Sure, let's just make a bit more money, and take the risk that people will start dying from paper cuts. And ignore the government scientists and the AMA who say not to do it. Great move!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030301311.html

FDA Rules Override Warnings About Drug
Cattle Antibiotic Moves Forward Despite Fears of Human Risk

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A01

The government is on track to approve a new antibiotic to treat a pneumonia-like disease in cattle, despite warnings from health groups and a majority of the agency's own expert advisers that the decision will be dangerous for people.

The drug, called cefquinome, belongs to a class of highly potent antibiotics that are among medicine's last defenses against several serious human infections. No drug from that class has been approved in the United States for use in animals.

The American Medical Association and about a dozen other health groups warned the Food and Drug Administration that giving cefquinome to animals would probably speed the emergence of microbes resistant to that important class of antibiotics, as has happened with other drugs. Those super-microbes could then spread to people.

lovely. i'll stick to organic beef and dairy from now on, thanks.

lovely. i'll stick to organic beef and dairy from now on, thanks.

That won't help you.

The widespread use of the antibiotic will create drug resistant bacteria, and that bacteria will infect you and then you will die and doctors will be able to do nothing about it. You won't have to get it from the beef, and probably won't. Rather, it will get into the environment where you will be exposed to it. But at least agribusiness will get a few more bucks of profit, so it all works out for the best, right?

That won't help you.

The widespread use of the antibiotic will create drug resistant bacteria, and that bacteria will infect you and then you will die and doctors will be able to do nothing about it. You won't have to get it from the beef, and probably won't. Rather, it will get into the environment where you will be exposed to it. But at least agribusiness will get a few more bucks of profit, so it all works out for the best, right?


LOL! Cranky today?


This is worrisome. Don't we import a buttload of beef from Canada? I wonder what their stance on the drug is. Also curious how this could potentially impact our beef exports.

This is just silly liberal stuff. The American cattle industry produces enough meat to feed 300 million Americans with plenty left over for exports. Their objective is to produce healthy cattle at low cost so that Americans can afford to pay reasonable prices at the grocery store for steaks. Why do you think that the cattle industry uses antibiotics in the first place? If there were a better and more cost efficient way of producing healthy cattle in large volumes then you can bet that the cattle industry would adopt the practice. If they didn't then their competitors would. It's called competition and it is healthy for our economy. The organic cattle industry most likely produces less than 1% of the total meat sold in our supermarkets. They do not have the problem of producing large volumes of cattle to feed an massive country of 300 million.

Liberals have no idea of how food is produced. They act as if farmers and ranchers can produce massive amounts of food organically without industrialization. What they fail to see is that there are almost 7 billion people on this earth who all need to be fed, and that cannot be done without the industrialization of food. What is the alternative? Ask a single mother to pay $50 for a small piece of steak to feed her children because the high cost of producing even a modest volume of organic cattle?

Liberals would have us believe that the world is coming to and end because we use antibiotics to raise cattle. What a joke. They care more about cattle than they do about unborn children who are vulnerable to abortion.

:rolleyes: :idea: :aureola:

This is just silly liberal stuff. The American cattle industry produces enough meat to feed 300 million Americans with plenty left over for exports. Their objective is to produce healthy cattle at low cost so that Americans can afford to pay reasonable prices at the grocery store for steaks. Why do you think that the cattle industry uses antibiotics in the first place? If there were a better and more cost efficient way of producing healthy cattle in large volumes then you can bet that the cattle industry would adopt the practice. If they didn't then their competitors would. It's called competition and it is healthy for our economy. The organic cattle industry most likely produces less than 1% of the total meat sold in our supermarkets. They do not have the problem of producing large volumes of cattle to feed an massive country of 300 million.

Liberals have no idea of how food is produced. They act as if farmers and ranchers can produce massive amounts of food organically without industrialization. What they fail to see is that there are almost 7 billion people on this earth who all need to be fed, and that cannot be done without the industrialization of food. What is the alternative? Ask a single mother to pay $50 for a small piece of steak to feed her children because the high cost of producing even a modest volume of organic cattle?

Liberals would have us believe that the world is coming to and end because we use antibiotics to raise cattle. What a joke. They care more about cattle than they do about unborn children who are vulnerable to abortion.

:rolleyes: :idea: :aureola:

This isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue at all. It's about providing safe food for everyone. Did you even not read the article? Methinks not.

This isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue at all. It's about providing safe food for everyone. Did you even not read the article? Methinks not.

he just wanted to get in the abortion dig--the rest was filler.

This isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue at all. It's about providing safe food for everyone. Did you even not read the article? Methinks not.

This is nothing about safe FOOD. It is about health care. Antibiotics have been overused, and not only in food production. Doctors have overprescribed antibiotics for every little sniffle for years, and that is one big reason there are so many infections that cannot be treated except with a handful of antibiotics. In this case an entire CLASS of antibiotics has been controlled VERY tightly by the medical establishments so that THOSE antibiotics will not become useless.

I think that using them to crank out more beef at a lower cost is stupid, and very short sighted. The AMA (not a particularly liberal group) and the majority of scientists at the FDA agree with me.

This is nothing about safe FOOD. It is about health care. Antibiotics have been overused, and not only in food production. Doctors have overprescribed antibiotics for every little sniffle for years, and that is one big reason there are so many infections that cannot be treated except with a handful of antibiotics. In this case an entire CLASS of antibiotics has been controlled VERY tightly by the medical establishments so that THOSE antibiotics will not become useless.

I think that using them to crank out more beef at a lower cost is stupid, and very short sighted. The AMA (not a particularly liberal group) and the majority of scientists at the FDA agree with me.

And as much as I like a good steak a person can live quite well without it if need be.

This is just silly liberal stuff.

The AMA is a liberal group? Really? What an interesting world you live in.

The widespread use of the antibiotic will create drug resistant bacteria, and that bacteria will infect you and then you will die and doctors will be able to do nothing about it. You won't have to get it from the beef, and probably won't.


you're right. this is just following in the trend of abusing antibiotics to the point where all germs become super germs. i had a case of strep last month that took three different antibiotics to kill. wait a few years, and that same strain of strep will probably be lethal for some.

this is pretty disturbing.

I suspect the profits seen from such improvements in cattle will stay with the ranchers, likely not passed down to the end consumer.

Canada is stricter on their drugs, and does not currently use the growth hormon in their beef. They will likely not move to impliment this new drug, if history is any determintor of the future.

I will stick to organic and pray this doomsday message is not a reality.

I suspect the profits seen from such improvements in cattle will stay with the ranchers, likely not passed down to the end consumer..............

you're right. this is just following in the trend of abusing antibiotics to the point where all germs become super germs. i had a case of strep last month that took three different antibiotics to kill. wait a few years, and that same strain of strep will probably be lethal for some.

this is pretty disturbing.

This pessimistic doom and gloom stuff has been circulating around liberal circles for decades. There is no credible evidence that anyone has ever died because the cattle industry uses antibiotics to produce healthy cattle. If anything it's the opposite. The use of antibiotics in cattle has most likely saved thousands of lives by keeping microbes from being passed onto humans and by increasing the supply of meat throughout the world to feed millions.

I know. I'm short sighted and ignorant because I do not buy into these so called credible liberal ideas that are suppose to be based on sound scientific studies. But look at it this way. How many people have died or become sick because of the use of antibiotics in cattle? You cannot answer the question because there is no credible evidence. In contrast, there are 1.3 million abortions each year in the US. Now that's credible evidence that it's something that is worth getting angry about.

:idea:

This pessimistic doom and gloom stuff has been circulating around liberal circles for decades. There is no credible evidence that anyone has ever died because the cattle industry uses antibiotics to produce healthy cattle. If anything it's the opposite. The use of antibiotics in cattle has most likely saved thousands of lives by keeping microbes from being passed onto humans and by increasing the supply of meat throughout the world to feed millions.

I know. I'm short sighted and ignorant because I do not buy into these so called credible liberal ideas that are suppose to be based on sound scientific studies. But look at it this way. How many people have died or become sick because of the use of antibiotics in cattle? You cannot answer the question because there is no credible evidence. In contrast, there are 1.3 million abortions each year in the US. Now that's credible evidence that it's something that is worth getting angry about.

:idea:


First, if you want to have a discussion about abortion, start a thread. Stop trolling in other threads.

Second, no one has said a THING about antibiotics in cattle causing harm DIRECTLY. However, there is PLENTY of evidence that overuse of antibiotics causes bacteria to become resistant to the antibiotics. More use = more resistance.

Drug resistance: http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/795_antibio.html

The presence of resistant bacteria in meat at the retail grocer : http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20011020/fob5.asp

Please note the second link cites research from the New England Journal of Medicine.

You have lots of bluster, but little evidence to back up your bluster on this issue.

Not sure what the "beef" is about. In the "good-ol-days", if a cow fell over dead from pneumonia, they would just chop it up and sell it with the non-sick meat. That never kilt nobody. Didn't our President say that "drug filled" cows are as good as going to the doctor every week. With all those drugs in out system, we'll live forever.

First, if you want to have a discussion about abortion, start a thread. Stop trolling in other threads.

Second, no one has said a THING about antibiotics in cattle causing harm DIRECTLY. However, there is PLENTY of evidence that overuse of antibiotics causes bacteria to become resistant to the antibiotics. More use = more resistance.

Drug resistance: http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/795_antibio.html

The presence of resistant bacteria in meat at the retail grocer : http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20011020/fob5.asp

Please note the second link cites research from the New England Journal of Medicine.

You have lots of bluster, but little evidence to back up your bluster on this issue.

This may or may not become and issue in the future. We just don't know yet. Yes, some studies have been done. I do not deny that. But, I'm not seeing people dying or becoming ill because antibiotics are being used in cattle. At this point, it's all speculation. Sure it's possible. But it's also possible that there may be intelligent life on mars. So, what do you suggest? Stop all use of antibiotics in cattle. That action could significantly reduce the supply of meat and dairy products produced in the US? That's smart. We cannot make decisions of this magnitude based on speculation. Instead of focusing on all of the good that has come out of the US cattle industry (e.g., reducing hunger, feeding millions and producing an abundance of protein foods such as meat and dairy products) you choose to focus on dire consequences that may never materialize. To me, that position lacks common sense.

However, there is PLENTY of evidence that overuse of antibiotics causes bacteria to become resistant to the antibiotics. More use = more resistance.

Drug resistance: http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/795_antibio.html



This is somewhat off-topic, but I think the statement of how drug-resistance works is a widely held misconception. Not that it changes the dangers of resistant bacteria or the (lack of) wisdom of the possible FDA ruling though. (more use still equals more resistance).

From the fda article:

The increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance is an outcome of evolution. Any population of organisms, bacteria included, naturally includes variants with unusual traits--in this case, the ability to withstand an antibiotic's attack on a microbe. When a person takes an antibiotic, the drug kills the defenseless bacteria, leaving behind--or "selecting," in biological terms--those that can resist it. These renegade bacteria then multiply, increasing their numbers a millionfold in a day, becoming the predominant microorganism.

The antibiotic does not technically cause the resistance, but allows it to happen by creating a situation where an already existing variant can flourish. "Whenever antibiotics are used, there is selective pressure for resistance to occur. It builds upon itself. More and more organisms develop resistance to more and more drugs," says Joe Cranston, Ph.D., director of the department of drug policy and standards at the American Medical Association in Chicago.

A patient can develop a drug-resistant infection either by contracting a resistant bug to begin with, or by having a resistant microbe emerge in the body once antibiotic treatment begins. Drug-resistant infections increase risk of death, and are often associated with prolonged hospital stays, and sometimes complications. These might necessitate removing part of a ravaged lung, or replacing a damaged heart valve.



The nature of resistance is far closer to panning for gold. The panning doesn't create or cause the gold, it just washes everything else away.

To me, that position lacks common sense.

Common sense really isn't all that common today.

There is no credible evidence that anyone has ever died because the cattle industry uses antibiotics to produce healthy cattle.


the_dude: the sky is blue. the evidence is overwhelming. what can you come up with to disprove that?

LiteSpeeder: i like broccoli!


anyway, it's pretty much unanimous, overuse of antibiotics causes drug-resistant strains of bacteria. that's not doom and gloom, it's fact. the strain of strep i had last month didn't exist ten or twenty years ago. ever hear of MRSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRSA)?

an antibiotic specifically reserved for drug-resistant bacteria is now going to be used widespread in the food industry, despite warnings that it will negatively impact humans. how is this liberal tripe?

the_dude: the sky is blue. the evidence is overwhelming. what can you come up with to disprove that?

LiteSpeeder: i like broccoli!


anyway, it's pretty much unanimous, overuse of antibiotics causes drug-resistant strains of bacteria. that's not doom and gloom, it's fact. the strain of strep i had last month didn't exist ten or twenty years ago. ever hear of MRSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRSA)?

an antibiotic specifically reserved for drug-resistant bacteria is now going to be used widespread in the food industry, despite warnings that it will negatively impact humans. how is this liberal tripe?


Ignore litespeed, a troll who doesn't warrant the time to reply too. He doesn't believe in facts. Would be funny, but about 25% of the voting public share is ignorance and disdain for science, which is scary.

unbridled greed never ceases to amaze me....

The nature of resistance is far closer to panning for gold. The panning doesn't create or cause the gold, it just washes everything else away.

This is how all evolution works. The genetic variation must be present in the population for selection to "act" upon.

The classic example of the amount of "untapped" variation that can exist in what to the naked eye is a nearly homogenous species are dogs. All domestic dogs are descended from the (I believe) Eurasian wolf which was domesticated relatively recently (<10k years?), and therefore, little time has passed to allow for much new genetic variation through mutation. However, through selective breeding (i.e. "natural" selection by humans) you get the wide variation in breeds seen today, think Chihuahua vs. Mastiff.

Ignore litespeed, a troll who doesn't warrant the time to reply too. He doesn't believe in facts. Would be funny, but about 25% of the voting public share is ignorance and disdain for science, which is scary.

The Republican base...

This may or may not become and issue in the future. We just don't know yet. Yes, some studies have been done. I do not deny that. But, I'm not seeing people dying or becoming ill because antibiotics are being used in cattle. At this point, it's all speculation. Sure it's possible. But it's also possible that there may be intelligent life on mars. So, what do you suggest? Stop all use of antibiotics in cattle. That action could significantly reduce the supply of meat and dairy products produced in the US? That's smart. We cannot make decisions of this magnitude based on speculation. Instead of focusing on all of the good that has come out of the US cattle industry (e.g., reducing hunger, feeding millions and producing an abundance of protein foods such as meat and dairy products) you choose to focus on dire consequences that may never materialize. To me, that position lacks common sense.


a human wasting plague, doesn't mean one isn't coming your way. shouldn't we, as a society, do what we can to not facilitate one? I love how people on these threads question modern science as though its some voodoo...drug resistance is real man..there is no money to be made in researching multiple difference antibiotics anymore so pharamaceutical companies aren't doing it. the money is in designer drugs (e.g. viagra).
those two things combined should be a source of concern as the world is coming due for the next pandemic historically. face it dude, you're outnumbered a trillion to one...

The AMA is a liberal group? Really? What an interesting world you live in.


interesting how a large group of the highest educated and most conservative medical scientists on the planet can be summed up incorrectly...the AMA is wrought with republicans...ask any doctor.

the_dude: the sky is blue. the evidence is overwhelming. what can you come up with to disprove that?

LiteSpeeder: i like broccoli!


anyway, it's pretty much unanimous, overuse of antibiotics causes drug-resistant strains of bacteria. that's not doom and gloom, it's fact. the strain of strep i had last month didn't exist ten or twenty years ago. ever hear of MRSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRSA)?

an antibiotic specifically reserved for drug-resistant bacteria is now going to be used widespread in the food industry, despite warnings that it will negatively impact humans. how is this liberal tripe?

Unbelievable! Now you blame your strep throat on cattle being given antibiotics. It's never your fault is it? Your ills can always be blamed on some corporate conspiracy that's out to get humanity. I understand that the use of antibiotics reduces their effectiveness. But, this has more to do with prescribing antibiotics to humans. Keeping cattle from being feed antibiotics will not stop bacteria from building a resistance to antibiotics. Why? Because humans are the main consumers of antibiotics. Hey, there's an idea. Why not stop prescribing antibiotics to humans? That would really slow the resistance process. Like I said – Unbelievable!

:rolleyes:

Unbelievable! Now you blame your strep throat on cattle being given antibiotics.


I think his strep throat was the fault of the largest infestation in the world: Christians.


Someone, anyone, please find the cure!

Why not stop prescribing antibiotics to humans? That would really slow the resistance process. Like I said – Unbelievable!

:rolleyes:


I'm all in favor of banning the products of science to those that deny it....there is an elegant symmetry in that proposal, don't you think.

I think his strep throat was the fault of the largest infestation in the world: Christians.


Someone, anyone, please find the cure!



Maybe if everyone in the world were exposed to a tiny bit of LiteSpeeder they would be inoculated. :)

Ignore litespeed, a troll who doesn't warrant the time to reply too. He doesn't believe in facts. Would be funny, but about 25% of the voting public share is ignorance and disdain for science, which is scary.

unbridled greed never ceases to amaze me....

Boy you sound angry and bitter. Did you take your prozac this morning? I haven't seen you on this forum before but then again I don't frequent this forum on a regular basis. If you sent me a post then I will try to answer, time permitting. I am a busy person and I make no apologies for that. I do not disdain science. I was physics major in college but I ended up in finance. What I disdain is how liberals misuse science to perpetuate their own misguided positions.

Here's an example. Genetics is an exciting field that is bringing new discoveries on how the brain works. Liberals are now using genetics to explain away behavior such as homosexuality, crime and religion. Many liberals now think that free will is a myth. Humans are nothing more than products of evolution whose behavior is determined by their genetic makeup. Liberals have twisted the science of genetics to explain their indefensible positions. So, where are the facts? Where is the science? You are apparently incapable if discerning the difference between science and political science. And that fact exposes you as a gullible fool.

:cool:

I'm all in favor of banning the products of science to those that deny it....there is an elegant symmetry in that proposal, don't you think.



Including all of those totally unreliable modern commercial aircraft and automobiles that are engineered, modeled, tested and operated with voodoo.... I mean, computers. :rolleyes:

Unbelievable! Now you blame your strep throat on cattle being given antibiotics. It's never your fault is it? Your ills can always be blamed on some corporate conspiracy that's out to get humanity. I understand that the use of antibiotics reduces their effectiveness. But, this has more to do with prescribing antibiotics to humans. Keeping cattle from being feed antibiotics will not stop bacteria from building a resistance to antibiotics. Why? Because humans are the main consumers of antibiotics. Hey, there's an idea. Why not stop prescribing antibiotics to humans? That would really slow the resistance process. Like I said – Unbelievable!

:rolleyes:


you've been sick before, no? was it your fault?! no, you were in contact with whomever/whatever was a previous carrier of the same disease who did not have appropriate immune systems components to stop that bacteria/virus from replicating..

exposure to antibiotics is exposure to antibiotics. more = worse. antibiotics are only useful in bacterial infections...NOT viral infections. the issue stems from over prescriptions by persons of the medical faculty in modern practices of defensive medicine..
physicians won't order tests for flu...or what they assume to be flu. so they prescribe systemic antibiotics to fight an infections of what they assumed to be bacterial in nature..
those antibiotics remain in your system (and a cows system) as part of your 'natural' immune system now....
what should be asked in this forum is proof that antibiotics are transferrable from dead beef to humans? you two are so busy with the blame game you're totally missing the scientific validity of disease etiology you're questioning.....

reduction of antibiotic prescription to humans is now underway by the medical community as much as it is able...its not at all uncommon to visit a pediatrican and have them refuse antiobiotic therapy for normal childhood illnesses...

Boy you . Did you take your prozac this morning? I haven't seen you on this forum before but then again I don't frequent this forum on a regular basis. If you sent me a post then I will try to answer, time permitting. I am a busy person and I make no apologies for that. I do not disdain science. I was physics major in college but I ended up in finance. What I disdain is how liberals misuse science to perpetuate their own misguided positions.

Here's an example. Genetics is an exciting field that is bringing new discoveries on how the brain works. Liberals are now using genetics to explain away behavior such as homosexuality, crime and religion. Many liberals now think that free will is a myth. Humans are nothing more than products of evolution whose behavior is determined by their genetic makeup. Liberals have twisted the science of genetics to explain their indefensible positions. So, where are the facts? Where is the science? You are apparently incapable if discerning the difference between science and political science. And that fact exposes you as a gullible fool.

:cool:


The part about who sounds angry and bitter is extremely funny.

-- The part about liberals and how they "use" science is also very funny but beyond that it's useless.

you've been sick before, no? was it your fault?! no, you were in contact with whomever/whatever was a previous carrier of the same disease who did not have appropriate immune systems components to stop that bacteria/virus from replicating..

exposure to antibiotics is exposure to antibiotics. more = worse. antibiotics are only useful in bacterial infections...NOT viral infections. the issue stems from over prescriptions by persons of the medical faculty in modern practices of defensive medicine..
physicians won't order tests for flu...or what they assume to be flu. so they prescribe systemic antibiotics to fight an infections of what they assumed to be bacterial in nature..
those antibiotics remain in your system (and a cows system) as part of your 'natural' immune system now....
what should be asked in this forum is proof that antibiotics are transferrable from dead beef to humans? you two are so busy with the blame game you're totally missing the scientific validity of disease etiology you're questioning.....

reduction of antibiotic prescription to humans is now underway by the medical community as much as it is able...its not at all uncommon to visit a pediatrican and have them refuse antiobiotic therapy for normal childhood illnesses...


I don't know, I always believed moneyman should have accepted the blame for his cancer. :rolleyes:

Boy you sound angry and bitter. Did you take your prozac this morning? I haven't seen you on this forum before but then again I don't frequent this forum on a regular basis. If you sent me a post then I will try to answer, time permitting. I am a busy person and I make no apologies for that. I do not disdain science. I was physics major in college but I ended up in finance. What I disdain is how liberals misuse science to perpetuate their own misguided positions.

Here's an example. Genetics is an exciting field that is bringing new discoveries on how the brain works. Liberals are now using genetics to explain away behavior such as homosexuality, crime and religion. Many liberals now think that free will is a myth. Humans are nothing more than products of evolution whose behavior is determined by their genetic makeup. Liberals have twisted the science of genetics to explain their indefensible positions. So, where are the facts? Where is the science? You are apparently incapable if discerning the difference between science and political science. And that fact exposes you as a gullible fool.

:cool:

What part of my post was either angry or bitter?

Never taken prozac tho it can do wonders for some that need it. Are you trying to imply that I suffer from depression? Again, where in my post would you infer such a condition unless of course litespeed is in fact the "highly esteemed" Dr.Frist in which case a diagnoses over the interwebs is entirely plausible.

Science cannot be misused in the way you imply. Science and its' byproduct, knowledge, exist outside of politics. What is funny is how loudly fundicons scream
when science slaps their ignorance upside the head.

Ignorant fool indeed, your words speak louder than you realize.

PS the earth revolves around the sun...not the other way around

I don't know, I always believed moneyman should have excepted the blame for his cancer. :rolleyes:


there are exceptions to every rule. :thumbsup:

This is how all evolution works. The genetic variation must be present in the population for selection to "act" upon.

The classic example of the amount of "untapped" variation that can exist in what to the naked eye is a nearly homogenous species are dogs. All domestic dogs are descended from the (I believe) Eurasian wolf which was domesticated relatively recently (<10k years?), and therefore, little time has passed to allow for much new genetic variation through mutation. However, through selective breeding (i.e. "natural" selection by humans) you get the wide variation in breeds seen today, think Chihuahua vs. Mastiff.

And, it is very important to understand that it is mutations that cause the genetic variation. The current genetic variation did not always exist. Scientists use chemicals and radiation to cause mutations, then use selection to obtain the desired traits, just as in nature radiation and naturally occuring mutagens produce the genetic variations, and then natural selection favors certain phenotypes.

there are exceptions to every rule. :thumbsup:



Silly me... accepted.

Scientists use chemicals and radiation to cause mutations, then use selection to obtain the desired traits, just as in nature radiation and naturally occuring mutagens produce the genetic variations, and then natural selection favors certain phenotypes.

Although I'm not 100% sure I believe the techniques exist nowadays to target specific genes. If you were just relying on random mutations to produce a change it would be like searching for a needle in a haystack.

In biomedical/physiology research there are any number of "knockout" mice strains available now. I don't know how they do it, maybe its mostly breeding to select for naturally occuring traits, but with the number that are available I think they are literally created de novo. I assume by some sort of targeted gene therapy that disables (i.e. knocks out) a given gene.

Once again Wikepedia to the rescue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_mouse

The next step big step would seem to be to be able to manipulate the base pairs of a gene so that you could literally modify a protein by a single amino acid and thereby really mimic what must occur with natural mutations.

Although I'm not 100% sure I believe the techniques exist nowadays to target specific genes. If you were just relying on random mutations to produce a change it would be like searching for a needle in a haystack.

In biomedical/physiology research there are any number of "knockout" mice strains available now. I don't know how they do it, maybe its mostly breeding to select for naturally occuring traits, but with the number that are available I think they are literally created de novo. I assume by some sort of targeted gene therapy that disables (i.e. knocks out) a given gene.

Once again Wikepedia to the rescue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_mouse

The next step big step would seem to be to be able to manipulate the base pairs of a gene so that you could literally modify a protein by a single amino acid and thereby really mimic what must occur with natural mutations.

In agriculture ethyl methane sulfonate is commonly used as a chemical mutagen. Seeds are treated with the chemical and/or radiation to produce random mutations. The seeds are planted and plants with teh desired charactoristics are propagated. Virtually all of the corn and rice grown now was evolved using this sledgehammer technique. Now of course we can insert specfic genes. I find it verry amusing that nearly all people will readily consume crops developed through chemical mutagenesis, but quite a few people have reseervatins abouut crops developed by insertion of specific genes.

Simmialr techniques are used to develop bacteria for biological waste treatment. If you want to produce a bactaeria that eats chemical "X", you mutate a buch of bacteria then feed "X'" to the group and propogate the survivors.

Obviously, these brute force random techniques aren't practicaly for mammals because of the compllxity of the organism, the small number of offspring, and the long time required to propogate a generatioin..

I'm really directing all of this at D'oh Boy because I interpret his comments in light of other discussions and I think he might be subtly denying evolution with his post.

I find it verry amusing that nearly all people will readily consume crops developed through chemical mutagenesis, but quite a few people have reseervatins abouut crops developed by insertion of specific genes.

Do you know why people object to genetically modified agriculture or livestock? I've never understood what is suppose to be objectable about the practice.

I get why some might be opposed to fertilizers, herbicides, growth hormones, antibiotics, etc.

So you hadn't seen Svend here before, take a look at his # of posts. You haven't been paying attention I see. Amazing how you try at every turn to shift to abortion. Me thinks it obvious why you were forced to change from Physics to finance, you like to fudge #s when they don't make you happy.

[QUOTE=Dwayne Barry]Do you know why people object to genetically modified agriculture or livestock? I've never understood what is suppose to be objectable about the practice.[QUOTE]
The practice produces crops of just one set of DNA so there is a lack of genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is needed so one small flaw can't wipe out everything. Well there are lots of invalid arguments too but I'm guessing you don't care about those.....

[QUOTE=Dwayne Barry]Do you know why people object to genetically modified agriculture or livestock? I've never understood what is suppose to be objectable about the practice.[QUOTE]
The practice produces crops of just one set of DNA so there is a lack of genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is needed so one small flaw can't wipe out everything. Well there are lots of invalid arguments too but I'm guessing you don't care about those.....


What in the world are you talking about? Genetically modifying crops greatly increases the genetic diversity. With GMO there is more potentiial for genetic diversity in crops now than there ever has been in the history of cultivation. GMO will continue to make crops resistant to diseases, insects, and drought thereby making the food supply more robust.

People object to GMO because they don't trust the Government regulatory agencies, they don't trust large agribusinesses, they are ignorant about GMO practices and products, and/or they are protecting their own commercial or political interests.

Don't they just pick the few crops that display the attributes they want and then just use seeds from that strain trying to keep the seeds produced as close to the original strain as possible hense limiting diversity

What in the world are you talking about? Genetically modifying crops greatly increases the genetic diversity. With GMO there is more potentiial for genetic diversity in crops now than there ever has been in the history of cultivation. GMO will continue to make crops resistant to diseases, insects, and drought thereby making the food supply more robust.

People object to GMO because they don't trust the Government regulatory agencies, they don't trust large agribusinesses, they are ignorant about GMO practices and products, and/or they are protecting their own commercial or political interests.

When you are talking about crops, you can pretty much discount genetic diversity whether referring to GMOs or conventinally bred seeds. Monoculture and the vulnerability inherent in less diverse gene pools is another whole topic.

The Frankenfood scare does seem a little overblown. The genes have shown the ability to escape, via pollen or hybridization with non GMO or even related species, but as far as ingesting the food produced, I don't see any difference.