Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Neal on May 2, 2012 at 10:39am

That's not a good thing. =(

Permalink Reply by Hope on May 2, 2012 at 2:57pm

Terrible!.. I can't imagine what the human flavor look like!..

Permalink Reply by Adriana on May 2, 2012 at 9:24pm

They only put one or a few human gene there, making human milk proteins, I bet it would not taste any different than regular rice. that is even more dangerous than if it had a funny taste.

Permalink Reply by Adriana on May 2, 2012 at 9:22pm

These things are never discussed openly, that is the big problem; they want all of this to fly under the radar. There are never sufficient safety studies. Even if this was actually a good thing, we would never know because studies are omitted in the name of free maker capitalism.

Permalink Reply by Hope on May 3, 2012 at 7:23pm

 I searched about the safety issue.

Here are some questions and answers about genetic engineering and safety,

 

  Q: What should genetically engineered foods be tested for?

  DGS: Whenever you put a new gene into a food, either through traditional breeding or genetic engineering, there are at least two major concerns. One is whether the new genes or proteins might produce toxins—that is, anything that can cause harm in the short or long term. The other concern is whether the new gene might produce a protein that triggers an allergic reaction in a person who eats the food.

  Q: Have new allergens ended up in a genetically engineered crop? GJ: Yes. It happened when scientists unwittingly transferred an allergen from brazil nuts to soybean plants. But a routine test detected the allergen, and the soy was never marketed. That just underscores why it’s so important that the government require companies to test genetically engineered foods for new allergens.

  Q: How good is that testing? DGS: It could be better. Unless we’re dealing with known allergens, like the one in the brazil nut, there’s no way to be absolutely sure if a protein will or won’t trigger an allergic reaction until a lot of people eat it. What the Food and Drug Administration or Environmental Protection Agency should do is require companies to test every newly introduced protein to see if it resembles known food allergens.

      That’s what happened with the infamous StarLink corn, which contains a gene taken from a bacterium. The gene produces a protein called Cry9C, which kills a major pest called the corn borer. So it looked promising to farmers. But because Cry9C passes through the digestive tract intact, it also looked like a potential allergen to the EPA, which approved its use only in animal feed. StarLink corn was never meant to be eaten by humans.

  Q: So how did it get into taco shells and other foods? GJ: Aventis, the company that created StarLink corn, didn’t make sure that farmers and grain processors abided by government rules to keep StarLink separate from other strains of corn. As a result, tiny amounts of StarLink ended up in dozens of foods, and at least 44 people reported suffering possible allergic reactions after eating them.

  Q: So a genetically engineered food has given us a new allergen? DGS: We’re not sure. When government scientists tested the blood of some of the people who reported allergic reactions, they couldn’t detect any trace of a reaction to Cry9C. But those tests aren’t 100 percent reliable, so we don’t know if the people reacted to Cry9C or not. In any case, the EPA has since decided that from now on it will only approve genetically engineered crops for animals that are also safe for people to eat. As for StarLink, it’s no longer being grown, so it’s rapidly disappearing from the food supply.

  Q: Could genetically engineered foods be toxic? DGS: Some could. When a gene is transferred from one organism to another, there’s no way to know which chromosome the gene will end up on, where it will settle on that chromosome, or how it might alter—or be altered by—the genes around it. We need to guard against unexpected toxins in genetically engineered plants because we know it’s happened with traditionally bred plants. Again, that’s why these crops should be tested before we eat them.

 

  Q: Are genetically engineered foods less nutritious than conventional foods? DGS: No. They typically have the same amounts of vitamins, minerals, protein, and other major nutrients as conventional foods. Companies don’t usually test for phytochemicals like lutein or lycopene because they’re not yet considered nutrients. But the FDA should consider changes in key phytochemicals when it decides whether to approve new foods.

Q: If a corn plant were engineered with a gene from a cow, could a vegetarian eat it in good conscience? Or could a steak from a cow that was given a gene from a pig be eaten by an observant Jew or Muslim? GJ: Any genetic scientist would tell you that a corn plant with a gene from a cow hasn’t been tainted by meat, and a cow with a gene from a pig hasn’t been tainted by the pig. But when you’re talking about religious or ethical beliefs, the science doesn’t always rule. So I’d say that those are decisions that every person has to make for him or herself.

source of this http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_01/index.html#m1