Human genes engineered into experimental GMO rice being grown in Kansas
Unless the rice you buy is certified organic, or comes specifically from a farm that tests its rice crops for genetically modified (GM) traits, you could be eating rice tainted with actual human genes. The only known GMO with inbred human traits in cultivation today, a GM rice product made by biotechnology company Ventria Bioscience is currently being grown on 3,200 acres in Junction City, Kansas -- and possibly elsewhere -- and most people have no idea about it.
Since about 2006, Ventria has been quietly cultivating rice that has been genetically modified (GM) with genes from the human liver for the purpose of taking the artificial proteins produced by this "Frankenrice" and using them in pharmaceuticals. With approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Ventria has taken one of the most widely cultivated grain crops in the world today, and essentially turned it into a catalyst for producing new drugs.
Originally, the cultivation of this GM rice, which comes in three approved varieties (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/biotech_ea_permits.html), was limited to the laboratory setting. But in 2007, Ventria decided to bring the rice outdoors. The company initially tried to plant the crops in Missouri, but met resistance from Anheuser-Busch and others, which threatened to boycott all rice from the state in the event that Ventria began planting its rice within state borders (http://todayyesterdayandtomorrow.wordpress.com).
So Ventria's GM rice eventually ended up in Kansas, where it is presumably still being grown for the purpose of manufacturing drugs on 3,200 acres in Junction City. And while this GM rice with added human traits has never been approved for human consumption, it is now being cultivated in open fields where the potential for unrestrained contamination and spread of its unwanted, dangerous GM traits is virtually a given.
"This is not a product that everyone would want to consume," said Jane Rissler from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to the Washington Post back in 2007. "It is unwise to produce drugs in plants outdoors."
Though receiving tens of thousands of public comments of opposition, many rightly concerned about the spread of GM traits, the USDA approved open cultivation of Ventria's GM rice anyway. This, of course, occurred after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had refused approval for Ventria's GM rice back in 2003 (http://www.kansasruralcenter.org/publications/PharmaRice.pdf).
GM 'pharmaceutical' rice could cause more disease, suggests report
Besides the threat of contamination and wild spread, Ventria's GM rice, which is purportedly being grown to help third-world children overcome chronic diarrhea, may conversely cause other chronic diseases.
"These genetically engineered drugs could exacerbate certain infections, or cause dangerous allergic or immune system reactions," said Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst at the Center for Food Safety (CFS), who published a report back in 2007 about the dangers of Ventria's GM rice.
You can view that report here:
Sources for this article include:
That's not a good thing. =(
Terrible!.. I can't imagine what the human flavor look like!..
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.
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.
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