after a legal challenge from Greenpeace, the Swedish Board of Agriculture and French anti- GM campaigners.

Dr Seralini concluded that rats which ate the GM maize had ' statistically significant' signs of liver and kidney damage. Each strain was linked to unusual concentrations of hormones in the blood and urine of rats fed the maize for three months, compared to rats given a non-GM diet.

The higher hormone levels suggest that animals' livers and kidneys are not working properly.

Female rats fed one of the strains also had higher blood sugar levels and raised levels of fatty substances caused triglycerides, Dr Seralini reported in the International Journal of Microbiology.

The analysis concluded: 'These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.'

Monsanto claimed the analysis of its data was 'based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning, and does not call into question the safety findings for these products'.